jschoubben
c0b35652d0
papa-hq reads 01 research -> 03 decision -> 02 design. The order is a scar, not a choice: 02-DESIGN existed from its initial commit, and when adr/ was finally promoted on 2026-07-13 it took the next free number rather than its place in the sequence. By then design was too settled to renumber. hal-hq was three commits old, so it is not. adr/ becomes 02-DECISIONS and 02-DESIGN becomes 03-DESIGN, and following the folder numbers now walks the process in the order it happens: research produces a decision, the decision authorises a design. 00-GENESIS becomes 00-META, matching papa's rename from the same restructure. Every path reference rewritten across documents, frontmatter, playbooks and skills. All links resolve; all 58 frontmatter blocks parse and their path fields still point at files that exist.
1.4 KiB
status, opened, located-in, fixed-by, amended-design
| status | opened | located-in | fixed-by | amended-design |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| open | 2026-08-22 |
003 — A firewall rule's scope: is read by no code
Symptom
Five module manifests declare a scope: key on firewall rules. The key is not part of the
firewall rule type and nothing reads it. Real scoping is expressed by a different field.
A manifest can therefore appear to restrict a port and restrict nothing.
Why this matters
This is the failure mode how-we-build.md names directly:
an unenforced rule is indistinguishable from a wrong one, and costs more, because people
believe it. Here it is worse than unenforced — the declaration reads as a restriction, so a
reviewer checking whether a port is scoped will find that it is, and be wrong.
It also says something about the manifest as a whole: an unknown key is accepted silently. Any misspelled or invented key behaves this way, and this one was found by reading rather than by any check.
Evidence
- Five manifests carry the key. Zero code paths consume it.
- Recorded as an observation on 2026-08-22.
Open questions
- Should the manifest reject unknown keys outright? That is the general fix; this is one instance of it.
- Were the five declarations intended to restrict something that is currently open? Each needs checking against what the node actually exposes — the declaration cannot be trusted either way.