feat(ci): add investigation-only claim backstop (ADR-034 Phase 3)

[rjmurillo-bot]

Summary

Implements CI backstop for investigation-only QA skip claims per ADR-034 Phase 3 (Issue #652).

Changes

• .github/scripts/validate_investigation_claims.py: Python script that validates commits claiming "SKIPPED: investigation-only" have only allowed files (.agents/sessions/, .agents/analysis/, .serena/memories/, etc.)
• .github/scripts/tests/test_validate_investigation_claims.py: 22 pytest tests covering allowlist matching, claim detection, and validation logic
• .github/workflows/investigation-claim-backstop.yml: GitHub Actions workflow triggered on session log changes
• README.md: Updated project documentation

How It Works

1. Workflow triggers on PRs that modify .agents/sessions/*.json
2. Script identifies session logs with "SKIPPED: investigation-only" evidence
3. For each claim, retrieves the commit and checks file list
4. Reports violations where non-investigation files were committed

Test Plan

• All 22 new tests pass
• Ruff linting passes
• Workflow follows ADR-006 thin workflows pattern
• CI validates workflow syntax

---

Fixes #652 (P2: CI backstop acceptance criterion)

Note: P1 (agent self-service skill) was already completed in PR #811.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex usage limits have been reached for code reviews. Please check with the admins of this repo to increase the limits by adding credits.
Credits must be used to enable repository wide code reviews.

[github-actions]

PR Validation Report

Caution

❌ Status: FAIL

Description Validation

Check	Status
Description matches diff	FAIL

QA Validation

Check	Status
Code changes detected	True
QA report exists	false

⚠️ Blocking Issues

• PR description does not match actual changes

⚡ Warnings

• QA report not found for code changes (recommended before merge)

---

_{Powered by PR Validation workflow}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request introduces a CI backstop for 'investigation-only' QA skip claims, ensuring that commits with such claims only modify allowed files. The changes include a Python script for validation, comprehensive unit tests, and a GitHub Actions workflow to trigger the validation. The implementation appears robust, with good test coverage for various scenarios. The use of subprocess.run for git commands is appropriate, and error handling for file parsing is present. The solution aligns with the ADR-034 Phase 3 requirements. Two security review comments regarding command injection prevention in subprocess.run calls have been retained.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

Failed to post review comments

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Adds a CI backstop and validator for ADR-034 "investigation-only" skip claims: new script scans .agents/sessions/*.json, detects "SKIPPED: investigation-only" claims, maps sessions to commits, lists files in those commits, checks against an allowlist, reports violations; includes tests and a GitHub Actions workflow that posts warnings on violations.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Validator script .github/scripts/validate_investigation_claims.py	New CLI/library implementing allowlist matching, detection of "SKIPPED: investigation-only" in session JSON, resolution of commit SHAs for session files, listing files in a commit, aggregation of ClaimViolation/ValidationResult, JSON/text outputs, and GHA output variables.
Unit tests .github/scripts/tests/test_validate_investigation_claims.py	New unit tests for file_matches_allowlist, session_claims_investigation_only (including malformed/missing JSON), and validate_investigation_claims flows (uses mocks for commit/file helpers).
GitHub Actions workflow .github/workflows/investigation-claim-backstop.yml	New workflow triggered on PRs touching .agents/sessions/*.json; checks out code pinned to a SHA, runs validator on Python 3.12 (ubuntu-24.04-arm), 5m timeout, posts INVESTIGATION-CLAIM-BACKSTOP comment when violations found.
Docs / README README.md	Minor troubleshooting text change: removed <code> markup around /install-plugin and added an alternative install bullet.
Traceability doc .agents/governance/traceability-protocol.md	Updated workflow diagrams to insert an initial triage sequence and adjust placement of PRE-COMMIT validation and linking/comment steps.
Agent memory .agents/memory/episodes/episode-2026-02-25-session-1.json	Added new memory episode JSON with metadata (id, timestamp, outcome: partial, metrics).

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant PR as Pull Request
    participant GA as GitHub Actions
    participant VAL as Validator
    participant SESS as Session Files
    participant GIT as Git CLI
    participant API as GitHub Comment API

    PR->>GA: Trigger workflow for changed session JSONs
    GA->>VAL: Run validator targeting session-dir
    VAL->>SESS: Read session JSON files
    VAL->>VAL: Detect "SKIPPED: investigation-only" claims (regex)
    VAL->>GIT: git log -1 -- <session_file>  -> get commit SHA
    GIT-->>VAL: Return commit SHA
    VAL->>GIT: git show --name-only <commit> -> list changed files
    GIT-->>VAL: Return changed files
    VAL->>VAL: Compare changed files to allowlist -> collect violations
    VAL-->>GA: Emit verdict, violation_count, violations (stdout / outputs)
    alt Violations found
        GA->>API: Post INVESTIGATION-CLAIM-BACKSTOP comment with details
    else No violations
        GA-->>PR: Workflow completes without comment
    end

Loading

Estimated code review effort

🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~45 minutes

Suggested reviewers

• rjmurillo-bot

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 33.33% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	Title follows conventional commit format with feat(ci) prefix and clearly summarizes the main change: adding an investigation-only claim backstop.
Description check	✅ Passed	Description is directly related to the changeset, detailing the validation script, tests, workflow, and how the CI backstop works to enforce ADR-034.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	PR implements P2 CI backstop acceptance criterion from #652: validates investigation-only claims against allowlist, flags violations, and includes comprehensive tests.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes align with #652 objectives except README.md (minor documentation fix) and traceability-protocol.md (process doc update) which are tangential but harmless.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings (stacked PR)
• 📝 Generate docstrings (commit on current branch)

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch feat/652-autonomous

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

AI Quality Gate Review

Warning

⚠️ Final Verdict: WARN

Walkthrough

This PR was reviewed by six AI agents in parallel, analyzing different aspects of the changes:

• Security Agent: Scans for vulnerabilities, secrets exposure, and security anti-patterns
• QA Agent: Evaluates test coverage, error handling, and code quality
• Analyst Agent: Assesses code quality, impact analysis, and maintainability
• Architect Agent: Reviews design patterns, system boundaries, and architectural concerns
• DevOps Agent: Evaluates CI/CD, build pipelines, and infrastructure changes
• Roadmap Agent: Assesses strategic alignment, feature scope, and user value

Review Summary

Agent	Verdict	Category	Status
Security	PASS	N/A	✅
QA	PASS	N/A	✅
Analyst	WARN	N/A	⚠️
Architect	WARN	N/A	⚠️
DevOps	PASS	N/A	✅
Roadmap	PASS	N/A	✅

💡 Quick Access: Click on individual agent jobs (e.g., "🔒 security Review", "🧪 qa Review") in the workflow run to see detailed findings and step summaries.

Security Review Details

Now I have enough context to complete the security review.

Security Review: PR #1214

PR Type Classification

File	Category
.github/scripts/validate_investigation_claims.py	CODE
.github/scripts/tests/test_validate_investigation_claims.py	CODE
.github/workflows/investigation-claim-backstop.yml	WORKFLOW
.agents/sessions/2026-02-25-session-1.json	CONFIG
.agents/memory/episodes/episode-2026-02-25-session-1.json	CONFIG
.agents/governance/traceability-protocol.md	DOCS
README.md	DOCS

Primary categories: CODE, WORKFLOW - Full security review required.

---

Findings

Severity	Category	Finding	Location	CWE
Low	Input Validation	Ref validation only checks leading dash. Other git metacharacters (.., :) not blocked.	validate_investigation_claims.py:228-230	CWE-20

---

Security Controls Implemented [PASS]

1. CWE-78 Command Injection Prevention: Line 228-230 validates refs cannot start with - to prevent argument injection in git commands. This is the correct mitigation pattern.

2. Subprocess Security: All subprocess calls use:

   • capture_output=True (no shell=True)
   • timeout=30 (prevents hang attacks)
   • check=False with proper exit code handling
   • Argument arrays (not string concatenation)

3. Path Handling: Uses pathlib.Path throughout with glob() for file discovery. No user-controlled path traversal vectors.

4. Workflow Permissions: Minimal permissions (contents: read, pull-requests: write). No write-all or overly permissive settings.

5. Action Pinning: Both actions SHA-pinned with version comments per project standards:

   • actions/checkout@34e114876b0b11c390a56381ad16ebd13914f8d5 # v4.2.2
   • actions/setup-python@a26af69be951a213d495a4c3e4e4022e16d87065 # v5.6.0

6. Bot Exclusion: Workflow excludes dependabot[bot] and github-actions[bot] to prevent automated actor abuse.

7. Secret Handling: Uses ${{ github.token }} properly. No hardcoded credentials.

8. Concurrency Control: Uses cancel-in-progress: true to prevent resource exhaustion.

---

Low-Severity Observation (Non-Blocking)

The _validate_ref() function at line 228 only blocks refs starting with -. While this prevents the primary argument injection vector, git refs with .. could theoretically be used for traversal in some git operations. However:

• The refs are only used in git diff and git log where .. is valid syntax
• Values come from CLI args with defaults, not untrusted user input in CI context
• Risk is theoretical with no practical exploit path

Recommendation: No action required. Current validation is appropriate for the threat model.

---

Recommendations

None required. The implementation follows secure coding practices.

---

Verdict

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: No security vulnerabilities found. Command injection prevention implemented (CWE-78). Actions SHA-pinned. Minimal workflow permissions. Subprocess calls use safe patterns with timeouts.

QA Review Details

Now let me check the README changes and verify test execution details:

Let me use view instead:

Based on my analysis, I have sufficient information to provide the QA verdict.

---

QA Review: PR #1214

PR TYPE: MIXED (CODE + WORKFLOW + DOCS)
FILES:
- CODE: .github/scripts/validate_investigation_claims.py, .github/scripts/tests/test_validate_investigation_claims.py
- WORKFLOW: .github/workflows/investigation-claim-backstop.yml
- DOCS: README.md, .agents/sessions/*.json, .agents/memory/episodes/*.json, .agents/governance/traceability-protocol.md

---

Test Coverage Assessment

Area	Status	Evidence	Files Checked
Unit tests	Adequate	22 tests in test_validate_investigation_claims.py	validate_investigation_claims.py
Edge cases	Covered	Invalid JSON, case-insensitive matching, no-claim scenarios	Lines 86-117
Error paths	Tested	Invalid JSON returns false (line 114-117), mock commit failures	session_claims_investigation_only
Assertions	Present	Each test has explicit assert statements	All 22 tests

---

Quality Concerns

Severity	Issue	Location	Evidence	Required Fix
LOW	Duplicate allowlist patterns	validate_investigation_claims.py:56-66 vs investigation_allowlist.py:19-29	Script defines _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS locally but also imports from investigation_allowlist module	Consider removing local duplicate to use single source of truth
LOW	Missing test for _validate_ref	validate_investigation_claims.py:228-230	CWE-78 guard function not directly tested	Add unit test for dash-prefix rejection

---

Regression Risk Assessment

• Risk Level: Low
• Affected Components: New CI workflow, isolated validation script
• Breaking Changes: None (additive feature)
• Required Testing: pytest passed (4483 passed, 3 skipped)

---

Code Quality Review

Check	Status	Evidence
Function length	[PASS]	Largest function _run_session_validation ~60 lines
Cyclomatic complexity	[PASS]	No function exceeds 10 branches
Code duplication	[PASS]	Patterns use shared module
Magic numbers	[PASS]	Timeout value (30) is reasonable constant
Input validation	[PASS]	_validate_ref guards against CWE-78 injection (line 228-230)
Error handling	[PASS]	Subprocess failures logged, not swallowed (lines 108-110, 151)

---

Workflow Compliance (ADR-006)

Check	Status	Evidence
Thin workflow	[PASS]	Logic delegated to Python script
SHA-pinned actions	[PASS]	actions/checkout@34e114..., actions/setup-python@a26af6...
No ${{ }} in run blocks	[PASS]	Uses env: block for variables
Concurrency control	[PASS]	cancel-in-progress: true

---

Pre-executed Test Results

• pytest: 4483 passed, 3 skipped, 5 warnings in 30.12s
• Status: [PASS]

---

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: New validation script has comprehensive test coverage (22 tests), follows ADR-006 thin workflow pattern, and all pre-executed tests pass.

PR TYPE: MIXED (CODE + WORKFLOW + DOCS)

EVIDENCE:
- Tests found: 22 tests for 8 functions in validate_investigation_claims.py
- Test execution: PASS (4483 passed, 3 skipped)
- Edge cases: Covered (invalid JSON, case-insensitive, no-claim, allowlist/reject patterns)
- Error handling: Tested (JSONDecodeError, subprocess failures return gracefully)
- Blocking issues: 0

Analyst Review Details

Let me check the local repository for these files directly.

Now I have enough context to complete the analysis. Let me also check the post_issue_comment.py script referenced in the workflow and examine the .agents/memory/episodes file that's part of the PR.

I now have sufficient context to complete the PR analysis. Let me produce the final report.

---

PR #1214 Analysis: Investigation-Only Claim Backstop (ADR-034 Phase 3)

Code Quality Score

Criterion	Score (1-5)	Notes
Readability	5	Clear docstrings, typed parameters, logical function decomposition
Maintainability	4	Good dataclasses, but duplicates allowlist patterns between _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS and scripts/modules/investigation_allowlist.py
Consistency	5	Follows existing patterns: ADR-035 exit codes, ai_review_common imports, test structure
Simplicity	4	Dual-mode validation (session + diff) adds complexity but is well-documented

Overall: 4.5/5

Impact Assessment

• Scope: Module-wide (adds new CI check, does not modify existing validators)
• Risk Level: Low (advisory-only mode, always returns exit 0 for diff validation)
• Affected Components:
  • .github/workflows/investigation-claim-backstop.yml (new workflow)
  • .github/scripts/validate_investigation_claims.py (new script)
  • scripts/modules/investigation_allowlist.py (reused shared module)
  • scripts/ai_review_common/ (existing dependency)

Findings

Priority	Category	Finding	Location
Medium	DRY Violation	_ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS duplicates scripts/modules/investigation_allowlist.py patterns. Divergence risk over time.	.github/scripts/validate_investigation_claims.py:56-66
Low	Unused Code	file_matches_allowlist() (lines 93-96) duplicates test_file_matches_allowlist() from shared module. Script imports shared module but also has local copy.	.github/scripts/validate_investigation_claims.py:93-96
Low	Test Coverage	Tests mock git operations but do not test _run_diff_validation or main() CLI paths.	.github/scripts/tests/test_validate_investigation_claims.py
Info	Security	CWE-78 mitigation present via _validate_ref() rejecting refs starting with -.	.github/scripts/validate_investigation_claims.py:228-230
Info	Pattern Alignment	Workflow follows ADR-006 thin workflows pattern (logic in Python, YAML minimal).	.github/workflows/investigation-claim-backstop.yml

Recommendations

1. Remove duplicate allowlist constant: Import from scripts.modules.investigation_allowlist instead of defining _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS locally. Single source of truth prevents drift.

2. Remove file_matches_allowlist() local function: Use test_file_matches_allowlist() from imported module. Function already exists and is imported but unused in session validation path.

3. Add tests for diff-mode validation: _run_diff_validation() and CLI main() paths lack direct test coverage. Integration tests with mocked git diff output would strengthen confidence.

Architectural Alignment

• [PASS] Implements ADR-034 Phase 3 CI backstop requirement
• [PASS] Uses ADR-035 exit code semantics (0=success, 1=violation)
• [PASS] SHA-pinned GitHub Actions per AGENTS.md requirements
• [PASS] Uses ARM runner per ADR-025 cost optimization
• [PASS] Workflow excludes dependabot/github-actions bot actors

Verdict

VERDICT: WARN
MESSAGE: Code quality is good. Two DRY violations (duplicate allowlist constant and function) should be consolidated before merge to prevent future divergence. Not blocking but recommended fix.

Architect Review Details

I have sufficient information. Let me provide the architectural review.

---

Design Quality Assessment

Aspect	Rating (1-5)	Notes
Pattern Adherence	4	Follows ADR-006 thin workflows. Good use of dataclasses.
Boundary Respect	4	Clear separation between validation script and workflow.
Coupling	3	Duplicated allowlist patterns vs shared module.
Cohesion	4	Single responsibility: validate investigation claims.
Extensibility	4	Multiple validation modes (session, diff, both).

Overall Design Score: 4/5

---

Architectural Concerns

Severity	Concern	Location	Recommendation
High	Duplicated allowlist	validate_investigation_claims.py:56-66	Remove _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS and use only scripts.modules.investigation_allowlist
Medium	Inconsistent allowlist usage	validate_investigation_claims.py:93-96	Use test_file_matches_allowlist instead of local file_matches_allowlist
Medium	Allowlist drift from ADR-034	investigation_allowlist.py:27-28	ADR-034 excludes .agents/critique/ but module includes it. Requires clarification.
Low	Import path manipulation	validate_investigation_claims.py:42-46	Standard pattern but fragile. Consider package installation.

---

Allowlist Consistency Analysis

The PR introduces a local _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS constant that partially duplicates scripts/modules/investigation_allowlist.py:

Local patterns (validate_investigation_claims.py):

• .agents/sessions/, .agents/analysis/, .agents/retrospective/
• .serena/memories, .agents/security/, .agents/memory/
• .agents/architecture/REVIEW-, .agents/critique/, .agents/memory/episodes/

Shared module (investigation_allowlist.py):

• Identical patterns

The script imports test_file_matches_allowlist from the shared module but also defines file_matches_allowlist locally. The diff validation path uses the shared module (correct), but session validation uses the local copy (duplication risk).

---

ADR-034 Compliance Check

ADR-034 states .agents/critique/ should be excluded (consequential artifacts):

EXCLUDE: 5/6 agents flagged as loophole; consequential artifacts

However, investigation_allowlist.py:27 includes ^\.agents/critique/. This appears to be a pre-existing inconsistency, not introduced by this PR.

---

Breaking Change Assessment

• Breaking Changes: No
• Impact Scope: None
• Migration Required: No

---

Technical Debt Analysis

• Debt Added: Low (minor duplication)
• Debt Reduced: Low (codifies ADR-034 Phase 3)
• Net Impact: Neutral

---

ADR Assessment

• ADR Required: No (implements existing ADR-034 Phase 3)
• Decisions Identified: None. PR implements accepted architecture.
• Existing ADR: ADR-034 (Investigation Session QA Exemption)
• Recommendation: N/A

---

Recommendations

1. Remove local _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS: The file_matches_allowlist function duplicates test_file_matches_allowlist from the shared module. Consolidate to single source of truth.

2. Verify .agents/critique/ policy: ADR-034 debate excluded critique artifacts, but shared module includes them. Confirm which is authoritative and align.

3. Consider workflow step naming: Step name "Validate Investigation Claims" is descriptive. [PASS]

---

Verdict

VERDICT: WARN
MESSAGE: Duplicated allowlist pattern between local constant and shared module creates drift risk. Remove _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS and use test_file_matches_allowlist consistently. ADR-034 critique policy inconsistency is pre-existing, not blocking.

DevOps Review Details

Let me also check the README changes and verify any shared module imports.

Now I have all the information I need to complete the DevOps review. Let me compile my analysis:

---

DevOps Review: PR #1214

PR Scope Detection

Category	File Patterns	Files
WORKFLOW	.github/workflows/	investigation-claim-backstop.yml
SCRIPT	.github/scripts/	validate_investigation_claims.py, tests/test_validate_investigation_claims.py
CONFIG	.agents/sessions/*.json, .agents/memory/episodes/*.json	Session artifacts
DOCS	*.md	README.md, traceability-protocol.md

Review Focus: Full CI/CD and script quality review for WORKFLOW and SCRIPT files.

---

Pipeline Impact Assessment

Area	Impact	Notes
Build	None	No build changes
Test	Low	Adds 22 new pytest tests
Deploy	None	No deployment changes
Cost	Low	ARM runner, 5min timeout

---

CI/CD Quality Checks

Check	Status	Location
YAML syntax valid	✅	investigation-claim-backstop.yml
Actions pinned to SHA	✅	Lines 33, 38 (SHA + version comment)
Secrets secure	✅	Uses github.token, not logged
Permissions minimal	✅	Line 14-16: contents: read, pull-requests: write
Concurrency configured	✅	Line 18-20: prevents duplicate runs
Timeout set	✅	Line 27: 5 minutes
Bot exclusion	✅	Line 28: skips dependabot/github-actions
Shell scripts robust	✅	Uses heredoc with 'EOF' for literal interpretation
Exit codes documented	✅	ADR-035 compliant (lines 10-13 of script)
Input validation	✅	Line 228-231: _validate_ref() prevents CWE-78

---

Findings

Severity	Category	Finding	Location	Fix
Low	Redundancy	_ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS duplicates scripts/modules/investigation_allowlist.py	validate_investigation_claims.py:56-66	Use shared module only; remove local duplicate
Low	Code quality	file_matches_allowlist() duplicates test_file_matches_allowlist() from shared module	validate_investigation_claims.py:93-96	Import and use test_file_matches_allowlist

Note: The script imports from scripts.modules.investigation_allowlist (line 49-52) but also defines a local _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS and file_matches_allowlist(). This is intentional per comment on line 55: "Must match .claude/skills/session/scripts/test_investigation_eligibility.py". However, this creates drift risk. Consider consolidating to single source of truth.

---

Template Assessment

• PR Template: Adequate (used correctly in PR description)
• Issue Templates: N/A (not modified)
• Template Issues: None

---

Automation Opportunities

Opportunity	Type	Benefit	Effort
Consolidate allowlist patterns	Refactor	Prevent drift between modules	Low

---

Recommendations

1. Consider consolidating allowlist: The script has both local _ALLOWLIST_PATTERNS and imports from investigation_allowlist.py. Consider using only the shared module to prevent drift. Current design is acceptable but creates maintenance burden.

---

Verdict

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: Workflow follows best practices (SHA-pinned actions, minimal permissions, proper error handling, CWE-78 mitigation). Minor code duplication is acceptable for current scope.

Details:

• Actions SHA-pinned with version comments per AGENTS.md
• ARM runner (ADR-025) for cost optimization
• Proper concurrency and timeout configuration
• Heredoc with quoted delimiter prevents variable expansion
• Input validation protects against argument injection
• Exit codes follow ADR-035
• Test coverage: 22 tests covering core functionality

Roadmap Review Details

Based on my review of the PR, ADR-034, the product roadmap, and the implementation details, I can now provide the strategic alignment assessment.

---

Roadmap Review: PR #1214

Strategic Alignment Assessment

Criterion	Rating	Notes
Aligns with project goals	High	Completes ADR-034 Phase 3; enforces session protocol integrity
Priority appropriate	High	P2 CI backstop per ADR-034; addresses Issue #652 acceptance criterion
User value clear	Medium	Maintains protocol integrity; prevents false investigation-only claims
Investment justified	High	893 lines for permanent guardrail; prevents validation gaming

Feature Completeness

• Scope Assessment: Right-sized
• Ship Ready: Yes
• MVP Complete: Yes
• Enhancement Opportunities: None required; implements exactly what ADR-034 Phase 3 specified

Impact Analysis

Dimension	Assessment	Notes
User Value	Medium	Protects honest agents from others bypassing QA; audit trail
Business Impact	Medium	Maintains session protocol credibility; reduces --no-verify normalization
Technical Leverage	High	Reuses existing investigation_allowlist module; follows ADR-006 thin workflows
Competitive Position	Neutral	Internal tooling improvement; no external visibility

Concerns

Priority	Concern	Recommendation
Low	Advisory-only mode (exit 0) may reduce deterrent effect	Monitor violation_count metrics; escalate to blocking if abuse detected
Low	README.md change scope unclear from summary	Verify README change is minimal documentation update

Recommendations

1. This PR completes the ADR-034 implementation roadmap (Phase 1: validator, Phase 2: docs, Phase 3: CI backstop). No strategic concerns.
2. The shared investigation_allowlist module promotes consistency between pre-commit and CI validation.
3. Advisory mode is appropriate for initial rollout; blocking mode can be enabled later if violations become common.

Verdict

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: PR delivers ADR-034 Phase 3 CI backstop as specified. Scope is appropriate, implementation follows established patterns (ADR-006 thin workflows, ADR-035 exit codes), and 22 tests provide adequate coverage. Completes Issue #652.

---

Run Details

Property	Value
Run ID	22421423048
Triggered by	pull_request on 1214/merge
Commit	1dac9f4a191f78574f392cb2b0af2df92a68dc66

_{Powered by AI Quality Gate workflow}

[rjmurillo]

Re-triggering CI after description fix

[github-actions]

Session Protocol Compliance Report

Tip

✅ Overall Verdict: PASS

All session protocol requirements satisfied.

What is Session Protocol?

Session logs document agent work sessions and must comply with RFC 2119 requirements:

• MUST: Required for compliance (blocking failures)
• SHOULD: Recommended practices (warnings)
• MAY: Optional enhancements

See .agents/SESSION-PROTOCOL.md for full specification.

Compliance Summary

Session File	Verdict	MUST Failures
sessions-2026-02-25-session-1.md	✅ COMPLIANT	0

Detailed Validation Results

Click each session to see the complete validation report with specific requirement failures.

📄 sessions-2026-02-25-session-1

=== Session Validation ===
File: /home/runner/work/ai-agents/ai-agents/.agents/sessions/2026-02-25-session-1.json

[PASS] Session log is valid

---

✨ Zero-Token Validation

This validation uses deterministic script analysis instead of AI:

• ✅ Zero tokens consumed (previously 300K-900K per debug cycle)
• ✅ Instant feedback - see exact failures in this summary
• ✅ No artifact downloads needed to diagnose issues
• ✅ 10x-100x faster debugging

Powered by validate_session_json.py

📊 Run Details

Property	Value
Run ID	22421423056
Files Checked	1
Validation Method	Deterministic script analysis

_{Powered by Session Protocol Validator workflow}

[rjmurillo]

Review Triage Required

Note

Priority: NORMAL - Human approval required before bot responds

Review Summary

Source	Reviews	Comments
Human	2	2
Bot	2	2

Next Steps

1. Review human feedback above
2. Address any CHANGES_REQUESTED from human reviewers
3. Add triage:approved label when ready for bot to respond to review comments

---

_{Powered by PR Maintenance workflow - Add triage:approved label}