docs(architecture): define admitted executable operation packages#682
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change adds ADR 0023 for admitted executable operation packages, partially supersedes ADR 0015, updates ADR indexing and namespace validation, clarifies application-contract authority boundaries, and documents current and target Jim/Edict/Echo WARP executable semantics. ChangesExecutable semantics architecture
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9600478732
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/plans/2026-07-18-jim-edict-echo-executable-warp-semantics.md`:
- Around line 1103-1115: Update the future receipt schema to make the committed
TickPatch digest present only for successful commits. For obstructed or rejected
evaluations, omit that field and require a canonical obstruction or outcome
digest instead, while preserving the existing result/obstruction identity
requirement.
- Around line 999-1009: Choose a single canonical executable program name
consistent with the ADR contract, replacing or reconciling WarpProgramV1
throughout the plan’s package contents and receipt identity references. If
WarpProgramV1 remains supported, explicitly document whether it is an alias,
predecessor, or distinct artifact and define its compatibility relationship to
EchoOperationProgramV1.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: f9f9be04-4704-4d8f-bc80-94b4c6c4f95a
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
docs/adr/0015-registry-provider-host-boundary.mddocs/adr/0023-admitted-executable-operation-packages.mddocs/adr/README.mddocs/architecture/application-contract-hosting.mddocs/plans/2026-07-18-jim-edict-echo-executable-warp-semantics.mdtests/docs/test_adr_namespace.sh
⚖️ Self-Code Review — Code-Lawyer PassReviewed: Pre-review gate passed: clean worktree, no staged/unstaged/untracked paths, then Automated evidence is green: diff whitespace, Prettier, Markdown lint, dead references, ADR namespace, knowledge-model checks, focused docs checks, all 159 hook-regression assertions, and current GitHub Actions. I also mechanically checked all 92 pinned cross-repository source links in the ADR and plan: every commit/path exists locally and every cited line range is in bounds. Severity summary
Summary table
Findings grouped by file
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 73f73a6a1a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
1 participant
Claim
Echo needs a new operation-oriented corridor in which admitted executable meaning is interpreted by Echo without application-supplied matcher, executor, footprint, or mutation-plan callbacks. Provider v1 remains stable callback-shaped compatibility infrastructure; this ADR does not rename it or mutate its contract.
Current callback-semantics defect
The existing provider-v1 path binds exact package, operation, Target IR, and scheduler-rule identities, but application execution meaning still enters through ambient native matcher, executor, and footprint hooks. Those bindings prove exact wiring and identities, not that the callback implements the admitted Edict meaning. A provider-v1 receipt therefore does not close the semantic-execution proof chain.
Accepted executable-operation boundary
The durable decision introduces operation-oriented nouns, including
ExecutableOperationPackageV1and subordinateEchoOperationProgramV1, while deliberately refusing to call the corridor provider v2 or to claim a universal recursive-WARP artifact.The binding direction is explicit:
The admitted operation package owns the public operation coordinate, schemas, basis contract, budgets and footprint contract, authority requirements, result/obstruction interpretation, and runtime-recognized invocability. The program supplies subordinate executable meaning only. A program digest is not an operation coordinate, installed operation, capability, authority token, or permission to invoke. Echo starts installation and lookup from the admitted package and independently admits every invocation.
For the first
ReplaceRangevertical, the selected semantic closure is a Jedit-owned, digest-locked declarative executable resource bound through a Jedit lawpack. This avoids both a handwritten semantic callback and a broad first-stage expansion of Edict into a recursive rope language.Exact preparation and evidence laws
The review remediation freezes one canonical
EchoOperationEvaluationBasisV1encoding from existing Echo coordinates: writer head, worldline tick, optional commit-global tick, state root, commit ID, and the canonical Jedit application-basis schema/value digests.Preparation and retained execution evidence bind:
Over-budget evaluation obstructs. A changed basis cannot commit. Composed ticks bind the scheduler rule, ordered preparation membership, and composite patch. Only a successful terminal variant carries a committed
TickPatchdigest.Verification evidence grades
The ADR distinguishes three claims:
Included documentation
This PR now intentionally includes the source-grounded planning ledger. The ledger is marked as historical discovery reconciled by ADR 0023, treats the ADR as authoritative, and records the accepted four-stage campaign:
ReplaceRangesemantic resource and differential corpus;GeneratedRules.mdnow distinguishes the implemented provider-v1 compatibility corridor from the required callback-free executable-operation corridor.Explicit non-goals
This documentation decision does not add:
TextWindowor observer routing;Campaign 1 implementation has not started. After this PR is explicitly authorized and merged, it begins on a fresh branch from the resulting
origin/main.Files in scope
docs/adr/0015-registry-provider-host-boundary.mddocs/adr/0023-admitted-executable-operation-packages.mddocs/adr/README.mddocs/architecture/application-contract-hosting.mddocs/plans/2026-07-18-jim-edict-echo-executable-warp-semantics.mddocs/topics/GeneratedRules.mdtests/docs/test_adr_namespace.shValidation
cargo xtask pr-preflight --base origin/mainbash tests/docs/test_adr_namespace.shbash tests/docs/test_retired_component_refs.shbash tests/docs/test_knowledge_model.shbash tests/docs/test_generated_rule_truth.shbash tests/hooks/test_verify_local.sh— 159 passed, 0 failed