/trekreview now runs the commands a BRIEF declares, and a brief is an artifact
that can arrive from outside the repo. Measured 2026-09-18 on 6cafb4c: the
executor denylist stopped a download piped into a shell, but the remote-writing
git subcommand and a recursive delete of a path both RAN. The denylist screens
catastrophe (root deletion, fork bombs, mkfs); it was never meant to screen an
artifact under review.
A second screen, in the runner and ahead of the denylist, refuses four classes:
- a remote-writing git subcommand. The subcommand is found by walking git's own
options (`-C`, `-c`, `--git-dir`, ... take a value), so `git status` and
`git log` still run and `git -C sub push` does not.
- a recursive delete: any `rm` carrying `-r`/`-rf`/`--recursive`. A plain
`rm build/artifact.txt` still runs.
- a download piped straight into a shell (also caught by the denylist; pinned
here so the runner does not depend on another file for it).
- a write outside the working tree. `/dev/null`-class devices are fine, and so
is anything under the working tree; `~/...`, an absolute path elsewhere, and
a target carrying an unexpanded `$VAR` are refused - the runner cannot know
where a variable points, and guessing is how a screen stops screening.
A refusal is its own outcome, REFUSED_BY_POLICY: the command never reaches a
shell, and `summary.ok` is false in both plan and brief mode. For the reviewer,
REFUSED is like NOT RUN - the absence of a measurement, never on its own a
finding - and the rubric and the evidence block both say so.
Chosen deliberately, and it is stricter than today's habit: writing scratch to
/tmp is refused too. The repo's own example plan does `> /tmp/out`. Verification
output belongs in the working tree; exempting the whole system temp dir would
have made the rule unstatable, since a working tree created under /tmp then
contains its own escape hatch.
NOT covered, stated rather than implied:
- other writing git subcommands (tag, remote, config, gc) - only push is listed
- writes through a wrapper: `sh -c '...'`, `xargs`, `find -exec`, a Makefile
target, a script the criterion invokes. The screen reads the command it is
given, not what that command goes on to do.
- `>` inside a quoted string reads as a redirect, so a criterion echoing a
literal `>` is refused. Fail-closed, on purpose.
- the whole surface still runs with the invoking process's permissions; this is
a refusal list, not a sandbox.
The denylist-layer test now uses a stand-in command with a screen double: the
refusal list catches a recursive delete first, so naming one there would have
stopped exercising the denylist layer at all.
Red first: the 6 new tests failed before this change (`refuseCommand` did not
exist), and the fixture brief's four writes ran.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
"The first backtick span is the command" is right for a plan, whose template
puts the command first, and wrong for a brief, whose criterion usually opens
by NAMING the thing under discussion. Measured 2026-09-18 on the repo's own
example brief: 5 of 6 criteria FAILED, 3 of them parse artifacts - `--verbose`
run as a command gave exit 2 ("invalid option"), `tests/` gave exit 126 ("is a
directory"). The rubric reads a FAILED result as decisive, so each one became
a BROKEN_SUCCESS_CRITERION BLOCKER about prose.
looksLikeCommand() screens the span by SHAPE only - no filesystem lookup, so a
span parses the same everywhere. Refused: a leading flag, a directory, a token
carrying quotes/braces/prose, and a lone relative path with a slash (an
explicit ./, ../, / or ~/ still runs, as do env-var prefixes). A refused span
is `unrunnable` with reason `not-a-command` - its own outcome, never FAILED,
and it never reaches a shell.
It deliberately does NOT scan on to a later span. "The first span that LOOKS
like a command" invents commands out of prose: in that same example brief it
would have run `whoami` and `login`, two real binaries a sentence happens to
name. An absent measurement is honest; a guessed one is not.
The shape check applies to prose spans only. Inside a shell-tagged fence the
author has already declared shell, so `[ -f x ] || exit 1` still runs.
The rubric follows: a NOT RUN result is never on its own a finding. The
Partial row now describes half-built DELIVERED CODE, and the reviewer gets a
table of the three reason strings - no-command, placeholder, not-a-command -
with what each says about the sentence rather than about the code.
Not covered, stated for the record: a multi-token span whose first token is a
non-executable file (`tests/golden/login.stdout --check`) still runs, and a
criterion whose command is real but whose binary is absent still reports the
shell's exit 127 - that is a true measurement of a missing binary, not a
parse artifact.
Red first: 4 runner tests + 1 doc-consistency pin failed before this change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The rubric required `brief-conformance-reviewer` to classify a Success
Criterion as Full only when "its verification command/test exists and passes".
Its tools are `Read`, `Glob`, `Grep`. It cannot run anything, so "passes" was
either guessed from the command's mere existence or quietly downgraded to
"exists" — a BLOCKER-tier rule key resting on an impression.
The reviewer stays read-only — a reviewer that executes the code it reviews is
not an independent reviewer. The command does the running instead:
- `/trekreview` Phase 4.5 runs the brief's `## Success Criteria` commands
through `lib/verification/criteria-runner.mjs --brief --evidence` and captures
the block as `sc_evidence_block`, pasted verbatim into the reviewer prompt in
Phase 5. The exit code does not stop the review — a failing criterion is
exactly what the review exists to find.
- `formatCriteriaEvidence` builds that block in code: one row per criterion with
the command, the exit code and the first output line. Chose a code-built block
over an orchestrator-written summary so the orchestrator cannot narrate a pass
that never happened.
- The rubric now judges the supplied result: `PASS` supports Full, `FAILED` /
`BLOCKED` is `Broken` with the exit code cited, and `NOT RUN` is the absence
of a measurement — never evidence in either direction.
- Phase 4.5 is skipped in `quick` mode: that mode does not launch the
conformance reviewer, so there is nobody to hand the result to.
Red first: seven tests in `tests/lib/criteria-runner.test.mjs` against a
committed brief fixture whose three criteria pass, fail, and are prose-only.
The two doc pins were verified red against the pre-fix files (rubric asked
"exists and passes"; no Phase 4.5; the block reached nobody).
Suite: 1117 (1115/0/2), up 9.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Flip model: sonnet → model: opus across 20 agent files, 4 prose references
in commands (trekplan, trekresearch), trekendsession command frontmatter,
and CLAUDE.md tables. Aligns CLAUDE.md premium-profile row to actual
premium.yaml content (all-opus, which has been the case since v4.1.0 but
the doc was drift). Companion to VOYAGE_PROFILE=premium env-var (set in
~/.zshenv same day) — env-var governs orchestrator phase model; this
commit governs sub-agent models which are frontmatter-pinned and not
reachable by the profile resolver.
npm test: 516 pass, 0 fail, 2 skipped (unchanged from baseline).
Operator rationale: complete Opus coverage across all Voyage activity,
including the 20 sub-agents that the profile system does not control
(architecture-mapper, task-finder, plan-critic, scope-guardian,
brief-reviewer, code-correctness-reviewer, brief-conformance-reviewer,
review-coordinator, session-decomposer, plus the 6 researcher agents,
plus the 5 codebase-analysis agents).
Cost implication: sub-agent runs ~5x more expensive vs sonnet. Accepted.
