Skip to content

constitution: make Gatehouse advisory gate enforceable (v1.9.0) #9

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
fatherlinux merged 1 commit into from
Jul 6, 2026
+5 −3
Merged

constitution: make Gatehouse advisory gate enforceable (v1.9.0) #9

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 5 additions & 3 deletions constitution.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# CrunchTools Constitution

> **Version:** 1.8.0
> **Ratified:** 2026-07-02
> **Version:** 1.9.0
> **Ratified:** 2026-07-06
> **Status:** Active

This constitution establishes the universal principles that govern all software projects in the [crunchtools](https://github.com/crunchtools) organization. Every repo inherits these rules. Subsystem-specific requirements are defined in profiles.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -310,7 +310,8 @@ Gatehouse is a multi-agent AI code reviewer that posts findings as PR review com
- The review job MUST use the `crunchtools/gatehouse` reusable workflow, which runs `quay.io/crunchtools/gatehouse` internally — never a local install.
- CI workflow name: `Gatehouse`. Job names: `Protect workflows` (guard) and `Gatehouse review` (review).
- Gatehouse is an **advisory gate** — findings are posted as PR review comments for the maintainer to triage, but do not block merge.
- The `guard` job is a **blocking gate** — PRs from non-members that modify `.github/workflows/` MUST be rejected.
- **The review job is advisory by construction and MUST NOT be a required status check.** An LLM reviewer is non-deterministic and hallucinates findings; giving it merge authority forces maintainers to either bypass branch protection or "fix" non-bugs. The reusable workflow exits `0` regardless of findings by default. Blocking behavior is opt-in only (the workflow's `blocking: true` input), and even when enabled the review job MUST NOT be added to branch protection as a required check.

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

For consistency with other job references (like guard), the review job should be enclosed in backticks. Additionally, adding a comma after 'enabled' improves readability.

Suggested change
- **The review job is advisory by construction and MUST NOT be a required status check.** An LLM reviewer is non-deterministic and hallucinates findings; giving it merge authority forces maintainers to either bypass branch protection or "fix" non-bugs. The reusable workflow exits `0` regardless of findings by default. Blocking behavior is opt-in only (the workflow's `blocking: true` input), and even when enabled the review job MUST NOT be added to branch protection as a required check.
- **The `review` job is advisory by construction and MUST NOT be a required status check.** An LLM reviewer is non-deterministic and hallucinates findings; giving it merge authority forces maintainers to either bypass branch protection or "fix" non-bugs. The reusable workflow exits `0` regardless of findings by default. Blocking behavior is opt-in only (the workflow's `blocking: true` input), and even when enabled, the `review` job MUST NOT be added to branch protection as a required check.

- The `guard` job is a **blocking gate** — PRs from non-members that modify `.github/workflows/` MUST be rejected. It, not the review job, is the one to mark required.

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

The phrase 'It, not the review job, is the one to mark required' is slightly awkward and lacks the RFC-style formatting used elsewhere in the constitution. Enclosing review in backticks also ensures consistency with guard.

Suggested change
- The `guard` job is a **blocking gate** — PRs from non-members that modify `.github/workflows/` MUST be rejected. It, not the review job, is the one to mark required.
- The `guard` job is a **blocking gate** — PRs from non-members that modify `.github/workflows/` MUST be rejected. It, not the `review` job, MUST be configured as a required status check.

- The `GEMINI_API_KEY` secret MUST be scoped to the reusable workflow when possible.

---
Expand All @@ -328,3 +329,4 @@ Gatehouse is a multi-agent AI code reviewer that posts findings as PR review com
| 1.6.0 | 2026-04-06 | Added Deprecation Policy (IX), Runtime Warnings (X), Changelog requirement (II), file-based credential loading in MCP Server and CLI Tool profiles |
| 1.7.0 | 2026-06-24 | Added Documentation standard (XI) — capability-indexed README + dedicated doc pages, docs updated alongside code |
| 1.8.0 | 2026-07-02 | Added Code Quality Gates (XII) — Gourmand and Gatehouse from container images, standard job naming |
| 1.9.0 | 2026-07-06 | Strengthened XII: Gatehouse review job is advisory by construction and MUST NOT be a required status check; blocking is opt-in and still never required |
Loading