Enforce Checkpoint Policies in CLI

I’m using using-superpowers to follow the local skill rules, brainstorming because you explicitly asked for it, and using-entire because this is codebase behavior analysis.

I’m going to ground this in the current PR diff and the checkpoint-policy code before proposing behavior. I’ll keep this in design space only: no edits or implementation actions until there’s an approved design.

entire status shows the repo has checkpointing enabled, but it also hit a state-lock permission warning while finalizing an older exited session. I’m treating that as unrelated to this design pass and using the merge commit plus source reads as the primary context.

The PR landed as merge commit 37c158f81c (“Enforce repo checkpoint policy”) and changed 18 files. The most relevant surfaces are the policy parser/validator, write-path checks in cli and strategy, user warning hook in main.go, and the sessions/checkpoints architecture doc.

There is no checkpoint transcript trailer on the merge commit, so the recorded intent is unavailable for that commit. From here, I’m working from source and docs, and I’ll call out inferred intent instead of presenting it as history.

The source already partially follows fail-open behavior for malformed or unreadable policy in hook-adjacent paths, but it still deliberately blocks when the local policy asks for an unsupported write format. That is exactly the behavior your new requirement wants to remove.

I’m separating two cases because they should not be conflated: a policy saying “please use/read at least X” is advisory for older clients, while an actual checkpoint blob in an unsupported format can still be unreadable for technical reasons. The first should not block; the second may still need a concrete “cannot read this checkpoint” error.

Tests confirm the current intended behavior of the PR was “skip/block writes under unsupported policy”: condense returns a retryable policy error, turn checkpoint finalization clears IDs, pre-push silently skips checkpoint metadata pushes. Those tests will need to invert if the new design is fail-open.

The actual checkpoint decoding guards (EnsureCanReadVersion) are separate and appear on resume, rewind, and explain. I’d leave those alone unless the later PR decides to add compatibility shims, because those are about real data format support rather than policy enforcement.

One existing wrinkle: the checkpoint store can preserve an explicit future checkpoint_version already present in an existing summary. New committed writes default to branch-v1, but updates to an existing future-version summary preserve that field. That matters for the “configured newer than supported CLI” decision.

There are checkpoint trailers on the individual feature commits, so I’m going to read those next to capture the original policy intent before recommending changes.

The checkpoint metadata shows the original implementation intentionally enforced policy in write paths, including a later follow-up that kept local enforcement even when pre-push policy refresh failed. Your new requirement is a real semantic reversal, not just a wording tweak.

I checked the PR code and checkpoint history. The current enforcement is a real fail-closed behavior:

• attach and explain --generate return an error when checkpoint_version is unsupported.
• hook-driven condensation/finalization skips checkpoint writes when policy write support is missing.
• pre-push can skip pushing checkpoint metadata when policy is unsupported/diverged.
• policy updates currently reject syntactically valid future versions if this CLI cannot read/write them.

That conflicts with your new direction. The likely shape is: policy mismatch should warn/log only, while actual checkpoint data with an unsupported stored format can still fail when a command must decode it.

One design question before I propose approaches:

Should the current CLI allow entire checkpoint policy to set syntactically valid future versions like refs-v1, even if this binary cannot write/read that format yet? Or should future policy values only appear when written by a newer CLI, with this older CLI merely tolerating them once present?

I’m staying in brainstorming mode here: no edits yet. The key split is “what version should this old client write?” versus “how loudly should it tell the user it is ignoring a newer policy value?”

Options I see:

1. Write the client’s default version If policy says unsupported checkpoint_version, ignore it for writes and use the built-in default, currently branch-v1. Simple, stable, easy to explain. Downside: if a future old-ish client supports branch-v2 but its default is still branch-v1, it may write older data than necessary.

2. Write the latest version this client can write Treat unsupported policy as advisory and fall back to LatestWriteSupported(). This is my default recommendation. Today it equals branch-v1, but later a CLI that supports branch-v2 and not refs-v1 would still write the best format it knows.

3. Write the latest supported version not newer than the policy target Use the family/version ordering: if policy says refs-v1, an older client can write branch-v2; if policy says branch-v3, it can write branch-v2. This is slightly more precise than option 2, but probably equivalent if support only advances forward.

4. Use the last supported policy value from policy history Walk refs/entire/policies/checkpoint parents and find the most recent checkpoint_version this client supports. This respects repo intent better, but adds complexity and edge cases for missing/incomplete history. I would not start here.

5. Use the existing checkpoint’s version when updating This is only relevant for appending/updating an existing checkpoint. If the existing checkpoint summary says a supported version, preserve it; if it says unsupported, do not pretend to write that format. Fall back to the client’s actual write version for any new data it creates.

My recommendation: use latest write-supported version, warn/log that the policy requested an unsupported version, and continue. Missing policy still uses the default. min_checkpoint_version only drives upgrade nudges, not write blocking. Actual checkpoint reads can still fail when the checkpoint’s stored checkpoint_version is unsupported, because that is technical capability rather than policy enforcement.

Design I’d implement:

• Missing policy: use the default checkpoint write version, currently branch-v1.
• Supported checkpoint_version: write exactly that configured version.
• Unsupported checkpoint_version: write the latest version this CLI supports, currently branch-v1, and warn that the repo policy asks for a newer checkpoint writer.
• min_checkpoint_version: warning/nudge only. It never blocks writes, hooks, or normal app use.
• Actual checkpoint reads: still fail if the checkpoint data itself has an unsupported stored checkpoint_version.

Warning surface:

• User-driven commands: print the upgrade warning when local policy asks for unsupported checkpoint_version or unsupported min_checkpoint_version.
• Interactive hooks: print the same warning but continue writing.
• Non-interactive hooks: log the warning, continue writing.

This keeps policy fail-open while preserving a real read capability guard. Does this design look right?

Design is approved. I’m going to transition from brainstorming into an implementation plan now, and I’ll include help text/docs as part of the scope rather than treating it as an afterthought.

I’m using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan. I’m going to refresh the exact current file state first so the plan is tied to this checkout, not the earlier PR branch context.

The current write gate returns hard errors or skip decisions when UnsupportedWrite is true. The plan will replace those gates with “warn and choose a local write version,” while preserving strict failure for actual unsupported checkpoint reads.

One implementation detail matters for the plan: the store currently always defaults new summaries to branch-v1 and only preserves an existing summary version. To write “latest supported” or a supported configured value deliberately, we likely need to add a write option at the checkpoint API boundary rather than hiding policy reads inside the store.

I’m going to keep the plan in-chat instead of creating a checked-in plan artifact. The repo instructions explicitly say plan files should not be checked in unless requested, and this change needs approval before implementation anyway.

Execution Mode
Step-by-step, because this touches hook behavior, checkpoint write semantics, docs/help, and an exported checkpoint write option. Each checkpoint should be reviewable on its own.

Commit Shape

1. select fallback checkpoint write version
2. make checkpoint policy enforcement advisory
3. document checkpoint policy fallback behavior

Plan

Step 1: Add explicit write-version selection
Files: cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy/format.go, policy.go, tests, and likely api/checkpoint/metadata.go / cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint/persistent.go.

Add a helper along these lines:

Then plumb CheckpointVersion through WriteOptions so callers can explicitly write the resolved version instead of the store always deciding internally.

Step 2: Replace blockers with warnings/fallbacks
Files: checkpoint_policy_write.go, strategy/checkpoint_policy.go, manual_commit_condensation.go, manual_commit_hooks.go, manual_commit_push.go, related tests.

Remove hard-blocking behavior for unsupported configured policy versions:

• user-driven writes continue
• hook writes continue
• pre-push continues pushing checkpoint metadata
• unsupported policy version triggers warning/log only
• actual unsupported checkpoint reads still fail via EnsureCanReadVersion

Existing tests that expect skipped writes or unchanged refs will be inverted to assert writes still happen using the latest writable version.

Step 3: Keep policy setting strict
Files: checkpointpolicy/policy.go, checkpoint_policy_test.go.

Keep ValidatePolicy strict for entire checkpoint policy --checkpoint-version ...: this CLI should not let a user set a version it cannot support. The new fallback applies only when the local/remote policy was written by another client.

Step 4: Update help text and docs
Files: cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint_policy.go, docs/architecture/sessions-and-checkpoints.md, any relevant tests.

Update flag/help/docs to say:

• checkpoint_version is the requested format for new writes
• if unsupported by this CLI, the CLI writes its latest supported version and warns
• checkpoint_min_version is an upgrade nudge only
• unsupported stored checkpoint data can still fail on read

Step 5: Verification
Focused tests first:

Then:

Approve this plan and I’ll start with step 1.

I’m using receiving-code-review for this because you’re challenging a design distinction in the plan, and the right move is to test whether that distinction earns its keep rather than defend it.

Your lifecycle is the strongest argument against LatestWritableVersion().

If both existed, the update points would be:

• When adding refs-v1.1 support but keeping rollout limited:

  • LatestWritableVersion = refs-v1.1
  • DefaultVersion = refs-v1

• After public rollout:

  • LatestWritableVersion = refs-v1.1
  • DefaultVersion = refs-v1.1

But that means an unsupported policy value would cause the client to write refs-v1.1 during the validation phase, even though the default deliberately stayed refs-v1. That bypasses the rollout control you described.

So I’d revise the design:

• No LatestWritableVersion().
• Keep one DefaultWriteVersion, used when there is no usable configured policy value.
• Keep explicit write-support checks, so a configured and supported policy like refs-v1.1 is honored.
• If policy says unsupported refs-v2, warn and fall back to DefaultWriteVersion.

Lifecycle then becomes clean:

That is simpler and matches intent: policy opts a repo into a supported version; default controls what happens without a usable policy.

Yes, it is internally consistent.

The clean model is:

• DefaultWriteVersion: what this CLI writes when no usable repo policy exists. This is the rollout lever for normal users.
• checkpoint_version: an optional repo override for deliberate rollout or validation.
• unsupported checkpoint_version: warn, then write DefaultWriteVersion.
• min_checkpoint_version: warning only, never blocks.
• actual checkpoint read support: still strict, because unreadable data is a real capability limit.

So checkpoint_version becomes “requested write format for this repo,” not a hard enforcement rule. Regular users do not need to set it. Internal repos and early adopters can opt into a supported new version before it becomes the default. Once it is broadly safe, we update the default and repos without policy naturally start using it.

The important docs wording: if a policy was written by a newer client and names a version this CLI cannot write, this CLI continues with its default write version and warns the user to upgrade.

Yes, that should stay out of scope.

For this change, I’d make the semantics explicit:

• No policy or missing checkpoint_version: use the CLI default.
• Supported checkpoint_version: treat it as an explicit repo override and write that version.
• Unsupported checkpoint_version: warn and fall back to the CLI default.
• Do not try to distinguish “intentionally pinned to old version” from “configured once and forgotten.”

That last distinction needs a separate design later, probably with policy metadata like creation/update version, rollout channels, or an explicit “follow default” mode. For now, docs/help should say regular repos usually should not set checkpoint_version; setting it pins the repo to that write format until changed.

I’ll implement the approved revised model, replacing the earlier “latest writable” idea with a single default write version. Because the approved mode was step-by-step, I’ll take this through the first behavior-ready checkpoint and stop for review before any commit.

I’m going to start with the storage and policy-selection layer: define a single default write version, let callers pass the resolved write version into checkpoint storage, and prove unsupported configured policies resolve to that default. This sets up the later hook/user-command behavior change without mixing every call site into the first checkpoint.

I’m adding the red tests first: one for policy selection falling back to the default on unsupported policy, and one for checkpoint storage honoring an explicit write version supplied by the caller.

The red tests are in place. I’m running only those focused packages now to confirm they fail for the missing API/behavior, not setup problems.

The failures are the intended ones: WriteVersion does not exist yet, and storage has no explicit CheckpointVersion write option. I’m adding the smallest implementation for those two contracts now.

The first implementation is in. I’m formatting the touched Go files and rerunning the same focused tests to close the red-green loop.

The first checkpoint is green at the focused-test level. I’m reviewing the diff now before I stop for approval, so the checkpoint summary reflects exactly what changed.

Checkpoint 1 is ready for review.

What changed:

• Added checkpointpolicy.DefaultWriteVersion() as the single default write version.
• Added checkpointpolicy.WriteVersion(policy) to return either the supported configured checkpoint_version or the default with a fallback flag.
• Added CheckpointVersion to checkpoint WriteOptions, used only when creating a new root summary.
• Added tests for policy fallback and explicit checkpoint version writes.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy -run TestWriteVersion -count=1 exited 0: ok .../checkpointpolicy
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint -run TestWriteCommittedUsesExplicitCheckpointVersion -count=1 exited 0: ok .../checkpoint

Approve this checkpoint? If approved, I’ll commit it and continue to the advisory policy behavior change.

I’m using receiving-code-review here because this is a design challenge on the checkpoint boundary, and I need to separate “needed for current branch-v1” from “needed for the approved policy semantics.”

I’ll fact-check that against the actual write/read paths rather than relying on memory. The important distinction is persisted JSON versus the in-memory write request that creates it.

Mostly correct, with one important correction.

Before this change, we already persisted checkpoint_version for new checkpoint root metadata.json, but it was always hardcoded to branch-v1 in the writer: persistent.go.

normalizeCheckpointSummary() is read-side compatibility: it fills in branch-v1 when reading older summaries that have no persisted checkpoint_version: persistent_reader.go.

So the more precise version is:

• New checkpoints already wrote checkpoint_version, but only as the hardcoded default.
• Legacy checkpoints without the field were normalized to branch-v1 when read.
• Now policy-aware callers need a way to say: “for this new checkpoint, write the supported configured version instead of the default.”
• WriteOptions.CheckpointVersion is that explicit signal from the policy layer into storage.

The alternative would be making checkpoint storage read policy itself, but that would couple the lower-level checkpoint writer to repo policy resolution and warning behavior. Passing the resolved version in WriteOptions keeps storage dumb: it writes the version the caller selected, or falls back to its default when none is supplied.

I’ll treat that as approval for checkpoint 1. I’m going to run the commit-time checks for the changed packages and CLI build, commit the resolved-version foundation, then move to the advisory write behavior.

I’m using receiving-code-review and the existing TDD/refactor guidance here. This is a naming correction on uncommitted code, so I’ll keep it mechanical: rename the helper API and rerun the focused tests that already cover the behavior.

The current references are only in the uncommitted helper and its tests. I’m renaming DefaultWriteVersion to DefaultCheckpointVersion and WriteVersion to CheckpointVersion, then rerunning the focused tests that cover the helper and storage boundary.

The rename is applied. I’m checking for stale names and rerunning the two focused tests from the checkpoint.

No stale helper names remain. I’m rerunning the focused tests now.

Renamed the helper API as requested:

• DefaultWriteVersion() → DefaultCheckpointVersion()
• WriteVersion(policy) → CheckpointVersion(policy)

That matches the model: policy has checkpoint_version and checkpoint_min_version; the “write” aspect is an implementation detail.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy -run TestCheckpointVersion -count=1 exited 0: ok
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint -run TestWriteCommittedUsesExplicitCheckpointVersion -count=1 exited 0: ok

Checkpoint 1 is still uncommitted. Approve this checkpoint and I’ll commit it, then continue to the advisory enforcement change.

I’ll commit the approved foundation after a scoped sanity check, then move directly into the advisory behavior step. Since this is a commit point, I’m loading the verification-before-completion guidance and checking the exact diff before staging.

The diff is still scoped to the foundation layer. I’m running fresh scoped verification now: policy/checkpoint tests, the API package compile via tests, and the CLI build.

Fresh tests and build completed with exit 0. I’m committing only the five approved foundation files now.

Git couldn’t create the shared worktree index lock from the sandbox. I’m rerunning the same stage-and-commit command with filesystem escalation so Git can write its metadata.

Foundation commit is 3ba090129d. I’m moving to the behavior change: unsupported policy versions should warn/log and continue, while committed checkpoint writes use the resolved default/configured version.

I’m tracing where committed checkpoint sessions are created so the resolved checkpoint_version is passed at the actual write calls, not guessed in storage. After that I’ll add failing tests around the current blocking behavior.

I’m going to update the tests to describe the new behavior before changing production code: summary generation should continue under unsupported policy, and pre-push should warn but still push checkpoint metadata.

The red tests are patched. I’m running just those two tests now to confirm they fail against the current blocking implementation.

Both tests fail for the expected old behavior. I’m replacing the hard gates with fallback selection now: user writes get a selected checkpoint_version, hooks warn/log and continue, and pre-push no longer treats unsupported policy as a reason to skip checkpoint metadata.

The user-command policy helper now returns a version instead of an error. I’m wiring that into attach and removing the summary-generation blocker.

Next I’m changing the strategy-side policy helper to choose a version and warn/log on fallback. That lets post-commit and agent-hook checkpoint writes continue instead of being skipped.

The strategy helper now returns the checkpoint version instead of a blocking error. I’m passing that through the committed session write path.

Finalization updates existing checkpoint records rather than creating new summaries, so it only needs the warning/log side effect. I’m removing the skip path there.

The old strategy tests still assert skip/block semantics, so I’m updating them to assert continuation. I’ll keep the scenarios but change the expected outcomes rather than adding broader fixtures.

I need one more source read for the existing strategy test helpers so the inverted tests don’t accidentally depend on incomplete setup.

The search found helpers in separate test files, not the current file. The first condense policy test is too bare once policy no longer short-circuits, so I’m going to convert it to use the existing checkpoint setup helper rather than asserting past the old early return.

I’m updating the strategy tests now: condense should write with the default version under unsupported policy, pre-push should keep pushing metadata, and the obsolete “sync fails plus local unsupported means skip” case no longer matches the model.

The test expectations are updated. I’m formatting the changed files and running the focused tests again to see what remains after the production changes.

The old blocker is gone, so the tests now hit later behavior. I’m adjusting the assertions to the real post-policy paths: summary generation needs the existing stubbed success path, and the condense state no longer has a positive pending step count after successful condensation.

The summary fixture has a standard stub helper; I’m using that. I’m also removing the obsolete step-count assertion from the condense test because successful condensation consumes the pending step.

The new advisory tests are green. I’m scanning for obsolete “block/skip” policy assertions before broadening verification, because stale test names can hide old assumptions.

There’s one stale test name and fixture left around finalize behavior. I’m tightening that test so it proves unsupported policy no longer blocks finalization: it creates a real checkpoint first, then verifies the transcript update succeeds under an unsupported policy.

The finalize test now uses a real stored checkpoint and should fail only if policy handling blocks the update. I’m formatting and running the full strategy policy test set.

The focused policy tests are green. I’m adding coverage for the user-driven create path now: attach should write the resolved default version when repo policy names an unsupported checkpoint version.

There’s already an attach policy test expecting rejection. I’m converting that into the user-driven fallback assertion instead of adding a separate case.

I’ll use the attach session state to find the created checkpoint and verify its summary uses the default checkpoint version under an unsupported configured policy.

The attach test now covers the fallback path. I’m formatting and running it with the other focused policy tests.

The behavior tests are green. I’m running a broader package check and CLI build before presenting this checkpoint, since the production changes span cli and strategy.

The broader package tests and build both completed with exit 0. I’m reviewing the diff now and checking for stale policy-block wording before I hand this checkpoint over.

Checkpoint 2 is ready for review.

What changed:

• User-driven writes no longer fail when policy has unsupported checkpoint_version.
• attach now writes the resolved checkpoint version, falling back to DefaultCheckpointVersion().
• checkpoint explain --generate no longer blocks on unsupported policy.
• Strategy hook/pre-push paths warn/log on unsupported policy but continue writing/pushing checkpoint metadata.
• Removed the old retryable “checkpoint write blocked by policy” path.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'TestAttachUsesDefaultWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|TestGenerateCheckpointSummaryUsesDefaultWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|TestWarnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded|TestShouldCheckCheckpointPolicyWarning' -count=1 exited 0.
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -run 'Test.*Policy|TestPrePush.*Policy|TestSyncCheckpointPolicyForPrePushUsesPushTarget' -count=1 exited 0.
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy -count=1 exited 0.
• go build ./cmd/entire exited 0.

Approve this checkpoint? If approved, I’ll commit it and continue to the help text and docs update.

I’m using receiving-code-review again because you’re pointing out a design smell in the implementation, and I need to verify the call sites before changing it.

I agree with the concern after checking the call sites. finalizeAllTurnCheckpoints does not create a checkpoint summary, so asking for a checkpoint version there is only a disguised warning side effect. I’m going to split that into explicit “resolve version” and “warn about policy” helpers.

I’m splitting the strategy helper now. The new shape will make finalization call a warning-only function explicitly, while condense separately resolves the version it needs for a new checkpoint summary.

The strategy policy module now has separate read, warning, and logging helpers. I’m updating the call sites so the intent is visible at each use.

manual_commit_condensation.go now needs the policy package import for the explicit default/selection call. I’m adding that and making finalization call the warning-only helper.

Now finalization will explicitly warn if the policy calls for a newer CLI, without pretending it needs a checkpoint version value for its transcript update path.

The conflated strategy helper is gone. I’m formatting and rerunning the policy-focused tests to catch any import or behavior regressions.

The strategy side now has distinct helpers and finalization only calls the warning path. The only remaining committedCheckpointVersion is in the CLI package, where it purely returns the version for attach and has no logging side effects.

You were right about finalizeAllTurnCheckpoints().

I split the strategy helper so the call sites now say what they mean:

• CondenseSession() reads local policy, resolves the checkpoint version, and separately warns if the policy needs a newer CLI.
• finalizeAllTurnCheckpoints() reads local policy and only calls warnIfCheckpointPolicyNeedsUpgrade(...); it no longer asks for a checkpoint version it does not use.
• syncCheckpointPolicyForPrePush() also uses the warning helper instead of embedding unsupported-write logic.

Focused verification after the refactor:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -run 'Test.*Policy|TestPrePush.*Policy|TestSyncCheckpointPolicyForPrePushUsesPushTarget' -count=1 exited 0.
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'TestAttachUsesDefaultWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|TestGenerateCheckpointSummaryUsesDefaultWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|TestWarnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded|TestShouldCheckCheckpointPolicyWarning' -count=1 exited 0.

The checkpoint is still uncommitted.

I’ll use pfleidi:clean-go now and check the local Go preference around ambiguous boolean returns before adjusting the helper API.

The clean-go guidance confirms your point: ambiguous (result, bool) returns are discouraged unless the bool is a clear presence signal like ok or found. I’m changing this helper to return a named struct so call sites say selection.Fallback and selection.Version.

The diff review and Go version confirm this is a valid clean-go finding. I’m changing CheckpointVersion to return a small struct and updating the tests/call sites.

The policy helper now returns a typed selection. I’m updating callers and tests so the call sites read through field names instead of a bare boolean.

The ambiguous boolean return is removed. I’m scanning for remaining tuple-style uses, then formatting and rerunning the focused tests.

The tuple-style helper is gone; remaining matches are either test names or field access. I’m running the policy selection test plus the behavior tests again.

Clean-go confirmed the issue: (result, bool) is only preferred for clear presence signals like ok/found. CheckpointVersion(policy) (string, bool) made the bool ambiguous.

I changed it to return:

Call sites now read as:

I also kept the earlier split so finalizeAllTurnCheckpoints() uses the warning-only helper instead of a fake version lookup.

Verification after this refactor:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy -run TestCheckpointVersion -count=1 exited 0.
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -run 'Test.*Policy|TestPrePush.*Policy|TestSyncCheckpointPolicyForPrePushUsesPushTarget' -count=1 exited 0.
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'TestAttachUsesDefaultWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|TestGenerateCheckpointSummaryUsesDefaultWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|TestWarnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded|TestShouldCheckCheckpointPolicyWarning' -count=1 exited 0.

Still uncommitted, as requested by the checkpoint flow.

I’ll verify that directly. If Fallback is only test-observed, the struct is still carrying state for no production decision, which would be unnecessary.

You found the same thing I did: there is one production reference, but it is not a strong reason for the return value. warnIfCheckpointPolicyNeedsUpgrade can ask UnsupportedWrite(policy) directly, so CheckpointVersion can just return the selected version string. I’m simplifying that now.

The selection struct is removed. I’m updating callers/tests so the warning logic uses policy predicates and the version helper returns only the selected version.

I’m updating the three production call sites now.

The CLI package call site is simplified. I’m updating the strategy warning and condense paths next.

I’ve removed the unused fallback value and replaced the production decision with UnsupportedWrite(policy). I’m formatting, scanning references, and rerunning the focused tests.

I’m going to finish the simplification around that fallback value, then rerun the focused checks that cover policy version selection and the hook/condense paths.

The search confirmed the fallback field only had a production role in warning text, not in version selection. I’ve removed that return shape so callers now ask directly for CheckpointVersion(policy), and warnings independently check whether the policy needs an upgrade.

Formatting is done. I’m checking for any leftover fallback-shaped API, then I’ll run the focused test set.

No fallback API remains. The remaining default usage is actual version selection: no readable policy or unsupported configured version maps to the default checkpoint version.

checkpointpolicy focused tests pass. I’m moving to the hook/condense policy paths next because those are the places where blocking would have been user-visible.

The strategy policy tests pass after the cleanup. I’m running the focused CLI tests now, including attach and explain behavior for unsupported write policies.

The focused CLI tests pass. Before I call this checkpoint reviewable, I’m going through the diff itself and then I’ll run the broader package checks plus a compile check.

The review pass looks scoped: blocking calls are gone, unsupported write policies now select the default version, and the hook finalizer only emits the upgrade nudge. I’m checking the command-facing diffs next to make sure attach/explain still pass the explicit checkpoint version through correctly.

The command-facing diff is consistent with the intended behavior: attach now writes using the selected checkpoint version, and explain summary generation no longer refuses to update summaries because of policy. Next I’m running the package-level tests and build check.

The broader package tests passed. I’m doing the compile check now so this checkpoint has both behavior coverage and a build signal.

go build ./cmd/entire completed with exit 0. I’m checking the final diff/status now so I can give you a precise checkpoint summary.

One small clarification before I stop: I left the version-selection helper side-effect free. The policy warning path now checks UnsupportedWrite/RequiresUpgrade directly, so there is no hidden boolean or fallback state to interpret.

Yes. The fallback flag/value had no real production use beyond feeding warning behavior, and that warning is better driven directly from the policy checks. I removed that shape entirely.

What changed in this checkpoint:

• CheckpointVersion(policy) now returns only the selected version.
• Unsupported or invalid configured versions fall back to DefaultCheckpointVersion().
• Warnings now independently check UnsupportedWrite(policy) / RequiresUpgrade(policy).
• Hook finalization no longer calls version selection; it only emits the upgrade nudge.
• Attach, explain summary writes, condensation, and pre-push no longer block on unsupported checkpoint policy.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy -run TestCheckpointVersion -count=1 exit 0
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -run 'Test.*Policy|TestPrePush.*Policy|TestSyncCheckpointPolicyForPrePushUsesPushTarget' -count=1 exit 0
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'TestAttachUsesDefaultWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|TestGenerateCheckpointSummaryUsesDefaultWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|TestWarnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded|TestShouldCheckCheckpointPolicyWarning' -count=1 exit 0
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy -count=1 exit 0
• go build ./cmd/entire exit 0

This checkpoint is reviewable now. No commit made yet.

I’ll commit the advisory-policy checkpoint, then move on to the docs/help-text part of the planned work.

The worktree still contains only the current checkpoint’s files. I’m staging those exact paths and committing them now.

Committed 652c278962 make checkpoint policy advisory. I’m continuing with the docs and help text so the configured checkpoint_version behavior is explicit to users.

The docs surface is small: the hidden checkpoint policy command help and the sessions/checkpoints architecture doc. I’m reading those sections now and will keep the update narrowly focused on checkpoint_version/min_checkpoint_version.

I’m going to make two edits: add command help that explains the fail-open checkpoint_version behavior, and update the architecture doc where it still says hooks skip writes for unsupported policies.

The command help now says the policy is advisory and describes the default fallback. I’m updating the doc section to match the current hook and pre-push behavior.

I’m adding a focused help-text test so the user-facing behavior doesn’t drift back to “required/blocking” language unnoticed.

The help test is in place. I’m formatting the touched Go files and then I’ll run the focused tests plus a quick build.

Formatting made no visible output. I’m running the command-policy tests now, which include the new help coverage and existing validation behavior.

The focused checkpoint policy command tests passed. I’m doing a compile check because the help text change touched Go command code.

go build ./cmd/entire completed with exit 0. I’m reviewing the docs/help diff before I stop at this checkpoint.

Committed the advisory behavior checkpoint:

652c278962 make checkpoint policy advisory

Then I updated the docs/help checkpoint:

• entire checkpoint policy --help now documents checkpoint_version fallback behavior and checkpoint_min_version as an upgrade nudge.
• Architecture docs now say hooks and pre-push warn/log but keep writing/pushing checkpoints.
• Added a focused help-text test.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'TestCheckpointPolicyCmd|TestCheckpointPolicyError' -count=1 exit 0
• go build ./cmd/entire exit 0

Current docs/help changes are uncommitted and ready for review.

I’ll commit the docs/help checkpoint first, then I’ll check whether there’s any remaining scoped work before wrapping this PR change set.

The pending diff is only the docs/help checkpoint. I’m staging those three files and committing them now.

Committed 5173da4ed0 document checkpoint policy fallback. Since that was the last planned change, I’m doing a final status and verification pass before I call the branch done.

I’m using the verification-before-completion skill here: the remaining question is not code design, it’s whether the committed branch still has the expected verification evidence after the final commit.

This is a behavior change across hooks and command paths, so I’m also doing a quick independent review pass before I wrap. I’ll use it only to catch material issues, not to reopen broad design questions.

The agent tool policy here does not allow spawning a reviewer unless you explicitly ask for delegation, so I’m keeping the review local: branch diff, formatting/lint, focused package tests, and build.

The branch is clean and git diff --check origin/main...HEAD produced no whitespace errors. I’m running the project formatter now, then lint on the formatted tree.

mise run fmt completed with exit 0. I’m checking whether it changed anything before running lint.

Formatter made no working-tree changes. I’m running the project lint task now.

mise run lint failed on an in-scope issue: generateCheckpointSummary still accepts repo after the policy gate was removed. I’m going to fix the signature/call sites rather than suppressing it.

Root cause is straightforward: after removing the policy enforcement call, repo is no longer part of summary generation’s data flow. I’m removing that parameter from generateCheckpointSummary and its call sites.

I found three call sites: the command path and two tests. The go-git import stays because the file still uses repository types elsewhere.

The production signature is cleaned up. I’m updating the tests to match and then rerunning formatting and lint.

That fix belongs with the advisory-behavior commit, so after it verifies I’ll commit this small follow-up rather than leaving the branch dirty. First: format, lint, tests.

Formatting completed. I’m rerunning lint now to confirm the exact failure is gone.

Lint is now clean. I’m rerunning the affected CLI test subset, then the broader touched-package test set and build.

The affected CLI tests pass. I’m running the full touched-package set now.

The touched-package tests pass. I’m running the final build check, then I’ll commit the lint cleanup.

go build ./cmd/entire completed with exit 0. I’m checking the remaining diff now; this should be only the unused repo parameter cleanup.

There is one extra modified file outside my edit set: cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go. I didn’t touch that path in the cleanup, so I’m treating it as unrelated and will leave it unstaged.

The unrelated agentimport change is only a removed nolint comment, but it is outside this task, so I’m not going to stage it. The lint cleanup itself is the generateCheckpointSummary signature cleanup in explain.go and its tests.

Committed the docs/help checkpoint:

5173da4ed0 document checkpoint policy fallback

During final lint, mise run lint failed on one in-scope cleanup: generateCheckpointSummary still accepted an unused repo parameter after the policy gate was removed. I fixed that in:

• cmd/entire/cli/explain.go
• cmd/entire/cli/explain_test.go

Verification after the cleanup:

• mise run fmt exit 0, no changes
• mise run lint exit 0, 0 issues
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'TestGenerateCheckpointSummary|TestCheckpointPolicyCmd|TestCheckpointPolicyError' -count=1 exit 0
• go test ./api/checkpoint ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy ./cmd/entire/cli ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -count=1 exit 0
• go build ./cmd/entire exit 0

There is also an unrelated dirty file, cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go, with a removed nolint comment. I did not touch or stage it.

The lint cleanup is uncommitted and ready for your review/commit approval.

I’ll commit only the in-scope explain cleanup and leave the unrelated agentimport change unstaged. The verification from the previous step is still valid because no files changed after those checks.

Status matches expectations: two in-scope files plus one unrelated dirty file. I’m staging only the two explain files and committing them.

Committed b0eed5ce5b remove stale checkpoint summary repo parameter. I’m checking the branch state now; the only expected remaining dirty file should be the unrelated agentimport change.

Committed the cleanup:

b0eed5ce5b remove stale checkpoint summary repo parameter

Branch is now ahead of origin/main by 4 commits:

• 3ba090129d select checkpoint version from policy
• 652c278962 make checkpoint policy advisory
• 5173da4ed0 document checkpoint policy fallback
• b0eed5ce5b remove stale checkpoint summary repo parameter

Verification from the immediately prior step remains valid:

• mise run lint exit 0, 0 issues
• touched-package go test ... -count=1 exit 0
• go build ./cmd/entire exit 0

Only remaining dirty file is unrelated and unstaged: cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go.

I’ll fact-check this against the current command/update path first. Since this is effectively review feedback on the policy UX, I’m using the receiving-code-review and brainstorming skills before deciding whether this needs another small behavior change.

I’m checking the current implementation rather than assuming from memory: command options, update semantics, and whether the policy storage can represent “unset” separately from “defaulted.”

The implementation confirms your suspicion so far: empty string currently means “option not provided” on update, and storage normalizes policy before writing. I’m checking the store serialization path to see whether an unset state is even representable today.

Fact-check result: no, not today. Empty strings are overloaded as “flag/update option absent,” and WriteLocal normalizes before writing, so even an empty policy becomes explicit defaults in policy.json.

No, we don’t currently have a real unset path.

What I verified:

• --checkpoint-version "" cannot express unset: empty string means “no update” in UpdateOptions.
• Update() only changes fields when the option string is non-empty.
• WriteLocal() normalizes before writing, so even an empty policy gets persisted as explicit defaults.
• ReadLocal() normalizes on read, so callers also lose whether a field was absent vs explicitly pinned.

Recommended design:

Execution mode: step-by-step, because this touches config/schema semantics and CLI flags.

Commit shape:

1. support unsetting checkpoint policy fields
2. document checkpoint policy unset behavior

Approach:

• Add explicit flags:
  • --unset-checkpoint-version
  • --unset-checkpoint-min-version
• Reject combining set and unset for the same field.
• Store omitted fields in policy.json when unset, not explicit default strings.
• Keep state.Policy as the effective normalized policy for existing callers.
• Add a raw/configured policy value internally so updates can preserve “unset” fields instead of accidentally re-pinning them on the next policy edit.
• Update help/docs to say unset fields inherit CLI defaults.

I would avoid --checkpoint-version default: it looks simpler, but it makes default a sentinel value pretending to be a version, and it doesn’t clearly mean “inherit future defaults.”

I’ll turn that approved design into an implementation plan first because this changes policy serialization semantics and CLI flags. After the plan is clear, I’ll execute the first checkpoint.

I’m using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan. I’ll keep the plan in-thread rather than writing a plan file, because this repo’s AGENTS.md says not to check in plan files unless explicitly requested.

Implementation Plan

Execution mode: step-by-step. This touches CLI flags and persisted policy JSON semantics, so each checkpoint should stay small and reviewable.

Commit shape:

1. support unsetting checkpoint policy fields
2. document checkpoint policy unset behavior

Step 1 will add the data-model and command behavior with tests:

• Add explicit unset intent to checkpointpolicy.UpdateOptions.
• Preserve raw policy fields through read/write so omitted JSON fields remain omitted.
• Keep effective policy reads normalized for existing callers.
• Add --unset-checkpoint-version and --unset-checkpoint-min-version.
• Reject set+unset for the same field.
• Test command behavior and storage serialization.

Step 2 will update docs/help text:

• Mention the unset flags.
• Document that omitted fields inherit CLI defaults and future default changes.
• Keep the architecture doc aligned with command help.

I’m starting Step 1 now with tests first.

I’m going to make the first red test cover the storage-level behavior: writing an unset policy should omit both JSON fields while reads still expose the effective defaults.

Next I’m adding update-command tests for unsetting fields and for rejecting set+unset conflicts. These should fail until the command/options model can express unset intent.

I’m adding the CLI-level tests now so the new flags are covered through Cobra parsing, not only the internal update function.

The red tests are in place. I’m running the focused policy tests now to confirm they fail for the expected missing API/flag behavior.

The focused test run failed at compile time for exactly the new missing pieces: ConfiguredPolicy and unset update options. I’m implementing the minimal model changes next.

I’m changing the policy state to carry both forms: Policy remains the effective normalized value for existing callers, and ConfiguredPolicy is the raw persisted value used by update/output code.

The store can now preserve omitted fields. Next I’m teaching Update to apply explicit unset operations and validate conflicting set/unset requests.

The update layer now distinguishes absent, set, and unset. I’m wiring that through the hidden command flags and making the printed policy show when a value is inherited from defaults.

I noticed the internal option name for the min-version unset flag was weaker than the public field name, so I’m tightening that while the code is still local.

The implementation is in place. I’m formatting and rerunning the red test set to see the next concrete failure.

The new tests now pass. I’m scanning for output/test expectations affected by the new “(default)” display and for any State literal compile issues in adjacent packages.

The grep didn’t show any obvious missed command-output tests, but the search was broad. I’m running the relevant package tests next to catch compile regressions across policy consumers.

The policy, CLI, and strategy package tests pass. I’m reviewing the diff now for clarity and accidental scope creep before adding the docs/help checkpoint.

The behavior diff is small and tests for the new API pass. I’m running lint and build before I stop at this checkpoint, because this changed exported package types and CLI flags.

Lint passes with zero issues. I’m running the build check now.

The build caught a real compile issue outside the package test path: update.go now references errors but the import is missing. I’m checking that file and fixing the import directly.

validateUpdateOptions uses errors.New, while the rest of the file still needs fmt. I’m adding the missing import and rerunning the same checks.

The import fix is in. I’m formatting the file and rerunning lint/build/tests so the evidence is fresh after the build failure.

Formatting is done. I’m rerunning the touched package tests first.

The touched package tests pass after the import fix. I’m rerunning lint and build now.

Lint is now failing on the unrelated agentimport file that was dirty earlier, not on the checkpoint policy changes. I’m checking status/diff before deciding how to report verification for this checkpoint.

The lint failure is exactly the unstaged unrelated removal of //nolint:ireturn. I won’t revert it without instruction. I’ll still run the build check for the checkpoint-policy changes.

The build passes. I’m stopping at the first checkpoint now so you can review the behavior before I update the architecture docs.

Implemented the first checkpoint so you can see the shape.

What it does:

• Adds --unset-checkpoint-version
• Adds --unset-checkpoint-min-version
• policy.json now omits unset fields via omitempty
• ReadLocal() still returns effective defaults in State.Policy
• State.ConfiguredPolicy preserves what was actually stored
• entire checkpoint policy now prints inherited values as branch-v1 (default)
• set+unset on the same field is rejected

Example resulting policy file after unsetting both fields:

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy ./cmd/entire/cli ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -count=1 exit 0
• go build ./cmd/entire exit 0
• mise run lint failed because of the unrelated dirty file cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go, where the existing //nolint:ireturn was removed. I did not touch or stage that file.

Current checkpoint-policy changes are uncommitted and ready for review.

I’m going to answer by tracing the data flow rather than defending the added field by default. The question is whether we need to remember “stored as absent” separately from “effective default.”

State.ConfiguredPolicy is the raw value from policy.json; State.Policy is the effective normalized value.

It exists to distinguish these two cases:

and:

Today both effectively mean branch-v1, but they should behave differently once the CLI default changes. The empty version means “inherit whatever this CLI defaults to later”; the explicit version means “stay pinned to branch-v1.”

The two concrete uses are:

• Update() starts from ConfiguredPolicy so editing one field does not accidentally re-pin an unset field.
• CLI output can show branch-v1 (default) only when the field was actually omitted.

That said, your question points at real complexity. A simpler model is probably better: make State.Policy mean the configured/raw policy, and call Normalize(state.Policy) where effective values are needed. Most policy decision helpers already normalize internally, so this would remove ConfiguredPolicy entirely and make the model clearer.

I’ll simplify this checkpoint accordingly: remove ConfiguredPolicy, make State.Policy represent the stored policy, and normalize only at the places that need an effective value.

The revised design is: State.Policy is the stored policy, with empty fields meaning inherited defaults. Callers that need effective values use Normalize(state.Policy) or existing helpers that already normalize. That removes the extra raw/effective split.

The store state now carries only the stored policy. I’m updating the update path to start from that raw stored policy and return it directly.

Next I’m simplifying command output to derive “(default)” from whether the stored field is empty.

The command file has shifted slightly from formatting, so I’m reading that small section and applying the output simplification against the current text.

The helper was still using the previous argument order. I’m changing it now so it only sees configured and effective values.

Now I’m updating the tests so they assert the simpler model: stored policy is raw, and normalization is explicit in the assertion when effective defaults matter.

The remaining references are all tests. I’m updating them to remove ConfiguredPolicy and make effective-default checks explicit.

I’ll update these tests in place: missing policy refs and unset fields now assert empty stored policy plus normalized defaults where needed.

There’s one remote sync test still expecting default policy as stored state when no policy ref exists. I’m updating that same way.

The tests now match the simpler state model. I’m checking that ConfiguredPolicy is fully gone, then I’ll run formatting and focused tests.

ConfiguredPolicy is gone. The remaining default assertions all go through Normalize, which is the intended effective-value path.

Formatting completed. I’m running the policy-focused tests now.

The focused tests pass with the simpler model. I’m running the broader touched package tests next to catch policy consumers.

The broader touched-package tests pass. I’m running build and lint again; lint may still be blocked by the unrelated agentimport edit.

go build ./cmd/entire completed with exit 0. I’m rerunning lint to confirm whether the remaining failure is still only the unrelated file.

Lint now passes with zero issues. I’m checking the final diff/status for this checkpoint before I summarize.

The simplified checkpoint is now reviewable: no ConfiguredPolicy, raw stored policy stays in State.Policy, and effective defaults are derived with Normalize only where needed.

Simplified as requested.

Current shape:

• Removed State.ConfiguredPolicy.
• State.Policy now represents the stored policy exactly.
• Empty fields mean “not set.”
• Normalize(state.Policy) is used only where effective defaults are needed.
• CLI output shows branch-v1 (default) when the stored field is empty, whether it was never set or was unset.
• policy.json becomes {} after unsetting both fields.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'TestWriteAndReadLocalPolicy|TestSyncRemotePolicyDefaultsWhenRemoteMissing|TestUpdateUnsetsPolicyFields|TestUpdateRejectsSetAndUnsetSameField|TestCheckpointPolicyCmd' -count=1 exit 0
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy ./cmd/entire/cli ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -count=1 exit 0
• go build ./cmd/entire exit 0
• mise run lint exit 0, 0 issues

Still uncommitted. The unrelated dirty cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go is still present and unstaged.

I’ll commit only the checkpoint-policy unset changes and leave the unrelated agentimport edit out. Then I’ll update the architecture docs for the unset behavior as the next checkpoint.

The pending in-scope diff is the unset-policy checkpoint; agentimport is separate. I’m staging only the eight policy files and committing them.

Committed f4bced8c6f support unsetting checkpoint policy fields. I’m updating the architecture doc now so it explains omitted policy fields and the unset flags.

The doc already has part of the default behavior from the prior checkpoint, but it doesn’t say how to return to inheritance. I’m adding that explicitly and keeping the example focused.

The architecture doc now documents omitted fields and both unset flags. I’m running a lightweight doc diff check and status before stopping at this checkpoint.

Committed the unset behavior checkpoint:

f4bced8c6f support unsetting checkpoint policy fields

Then updated the architecture doc to cover:

• omitted policy fields
• {} meaning both values inherit CLI defaults
• --unset-checkpoint-version
• --unset-checkpoint-min-version

Verification for the doc checkpoint:

• git diff --check -- docs/architecture/sessions-and-checkpoints.md exit 0

Current uncommitted changes:

• in-scope: docs/architecture/sessions-and-checkpoints.md
• unrelated, still unstaged/untouched by me: cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go

I’m using the brainstorming and receiving-code-review skills here because this is a UX/design change to the policy command, and I want to verify the CLI mechanics before recommending a direction.

Yes, I think that is simpler.

Cobra can support it cleanly, but not with the current StringVar value alone. We need to distinguish:

• flag not provided: leave existing policy field unchanged
• flag provided with non-empty value: set policy field
• flag provided with empty value: unset policy field

The right way is to use cmd.Flags().Changed("checkpoint-version") and cmd.Flags().Changed("checkpoint-min-version"). Then UpdateOptions can have intent booleans like CheckpointVersionSet and CheckpointMinVersionSet, where an empty string is a real update meaning “clear this field.”

Recommendation:

• Drop --unset-checkpoint-version
• Drop --unset-checkpoint-min-version
• Support:
  • --checkpoint-version branch-v1 to set
  • --checkpoint-version "" to unset
  • --checkpoint-min-version branch-v1 to set
  • --checkpoint-min-version "" to unset
• Keep --force semantics for downgrades. If unsetting would effectively downgrade from a newer configured version to the current CLI default, require --force.

This removes two flags and the set+unset conflict path entirely. The only subtlety is documenting that the shell quotes matter: users must pass "", not omit the value.

I’ll implement this as a replacement for the explicit unset flags: flag presence controls whether the field changes, and an empty value means “remove the field from policy.json.” The current uncommitted doc change will be updated to describe the empty-string form instead.

I’m first changing the tests so they lock in the new CLI behavior: --checkpoint-version "" and --checkpoint-min-version "" should unset fields, and omitting a flag should leave it unchanged.

I’m changing the tests first. The key behavior is that flag presence, not string contents, determines whether the field is updated; an empty provided value clears the field.

CLI tests now express the new UX. I’m updating the package-level update tests so the internal API also tracks “flag was provided” explicitly.

The tests now require new UpdateOptions fields and should fail until the implementation is adjusted. I’m running the focused tests to confirm that.

The focused tests fail in the expected places: the internal options do not track flag presence yet, and help/output still describe the old explicit unset flags. I’m implementing that now.

The update package now uses presence booleans instead of unset booleans. I’m wiring Cobra’s Changed state through the command.

The command now uses Flags().Changed(...) to distinguish omitted flags from empty-string values. I’m removing the old unset flag wording from docs and help references.

Only the doc still mentions the old flags. I’m updating that to the empty-string form and calling out the required shell quoting.

The documentation now points to --checkpoint-version "" and --checkpoint-min-version "". I’m scanning for any remaining old flag names or old option fields before formatting.

The old unset flags are gone from production code and docs; the only remaining mention is a test assertion that they no longer appear in help. I’m formatting and running the focused tests now.

The focused update and command tests pass. I’m running the broader touched-package tests plus build/lint before presenting the checkpoint.

The touched-package tests pass. I’m running the build check now.

go build ./cmd/entire completed with exit 0. I’m running lint next.

Lint passes with zero issues. I’m reviewing the final diff/status now so I can give you the checkpoint summary.

The diff is scoped to replacing explicit unset flags with empty-string values, plus docs. I’m marking this checkpoint ready for review.

I’ll commit the empty-string unset checkpoint and keep the unrelated agentimport edit unstaged. Verification from the previous step is still valid because no files changed after it.

The pending in-scope diff is exactly the five files for the empty-string unset change. I’m staging only those paths and committing them now.

Committed d995bcba07 use empty policy flag values to unset. I’m checking branch status and recent commits to see what remains.

Committed the empty-string unset checkpoint:

d995bcba07 use empty policy flag values to unset

Branch is now ahead of origin/main by 6 commits. The only remaining dirty file is still unrelated and unstaged:

cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go

Verification from the just-completed checkpoint:

• focused policy/CLI tests exit 0
• touched-package tests exit 0
• go build ./cmd/entire exit 0
• mise run lint exit 0, 0 issues

I’m using pfleidi:review and will review the current working tree against origin/main, including committed and uncommitted changes. I’ll gather the diff/context, run the Go dead-code probe, then launch the parallel review agents.

I’m gathering the current origin/main diff now, including the committed checkpoint-policy work and the remaining unstaged agentimport change, because the review skill explicitly includes unstaged changes.

The review diff against origin/main has 22 changed files. The unstaged agentimport edit is dirty relative to HEAD, but it cancels out against origin/main, so it is not part of the review diff produced by git diff origin/main.

gh pr view could not find a GitHub remote for this worktree, so PR context is unavailable. deadcode -test ./... produced broad pre-existing-looking results; I’ll pass that as broad/unverified input rather than treating it as findings.

I’m using pfleidi:pr. I’ll restart the PR workflow from the current state and stop if the branch has unrelated scope or a dirty tree, as the skill requires.

I’ll run the branch scope checks first. If the working tree is dirty, the PR workflow requires stopping before fetch/merge so we don’t create an ambiguous sync state.

The working tree is clean now. I’m checking the branch-only changed files from the merge base against origin/main before syncing.

Scope check: 22 changed files, all in checkpoint policy/write behavior, related tests, and sessions/checkpoints docs. I’m syncing with origin/main next as required by the PR workflow.

Fetch completed. I’m merging origin/main into the branch now; if it conflicts I’ll stop and report the conflicted files.

The branch is already up to date. I’m discovering the project’s verification commands from mise config, CI, README/docs, and package manifests, then I’ll deduplicate by coverage area.

The first file scan skipped hidden files, so I’m checking hidden mise/CI config explicitly and whether tmp/ is ignored before deciding on a verification cache.

tmp/ exists and is ignored, so I can use tmp/pfleidi-pr/ for a local verification cache. I’m reading the relevant config files now.

I found mise.toml, README development commands, and CI workflows. I’m reading the local task definitions now to pick one command per coverage area instead of running duplicate aggregate and subtask commands.

Using pfleidi:pr for the PR workflow. I’ve already synced against origin/main; I’m continuing from verification discovery and then I’ll push/open the draft PR if the branch stays clean.

The project’s local task surface is small: mise run fmt, mise run lint, mise run test, integration tests, and CI aggregate. I’m going to run the mutating formatter first, then build/lint/unit tests as the non-duplicative PR verification set.

mise run fmt completed successfully. I’m checking whether it changed anything before running validators, since lint needs to see the final formatted tree.

Formatting left the working tree clean. The lint task is referenced by CI but not inline in mise.toml, so I’m locating the task definition before running it.

The lint task lives under mise-tasks/, matching CI. I’ve got enough discovery now; running the build, lint, and unit test checks in parallel because they’re independent validators.

Build and lint are green. Unit tests are still running after 30 seconds; I’m polling that session until it finishes before doing any push or PR creation.

mise run test finished successfully too. I’m doing the final scope/status check now, then I’ll push this branch and open the draft PR.

The final status surfaced two dirty files outside the intended PR scope: .opencode/package-lock.json and cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go. I’m inspecting those before pushing, because I won’t include unrelated verification churn in the PR.

These two files are uncommitted local changes, so they would not be pushed by git push origin HEAD, but they do make the local scope check noisy. I’m checking the committed branch diff separately to confirm the PR itself still contains only the checkpoint-policy commits.

The committed branch-only diff is clean: 22 checkpoint-policy files, no .opencode or agentimport changes. I need to respect the PR workflow here, so I’m checking the skill’s dirty-tree rule before deciding whether to push with unrelated local changes present or stop for cleanup.

Verification passed, but I’m stopping before push/PR creation because the working tree is dirty with unrelated local changes:

Uncommitted files now present:

• .opencode/package-lock.json: opencode dependency lockfile update, unrelated to checkpoint policy.
• cmd/entire/cli/agentimport/agentimport.go: removes a //nolint:ireturn comment, unrelated to checkpoint policy.

The committed branch diff itself is clean and contains only the 22 checkpoint-policy files. Please resolve those two local changes by committing, stashing, or reverting them, then tell me to continue and I’ll push/open the draft PR.

Continuing from the PR workflow. I’m rechecking the tree and branch identity first; if it’s clean, I’ll use the existing verification results and push/open the draft PR.

The working tree is clean and the origin is an entire://.../gh/entireio/cli remote, so I’ll push the current branch and create the PR through gh api as required for this remote type.

The push is still in progress; it’s syncing the checkpoint branch as part of the repo’s remote helper. I’m waiting for it to finish before creating the PR.

The branch pushed successfully. I’m preparing a concise PR body now, focused on the policy behavior and unset semantics, with no verification section.

I’m writing the PR body to the ignored local tmp/ area so the gh api call can send exact Markdown without shell-quoting the whole document.

The PR body is staged as an ignored temp file. I’m creating the draft PR against main now.

Created the draft PR:

https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/1541

Using pfleidi:review because you invoked it. I’ll reread the skill from disk, then review the current diff against origin/main with the required multi-lens pass.

The review skill references the Go clean-code guidance for Go diffs, so I’m reading that as well and gathering the current branch context in parallel.

Current review surface: 22 files changed against origin/main, all in checkpoint policy/version selection, checkpoint write metadata, strategy hook/condensation paths, CLI tests, and docs. I’m running the required dead-code check and pulling PR context before launching the review agents.

deadcode -test ./... completed, but it produced broad pre-existing-looking output. I’ll pass that into the agents as review input and only report anything if it is source-verified as introduced or exposed by this branch.

Review context before launching agents:

Changed files against origin/main: 22

api/checkpoint/metadata.go, cmd/entire/cli/attach.go, cmd/entire/cli/attach_test.go, cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint/persistent.go, cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint/persistent_write_test.go, cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint_policy.go, cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint_policy_test.go, cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint_policy_write.go, cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy/*, cmd/entire/cli/explain.go, cmd/entire/cli/explain_test.go, cmd/entire/cli/strategy/checkpoint_policy.go, cmd/entire/cli/strategy/checkpoint_policy_test.go, cmd/entire/cli/strategy/manual_commit_condensation.go, cmd/entire/cli/strategy/manual_commit_hooks.go, docs/architecture/sessions-and-checkpoints.md.

Launching the five first-pass review agents now: security, correctness, simplification, readability, and clean-Go.

Four agents are running. The clean-Go agent spawn rejected the mixed message/items payload, so I’m launching that one again with the skill paths embedded in the prompt.

While those agents run, I’m doing a separate source pass over the policy-selection and write paths so I can verify or reject any findings quickly when they return.

The local source pass shows the main behavior change is exactly around checkpointpolicy.CheckpointVersion, empty-flag update detection, and warning-only strategy paths. I’m reading the write call sites next so the review can catch missing version propagation rather than only policy parsing.

One area to double-check is summary regeneration: the old policy check was removed there, but that path may or may not create new checkpoint metadata. I’m reading the surrounding write implementation before treating that as a finding.

Summary regeneration updates an existing checkpoint via SessionSummary, not a new root summary, so the missing explicit version there is not automatically a bug. I’m checking the read/update code anyway because dead-code flagged nearby checkpoint storage code.

The storage layer preserves an existing root checkpoint_version when appending sessions to an existing checkpoint and only uses the new option for fresh root summaries, which matches the intended write-version behavior. I’m checking the policy update validation path for empty-value unsets and downgrade handling next.

A concrete issue may be emerging: the CLI-side committedCheckpointVersion fallback appears silent, while strategy hook paths call the warning helper. I’m checking all call sites before classifying it, because the user explicitly wanted warnings for unsupported configured versions.

I’ve confirmed the silent fallback path is currently only used by attach; strategy paths do warn/log before falling back. I’m checking how attach is wired so any fix stays local if this ends up as an autofixable Required finding.

There is already CLI-side checkpoint policy warning code, so any fix for silent attach fallback can likely reuse that instead of inventing new warning text. I’m reading that helper and its tests.

The apparent silent attach fallback may already be covered by the root-level warning hook for normal CLI commands. I’m checking that wiring; if attach runs through Cobra, it may warn before runAttach even starts.

The existing warning helper is not wired from root.go; I’m broadening the search once to confirm whether it is called elsewhere before I treat that as a missing-warning bug.

The warning helper is invoked from cmd/entire/main.go after command execution for normal CLI commands, so attach’s local fallback is not silent in the real binary. I’ll not report that as a bug unless a subagent finds a narrower missing path.

I’m also checking the remote sync/read paths because the policy file now distinguishes “unset” from “default”; any code that still normalizes before writing could accidentally re-materialize defaults.

No default-materialization issue showed up in the sync/read paths; unset policy state is preserved unless a caller explicitly writes defaults. I’m waiting for the first-pass agents now.

The clean-Go pass came back clean and verified the LookupSessionLog dead-code hit is pre-existing on origin/main. I’m waiting on the remaining first-pass agents, then I’ll launch the independent coverage sweep.

Security also found nothing. I’m continuing to wait for correctness, simplification, and readability; while they run, I’ll inspect the test coverage around unsupported policy fallback.

The focused tests cover the fallback write behavior and CLI policy command output. The only gap I’ve noticed so far is not functional: tests call runAttach directly, so they do not exercise the main.go post-command warning path. I’m waiting for agent confirmation before deciding if that’s worth reporting.

Readability found two follow-up improvements, both non-blocking: the pre-push sync bool is now vestigial, and CheckpointVersion may still understate that it returns the selected write version. I’m waiting for correctness and simplification, then I’ll do the required independent coverage pass.

Simplification independently confirmed the stale pre-push boolean as a medium improvement and found no Required findings. One first-pass agent is still running; after that, I’ll launch the coverage sweep.

The correctness agent reported a missing-warning issue, but I’ve already found WarnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded is called from cmd/entire/main.go after successful normal command execution. I’m treating that as unverified for now and launching the required independent coverage sweep before synthesis.

The coverage agent is running. I’m verifying the two improvement candidates locally now so the final report can stay source-backed and not just repeat agent output.

The pre-push bool improvement is source-backed: PrePush still branches on a helper that can no longer return false. The CheckpointVersion naming suggestion is also source-backed, but it’s a follow-up naming/readability issue, not a merge blocker.

Two verification points are now clear: LookupSessionLog is present on origin/main, and the normal CLI warning hook is already present in cmd/entire/main.go with no diff in this branch. That rejects the silent-warning finding as stated for normal CLI commands.

The coverage sweep is still running past the first wait. I’m polling it once more; after it returns I’ll synthesize and only include findings I can verify against source.

The coverage agent is taking longer than expected, likely because it is re-reading the full changed surface. I’m giving it another wait window rather than short-circuiting the required second pass.

Required

No Required findings.

Improvements

I rejected one proposed Required finding about silent warnings: normal CLI execution already calls WarnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded from main.go, and hook/strategy paths warn or log separately. Dead-code output was broad; the changed-file hit for LookupSessionLog is present on origin/main, so it is not branch-introduced.

Summary: 0 Required, 2 Improvements. No code changes were made. The branch looks merge-ready from this review; the remaining items are clarity cleanups.

Using receiving-code-review briefly because this is a review finding being implemented. The finding is straightforward and local: remove the now-vestigial pre-push gate return value without changing pre-push behavior.

The fix is technically sound: the helper was once a gate, but after the advisory change every branch returns true. I’m going to change it to a side-effect-only sync/warn helper and update the test that still asserts the boolean.

Editing now: PrePush will call policy sync directly, syncCheckpointPolicyForPrePush will return no value, and the one test will assert the synced ref state rather than a meaningless true.

The patch is in place. I’m formatting the touched Go files, then I’ll run the focused strategy test plus a compile and lint check.

Formatting made no visible output. The validators are independent, so I’m running the focused test, CLI build, and lint together.

Verification passed. I’m doing a final status/diff check so the summary names exactly what changed and catches any build artifacts.

The intended diff is limited to three strategy files. A separate unrelated agentimport.go edit has appeared again after verification; I’m checking whether any task could have produced it before deciding how to report it.

mise run lint uses golangci-lint --fix ./..., and it auto-removed an unrelated agentimport nolint comment. That is outside this request, so I’m restoring it and will use scoped non-mutating verification for the files I changed.

The unrelated file is restored. I’m checking the tree and then running scoped checks that won’t rewrite unrelated packages.

The working tree now only has the three strategy files from finding 1. Running focused test, CLI build, and scoped non-mutating lint on the touched package.

The focused non-mutating golangci-lint command is not usable here: it reports 179 existing goconst findings across the strategy package. The project lint task did pass, but because it runs --fix ./..., it rewrote an unrelated file, which I restored to keep this change scoped.

Fixed only review item 1.

syncCheckpointPolicyForPrePush is now side-effect-only, and PrePush no longer branches on a return value that was always true. The related test now asserts the synced policy state without checking a meaningless boolean.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -run TestSyncCheckpointPolicyForPrePushUsesPushTarget -count=1 passed
• go build ./cmd/entire passed
• mise run lint passed, but its --fix ./... path rewrote unrelated agentimport.go; I restored that to keep the diff scoped
• golangci-lint run --timeout=30m ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy failed on broad pre-existing goconst findings, not this change

Current diff is only the three intended strategy files.

I’ll commit the current fix only. First I’m rechecking the working tree so the commit doesn’t accidentally include anything outside the review item.

The diff is scoped to the three expected strategy files. The focused test/build checks from the fix still apply, so I’m committing this cleanup now.

The commit failed because this worktree’s Git index lives in the parent repo’s .git/worktrees/..., which is outside the writable sandbox. I’m rerunning the same commit with elevated filesystem permission.

Committed e5feacdc5c. I’m checking the tree now; since the PR already exists, the remaining practical step is to decide whether this new commit should be pushed to the PR branch.

The commit succeeded and the worktree is clean. I’m closing the review subagents since their results have already been synthesized and the code fix is committed.

Committed the current fix as e5feacdc5c (simplify checkpoint policy pre-push sync).

The worktree is clean. I did not push; next practical step is pushing this commit to update PR #1541.

Using pfleidi:pr-feedback because you invoked it. I’m reading the skill from disk, then I’ll fetch the current PR’s unresolved review threads and classify them before touching code.

I’m identifying the PR from the current branch and collecting branch context now. This branch has an unpushed local commit from the prior review fix; I’ll account for that when deciding whether anything needs publishing.

gh pr view can’t infer the GitHub repo from this entire:// remote, so I’m switching to the known GitHub repo slug. Also, origin/main is stale enough that the raw branch diff includes upstream merge noise, so I’m fetching origin/main before classifying comments.

origin/main is current now and PR #1541 is identified. I’m collecting PR metadata, the branch-only context, and unresolved review threads from GraphQL.

PR context:

There is one unresolved review thread, with no pagination remaining. It started as a Copilot comment about empty unsets and was followed by a maintainer clarification that the downgrade behavior is expected but should be documented more explicitly.

Human Comments

Bot Comments (batched)

None as separate actionable threads. The Copilot comment is part of the same thread and was narrowed by the maintainer reply.

Decision gate: no user decision needed. The thread already states the intended behavior: unsetting can be a downgrade and should be documented, not changed. I’m recording a feedback ledger and then updating help/docs/tests only.

I’m reading the current docs section before editing so the new text lands next to the existing policy behavior, not as a disconnected note.

I’m updating the command help and architecture docs to say the empty-string unset inherits the default and still participates in downgrade protection. The test will assert that help text so it doesn’t drift again.

The docs/help change is in. I’m formatting the touched Go files and then running the focused help test plus build; I’ll run the project lint task too, but it may repeat the known unrelated agentimport auto-fix, which I’ll restore if it happens.

Formatting completed. I’m running validation now from the same tree state.

Validation passed. I’m checking the final diff before deciding whether this is ready to commit/push and reply to the thread.

The fix is verified and scoped to help text, the help test, and the architecture doc. I’m updating the local feedback ledger, then I’ll stop at the commit decision as required because there are uncommitted PR-feedback changes.

Addressed the one unresolved PR thread locally, but not committed or pushed yet.

Verification:

Ledger: tmp/pfleidi-pr-feedback/pr-feedback-1541.md

I need your approval before committing. Proposed commit:

document checkpoint policy unset downgrades

Should I commit these PR-feedback changes now, then push and reply/resolve the thread?

Committing the documented unset/downgrade behavior now, then I’ll push the branch and publish the review-thread reply/resolve.

The working tree contains only the PR-feedback documentation/help change. I’m committing just those three files.

Committed fa54b81c29. I’m checking the branch state, then I’ll push the updated PR branch.

The worktree is clean. Pushing the branch now; this will update PR #1541 with both local commits that were not on the remote yet.

The push is still syncing the checkpoint branch through the remote helper. I’m waiting for it to finish before replying to the review thread.

Push succeeded. I’m preparing the exact review-thread reply and resolve plan before calling GitHub’s APIs.

Reply plan:

The thread has a concrete top-level review comment ID and no pending decision, so I’m posting the direct reply and then resolving it.

The direct thread reply posted successfully. Resolving the review thread now.

The thread is resolved. I’m doing one final branch/status check and confirming there are no unresolved threads left.

PR feedback handled and published.

Pushed checkpoint-policy-fixes to PR #1541, including:

• e5feacdc5c simplify checkpoint policy pre-push sync
• fa54b81c29 document checkpoint policy unset downgrades

Verification passed before commit:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run TestCheckpointPolicyCmd_HelpDocumentsAdvisoryBehavior -count=1
• go build ./cmd/entire
• mise run lint

Ledger: tmp/pfleidi-pr-feedback/pr-feedback-1541.md

Using pfleidi:pr-feedback again. I’ll refresh the PR state and unresolved review threads from GitHub before deciding whether there is anything new to address.

I’m refreshing origin/main, PR metadata, and review threads again. The previous thread was resolved, so this pass should either pick up new feedback or stop cleanly.

PR #1541 is still the current branch PR and the worktree is clean. I’m collecting the required context and unresolved thread set now.

Two new unresolved automated-review threads came in.

Both new threads are from Copilot and are concrete enough to investigate as automated-review findings. I’m reading the surrounding code and tests before classifying them as autofixable.

Human Comments

None.

Automated Reviewer Comments

Bot Comments (batched)

None.

No decision is needed first. Both are source-backed, small, and have clear verification: policy command output tests plus build/lint. I’m recording the starting commit and then fixing both in one pass.

I’m checking the logging/test utilities briefly so the read-error fix follows the existing CLI logging pattern instead of adding a new user-output path.

For comment 1, the command currently prints the raw configured value when it is unsupported, so I’ll make the displayed checkpoint_version distinguish configured policy from the version this CLI will write. For comment 2, I’ll mirror the strategy behavior by logging a warning before default fallback on read errors.

The logging helper matches the strategy path, so the read-error fix can stay small and local. I’m applying both changes and adding a focused policy command output test.

Using pfleidi:pr-feedback for the open PR comments. I’m picking up from the applied edits and first verifying the current diff before running checks.

The current diff is limited to the two PR feedback items: CLI display now distinguishes unsupported configured versions from the write fallback, and the write-version fallback logs policy read errors. I’m formatting these files and then running focused package checks.

Formatting did not produce any console output. I’m using the package’s checkpoint-policy test subset plus a focused build and project lint now.

The focused checks are green: go test for TestCheckpointPolicyCmd_, go build ./cmd/entire, and mise run lint all exited 0. I’m doing the final diff/status review and updating the PR feedback ledger before the commit gate.

The source diff still matches the intended scope after formatting and lint. I’m updating the local feedback ledger to reflect the verified fixes, then I’ll stop at the required commit decision point.

The ledger now records both addressed threads and the verification commands. I’m checking the branch state once more before asking for the commit decision.

Addressed the 2 unresolved Copilot review threads locally.

Verification:

Current uncommitted files:

• cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint_policy.go
• cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint_policy_test.go
• cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint_policy_write.go

Per the PR feedback workflow, I’m stopping before publishing. Commit these fixes now? Suggested commit:

surface checkpoint policy fallbacks

Committing only the three feedback-fix files, then I’ll push the branch and publish replies on the two addressed review threads.

The feedback fixes are committed as c3f89a9bb1. I’m checking the branch state, then pushing and posting the two direct review-thread replies.

Push succeeded to checkpoint-policy-fixes. Reply plan: PRRT_kwDOQyo98M6NDUHx will point to c3f89a9bb1 for the unsupported-version display, and PRRT_kwDOQyo98M6NDUIN will point to c3f89a9bb1 for the new fallback warning log.

Both direct replies posted successfully. I’m resolving those two review threads now.

The two review threads now report isResolved: true. I’m updating the local ledger with the commit and reply results, then I’ll do a final status check.

The ledger is updated. I’m checking local branch cleanliness and confirming the resolved state for the two threads.

Local status is clean apart from being ahead of origin/main, which is expected for this PR branch. I’m doing one last PR-thread sweep so the final summary can say whether anything remains unresolved.

Committed and pushed c3f89a9bb1 (surface checkpoint policy fallbacks) to checkpoint-policy-fixes.

Verification used before commit:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run TestCheckpointPolicyCmd_ -count=1 → exit 0
• go build ./cmd/entire → exit 0
• mise run lint → exit 0, 0 issues

Final thread sweep shows all 3 PR review threads are resolved. No uncommitted tracked changes remain. Ledger updated at pr-feedback-1541.md.

Using brainstorming because you asked for design research before changing behavior; I’ll also use using-entire while reading code so the existing checkpoint intent is sourced from the repo rather than guessed.

I’ll skip the visual companion because this is CLI behavior and hook/error-flow design, not a visual decision. Next I’m mapping where startup hooks, write commands, and policy checks currently meet.

The first search confirmed the current branch already has four separate checkpoint-policy surfaces: policy normalization/validation, general CLI warning, direct write-version selection, and strategy hook warning/push sync. I’m narrowing reads to those surfaces plus the hook command runner so we can decide where blocking versus loud failure should live.

The recent commits have checkpoint trailers, so I’m reading the recorded intent for the policy behavior commits before forming recommendations. After that I’ll label what is transcript-backed versus source-inferred.

The JSON explain data confirms which files were touched but not the reasoning details, so I’m switching to the current entire checkpoint explain command for the key behavior checkpoint and keeping the output bounded.

Recorded intent from checkpoint b60f4de0a520: the current branch deliberately changed unsupported policy versions into upgrade nudges so attach, summary generation, hooks, and pre-push continued. Your new feedback is a policy shift from that: keep most CLI non-blocking, but make explicit checkpoint-data writes and hook failures stronger.

The current policy package has only two predicates: RequiresUpgrade for unreadable checkpoint_min_version, and UnsupportedWrite for unwritable checkpoint_version. Today both feed the same generic upgrade warning, which is probably too coarse for the new split.

The hook runner returns ordinary Go errors from parsing and lifecycle dispatch; there is no current checkpoint-policy gate in executeAgentHook. SessionStart is the one hook with a user/agent-visible hook response path, so it is the natural place for an early upgrade message.

The real checkpoint write paths I found are: attach and import directly call persistent store writes; checkpoint explain --generate updates committed checkpoint summaries; strategy condensation/finalization writes checkpoint data from Git/agent hooks. That suggests the behavior split should be by caller intent and hook context, not by the low-level store.

For hook failure semantics, Claude Code and Codex both document exit code 2 as the blocking/error channel, with stderr becoming the model/user-facing reason on relevant events. They differ on where JSON is usable, so a repo-local abstraction should probably express “policy status + event-specific response” rather than hand-building stdout/stderr in lifecycle code.

Research pass complete. The main ambiguity before I propose approaches:

Should the new hard-block behavior apply only when min_checkpoint_version is newer than this CLI can read, or should it also apply when configured checkpoint_version is newer than this CLI can write?

My current read: keep checkpoint_version fail-open to the CLI default with warnings, and make only unsupported min_checkpoint_version hard-block explicit checkpoint-data writes / loud-fail hooks. That keeps the earlier “unsupported write version falls back” decision intact while respecting the admin’s minimum-version policy.

That resolves the main policy distinction: both configured write version and minimum read version are hard requirements when the command or hook would create or update checkpoint data. I’m narrowing the remaining design question to where a hook should fail versus only warn.

For agent hooks, should the hard failure happen on every non-startup hook whenever policy is unmet, or only on hooks that would actually write/update checkpoint data?

My recommendation is: session-start warns only; every other lifecycle hook checks policy early and exits non-zero if unmet, because even “prep” hooks like prompt submit/tool use affect later checkpoint fidelity.

I’ll treat session-start as the warning-only hook with a stronger message: “admin policy requires a newer CLI; Entire checkpoints will not be created until upgrade.” I’m checking the remaining command surfaces so the design can name exactly which commands block.

That gives us the intended user experience: startup is a visible heads-up, not a blocker; later hooks fail because they are the checkpoint-capture machinery. I’m moving from questions to concrete options now.

I see three workable approaches.

Recommended: explicit policy modes

Add one shared policy check that returns a typed status, then callers choose a mode:

• WarnOnly: normal CLI commands and session-start
• BlockWrites: explicit checkpoint-writing commands
• FailHook: non-startup agent hooks

This keeps the policy logic centralized while making caller behavior obvious. It also maps cleanly to your model: both unsupported checkpoint_version and unsupported min_checkpoint_version mean “this CLI cannot satisfy repo policy.”

Alternative: low-level store enforcement

Make checkpoint store writes reject unmet policy. This is tempting, but too blunt: hooks and CLI commands need different messaging, startup should warn without writing, and tests would need awkward bypasses for fixture setup.

Alternative: command-by-command checks

Patch attach, import, explain --generate, and each hook handler individually. Smallest immediate diff, but it will drift as new checkpoint-writing paths are added.

My recommendation is the first approach. It is the clearest model with the least hidden behavior: one policy evaluator, explicit caller modes, no policy decisions buried in storage.

Sources checked for hook behavior: Anthropic Claude Code hooks docs (stderr/exit-code behavior) and OpenAI Codex config docs for hook behavior: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/hooks https://developers.openai.com/codex/config-reference

Yes, good pushback. “One policy check” was sloppy wording.

What I mean is one policy evaluator, not one policy enforcer.

The evaluator answers only policy facts, independent of the caller:

Example outputs:

• no policy: no problems, WriteVersion: branch-v1
• checkpoint_version: refs-v1: problem UnsupportedCheckpointVersion
• min_checkpoint_version: refs-v1: problem UnsupportedMinCheckpointVersion
• both set unsupported: two problems

Then caller behavior is separate:

• normal CLI command: render warning, continue
• session-start: render stronger warning, continue
• explicit checkpoint writer: return blocking error
• non-startup hook: write hook-facing error and return non-zero

So the shared piece should not decide “warn vs block.” It should decide “is this policy satisfiable by this CLI, and what is wrong if not?” The caller maps that status to behavior.

You’re right. I mixed two axes.

The policy evaluator should not return “warn/block/fail-hook” kinds. Those are caller decisions. The evaluator should return one semantic result:

• policy can be satisfied by this CLI
• policy cannot be satisfied by this CLI

For the second question: no, I don’t think an array is necessary if the behavior is the same. We only need enough detail to produce a useful message.

A simpler shape would be:

Callers then only branch on Supported():

• normal CLI: warn and continue
• session-start: warn “no checkpoints will be created until upgrade” and continue
• checkpoint writer: block
• non-startup hook: return non-zero with the same “no checkpoints” message

The two fields are only for the message, not for behavior. If both are set, the message can name both policy fields. If you’d rather keep it even tighter, this could be one Unsupported bool plus a formatted reason string, but I’d keep the fields structured so tests don’t depend on prose.

You’re right. That was still muddled.

Cleaner model:

Then Supported is the behavioral result. Reason is diagnostic detail. Reason does not drive behavior.

But even that may be more state than we need. A tighter version is:

That makes the relationship explicit: one optional unsupported result. The two strings are not separate “behaviors”; they are details of the one unsupported condition.

I’d use this second shape. It avoids an array, avoids three result kinds, and still lets messages say exactly which configured field made the policy unsupported.

You’re right. Your AGENTS.md says to optimize for simplicity, maintainability, and clarity over perceived completeness. It explicitly says fewer concepts, fewer moving parts, and add structure only when the task forces it. My proposed structs added concepts before we had a real need.

I’d reduce it to one boolean helper, with a clear name:

Then caller behavior stays simple:

• session-start: if false, show “upgrade; no checkpoints will be created”
• other agent hooks: if false, fail loudly
• explicit checkpoint writers: if false, block
• normal CLI commands: if false, warn and continue

No result enum, no reason array, no diagnostic struct. If later we genuinely need field-specific messages, we can add state then.

The simpler model is now the baseline: one predicate like CanSatisfyPolicy(policy) and caller-specific behavior around it. One remaining edge matters before I propose options: Git hooks.

How should Git hooks behave when the policy cannot be satisfied?

I mean post-commit, prepare-commit-msg, pre-push, and deferred finalization paths. They are not agent hooks, but some of them create/update/push checkpoint data.

My recommended answer: treat Git hooks like agent checkpoint hooks: fail loudly when they would write or push checkpoint data, except for purely informational/no-op hook paths. That keeps “we will not create noncompliant checkpoints” consistent.

I’m checking Git’s actual hook behavior before folding Git hooks into the design, because this changes whether “fail loudly” is acceptable there.

Git docs confirm your assumption is right for pre-push: a non-zero exit aborts the push. post-commit is different: the commit has already been created, and Git treats that hook as notification-only.

Yes. Your assumption is right.

• pre-push: a failing hook blocks git push. Git’s docs say a non-zero pre-push exit aborts the push. So using this for checkpoint policy would block customers from pushing code.
• prepare-commit-msg / commit-msg: failing these can block git commit.
• post-commit: runs after the commit is already created. Git treats it as notification-only; I also verified locally that a post-commit hook exiting 7 still produced the commit and git commit exited 0.

This changes my recommendation for Git hooks: do not fail Git hooks for checkpoint policy. They should warn/log and skip checkpoint writes/pushes when policy cannot be satisfied, but not block the user’s Git workflow. The only current exception that makes sense is the existing OPF pre-push behavior, because that is a privacy/safety gate, not a checkpoint-version policy gate.

So the split becomes:

• Agent session-start: warn user that no Entire checkpoints will be created until upgrade.
• Other agent hooks: fail loudly/non-zero, because they are Entire’s capture path and don’t block Git operations directly.
• Explicit CLI checkpoint writes: block.
• Git hooks: warn/log, skip checkpoint writes/pushes, never block due to checkpoint policy.
• Other CLI commands: warn and continue.

Git docs: https://git-scm.com/docs/githooks

I agree. A single Git-hook behavior is simpler and more correct:

• If checkpoint policy cannot be satisfied, every Git hook returns early.
• It emits a warning only when there is an interactive terminal.
• It logs the reason in all cases.
• It returns exit code 0.

That avoids per-hook branching and avoids blocking commit/push. It also prevents inconsistent state, because prepare-commit-msg would not add a trailer for a checkpoint that post-commit then refuses to write.

For post-commit, I don’t see a meaningful benefit to returning an error code. Git won’t undo the commit, our installed hook already tends to hide post-commit failures, and editor/agent commit flows may not surface the output anyway. A non-zero code there mostly creates noise without changing the outcome.

So revised behavior matrix:

• Normal CLI commands: warn, continue.
• Explicit CLI checkpoint writers: block.
• Agent session-start: warn that no checkpoints will be created until upgrade.
• Other agent hooks: fail loudly/non-zero.
• Git hooks: warn/log, return early, exit 0.

This keeps Git hooks as one simple case: “policy unsupported means Entire checkpoint integration is disabled for this Git hook run.”

I’m moving from clarification into the approach comparison now. The key simplification we landed on is: policy support is one boolean, while behavior is chosen by the caller category.

Three implementation approaches from here:

Recommended: shared predicate, caller-owned behavior

Add one simple helper:

Then each surface handles it directly:

• normal CLI: warn and continue
• explicit checkpoint writers: return blocking error
• agent session-start: warn “no checkpoints until upgrade”
• other agent hooks: return non-zero with the same message
• Git hooks: warn/log, return early with exit 0

This matches your simplicity bar: one new concept, no result structs, no policy enums.

Alternative: central guard helper per mode

Something like EnsurePolicyForCheckpointWrite, WarnPolicyForCommand, CheckPolicyForHook. This reduces repeated call-site code, but creates more vocabulary and hides behavior behind names.

Alternative: enforce near storage writes

Reject unsupported policy near checkpoint store writes. This catches future writers automatically, but it is too blunt for Git hooks and startup warnings. It would need bypasses, which is a smell.

Recommendation: shared predicate, caller-owned behavior. It keeps the policy logic boring and makes the behavior obvious where the user impact happens.

I’ll present the design in small sections before any implementation planning. First is the policy model and command/hook behavior, then I’ll cover data flow, error text, and tests.

Design: Policy Model

Add one simple predicate in checkpointpolicy:

Meaning:

• checkpoint_version unsupported by this CLI: false
• min_checkpoint_version unsupported by this CLI: false
• invalid configured version: false, matching current warning behavior
• empty/unset values normalize to defaults and are supported

No result structs, no reason arrays, no enforcement modes. Existing helpers still handle the details:

• CheckpointVersion(policy) returns the version this CLI writes when policy is satisfiable.
• UnsupportedWrite(policy) and RequiresUpgrade(policy) remain the underlying facts.
• Message text can stay generic: “this repository requires checkpoint support newer than this CLI.”

Does this section look right?

Yes, that’s a useful distinction.

I’d keep the behavioral API simple and add a separate diagnostic helper, so callers do not use diagnostic strings to decide behavior:

Usage:

The message helper can include context like:

• checkpoint_version "refs-v1" is not writable by this Entire CLI; latest writable version is "branch-v1"
• checkpoint_min_version "refs-v1" is not readable by this Entire CLI; latest readable version is "branch-v1"
• If both are violated, include both lines.

This keeps behavior driven by one boolean and uses strings only for communication. The message helper can still be tested directly, but no caller branches on the message content.

Good, I’ll fold that into the design: one boolean predicate plus one diagnostic message helper whose output is only for users/logs. Next I’ll spell out caller behavior by surface.

Design: Caller Behavior

Use CanSatisfyPolicy(policy) everywhere, then map the boolean to caller behavior:

• Normal CLI commands: print the diagnostic upgrade warning, continue.
• Explicit checkpoint-writing CLI commands: print/return a blocking error.
  • entire session attach
  • entire checkpoint explain --generate
  • entire import <agent> unless --dry-run
• Agent session-start: show a hook response warning that no Entire checkpoints will be created until the CLI is upgraded, then exit 0.
• Other agent hooks: print hook-facing diagnostic output and return non-zero so the agent sees that checkpoint capture is disabled.
• Git hooks: log the policy violation, print a warning only for an interactive terminal, return early, and exit 0.

The important constraint: no caller should fall back to writing DefaultCheckpointVersion() when a policy exists but cannot be satisfied. Fallback defaults only apply when no policy exists, fields are unset, or the policy is satisfiable.

Does this behavior split look right?

Agreed. Simpler and clearer:

• entire import <agent> blocks when policy cannot be satisfied, including --dry-run.

Reason: even a dry run is validating whether this command could import under current repo policy. If policy says this CLI cannot write compliant checkpoints, the answer should be a clear failure instead of “would import” output that is not actionable.

Updated explicit checkpoint-writing CLI commands:

• entire session attach
• entire checkpoint explain --generate
• entire import <agent> including --dry-run

No dry-run exception.

I’ve updated the command behavior to make import uniformly blocking, including dry run. Next is the data flow and where the check should sit so the implementation stays small.

Design: Data Flow

Policy loading stays where it is today:

• CLI command paths use checkpointpolicy.ReadLocal(ctx, repo).
• Agent and Git hooks already have repository access in their hook runners or strategy paths.
• Remote policy sync remains pre-push / entire checkpoint policy behavior; this change should not add remote fetches to every command or hook.

New helper placement:

• checkpointpolicy.CanSatisfyPolicy(policy) lives beside UnsupportedWrite / RequiresUpgrade.
• checkpointpolicy.UnsupportedPolicyMessage(policy, updateCommand string) lives beside UpgradeWarning.
• CLI-level helpers can wrap policy load into purpose-specific functions, for example:
  • warnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded(...)
  • ensureCheckpointPolicyForWrite(...)
  • warnOrFailAgentHookForPolicy(...)
  • skipGitHookIfPolicyUnsupported(...)

The implementation should check early:

• attach: after opening repo, before transcript reads/redaction.
• explain --generate: before generating a summary, after repo/checkpoint resolution is clear enough to know it is a write.
• import: after opening repo, before discovery/redaction/import.
• agent hooks: after repo/enabled checks and logging setup, before parsing/dispatch work except session-start, which still parses enough to emit the native hook response if possible.
• Git hooks: in the Git hook command wrapper before dispatching to strategy.

Does this placement look right?

Placement is approved. I’m now covering the user-facing messages and error behavior, because that’s where “warn”, “block”, and “fail loudly” need to stay consistent without adding mechanics.

Design: Messages And Errors

Use one diagnostic message body, with a short prefix per context.

Base diagnostic content:

When possible, add setting-specific context:

Context-specific handling:

• Normal CLI warning: print to stderr, continue.
• Explicit CLI write block: return an error with the diagnostic message.
• session-start: hook response message says:
  • Entire CLI is enabled.
  • This repo requires newer checkpoint support.
  • No Entire checkpoints will be created until the CLI is upgraded.
  • Include upgrade command.
• Other agent hooks:
  • Write the same “no checkpoints” message to stderr.
  • Return non-zero.
• Git hooks:
  • Log the diagnostic message.
  • If interactive, print it to stderr.
  • Return nil.

No new exit-code type unless tests show Cobra/main needs it. Use normal errors unless a path already prints its own custom message and should avoid duplicate output.

Does this message/error design look right?

I’d make it direct and model-readable:

With setting context when available:

For session-start, I’d soften “capture is disabled” slightly because the session can continue:

For other agent hooks, use the louder stderr version and return non-zero.

I’ll keep the hook message direct and agent-readable, with setting details appended when available. Last design section is test coverage and docs before I write the spec.

Design: Tests And Docs

Focused tests:

• checkpointpolicy:

  • CanSatisfyPolicy returns false for unsupported checkpoint_version.
  • returns false for unsupported checkpoint_min_version.
  • returns true for defaults/unset supported policy.
  • diagnostic message includes latest writable/readable versions.

• CLI write blockers:

  • attach blocks before writing when policy cannot be satisfied.
  • checkpoint explain --generate blocks before summary write.
  • import <agent> blocks, including --dry-run.

• Agent hooks:

  • session-start exits 0 and writes the “no checkpoints until upgrade” hook response.
  • a non-start hook exits non-zero and emits the checkpoint-disabled message.

• Git hooks:

  • unsupported policy returns exit 0.
  • strategy write path is not invoked.
  • interactive stderr warning is covered where practical; otherwise log/early return behavior is enough.

Docs/help updates:

• entire checkpoint policy --help: clarify that unsupported configured checkpoint_version blocks checkpoint writes instead of falling back.
• Architecture docs: update the current advisory text to the new split.
• Import help: no special dry-run exception.

If this looks right, I’ll write the design spec next and self-review it.

I’ll write the approved design into the specs directory, then run a self-review pass for contradictions and scope creep. After that I’ll handle the commit gate cleanly.

There is no existing docs/superpowers/specs directory, so I’m creating that path for the brainstorming spec and keeping the new file scoped to this design only.

I’m writing the spec now with the simple policy predicate plus caller-owned behavior we agreed on.

The spec is written. I’m doing the required self-review now: placeholders, contradictions, scope, and ambiguity.

Self-review found no placeholders or obvious ambiguity, but the spec path appears to be ignored by Git, so it is not showing as an untracked change. I’m checking the ignore rule before deciding how to handle the commit requirement.

Using brainstorming for this design step. The behavior is approved enough to write down, but the skill requires a reviewed spec before implementation planning.

I’m checking the written spec and Git state now so I can hand you the exact review point instead of guessing from scrollback.

I wrote and self-reviewed the design spec here:

checkpoint policy enforcement design

It captures the agreed behavior: checkpoint-data writers block, session-start warns and exits 0, other agent hooks fail loudly, Git hooks skip checkpoint work and exit 0, and normal CLI commands warn and continue.

One practical note: docs/superpowers/ is ignored by .gitignore, so this spec is local-only and git status is clean. Please review/approve the spec before I move into the implementation plan, and decide whether it should stay ignored or be force-added/committed.

You’re right. I shouldn’t have offered to force-add or commit it.

I did not check it in, and git status was clean because docs/superpowers/ is ignored. I’ll treat the spec as a local ignored working artifact only, and I won’t suggest committing plan/spec files unless you explicitly ask for that.

Continuing from the local design artifact. I’m moving into an implementation plan now, and I’ll keep the plan out of Git per your AGENTS.md.

I’m using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan. I need a fresh read of the policy and hook surfaces before I write it, because this change spans CLI commands, agent hooks, Git hooks, docs, and tests.

The current policy package already has the two raw predicates, but callers still compose them manually and write paths still use the fallback helper. I’m checking the command and hook boundaries so the plan can keep the behavior centralized without inventing a larger policy result type.

The attach path currently reads policy and derives a fallback before resolving transcripts, which is exactly the place to turn into a block. The summary generation test still asserts fallback behavior, so that needs to become a blocking test rather than a helper-layer fallback.

For agent hooks, the least complex placement looks like the registry layer after parsing: session-start can still use the agent response writer, while every other hook can return one shared error before lifecycle code touches transcript or session state.

Policy reads default to “no policy” when the ref is absent, so missing policy remains simple. Corrupt/unreadable policy is still a separate read failure; I’ll keep that path fail-open for hooks and warning-only paths, but explicit writers need a focused decision in the implementation plan.

The Git hook command wrapper is the right choke point for the skip behavior. The strategy package also has tests asserting fallback writes today; those should be replaced or narrowed so we don’t keep a hidden fallback behavior around just because unit tests still encode it.

The current user-facing warning function already writes [entire]-prefixed text directly to a writer. For blocking commands, I’m planning to print that message explicitly and return a silent error where the command has access to stderr; for lower-level helpers, the error should stay concise so Cobra/main do not double-prefix noisy multi-line text.

I have enough source context to write the plan. I’m going to save it as an ignored local plan artifact under docs/superpowers/plans/, not as a tracked file.

One simplifying choice for the plan: make unsupported policy stop checkpoint writes at the caller boundary and also remove direct strategy fallback tests. That keeps the code from saying “blocked” in hooks while still silently writing defaults if another path reaches condensation.

For explain --generate, the policy check belongs in runExplainCheckpointWithLookup, not generateCheckpointSummary, because the summary helper only receives a writer store and no repository. That keeps policy evaluation where the repo is still available.

The existing explain fixture can still be reused, but the test should exercise runExplainCheckpointWithLookup or runExplainCheckpoint, since that’s the layer with repository access and the checkpoint ID resolution behavior.

One subtle point: Git pre-push is currently the online policy sync point. The plan should not put a local-only skip before that sync, or a stale local policy could miss the remote policy that is supposed to disable checkpoint pushes.

I found one justified hook-specific placement: pre-push has to refresh policy first, then skip checkpoint push work if the refreshed local policy is unsatisfied. The other Git hooks can use the shared early skip before strategy dispatch.

I saved the plan locally. I’m running the plan self-review now and will clean up any placeholder-shaped guidance before I hand it back.

The self-review caught a bad placeholder-style helper in the hook section. I’m fixing the plan so the implementation guidance names real helpers and does not smuggle in undefined code.

The local plan is now cleaned up around the undefined helper. I’m doing the full self-review pass against placeholders, type consistency, and ignored-file status.

The remaining self-review hit was only the expected red-test wording, not a placeholder, but I’m tightening it so the scan is clean.

The plan review also exposed a strategy-package mismatch: it referenced the CLI package’s sentinel error from strategy tests, which would be the wrong package boundary. I’m correcting that and making the condensation change explicit.

There was one more strategy-package wording issue in the test step. I’m removing the sentinel reference entirely and keeping it to error text inside the strategy package.

Implementation plan is written and self-reviewed here:

checkpoint policy enforcement plan

It is ignored under docs/superpowers/; git status is still clean. The plan uses step-by-step execution with four commit points:

• clarify checkpoint policy satisfaction
• block checkpoint data writers on policy
• gate hooks on checkpoint policy
• document checkpoint policy enforcement

Review/approve the plan, and I’ll start Task 1.

Using executing-plans to execute the approved plan task-by-task. I’m starting Task 1 only, then I’ll stop at its review checkpoint.

I’m reviewing the approved plan before editing. If I spot an implementation issue in Task 1, I’ll stop before touching code; otherwise I’ll follow the red-to-green steps exactly.

The plan is coherent enough for Task 1. I’m adding only the policy predicate/message tests first, then I’ll run the focused red test before implementing.

I’m editing the policy tests now. This is intentionally just the red test surface from the approved plan.

Tests are added. Next I’m running the exact focused red test from the plan.

The red test failed for the expected reason: the predicate and message helper do not exist yet. I’m implementing those helpers and switching the normal warning path to use them.

I’m editing the policy package and warning wrapper now. The behavior decision remains a single boolean; the extra string is only for user-facing context.

The policy helper is in place. I’m updating the existing CLI warning path to consume it so normal commands get the same detail text.

Implementation is done for Task 1. I’m formatting the touched Go files before running the focused verification.

Formatting completed with no output. I’m running the focused verification from the plan now.

Focused tests passed. Since Task 1 touched production Go code, I’m also running a compile check before calling the checkpoint reviewable.

The compile check also passed with no output. I’m reviewing the Task 1 diff now so I can stop at the planned checkpoint with the actual changed surface.

Task 1 is at the review checkpoint. I added CanSatisfyPolicy and UnsupportedPolicyMessage, plus focused tests, and switched the normal CLI warning path to use the new helper.

Verification:

• Red test first: go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy -run 'Test(CanSatisfyPolicy|UnsupportedPolicyMessage)' -count=1 failed on missing symbols as expected.
• Focused tests: go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'Test(CanSatisfyPolicy|UnsupportedPolicyMessage|UpgradeWarning|WarnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded|ShouldCheckCheckpointPolicyWarning)' -count=1 passed.
• Build: go build ./cmd/entire passed.

Changed files:

• cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy/policy.go
• cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy/warning_test.go
• cmd/entire/cli/checkpoint_policy_warning.go

No commit made. Review this checkpoint, then tell me whether to commit and continue.

Using using-entire for a quick source-backed answer. I’ll check current references before giving a conclusion.

I’m checking both the current references and whether any cross-package use remains. If all references are internal to checkpointpolicy, it can be unexported.

No. Based on current references, it only remains exported because strategy/checkpoint_policy.go still calls checkpointpolicy.UpgradeWarning(...).

Conceptually, after adding UnsupportedPolicyMessage, UpgradeWarning is just an internal formatting primitive. I should switch that strategy call to UnsupportedPolicyMessage(...), then rename UpgradeWarning to upgradeWarning and update its test to exercise the public helper instead. That keeps the package API smaller and clearer.

Agreed. I’m going to inline the base warning inside UnsupportedPolicyMessage, remove the exported function, and update the remaining strategy caller to use the public diagnostic helper.

I’m editing the helper now and tightening the strategy warning condition to use the same predicate.

The exported function is removed. I’m updating the remaining strategy caller so there is no cross-package dependency on the old helper.

Now I’m checking for any remaining UpgradeWarning references and then rerunning the focused tests plus build.

There are no remaining UpgradeWarning references. I’m running the focused verification including the strategy tests touched by the caller update.

Focused tests and build passed. I’m checking the diff/stat once more so the checkpoint summary reflects the current changed surface.

Done. UpgradeWarning is gone completely rather than made private. The base warning is now inlined inside UnsupportedPolicyMessage, and the remaining strategy caller uses UnsupportedPolicyMessage directly.

Verification:

• rg -n "UpgradeWarning\\(" cmd/entire/cli -g '*.go' found no references.
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'Test(CanSatisfyPolicy|UnsupportedPolicyMessage|WarnCheckpointPolicyIfNeeded|ShouldCheckCheckpointPolicyWarning)' -count=1 passed.
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -run 'Test(PrePushWarnsAndPushesWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|PrePushWarnsAndPushesWhenPolicyDiverged|SyncCheckpointPolicyForPrePushUsesPushTarget)' -count=1 passed.
• go build ./cmd/entire passed.

Current Task 1 checkpoint now includes cmd/entire/cli/strategy/checkpoint_policy.go as well because that was the only remaining external caller.

I’ll commit the Task 1 checkpoint, then start Task 2 and stop at its review checkpoint.

Task 1 is committed as 65d37366a5. I’m starting Task 2 by adding the failing writer tests first, as planned.

I’m modifying the attach, explain, and import tests to assert blocking instead of default-version fallback.

I found the existing fallback tests. I’m replacing those assertions rather than adding parallel overlapping cases, so the test suite stops encoding the old behavior.

The attach fallback test now expects an error and no session state. I’m adding a shared test helper for unsupported local policy so the other writer tests use the same setup.

The nearby anchor I guessed doesn’t exist. I’m reading the bottom of attach_test.go and placing the helper next to the existing setup helpers.

I’m inserting the shared unsupported-policy helper just before the attach repo setup helper.

Next I’m changing the explain summary-generation test to assert that unsupported policy prevents the metadata branch from advancing.

I’m adding the import dry-run blocking test now. This covers the user’s explicit “dry-run should fail too” requirement.

Writer tests are updated. I’m formatting those test files and then running the red test command from the plan.

The first red run hit a test compile issue from removing the last direct checkpointpolicy use in explain_test.go, not the intended behavior failure. I’m fixing the unused import and rerunning the same red test.

explain_test.go no longer uses that package directly. I’m removing the import.

The unused import is removed; I’m rerunning the red test command.

The red test now fails for the intended reason: all three writer paths still allow unsupported policy. I’m implementing the shared writer guard and wiring it into attach, explain generate, and import.

I’m replacing the old fallback-only checkpoint-version helper with two explicit helpers: one returns the version for writes, and one just validates that checkpoint data may be written.

The shared guard is in place. I’m wiring attach to ask for a supported checkpoint version before it resolves or reads transcripts.

Attach is wired. I’m adding the same guard to explain --generate before it opens the write store or starts summary generation.

The generate path is guarded. I’m adding the import guard before transcript discovery/redaction, including dry-run.

The three writer paths are wired. I’m formatting the touched files and then running the focused verification for Task 2.

Formatting completed. I’m running the Task 2 focused test set now.

Focused Task 2 tests passed. Since this changed production code, I’m running the compile check before the review checkpoint.

The build passed with no output. I’m reviewing the Task 2 diff now and then I’ll stop at the planned checkpoint.

One cleanup before the checkpoint: the approved plan included currentCheckpointPolicy in Task 2, but it is only needed by Task 3. I’m removing that unused helper from this checkpoint so this step does not carry future-only code.

That future-only helper is removed. I’m rerunning the focused Task 2 tests and build after the cleanup.

The focused tests and build still pass. I’m taking the final Task 2 diff snapshot now.

The Task 2 diff is scoped to the three writer paths and shared guard. I’m marking this checkpoint complete and stopping for review.

Committed Task 1 as 65d37366a5 (clarify checkpoint policy satisfaction).

Task 2 is now at the review checkpoint. It adds the shared checkpoint-data write guard and wires it into:

• entire session attach
• entire checkpoint explain --generate
• entire import <agent>, including --dry-run

I also replaced the old fallback tests with blocking tests.

Verification:

• Red test first failed as expected after fixing one unused test import.
• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'Test(AttachBlocksWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|RunExplainGenerateBlocksWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|ImportClaudeCodeDryRunBlocksWhenPolicyWriteUnsupported|Attach_Success|GenerateCheckpointSummary_AdvancesV1Metadata|ImportClaudeCode_DryRunReportsCounts)' -count=1 passed.
• go build ./cmd/entire passed.

No Task 2 commit made yet. Review this checkpoint, then tell me whether to commit and continue.

You’re right. The writer guard uses CanSatisfyPolicy, but unsupportedCheckpointPolicyError still has a defensive message == "" branch. That branch does not currently decide whether to block, but it is still the wrong shape because it lets message content influence error construction. I’m removing it so the predicate remains the only behavioral source of truth.

The only in-scope message-based branch is in checkpoint_policy_write.go. I’m removing that branch; the helper will only format the error after callers have already decided with CanSatisfyPolicy.

The message-content branch is gone. I’m rerunning the focused writer tests and build to keep the checkpoint verified.

Focused tests and build passed after the cleanup. I’m checking the remaining references again so we can verify no caller branches on UnsupportedPolicyMessage.

Fixed. The only message-content branch was in unsupportedCheckpointPolicyError; it’s removed now.

Current shape:

• Behavior gates use checkpointpolicy.CanSatisfyPolicy(...).
• UnsupportedPolicyMessage(...) is only used after that to format output/errors.
• No caller branches on the returned message.

Verification:

• Focused writer tests passed.
• go build ./cmd/entire passed.

I’ll commit the Task 2 checkpoint, then start Task 3 and stop at its review checkpoint. First I’m doing the quick commit-time checks from the current tree.

The diff is scoped to Task 2. The only UnsupportedPolicyMessage call in the writer guard is formatting after the CanSatisfyPolicy decision; there is no message-content branch. I’m running lint before committing.

Lint passed. The focused tests and build are still valid from the last Task 2 run, with no source changes since. I’m committing this checkpoint now.

Task 2 is committed as c553b613ed. I’m starting Task 3 by checking the exact hook payload formats before adding tests; this avoids writing red tests that fail for the wrong reason.

I’m reading the hook parsers and setup helpers now so the tests exercise real hook behavior rather than malformed payloads.

Claude Code has the simplest normalized hook payloads for these tests. I’m reading its parser to build valid session-start and user-prompt-submit payloads.

I’m making the session-start test actually red by asserting the hook does not claim/write session state when policy is unsupported. A pure “exits 0” assertion would pass before the implementation and miss the behavior change.

I can reuse the repo enable and unsupported-policy helpers from the existing CLI tests. I’m adding the two agent-hook tests now.

The agent tests are in place. For Git hooks I need a test that proves strategy work was skipped; a no-error post-commit test would already pass today. I’m checking existing prepare-commit-msg tests for the smallest setup that makes current hooks mutate something.

Continuing from the Task 3 checkpoint: I’m going to finish the hook-policy gating work and make sure the logic branches only on CanSatisfyPolicy, with messages used strictly for output.

I’ve confirmed the working tree only has the new agent hook tests so far. I’m loading the execution-plan guidance again after the context handoff, then I’ll add the red tests for Git/pre-push and implement the narrow policy gate.

I’m using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan. This environment has no active subagent workflow loaded for this step, so I’ll keep the task bounded and verify directly against source and focused tests.

The current plan still matches the user’s latest correction: behavior decisions must use CanSatisfyPolicy, while UnsupportedPolicyMessage is only display text. I’m reading the remaining task details before editing so the next checkpoint stays aligned.

Task 3’s plan has a couple of test-shape details that need tightening: a post-commit “returns nil” test would pass even before the change, so I’m using a commit-msg case that currently errors on an invalid checkpoint trailer. That gives us a real red test for “skip Git hook work when policy is unsupported.”

I’m also treating the latest “source of truth” note as review feedback, so I’m checking that workflow before changing code. The concrete implication is simple: every branch will test CanSatisfyPolicy; message helpers can appear only after that decision has already been made.

I’m going test-first for the remaining behavior. I’ll add focused tests that fail for the current implementation, then make the smallest production changes to satisfy them.

One nuance I’m preserving: unreadable policy data remains fail-open. Only a readable policy that CanSatisfyPolicy returns false for changes behavior. That keeps corrupted/missing policy reads from blocking hooks accidentally.

I checked the commit-msg hook before adding that test shape; it ignores malformed checkpoint trailers because the parser only reports “found” for valid trailers. I’ll instead use a case where the hook currently mutates the commit message, and assert it leaves the file unchanged when policy is unsupported.

I’m about to edit only the hook-policy tests first: agent hook tests already exist from the prior step, so I’ll add the Git hook mutation guard and flip the pre-push expectation from “pushes anyway” to “warns and skips checkpoint push.”

The Git hook test now proves the skipped path by checking that commit-msg does not strip an Entire trailer under an unsupported policy. Next I’m updating the pre-push test to expect the checkpoint branch not to be pushed.

I’m also replacing the remaining fallback-write assertions in strategy tests. For eager stop condensation, the existing contract is fail-open, so the useful assertion is that it does not mark the session fully condensed or write default-version metadata.

The direct strategy tests will now fail until CondenseSession rejects unsupported readable policy. I’m keeping the eager stop API’s fail-open contract intact and testing the observable state instead of changing that contract.

The failing-test set is in place. I’m formatting those test files and running the focused tests now; the expected result is failure in the unsupported-policy paths because production code has not been updated yet.

Formatting only touched the intended test files. Running the red suite now.

The red run failed for the intended reasons: agent hooks still dispatch, commit-msg still strips the trailer, condensation still writes with a fallback, finalize still updates, and pre-push still pushes. I’m moving to the minimal production changes now.

I’m checking the shared hook event and response interfaces before patching so the gate sits at the existing command boundary and doesn’t introduce a new result type.

There isn’t a CLI-package stderrWriter, so the agent hook helper will use the command’s ErrOrStderr() writer for plain fallback output and the agent hook-response writer when the agent supports structured session-start responses.

I’m patching the command-boundary gates now. The implementation will avoid a new policy-result abstraction: open repo, read policy through the existing helper, branch on CanSatisfyPolicy, then either warn/skip/fail depending on the caller.

Agent hooks now make the policy decision before lifecycle dispatch. I’m applying the same skip-at-command-boundary pattern to Git hooks, with pre-push left to sync first in the strategy layer.

One small compile fix in that patch: I used a non-existent stderr wrapper. The Git hook warning should just write to os.Stderr when the process is interactive.

For strategy, I’m adding one boolean gate after pre-push policy sync and tightening the warning log text so it no longer implies a fallback version is being used after we decide to skip.

Pre-push will still refresh policy first; the new gate sits immediately after that sync and before OPF/checkpoint push work.

Now I’m removing the last fallback-write behavior in strategy condensation: readable unsupported policy becomes an error before any checkpoint extraction/write work starts.

The turn-finalization path also writes checkpoint metadata, so I’m making it skip with an error count when it sees a readable unsupported policy.

The production changes are in. I’m doing a quick source audit before running green tests to catch any accidental behavior branch on message content.

The audit shows message helpers are only used for formatting; the decisions in the changed paths are CanSatisfyPolicy. I’m running the focused green suite now.

The first green run hit a compile error: manual_commit_hooks.go didn’t already import checkpointpolicy. I’m adding that import and rerunning the same focused suite.

I’m keeping the import change local to the file that now does the policy check; no wider helper needed.

The compile import is fixed. Rerunning the focused hook and strategy tests.

The run exposed two real cleanup issues in my implementation: session-start warning returned nil but didn’t stop dispatch, and the direct condensation test’s “no metadata” assertion conflicts with the fixture’s existing setup. I’m fixing the first in production and narrowing the second to the behavior we actually need: condensation returns the unsupported-policy error.

I’m changing the agent hook gate to return a clearly named allow/deny boolean plus an error. At the call site the boolean is stored as policyAllowsCheckpointWork, so the meaning is visible without opening the helper.

I’m removing the fixture-sensitive “no read” assertion from the condensation test. The meaningful behavior is the direct error from CondenseSession; the other tests cover that eager/finalize callers don’t continue as if the write succeeded.

Those two adjustments are in. I’m formatting and rerunning the same focused suite.

The focused hook/strategy suite is green now. I’m running a relevant build next, then I’ll review the diff for accidental complexity or message-based branching before stopping at the checkpoint.

While reviewing the diff, I found a tiny cleanup: finalization checks policy satisfaction explicitly, so the following satisfied-path warning call is dead code. I’m removing that and checking pre-push warning flow for duplicate user output.

I’m separating responsibilities in pre-push: sync reports sync/divergence problems; the post-sync gate reports unsupported policy and decides whether to skip. That avoids duplicate upgrade warnings while keeping CanSatisfyPolicy as the behavior source.

I’m also removing the dead satisfied-path warning call from finalization.

Those cleanups are in. I’m rerunning the focused tests and build after formatting.

The focused tests and build pass. I’m reviewing the final Task 3 diff now and checking status so I can hand you a clean checkpoint without committing yet.

One more issue surfaced in review: Claude’s post-todo hook is a nil-event special case but still writes checkpoint data. It needs the same unsupported-policy failure as other non-startup agent hooks, so I’m adding a focused test and gating that branch too.

post-todo is parsed outside the generic lifecycle event path, so I’m adding a direct executeAgentHook(..., post-todo) test that fails on unsupported policy before any subagent setup matters. Then I’ll gate that special branch using the same policy helper.

The test only needs a syntactically valid post-todo payload because the policy gate should fire before handleClaudeCodePostTodo parses or writes. I’m checking the payload fields to keep it realistic.

That name is doing two bad jobs: it sounds like a pure predicate, but the function also emits user output and can return an error. I’m renaming/reframing it around the actual side effect: handle unsupported policy and tell the caller whether to skip hook work.

I renamed it to handleUnsupportedAgentHookPolicy and flipped the boolean to skipHook, which matches what the caller actually does. I’m also making the return name explicit in the signature so it doesn’t read like an opaque (bool, error) pair.

There’s still one uncovered path: Claude post-todo is a nil lifecycle event but can create incremental checkpoints. I’m adding a red test for that special hook before gating it.

The post-todo test is added. I’m formatting and running just that test to confirm it catches the missing gate.

The post-todo red test failed, but on the message assertion: it returned an error before writing the checkpoint-disabled output. I’ll still gate before the special handler so unsupported policy gets the intended user-facing error.

I’m changing the helper to take the hook event type rather than the whole event, so the same gate can cover both parsed lifecycle events and Claude’s nil-event post-todo special case.

The post-todo gate is now before the special handler. I’m formatting and rerunning the hook-focused tests plus the strategy suite again.

The renamed hook gate and the post-todo coverage are green with the same focused suite and go build ./cmd/entire. I’m doing one last diff/status read, then I’ll stop at the Task 3 review checkpoint.

The review diff is scoped to Task 3. I’m running mise run lint now as the broader Go check before handing this checkpoint back.

Task 3 is at review checkpoint, not committed.

I fixed the naming issue by replacing agentHookPolicyAllowsCheckpointWork() with handleUnsupportedAgentHookPolicy(...) (skipHook bool, err error), so the helper now reads as a side-effecting policy handler rather than a pure predicate.

Implemented:

• Agent hooks: session-start warns/skips capture; turn-start and post-todo fail with checkpoint-disabled output.
• Git hooks: prepare/commit/post-commit/post-rewrite skip checkpoint work and exit 0 when policy is unsupported.
• Pre-push: syncs policy first, then skips checkpoint pushes when the refreshed local policy is unsupported.
• Strategy writes/finalization: no default-version fallback for readable unsupported policy.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -run 'Test(...)' -count=1 exited 0.
• go build ./cmd/entire exited 0.
• mise run lint exited 0, including golangci-lint: 0 issues.

Ready for your review.

I’m using the brainstorming skill here because this is naming/design work.

Agreed. Three better names:

• checkpointPolicySkipsAgentHook() Clear about the return value: true means skip this hook because policy disallows checkpoint work.

• shouldSkipAgentHookForPolicy() Very explicit at the call site: if shouldSkipAgentHookForPolicy(...) { return nil }.

• checkAgentHookCheckpointPolicy() Best if it still emits warnings/errors. It reads less like a pure predicate and more like a guard that may have side effects.

My pick: shouldSkipAgentHookForPolicy() if we keep the boolean return. If we want to make the side effects obvious, use checkAgentHookCheckpointPolicy().

I’ll rename the helper and keep the call-site boolean as skipHook, so both the function and caller read in the same direction.

The rename is applied. I’m running the hook-focused tests to catch any missed reference.

Renamed it to shouldSkipAgentHookForPolicy.

Verification: go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'Test(ExecuteAgentHookSessionStartSkipsCaptureWhenPolicyUnsupported|ExecuteAgentHookTurnStartFailsWhenPolicyUnsupported|ExecuteAgentHookPostTodoFailsWhenPolicyUnsupported)' -count=1 exited 0.

I’ll verify the current hook path first. If there isn’t already a repo object in scope, I’ll leave the open call alone rather than threading a repository through unrelated setup.

There isn’t a repository object in the current agent-hook path. The only thing already resolved before the policy check is the worktree root; I’m checking whether reusing that root avoids a repeated lookup without threading a repo object through the hook pipeline.

The worktree root is already cached by paths.WorktreeRoot, so this is not repeating the git command. It still re-opens the go-git repository, though. I’m checking whether there’s a small change that reuses the already-resolved root without adding a repo object to the whole hook call chain.

There isn’t an existing repo object in the agent hook path, but there is an already-resolved worktree root from the initial “am I in a repo?” check. I can make the small version of this: keep opening the repo once when policy needs to be checked, but use gitrepo.OpenPath(worktreeRoot) instead of calling gitrepo.OpenCurrent(ctx) again.

That change is applied. It does not create a repository cache or new shared state; it just reuses the root already found by executeAgentHook. I’m running the focused tests now.

There wasn’t an existing repo object to reuse, but there was an existing worktreeRoot.

I changed executeAgentHook to keep that root from the initial repo check and pass it into shouldSkipAgentHookForPolicy, which now uses gitrepo.OpenPath(worktreeRoot) instead of gitrepo.OpenCurrent(ctx). That avoids re-resolving the current repo path without adding broader plumbing or caching.

Verification: focused hook policy tests exited 0.

I’ll commit the Task 3 hook-policy checkpoint after rerunning the required quick checks, then start Task 4.

The focused tests and build are clean. I’m running lint before committing, since this checkpoint touches Go production code.

Lint passed. I’m committing the hook-policy checkpoint now with the planned commit subject.

The commit was blocked by sandbox permissions on the shared .git/worktrees/.../index.lock. I’m rerunning the same add+commit with elevated filesystem access so Git can write its metadata.

Committed a117171c4b gate hooks on checkpoint policy. I’m starting Task 4 now by updating the help/output tests first, then I’ll run them red before changing help text/docs.

I’m updating only the checkpoint-policy help/output tests first. These should fail against the current fallback wording before I touch the command/help implementation.

The tests now express the new wording and output expectation. I’m running them red before changing the implementation.

The help/output tests fail for the old fallback language as expected. I’m updating the command help, unsupported formatting, import help, and the architecture doc now.

I’m replacing the old fallback language with the blocking behavior in the user-facing help. The display helper will mark unsupported configured checkpoint_version as unsupported without saying it will write a fallback.

I’m adding the same policy note to the import command help so users see that even dry-run obeys unsupported policy.

Next I’m updating the architecture doc’s checkpoint policy section to match the actual hook and writer behavior we implemented.

The command and docs are updated. I’m running the focused help/output tests plus import-related tests now.

The implementation is correct, but the help test is intentionally checking a contiguous phrase and the help text wrapped between “client” and “configures”. I’m adjusting the help string so the key policy sentence is searchable as written.

I’m rerunning the focused help/import tests after that text adjustment.

The next assertion catches the same wrapping issue for “commands that create checkpoint data...”. I’m keeping that phrase contiguous too.

I’m rerunning the focused tests again after the help text wrapping fix.

The checkpoint policy help/output tests pass. I noticed the import help text change doesn’t have a focused test yet, so I’m going to cover that too before calling this checkpoint done.

I’m adding a small import help test so the policy note doesn’t drift. This is a documentation assertion, not a production seam.

I’m running the expanded focused test set now, including the new import help assertion.

The focused CLI tests pass. I’m running build and lint for the Task 4 code/help changes before showing the review diff.

The build and broader focused test set passed. I’m running lint on the changed tree now.

Lint passed. I’m reviewing the final Task 4 diff and status before stopping for your checkpoint review.

Committed Task 3 as a117171c4b gate hooks on checkpoint policy.

Task 4 is now at review checkpoint, uncommitted. It updates:

• checkpoint_policy.go: help text and unsupported display now describe blocking behavior, not fallback writes.
• import_cmd.go: import help documents policy blocking, including --dry-run.
• sessions-and-checkpoints.md: docs now match agent hook, Git hook, and explicit writer behavior.
• Added/updated focused tests for checkpoint policy help/output and import help.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'TestCheckpointPolicyCmd_|TestImportClaudeCode' -count=1 exited 0.
• Broader focused go test ./cmd/entire/cli/checkpointpolicy ./cmd/entire/cli ./cmd/entire/cli/strategy -run 'Test(...)' -count=1 exited 0.
• go build ./cmd/entire exited 0.
• mise run lint exited 0 with golangci-lint: 0 issues.

Ready for review before committing Task 4.

I’ll commit the Task 4 docs/help checkpoint first. The prior focused tests, build, and lint are still valid because nothing changed after that verification. Then I’ll run pfleidi:review against origin/main.

I’ll commit the current documentation/help checkpoint first, then run the review workflow against origin/main since this was the last planned regular change.

The checkpoint diff matches the planned documentation/help update. I’m using the prior focused test/build/lint results for this checkpoint because the tree has not changed since those runs.

Committed as 6f06a73ac9. I’m moving into the branch review now and will use origin/main as the comparison base, per the review workflow.

I’ve read the review workflow. Next I’m collecting the current origin/main diff, branch commits, PR context, and the Go dead-code signal before launching the review agents.

The review surface is 31 files. gh pr view could not find a GitHub remote in this worktree, so PR context will be no PR found; deadcode -test ./... produced broad pre-existing-looking output, so I’m narrowing that signal before treating any of it as review input.

The broad dead-code pass is noisy outside this branch’s surface. I’m running package-scoped filters so only findings in the changed CLI/API areas survive into the review context.

I’ll switch to resolving the merge state. First I’m checking the conflicted paths and any still-running review probes so I don’t step on the repository while Git is mid-merge.

There is one conflicted file: cmd/entire/cli/explain.go. The other paths are cleanly merged changes from main, so I’m focusing on that one conflict and preserving both sides where they are compatible.

The conflict is narrow: main added imported-checkpoint handling around explain generation, and this branch added checkpoint policy gating in the same block. The correct resolution should keep both checks before summary generation.

I’m resolving the block by keeping the early imported-checkpoint rejection from main and adding this branch’s policy gate right before opening the writable checkpoint store. That avoids a duplicate imported check while preserving the new write-policy behavior.

The conflict markers are removed and the file is formatted. I’m running a focused package test plus a build now, because this conflict touched the explain command’s write path and signatures merged from main.

Focused verification passed: the CLI package tests for explain/policy/import paths exited 0, and go build ./cmd/entire exited 0. rg returned exit 1 because there are no conflict markers left.

The resolved diff is just the intended combination: keep main’s early imported-history rejection and keep this branch’s ensureCheckpointPolicyAllowsCheckpointData guard before the write store opens. I’m staging only cmd/entire/cli/explain.go to mark the merge conflict resolved.

explain.go is staged as resolved. I’m doing one final status check to make sure there are no remaining unmerged paths.

Resolved the merge conflict in explain.go and staged it, so Git no longer reports any unmerged paths.

Resolution kept both intended behaviors:

• main’s early rejection for imported checkpoints before loading transcript content.
• This branch’s checkpoint policy gate before opening the writable checkpoint store for --generate.

Verification:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'Test(Explain|RunExplain|CheckpointPolicy|ImportClaudeCode)' -count=1 exited 0.
• go build ./cmd/entire exited 0.
• No conflict markers remain.

I’ll finish the merge commit now. I’m checking the staged state once more so the commit records the merge resolution rather than accidentally creating a partial commit.

There are no unmerged paths. The staged diff is the pulled-in main changes plus the resolved explain.go merge hunk, so I’m completing the merge commit with Git’s merge message.

Merge commit succeeded as 93b03f980e. I’m checking the final tree state now.

Committed the merge resolution.

Commit: 93b03f980e
Message: Merge branch 'main' of entire://aws-us-east-2.entire.io/gh/entireio/cli into checkpoint-policy-fixes

Working tree is clean. Verification before commit:

• go test ./cmd/entire/cli -run 'Test(Explain|RunExplain|CheckpointPolicy|ImportClaudeCode)' -count=1 exited 0
• go build ./cmd/entire exited 0

I’m using pfleidi:review and will review the current branch against origin/main directly. I’ll collect the live diff, commit context, PR context, and dead-code signal first, then launch the review agents.

The live diff is 31 files, all in the checkpoint-policy surface. PR context is unavailable because this worktree’s remotes are not recognized by gh; the full dead-code pass is broad and noisy, so I’ll treat it cautiously and verify anything before reporting it.

The scoped dead-code pass still reports only existing functions outside the changed policy paths; I’ll pass that as “no source-verified branch finding yet” rather than treating the raw output as a finding. I’m loading the referenced Go testing guidance for the clean-Go lens before launching agents.

Review context is ready: Go target is 1.26.4, PR context is unavailable, and the changed surface is checkpoint policy plus hook/strategy enforcement. I’m discovering the multi-agent tool now so the lenses can run in parallel as the skill requires.

Launching the five first-pass review agents now.

First-pass agents are running: security, correctness, simplification, readability, and clean-Go. While they work, I’m doing the main-thread source read on the policy decision points so I can verify or discard agent findings quickly when they return.

I’ve read the main changed policy gates. A point I’m checking closely is the division between CLI git-hook gating and strategy pre-push behavior, since pre-push syncs policy before deciding whether checkpoint push work should proceed.

The main-thread read did not surface an obvious critical issue yet. I’m now waiting on the first-pass agents so I can synthesize their independent findings and then run the second-pass coverage sweep.

I accidentally spawned one extra placeholder explorer while reaching for the agent wait tool. It has no review task and I’ll ignore it; I’m looking up the wait/list tool now.

Waiting for the five real review agents now; the accidental placeholder is not part of the review set.

Readability returned two Improvements and no Required findings. I’m waiting for the remaining security, correctness, simplification, and clean-Go agents before launching the independent coverage sweep.

Security flagged one Required candidate: explicit writers currently fall back to defaults when the local policy ref is unreadable. I’m verifying that against ReadLocal and the call sites before accepting it, while the remaining agents continue.

The security finding checks out: a missing policy ref is non-error defaults, but malformed/unreadable policy refs return errors. The current writer helper collapses those errors to defaults, which contradicts blocking checkpoint-data writers.

Simplification returned one Improvement around duplicate pre-push repo reads. I’m still waiting on correctness and clean-Go, then I’ll run the independent coverage sweep before deciding fixes.

Clean-Go independently confirmed the same fail-open policy-read issue. The caller behavior is inferable from the branch intent, but I’ll still let the coverage pass check it independently before marking autofix eligibility.

All first-pass agents are back. I’m launching the required second-pass coverage agent now, without passing the first-pass findings, so it can independently sweep the changed paths.

The coverage agent could not be launched because the multi-agent thread limit was already reached, including my accidental placeholder. I’ll do the required second-pass sweep in the main thread now, then proceed with only source-verified findings.

For the second pass I’m checking the failure-mode edges directly: unreadable policy refs, explicit writers, agent hooks, Git hooks, and the ordinary warning path. If the fix stays narrow, I’ll patch only that Required issue.

Second-pass verification confirms the Required issue. The minimal fix is to stop using the same fail-open policy read for checkpoint-data writers and agent hooks; Git hooks can keep skip-with-zero-exit behavior.

Required

Improvements (follow-up)

Summary: 1 Required finding and 3 follow-up Improvements. I’m fixing only the Required issue now.

Planned Autofix

I’ll keep the patch tight: no follow-up improvements, no rename churn. First I’m checking whether there is an ignored local artifact directory; if not, the review ledger stays in the final response as n/a.

./tmp exists, but I’ll only use it if it is already ignored. The implementation change will update the writer policy helper and one focused test helper path for malformed policy setup.

I’m applying the fix now. The writer helper will return a typed “unsupported policy” error for policy read failures; agent hooks will turn that into the existing warning/failure shape; Git hooks will skip checkpoint work on unreadable policy without returning a non-zero status.

The explicit writer helper now fails closed on read errors. Next I’m adapting agent and Git hook callers so they keep their caller-specific behavior instead of falling back to defaults.

Agent hooks now distinguish unsupported policy from unreadable policy while preserving the same skip/fail split. I’m changing Git hooks to skip checkpoint work when policy can’t be read, still returning success to Git.

The CLI hook wrapper is fixed. There’s also a strategy-level policy read used by condensation/finalization, so I’m checking that path rather than leaving the same fail-open behavior one layer down.

The same read helper is used inside strategy condensation/finalization, so I’m fixing that too: checkpoint writes fail/skip on unreadable policy, while pre-push still exits successfully after skipping checkpoint push work.

The strategy helper now reports policy read errors. I’m updating the two write paths that consume it so they treat read errors as blocked checkpoint work rather than silently continuing.

Production code now fails closed for checkpoint writes on unreadable policy and skips Git hook work without blocking Git. I’m adding focused tests for malformed policy on an explicit writer, an agent hook, and a Git hook.

The shared test helper writes a malformed policy.json commit to the policy ref. I’m wiring it into the three focused caller tests now.

The explicit import writer test now covers the malformed policy bypass. I’m adding agent hook coverage for both session-start warning/skip and non-start failure.

Agent hook tests cover the two hook modes. I’m adding the Git hook test to make sure malformed policy skips checkpoint work without blocking Git.

The CLI-level tests are in place. Since the strategy condensation path also writes checkpoint data, I’m adding one narrow strategy test for malformed policy to guard the lower-level path too.

Agreed. An unreadable policy and an unsupported policy are different failure modes. I’ll keep both blocking checkpoint-data writes, but change the read-failure path to return a read-specific error like checkpoint policy could not be read: ... instead of wrapping it as an unsupported policy/version error.

I’m changing the sentinel/error split now: unsupported policy remains checkpoint policy cannot be satisfied by this Entire CLI; unreadable policy becomes checkpoint policy could not be read: .... The tests should assert the read-specific text.

Yes, that’s the right distinction. I renamed the helper to unreadableCheckpointPolicyError and introduced a separate errUnreadableCheckpointPolicy, so read/parse failures no longer present as unsupported-version failures. I’m updating the remaining call sites and tests to match that wording.

I verified the issue is naming and message clarity, not the decision to block writes on unreadable policy. I removed the extra “read checkpoint policy” wrapping in the strategy helper so the caller can produce a clearer user-facing read error.

The unreadable-policy tests now expect checkpoint policy could not be read instead of the unsupported-policy message. I’m adding the missing strategy test helper for malformed policy commits.

The strategy test references the malformed-policy helper but it wasn’t defined yet. I’m adding it next to the existing unsupported-policy helper using the same checkpoint tree primitives.

The helper is in place. I’m formatting the edited Go files, then I’ll run focused tests for the malformed-policy paths.

Formatting completed. I’m checking for stale unsupported-policy wording in the read-error path before running tests.

The read-failure wording now shows up only as checkpoint policy could not be read; unsupported-version paths still use checkpoint policy cannot be satisfied by this Entire CLI. I’m running the focused tests that cover unreadable/unsupported policy behavior now.

The first focused run found one test expectation issue, not a production failure: Claude session-start writes hook responses through the agent hook-response writer, so cmd.SetErr does not capture that message. The non-start hook test already covers the read-specific message on stderr. I’ll adjust the session-start test to assert the skip/no-claim behavior only.

Claude’s session-start response path is stdout protocol-specific, not cmd.ErrOrStderr, so the session-start test should not assert stderr. I’m narrowing that test to the behavior it can reliably observe: no error and no session claim.

The test expectation is corrected. I’m rerunning the same focused test set and build from the current tree.

Focused tests and build passed. I’m running the relevant package tests without the name filter plus the project lint task, because this fix changed shared policy helpers used across CLI and strategy paths.

Lint found a real cleanup after the helper change: checkpointVersion no longer needs the default assignment because CheckpointVersion(policy) handles the default. I’m removing that assignment and rerunning the failed lint plus the affected strategy test.

The lint issue is fixed in code. I’m formatting that file and rerunning lint, build, and the affected strategy test.

Verification is green after the lint fix. I’m recording the review-fix ledger under the ignored tmp/pfleidi-review directory, then I’ll do a final diff/status check.

The ledger is written under ignored tmp/. I’m checking the final tracked diff and status now so the summary only covers in-scope changes.

Fixed the Required review finding. No commit was made.

Unreadable checkpoint policy is now a distinct failure mode:

• Explicit checkpoint-data writers return checkpoint policy could not be read: ...
• Agent session-start skips capture with a read-specific warning.
• Other agent hooks fail with a read-specific checkpoint-disabled message.
• Git hooks skip Entire checkpoint work and still return success to Git.
• Strategy checkpoint writes also fail/skip on unreadable policy instead of falling back to defaults.

Verification

Fix Summary

Rollback

Ledger: tmp/pfleidi-review/review-cli-20260629-checkpoint-policy.md

Follow-up Improvements from review were not fixed: CheckpointVersion naming, test helper location, and duplicate pre-push repo reads.

I’ll commit the review fix first. The focused tests, package tests, build, and lint are still valid because the tree has not changed since those runs.

The diff is scoped to the review fix and its tests. I’m committing it now with the read-error wording separated from unsupported-policy wording.

Committed as 9762bcb. I’m checking the tree and then I’ll continue by doing a lightweight post-fix review pass over the branch diff, since the prior review found a Required issue.

Committed as 9762bcb. I’m checking the post-commit tree and doing a narrow sanity pass for stale read-error naming/paths before I hand this back.

Committed 9762bcb (fail closed on unreadable checkpoint policy).

Post-commit checks:

• git status --short: clean
• rg for stale unsupported-policy read-error paths/names: no matches
• Pre-commit verification already passed: focused tests, package tests, go build ./cmd/entire, and mise run lint

The only remaining review notes are the lower-priority improvement ideas, not Required fixes.

No unaddressed Required issues from the last review pass.

Remaining non-blocking improvements I have noted:

• checkpointpolicy.CheckpointVersion reads like a plain accessor but also normalizes/parses/falls back.
• writeUnsupportedCheckpointPolicyForCLITest lives in attach_test.go, which is a slightly odd home for a shared CLI test helper.
• Pre-push still opens/reads repo/policy more than once; it could be simplified later.

I’d treat those as cleanup/follow-up, not blockers for this branch.

I’ll use the review-feedback handling path here because this is a follow-up from review notes, and I need to resolve the “both” ambiguity against the actual diff before changing code.

I listed three, so I need one clarification before editing: by “both,” do you mean the first two cleanup items, or do you want all three addressed?

The three are:

• Rename/reshape checkpointpolicy.CheckpointVersion.
• Move the shared unsupported-policy CLI test helper out of attach_test.go.
• Simplify the duplicate pre-push repo/policy lookup.

I’m using receiving-code-review plus brainstorming here: this is review follow-up, but one item likely touches an exported helper, so I’ll verify the actual call sites and keep the design small before editing.

I found the three call-site clusters: the version resolver has only two production callers, the shared CLI test helper is currently in attach_test.go, and pre-push still goes through a policy helper that opens the repo itself. I’m reading those exact paths now so the proposal is grounded in the code rather than the review summary.

The version helper is doing two jobs today: filling the default for an unset policy value, and silently falling back if the configured value cannot be parsed/written. Since writers already check CanSatisfyPolicy before using it, the least surprising cleanup is probably to make the helper name and behavior about the effective configured value, not support decisions.

The cleanest version-helper fix is deletion, not rename: callers can use checkpointpolicy.Normalize(policy).CheckpointVersion, which says exactly that defaults are being filled. That also removes the hidden “invalid/unsupported means default” behavior from a helper that should not be making policy decisions.

Design before I edit, since this touches an exported helper and pre-push flow.

Execution mode: step-by-step.
Rationale: this changes a shared exported checkpoint-policy helper, moves shared test utilities, and rewires pre-push policy evaluation. Each piece is small, but they are distinct enough to review separately.

Commit shape:

1. remove checkpoint version fallback helper
2. move checkpoint policy test helpers
3. reuse pre-push repo for policy checks

Recommended approach:

• Delete checkpointpolicy.CheckpointVersion(policy) entirely.
• Replace call sites with checkpointpolicy.Normalize(policy).CheckpointVersion.
• Update tests so Normalize is responsible only for filling unset defaults, not deciding that invalid/unsupported configured values should silently fall back.
• Move writeUnsupportedCheckpointPolicyForCLITest next to writeMalformedCheckpointPolicyForCLITest in a shared checkpoint-policy test helper file.
• Change strategy pre-push to open the repository once, then pass that repo into policy sync and policy gating. If the repo cannot be opened, preserve current non-blocking behavior for checkpoint policy checks.

Alternatives I’m rejecting:

• Rename CheckpointVersion to EffectiveCheckpointVersion but keep the fallback behavior. That improves the name but leaves the hidden policy decision.
• Add a cache or state object for pre-push policy evaluation. That adds a concept for a local duplication issue.

I won’t write a checked-in plan/spec file; this repo’s AGENTS.md explicitly says plans aren’t checked in.

Approve this design and I’ll start with step 1.