Skip to content

fix(inventory): rfcs now HAS a BUGBOT.md, so the exemption is stale - #257

Merged
LukasWodka merged 1 commit into
developfrom
fix/1681-rfcs-bugbot-exemption-stale
Aug 14, 2026
Merged

fix(inventory): rfcs now HAS a BUGBOT.md, so the exemption is stale#257
LukasWodka merged 1 commit into
developfrom
fix/1681-rfcs-bugbot-exemption-stale

Conversation

@LukasWodka

@LukasWodka LukasWodka commented Aug 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The fleet audit is red on develop with exactly one finding:

rfcs: .cursor/BUGBOT.md is marked \exempt` but the file exists. The exemption is stale — promote it to `required`.`

rfcs#23 merged at 07:04 today and added the file. The exemption's own text said "UNREMEDIATED — this exemption is the finding, not a justification" — true when written, and it stopped being true the moment someone closed it. The guard catching its own stale exemption is the family working as designed.

Why it matters beyond the repo it names

caller-drift runs on every PR that touches the guard or the inventory, so a single stale exemption reddens all of them. .github#255 is held by it right now, and its own change is unrelated.

The shared reason goes with it

bugbot_guide_missing was cited by rfcs alone. Promoting the entry left an anchor with zero users, and shared_reasons is defined in this file as "reasons cited by more than one repo". A shared reason that nothing shares is the same class of stale artefact as the exemption itself.

Verification

  • caller-drift-selftest.py162/162 pass
  • YAML parses; rfcs.quality_files now reads CLAUDE.md: required, .cursor/BUGBOT.md: required
  • .cursor/BUGBOT.md confirmed present in rfcs (8843 bytes)
  • The full-fleet audit was not re-run to completion locally — it exceeded a 7-minute budget against a rate-limited token. CI's required audit job is the confirmation, not this description.

Note

Low Risk
Contract-only YAML in the fleet inventory; no runtime, auth, or deployment behavior changes.

Overview
rfcs now ships .cursor/BUGBOT.md, but repo-inventory.yml still marked that path exempt via bugbot_guide_missing, so caller-drift reported a stale exemption and blocked unrelated PRs that touch the inventory.

This PR promotes rfcs quality_files[".cursor/BUGBOT.md"] to required and drops the unused bugbot_guide_missing anchor from shared_reasons (it was cited only by rfcs).

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 8fd6b1a. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

The fleet audit is red on develop with exactly one finding:

  rfcs: .cursor/BUGBOT.md is marked `exempt` but the file exists.
        The exemption is stale - promote it to `required`.

rfcs#23 merged at 07:04 today and added the file. The exemption said
"UNREMEDIATED - this exemption is the finding, not a justification", which was
true when written and stopped being true when someone closed it. The guard
catching its own stale exemption is the family working as designed.

This blocks more than the repo it names: caller-drift runs on every PR that
touches the guard or the inventory, so one stale exemption reddens all of them
(.github#255 is currently held by it).

The shared reason is removed with it. `bugbot_guide_missing` was cited by rfcs
alone, so promoting the entry left an anchor with zero users -- and the
`shared_reasons` block is defined as "reasons cited by more than one repo". A
shared reason nothing shares is the same class of stale artefact.

Verified: selftest 162/162; YAML parses; quality_files for rfcs now reads
CLAUDE.md=required, .cursor/BUGBOT.md=required. The full-fleet audit was NOT
re-run to completion locally -- it exceeded a 7-minute budget against a rate-
limited token -- so CI's required `audit` job is the confirmation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@LukasWodka LukasWodka self-assigned this Aug 14, 2026
@LukasWodka
LukasWodka merged commit 36f537b into develop Aug 14, 2026
13 checks passed
@LukasWodka
LukasWodka deleted the fix/1681-rfcs-bugbot-exemption-stale branch August 14, 2026 12:50
LukasWodka added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant