docs: add Xyph Gate Alpha demo plan#79
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 42 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughA new reference document, "Xyph Gate Alpha Demo Plan," is added describing campaign facts, vocabulary, demo flow, repository roles, and a GP0–GP12 goalpost roadmap. The docs catalog gains a corresponding entry linked from the existing convergence entry, and the docs index gains a navigation link to it. ChangesXyph Gate Alpha Demo Plan
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~12 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Warning Review ran into problems🔥 ProblemsGit: Failed to clone repository. Please run the Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/reference/xyph-gate-alpha-demo-plan.md`:
- Around line 157-158: Clarify the canonical-layer dependency in the demo plan
by explicitly noting the fixture-backed fallback in the bullet that mentions
Wesley-shaped canonical rules. Update the referenced plan section so it states
that schema, codecs, and digests can be hosted in Edict fixtures and validated
through Echo seams until a Wesley repo exists, instead of implying Wesley is
already a live dependency. Keep the wording aligned with the surrounding flow
and preserve the intent in the plan description.
- Around line 225-232: The first-demo repair menu is exposing the GP5-only
override path too early. Update the context governor choices in the demo plan so
the initial script only offers fix, obstruct, or abandon, and either remove
OVERRIDE_WITH_DEBT from that menu or clearly relabel it as GP5+ in the same
section where the repair options are listed.
- Around line 29-39: The demo promise in the referenced markdown overstates the
flow by claiming an enforce-mode block that the scripted demo does not show.
Update the promise text to match the actual sequence used in the demo content,
or add the missing enforce-mode rejection step before the repair path so the
narrative aligns with the behavior shown by Xyph Gate, Workbench, and Verify.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: cdde81f4-5710-4847-8bf5-1d39eb30c455
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
docs/catalog.yamldocs/index.mddocs/reference/xyph-gate-alpha-demo-plan.md
📜 Review details
🔇 Additional comments (1)
docs/catalog.yaml (1)
264-273: LGTM!
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 83ecf562e2
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| - GP0 is complete across Continuum, Edict, Echo, and Xyph. | ||
| - GP0 milestones are closed. | ||
| - GP1 milestones are open. | ||
| - GP1 has one open anchor issue per repo. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These bullets copy live GitHub milestone/issue state (closed/open) into a current reference page. docs/DOCUMENTATION_POLICY.md §2.1 calls copying GitHub issue, PR, or project state into prose instead of linking to the live system a documentation failure; when any GP1 anchor closes or a milestone changes, stack maintainers will be routed to stale coordination truth. Please replace this status block with links to the live milestones/issues, or make it an explicitly historical note outside the current routing path.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| 1. Finish GP0 by filling in the four anchor issues with final fixture decisions. | ||
| 2. Open GP1 issues for the evidence vocabulary freeze. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The active near-term order tells maintainers to finish GP0 and open GP1 issues, but the same new page already records GP0 as complete/closed and lists the successor GP1 issues. In contexts where agents follow this section as the current milestone order, this can send them back to duplicate or reopen completed campaign-grounding work instead of starting the GP1 evidence vocabulary work. Please update the sequence so it starts at the first unfinished step.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| 7. Echo validates the plan, bundle, basis, and authority posture. | ||
| 8. Echo executes or simulates deterministically. | ||
| 9. Echo emits `TraceRunReceiptV0` and trace rows. | ||
| 10. Continuum wraps the result as `WitnessCapsuleV0`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the GP3 vertical path, this assigns the runtime act of wrapping execution output to Continuum. That conflicts with the repo role in AGENTS.md that Continuum does not own a runtime implementation; if implementers follow this flow, capsule production logic can land in the coordination repo instead of the runtime/product repo that should emit artifacts conforming to Continuum-authored vocabulary. Please make Continuum the authored vocabulary/validation owner here and name the repo that actually assembles the capsule.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| The roadmap uses Wesley as the schema and canonical codec layer. If there is no | ||
| separate Wesley repo yet, the first demo can host this responsibility in Edict | ||
| fixtures and Echo validation seams. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This fallback lets Edict/Echo host the schema and canonical codec responsibility when Wesley is absent, but the current ownership law says Wesley owns compilation, schema hashes, codecs, and witness lanes, while sibling repos should consume generated artifacts rather than become shadow homes. During the early demo path, that wording can legitimize ad hoc canonical bytes in fixtures and validation seams. Please keep the canonical authority with Wesley/Continuum-authored surfaces and describe Edict/Echo as temporary consumers or fixture producers only.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| - each repo knows exactly what it owns for GP1 | ||
| - GP1 issues are opened | ||
|
|
||
| ### GP1: Evidence Vocabulary Freeze |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This current convergence page introduces an unqualified GP1, but the existing docs/reference/convergence.md current reference already defines stack GP1 as durable Echo causal history. Because the new page is cataloged for convergence/plan-slices and linked from the stack-release section, agents and maintainers now have two current GP1 meanings. Please prefix these as Xyph Gate Alpha goalposts or state explicitly that they are not the stack GP numbers.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Adds a live Continuum reference page for the Xyph Gate Alpha demo plan.
The new page captures the cross-repo campaign spine for the first protected workflow:
payment_receipt_required@0payment_reliability@0EchoProofPlanV0TraceRunReceiptV0WitnessCapsuleV0HorizonDiffV0ObligationV0It also documents the end-to-end demo script, repository responsibilities, GP0-GP12 goalposts, threat model, effector boundary, prior-art/reuse bias, and near-term working order.
Docs Routing
docs/index.mdunder stack coordination.docs/catalog.yamlas aconvergencereference for stack maintainers and agents.Related
Validation
node scripts/docs-lint.mjsgit diff --checkdocs/reference/xyph-gate-alpha-demo-plan.md