[KyPython]

Relates to #238

Scope

• Adds a proposed, owner-requested G0–G6 approval protocol across BDD discovery, SDD specification, BDD formulation, RED demonstration, GREEN implementation, independent verification and final owner merge. Explicitly calls for authentic non-agent-forgeable approval evidence, revision-bound receipts, fail-closed pre-mutation checks, revocation and adversarial tests.
• Documentation-only proposed cross-repository Cucumber/Gherkin adoption standard under docs/operations/.
• Specifies the proposed first pilot, stack-specific choices, true step definitions, negative controls, lockfile/CI verification, and opt-out criteria for forks and intentional exercises.
• Links the existing canonical rollout issue and explicitly records GPT-6 authorship through the connected GitHub account.

Status and governance

• No Cucumber dependency or runner installed; no production code, CI workflow, role map, spec folder, mutation gate, or protected configuration changed.
• Not a Kiro-authored/approved spec or code implementation authorization. G0–G6 are NOT currently enforced by AGENTS.governance.md, roles.yml, the reusable verdict workflow or agent dispatch hooks; those files have not been changed.
• Requires separately merged approved Kiro spec and per-target gate results before code PRs. Only owner reviews and merges.

Implementation authorization blocker

• Existing governance requires a Kiro-authored, owner-merged spec-only PR before policy code. A connector-authored PR appears as Ky's GitHub identity and is not proof of Ky's approval; do not impersonate the owner/spec-author or accept bot-issued approval receipts. Issue Cross-repo Cucumber/Gherkin BDD rollout — spec-first, opt-in, verify #238 carries this handoff.
• Ky's explicit request to strengthen governance does not bypass current rules or itself approve arbitrary future stage transitions.

Testing

• No executable project tests run for this documentation-only change. Read-only repository inspection and official Cucumber documentation were used.
• CI status must be observed; do not infer green from the documentation commit alone.

Failure risks

• Installing a runner across every repository could break incompatible Node/Python versions, introduce unpinned dependencies or redundant coverage, or bypass existing protected authoring gates. This guide explicitly forbids that.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: defaults
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: d8de118c-fa3a-4bcf-beb1-5aa810b18027

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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.

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

[KyPython]

@codex review

Please perform a read-only, evidence-based review of this draft documentation PR (#239) and its canonical issue #238 in KyPython/ai-governance, focusing on the proposed BDD → SDD → TDD → implementation owner-approval workflow. This is a request from the owner to have Codex examine the BDD work while Meta hackathon validation remains the primary project.

Review priorities:

1. Does the proposed G0–G6 model preserve the existing AGENTS.governance.md, roles.yml, ai-governance / verdict, Kiro-only spec authorship, owner-merge boundary, and any per-repo AI mutation gate?
2. Can a coder/agent using the owner's GitHub token forge or reuse an approval? Identify concrete trust-boundary failures, required independent identity/issuer controls, revocation/revision-binding, and any stages unenforceable by CI alone.
3. Is RED evidence distinguished from environment failure, and does Gherkin add actual acceptance coverage without duplicating existing tests?
4. Identify any contradictions, deadlocks, missing negative controls, too-heavy approval requirements, and smallest implementation-ready Kiro spec requirements. Cite exact changed lines.

Do not write/edit implementation or spec files; do not edit protected policy/workflows/roles, open another issue/PR, merge, deploy, approve on behalf of Ky, run provider calls, or represent this review as a Kiro spec. Return findings or exact blocker only. Respect current spec-first role constraints. This one review request is not authority for future phase approvals.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-01T05:24:00.693471Z	59e32ae	Draft marked ready

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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up!

Reviewed commit: 59e32aef32

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".

[KyPython]

@codex Investigate the CURRENT enforcement gaps for the existing stage-gated BDD → SDD/requirements → TDD/RED → implementation → independent verification proposal. Read-only investigation and report only. No file changes, commits, branch, new issue/PR, spec authoring, environment setup, expenses, gate bypass, merge, deployment, or changing this PR.

Canonical home: KyPython/ai-governance issue #238; existing draft documentation PR #239 (this thread). Related decision-ownership issue #225 is a separate scope. Requested by Ky on 2026-11-01; this GitHub comment was posted by GPT-6 using the connected owner token, NOT by Ky directly, Kiro, or Codex.

Verified findings to independently check at current HEAD, not blindly trust: (1) ai-governance/main has the spec/role policy and test suite; (2) KyLamportLogic/buildlogic-governance/.github/workflows/ai-governance.yml on main is pinned to efd0e11dde73a70d4867293e4ac2308d28be057e, which appears to predate the current spec/role-gate policy; (3) KyLamportLogic/LamportLogic/main has no shared ai-governance caller, while PR #397 proposes one and is unmerged; (4) governance.yml spec trace check accepts at least one ID string but does not require all criteria to be verified or detect vacuous assertions; (5) G0–G6 owner-approval receipts and per-stage pre-mutation enforcement are not yet implemented; (6) Git authorship/PAT use does not prove a distinct actor. Verify required branch check conditions and source/head revisions where accessible; UNKNOWN otherwise.

Deliverable on this existing PR conversation, without a write to repo: a compact independently sourced PASS / FAIL / UNKNOWN matrix for each actual enforcement boundary; the 3 most critical reproducible adversarial negatives (identity forgery, stale/missing transition authorization, vacuous/misleading trace), exact repo paths and current SHAs, command/output evidence if you can run existing tests in an isolated read-only/scratch checkout, and an incremental spec-author handoff for issue #238 (requirements/design/tasks/acceptance tests), with owner approvals and protected mutation gates explicitly retained.

Hard stop: Current policy permits Kiro (or separately authenticated human owner override) to author/merge the governing spec, before Codex implementation. PR #239 is a draft proposal only, not merged or authorized as an implementation spec; #219 defines a limited Kiro-unavailable fallback and prohibits Codex identity substitution. Do not treat this message, a green CI check, a @codex mention, or connected GitHub owner tokens as approval to write code or spec. No automated dispatch to implementation. If no permitted read-only execution route exists, report exact blocker here.

---

Existing canonical addendum updated 2026-11-01 — GPT-6 / AI HANDOFF, NOT AN OWNER STAGE APPROVAL.

@codex Continue from the existing #238 work record, not a new tracker or a duplicate task: #238 (comment) . Read the appended section “2026-11-01 — security and executable-pilot addendum” before any proposed changes. It contains the substantive gaps missing from the earlier documentation-only review: authenticated stage-specific non-agent-forgeable approvals, read-only isolated agent execution vs post-PR CI, independent constrained publisher, trust boundaries and OIDC/signing limitations, immutable SHA drift remediation without floating tags, six adversarial V1–V6 controls including the authorized positive control, structured expected RED assertions vs harness failures, mutation/negative-control adequacy only after implementation, and existing LamportLogic pre-mutation gate reuse. The previous “no major issues” review of docs is NOT an implementation security pass.

Execution order: verify live source/branches/PRs and competing Codex/Kiro work; prepare the spec-writer handoff and reviewable evidence first under the canonical issue. Current PR #239 is documentation-only and unmerged. Do not write/edit protected policies, stage specs, tests, production code, workflows or roles; do not create another issue/PR, bypass the current spec-first gate, assume Kiro credits, use Ky's token as verified identity, deploy or merge. A separate owner-approved merged spec and per-path authorization are prerequisites to any implementation. If Codex cannot complete the source-grounded preparation without writing, report the exact blocker. Tell Ky exactly what human/spec-author approval unblocks the next stage; do not silently self-approve.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Hooray!

Reviewed commit: 59e32aef32

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".

[Copilot]

🟢 Approval recommended

No active review issues remain for the documentation-only staged approval and selective BDD rollout proposal.

No open issues 🎉

What changed in this PR

Adds a documentation-only proposal for staged human approvals and selective Cucumber/Gherkin adoption across repositories, supporting issue #238. It preserves existing spec-first governance and explicitly states that G0–G6 are not yet enforced.

Changes:

• Defines proposed G0–G6 approval checkpoints, revision-bound evidence, and fail-closed enforcement requirements.
• Establishes criteria for selecting one justified pilot, choosing compatible tooling, and verifying real behavioral outcomes.
• Documents authorization blockers, rollout boundaries, and exclusions without changing code, dependencies, or CI.

File	Description
docs/​operations/​cucumber-bdd-rollout.md	Proposes staged approvals and a selective, spec-first BDD rollout guide.

_{Review effort: Balanced}