glm-5.3-flash
e2c255d40c
Decomposition of docs/reviews/002-post-remediation-review.md per its 5-unit remediation plan: - Unit 1 (security-critical): gw15-publish-body-cap, prj16-schema-via-call (CF-004 filed alkcall-side), fwd13-dot-segments, fwd16-missing-capability, oai11-ref-memoization - Unit 2 (timeout/terminality): ws13-idle-progress, fwd15-stream-timeout, cli01-retry-after-budget, con17-mcp-pagination, con18-wss-sweep-exit - Unit 3 (projection/docs): projection-truthfulness, mcp-batch-cap, gw16-status-drift - Unit 4 (spec-import): yaml-normalization, oai13-path-item-wildcards, import-loudness-cluster, js01-placeholder-check, fwd17-19-contract-decisions - Unit 5 (WS polish + tests): con18b-ws-polish, client-policy-wire-tests, cov-deployment-knobs, cov13-dead-code, srv11-srv12-router-ordering - review-002-bracketed-followup: tentatively planned post-bulk pass (stale-check, OQA-18 enforcement decision, CON-08/09 close() lever, cross-crate re-checks) — deliberately not serialized against the bulk Also: review-002 numbering repair (CON-14 was double-booked; MCP pagination now CON-14, from_wss monitor renumbered CON-18, missing CON-14 section added). taskgraph: 66 valid, no cycles; 24 pending (all review-002); gen-1/gen-2 parallel waves identified; workflow-cost hotspots are prj16 (12.8) and ws13 (11.1), both carrying the reviewed slicing guidance in their Notes.
3.2 KiB
3.2 KiB
id, name, status, depends_on, scope, risk, impact, level, tags
| id | name | status | depends_on | scope | risk | impact | level | tags | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| review-002-bracketed-followup | Bracketed review-002 follow-up pass (post-bulk — stale-check, OAI-18 enforcement decision, CON-08/CON-09 close() lever, cross-crate re-check) | pending | narrow | low | project | planning |
|
Description
Tentatively planned follow-up pass (mirrors review-001's pattern: the first four remediation tasks emerged from post-bulk drift). Do NOT decompose until the review-002 bulk has landed — several items below may go stale or change shape based on what the bulk decided. Scope candidates, to be re-validated when picked up:
- OAI-18 enforcement decision —
required/enum/pattern/ value-types are advertised via/schemabut never enforced (key-allowlist only). The bulk tasks leave this as allowlist-plus-docs; the "compile-and-enforce the full input schema per op" option (jsonschema crate is already a dep via schema_cache) is the deferred alternative. Re-evaluate once review-002-yaml-normalization + review-002-oai13-path-item-wildcards land (both change the advertised-schema surface). - CON-08 / review-001 CON-09 close() lever —
from_mcp's documented session leak andfrom_wss's no-teardown import are both accepted-for-v1 with documented contracts. If crates.io release timing or consumer feedback makes reconnect/teardown real, theclose()-handle API is the v1.1 lever for both. - Cross-crate re-check — CF-001 (dead-mux write retryability), CF-002 (demux TooLarge allocation), CF-003 (wire publish_schema fail-open), CF-004 (services_schema_handler disclosure) in alkcall's ledger: re-check status when alkcall next gets attention; alkhttp-side assertions (ws-eof retryability tightening, PRJ-16 defense-in-depth re-scope) may follow.
- Stale-comment sweep — review-002 changes will touch hot docs (byte_adapter pump docs, adapter.rs router comments, forward.rs URL pipeline). A short sweep verifying module docs still match behavior after the bulk (the SRV-11 lesson: comments asserting axum semantics are exactly what went stale).
- ADR-045 version bump audit — if projection-truthfulness and
gateway-status tasks landed, verify
to_openapi'sinfo.versionreflects the accumulated contract changes per ADR-045.
Acceptance Criteria
- Re-scoped into concrete tasks (or explicitly dismissed per item) once the review-002 bulk is complete
- Nothing acted on before the bulk lands (planning-level gate)
References
- docs/reviews/002-post-remediation-review.md (Part E' OAI-18; Part A' CON-08 status; Unit 3-4 notes; ADR-045)
- docs/reviews/001-initial-implementation-review.md (the follow-up pattern this mirrors — 4 tasks emerged post-bulk)
- alkcall/docs/reviews/consumer-findings-ledger.md (CF-001..CF-004)
- tasks/infra/review-001-missing-docs-sweep.md (precedent: opportunistic follow-up closure)
Notes
Left depends_on: [] deliberately — taskgraph ordering for a
planning-level task should not serialize the bulk (it drains
independently and is picked up when the operator chooses). All four
precede-the-bulk items are marked in each task's Notes where relevant.