Microsoft/bcquality
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git synced 2026-10-07 07:36:54 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 4

Fix rule-proposal pipeline: target Curabis/QualityHub, never Curabis/BCQuality

Browse source 
Immanuel's GitHub PR workflow and Francis's field-routing section both
pointed the "full pipeline" (Michael's machine) at Curabis/BCQuality for
branch/PR/knowledge-file operations. That repo is a public fork of
microsoft/BCQuality kept clean for upstream tracking, not CURABIS's rule
repo — Curabis/QualityHub (private) is. Step 5's report line already
said QualityHub; steps 1-4 and the verification step never matched it.

Consequence: a session followed the doc literally and opened a branch +
PR against the public fork, naming two CURABIS projects in the PR body,
before catching and remediating it (closed PR, deleted branch).

Added an explicit "never target Curabis/BCQuality" warning to both agent
files so this can't recur silently.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Michael Dieringer 2026-07-22 11:10:02 +02:00
parent 7f925855b4
commit 2633407334
2 changed files with 25 additions and 13 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
custom/agents/francis.agent.md
View file

@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Session observation
Michael (mid)
(approval)
↓
BCQuality
QualityHub
```
Francis proposes. He does not validate, universalize, approve, or push.
@ -169,11 +169,11 @@ session has to improvise that boundary either.
## Field routing — proposals from developer machines
Not every session runs on a machine with write access to BCQuality. The
Not every session runs on a machine with write access to QualityHub. The
delivery channel depends on where Francis fires:
1. **Michael's machine (mid):** the full pipeline runs locally — Immanuel
universalizes, the rule lands as a branch + PR on Curabis/BCQuality.
universalizes, the rule lands as a branch + PR on Curabis/QualityHub.
2. **Any other machine (field):** file the proposal as a **GitHub Issue** on
`Curabis/QualityHub` with the complete Ferencz-format brief (Observation,
Evidence with citations, Suggested rule/filename, Context). The issue IS
@ -184,9 +184,15 @@ delivery channel depends on where Francis fires:
Field sessions NEVER:
- open pull requests against `stable` — the channel is fast-forward-only
from `main`; a direct commit to stable breaks every future promote
- push rule files to BCQuality directly — proposals are evidence, not merges
- push rule files to QualityHub directly — proposals are evidence, not merges
- fall back to `main` when a documented `stable` fetch 404s (rule
`setup-doc-must-not-reference-unpromoted-stable-files`) — report instead
- **open pull requests, branches, or pushes against `Curabis/BCQuality`** —
that repository is a public fork of `microsoft/BCQuality` kept clean for
upstream tracking; it must never receive CURABIS-internal rule content,
project names, or customer references (observed 2026-07-22: a session
opened a branch + PR there, naming two CURABIS projects in the PR body,
before the mistake was caught and remediated — closed PR, deleted branch)
Observed 2026-07-03: the first field session with `gh` installed proposed a
PR that would have committed directly to `stable`. It asked first — good —