Merge collaboration templates and governance system#2
Merge collaboration templates and governance system#2GreenSharpieSmell merged 8 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
GreenSharpieSmell
commented
Apr 9, 2026
GreenSharpieSmell
commented
- adds collaboration templates
- adds validation/governance docs
- adds initial records and Phase 0-A run sheet
- adds exploration/integration/emergency lane policy
- ready to become the lab’s official operating system
Updated signoff status for Rocks from PENDING to APPROVED with additional notes.
Updated Claude's status from PENDING to APPROVE with notes on agreement and scope clarification and removed duplicate Claude: Approve line.
Updated governance signoff packet with Gemini approval details and notes.
![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: 8cab84dbf0
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".
|
|
||
| ### Gate 0 — Scope Declaration | ||
|
|
||
| Before staging, the author must create a change packet and declare: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gate 0 requires a change packet "before staging," but the same SOP also says local commits are unrestricted and only requires a packet before the first shared-remote push. That internal contradiction makes compliance audits unreliable (the same local commit can be read as both allowed and disallowed), which will create avoidable BLOCKs in the new governance flow. Align the Gate 0 trigger with the push/merge boundary used in Rule Zero and the Exploration Lane section.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| ## Signoff Matrix | ||
|
|
||
| - Rocks: APPROVED |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The documented signoff enum is PENDING / APPROVE / BLOCK / WAIVE, but this packet uses APPROVED for Rocks. Any reviewer or validator following the SOP/template literally will treat this as a non-standard value, so the packet may fail its own gate check even though it appears signed. Normalize this value to the canonical token.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
