Adopt Trust 1 and SpecSync 5 - #52
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request transitions the repository to SpecSync v5 and Trust 1.0.0, introducing verified SDD change lifecycles, native coding-agent integrations, and stable requirement identifiers (REQ-*) across ThreeMD modules. The review feedback highlights a few minor issues: the test directory path in .specsync/sdd.json should be capitalized as Tests/ to match Swift conventions and prevent CI case-sensitivity issues; several requirement files have the ### Non-Functional Requirements header incorrectly appended to the end of a paragraph; and the SKILL.md files contain an empty ## Companion files header that should be cleaned up.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
馃挕 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d5e65b654f
鈩癸笍 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 馃憤.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
馃挕 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 65ccd666e9
鈩癸笍 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 馃憤.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
馃挕 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ac7142a319
鈩癸笍 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 馃憤.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
馃挕 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e6249695b7
鈩癸笍 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 馃憤.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
馃挕 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 8bb1f76a1e
鈩癸笍 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 馃憤.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
馃挕 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 2458e7d2e6
鈩癸笍 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 馃憤.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
馃挕 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 1916c06727
鈩癸笍 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 馃憤.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| ".specsync/sdd.json", | ||
| ".specsync/config.toml", | ||
| ".specsync/config.json", | ||
| ".specsync/version", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This policy now requires SDD coverage for only the listed .specsync files, but the repo also has .specsync/registry.toml mapping module names to their canonical specs. A future PR can change or delete registry entries without matching any meaningful_paths entry, so the required change workflow can be bypassed for the file that controls which specs are registered; include the registry file or an appropriate .specsync/ policy subset here.
Useful? React with 馃憤聽/ 馃憥.
| "src/", | ||
| "tests/", | ||
| "site/", | ||
| ".github/", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With the whole .github/ tree declared meaningful, updates to the existing .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md or spec_question.md files should require the same SDD/Trust coverage as other GitHub configuration. The Trust workflow still ignores .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/**; GitHub skips a workflow when every changed path matches paths-ignore, so an issue-template-only PR bypasses the required change coverage unless this ignore is removed or the SDD policy is narrowed.
Useful? React with 馃憤聽/ 馃憥.
| "fledge.toml", | ||
| ".trust.toml", | ||
| ".augur.toml", | ||
| ".attest.json", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new SDD allowlist covers the Fledge and Trust configs, but it omits the root .swift-format file even though fledge.toml's lint task reads that formatter configuration on every verify run. A future PR can relax or break formatting rules without matching any meaningful path, bypassing the change lifecycle for CI-enforced project configuration; add .swift-format to the governed paths.
Useful? React with 馃憤聽/ 馃憥.
1 participant
Summary
Validation
Scope
This is a governance migration only. It does not change product code, tests, packages, or dependencies. Existing unchecked spec tasks are concrete future product roadmap items, not migration placeholders.