feat(buck2): move bounded Weaver checks

[schickling-assistant]

Problem

Weaver validation still mixed bounded semantic checks with broader setup and publication work, obscuring which checks belong in the fast aggregate path.

Goal

Move the bounded Weaver checks onto the standalone Buck-root task graph introduced by #1301 while keeping live and unbounded checks explicit.

Decisions

• Keep this PR to one own commit on top of feat(buck2): add standalone root and aggregate gates #1301.
• Route bounded Weaver validation through the standalone root and preserve explicit sequencing for the live check.
• Do not restore any composition prerequisite removed by feat(buck2): add standalone root and aggregate gates #1301.

Verification

• GitHub auto-rebased this PR onto merged feat(buck2): add standalone root and aggregate gates #1301 squash c25fb3296b5ed4164123e5eee4e58cee628f5c62; its one own commit is now 51fb3865614dd9dc8238f4379b60e050ce79da7b.
• The pinned generated workflow remains the source of truth; required-check run 35802858174 completed successfully.
• The final stack passes both scoped Buck static checks (lint:check:oxlint and lint:check:format) from a local-disk checkout.

Complexity

• Ledger: 359 lines added, 237 removed, net +122, measured by buck2-ledger.ts at 51fb3865614dd9dc8238f4379b60e050ce79da7b.

Concerns

• Editor dependency views must come from the committed standalone Buck graph. feat(buck2): add standalone root and aggregate gates #1301 now enforces bootstrap before Genie freshness for clean checkouts.

Friction & bottlenecks

• The earlier clean-worktree dependency-version failure is fixed by feat(buck2): add standalone root and aggregate gates #1301's committed-graph editor bootstrap rather than masked locally.
• /srv/bulk Buck timings are invalid under dotfiles#2955; the feat(buck2): add standalone root and aggregate gates #1301 local-disk control run proves the inherited standalone root and pinned Buck path.
• The q66 generator-closure fix and DELTA-002 are folded into feat(buck2): add standalone root and aggregate gates #1301. Run 35802858174 exercises this head.

Follow-ups

• Keep live Weaver publication authority separate from bounded pull-request checks.

References

• Depends on feat(buck2): add standalone root and aggregate gates #1301.
• Stack continuation: refactor(buck2): make repository checks standalone #1323.

Posted on behalf of @schickling

field	value
agent_identity	dev3.direct.omp.t3mkm4sd
session	unknown
agent_persona	generalist
agent_supervisor	unavailable
agent_tool	OMP
agent_tool_version	18.1.14
agent_runtime	OMP 18.1.14
tooling_profile	dotfiles@5d1e05f

[schickling-assistant]

@codex review

Posted on behalf of @schickling

field	value
agent_identity	dev3.direct.omp.fkazdy6v
session	unknown
agent_persona	generalist
agent_supervisor	unavailable
agent_tool	OMP
agent_tool_version	18.2.6
agent_runtime	OMP 18.2.6
agent_model	openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol
worktree	2026-09-22-fix-checks/2026-09-22-fix-checks
tooling_profile	dotfiles@965ef7e-dirty

[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 2026-09-23T03:56:18.908454Z	51fb386	Manual request

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. Can't wait for the next one!

Reviewed commit: 51fb386561

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".