Align coordination manifest target forms

[justin808]

Why

The documented manifest example could register issue:123 while a claim or release used 123. Because coordination targets are exact raw identities, that mismatch can leave terminal closeout unable to match its lane. Fixes #503.

What changed

• Use the canonical decimal target form (["123"]) in the batch provenance manifest example.
• State that registration, claim, and release must use the same exact raw target string; target normalization is not supported.
• Permit closeout recovery only when the installed backend supports exact whole-manifest update or re-registration, and document the existing agent-coord register-batch --file route without inventing lane-only repair.
• Add contract coverage for the canonical target and conditional recovery guidance.

How to review and verify

1. Inspect docs/coordination-backend.md for consistent raw-target identity and the bounded whole-manifest recovery path.
2. Run the focused contract test and confirm it enforces the canonical example, exact-match error, backend capability condition, and prohibition on lane-only repair.

Test plan

• ruby skills/pr-batch/bin/coordination-telemetry-contract-test.rb — 54 runs, 2,882 assertions, 0 failures.
• Local bin/validate traversed the full committed-head suite; all preceding suites passed, then five unrelated TargetMembershipGuardTest diagnostic-message assertions failed because malformed JSON returned input is not valid JSON instead of more specific duplicate-key or invalid-Unicode messages.
• git diff --check — passed.
• Hosted exact-head Lint, Validate, and independent Claude review — passed for 7b430d02d0f83f8f1646af75503d54020752eb5c.
• Changelog classification: deferred_to_update_changelog.

Agent details

Commands and results

• ruby skills/pr-batch/bin/coordination-telemetry-contract-test.rb — passed: 54 runs, 2,882 assertions.
• git diff --check — passed.
• bin/validate — repository-wide run reached the unrelated target-membership guard suite and exited with five pre-existing message mismatches; no changed-file failure was reported.
• PR security preflight passed on the exact head. An initially acknowledged transient github-api-coverage count mismatch cleared on final replay; the complete replay reported no coverage, suspicious-text, untrusted-interaction, or hidden-participant findings.

Exact-head and replay evidence

• Base: 37d05c783d0c2a8b9082781821fb0e2881272efb
• Head: 7b430d02d0f83f8f1646af75503d54020752eb5c
• Stage dependency plan: one lane, no edges, trusted plan binding sha256:c0b40d71bdf6d0f812474e5ed8a499441445dc4701707aa2ae65b94fb9c95e9a.
• Exact-head replay: eligible; implementation and checker permissions true; no dependency blockers.

QA Evidence

• QA lane: not applicable; this is a low-risk documentation and contract-test change with no runtime or UI surface.
• Scope checked: PR Align coordination manifest target forms #834 documentation target forms, recovery boundary, and focused contract coverage.
• Tested at: PR Align coordination manifest target forms #834 head 7b430d02d0f83f8f1646af75503d54020752eb5c.
• Automated checks: focused Ruby contract test and git diff --check passed; hosted exact-head Lint, Validate, and independent Claude review passed.
• Manual checks: not applicable: no runtime or UI behavior.
• User-visible UI change: no
• Visual evidence: not applicable: no UI or visual change.
• Interaction change: no; not applicable because no interaction behavior changed.
• Interaction evidence: not applicable: no interaction change.
• Visual fix: no; not applicable because no visual behavior changed.
• Negative control: not applicable: no visual fix.
• Performance evidence: not applicable: documentation and contract-test only.
• Findings: two advisory review threads were verified, answered, and resolved; no blocking finding remains.
• QA required: no
• QA required rationale: focused contract coverage plus hosted validation and independent review are proportionate for a documentation-only behavior contract.
• QA lane status: not_applicable
• Release-blocking status: not_applicable
• Process-gap disposition: checklist+replay

Coordination and reviewer telemetry

• Existing task and PR preserved: issue agent-coord terminal closeout needs the manifest and claim target forms to match, but the documented manifest example does not #503, PR Align coordination manifest target forms #834, branch jg-codex/issue-503-manifest-target-compatibility.
• No active backend claim, running writer, or competing equivalent open PR was found. Closed PR Clarify terminal closeout target forms #703 remains retired and was not revived.
• Maker: current Codex task. Independent checker: hosted Claude review, currently running on the exact head.
• Review-thread triage: two current-head advisory threads were verified, answered, and resolved; the cutoff-safe summary is Align coordination manifest target forms #834 (comment).

Decision log

• Non-blocking: Whether to repair the unrelated local target-membership diagnostic failures in this PR.
  • Decision: Preserve issue agent-coord terminal closeout needs the manifest and claim target forms to match, but the documented manifest example does not #503 scope and record the failures without modifying unrelated guard code.
  • Why: The focused changed-area test passes, hosted validation passed on the previous head, and the failures concern unchanged malformed-JSON diagnostic wording.
  • Review later: None; exact-head hosted validation passed.

Merge confidence

• Current state: ready-gates-clean; exact-head CI readiness is READY and GitHub reports a clean merge state.
• Merge authority: none; this task will not merge the PR.

Audit receipts

• Ordinary pre-merge PR; completed-batch audit and release ledger are not applicable.
• Exact-head dependency replay is eligible with no blockers. Diff identity: a0d774c021078d01b3c3596ae247b6b3b23ec98bda42cfa489d274b3b6033fab.

[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 2026-09-12T22:40:19.752397Z	7b430d0	Draft marked ready

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.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: d45e650c-c05f-453f-befa-504853bb80e3

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[claude]

Reviewed. This is a tightly scoped docs fix:

• The manifest example switch from "issue:123" to "123" correctly aligns with the bare-numeric --target convention used elsewhere in this doc and in workflows/pr-processing.md (--target <issue-or-pr>), so it's not just cosmetic — it fixes a real inconsistency.
• The new paragraph documenting exact-match target semantics and the register-batch --file recovery path lands inside the same ## Batch Provenance Manifest section the new test extracts, so the added assertions in coordination-telemetry-contract-test.rb actually exercise the new prose.
• The test additions are exact-string assertions appended to an existing test function, matching this file's established "prose contract" pattern elsewhere — no new helper, mode, flag, or validator was introduced.
• Diff size (23 additions / 1 deletion, 2 files) is proportionate to the stated fix; nothing here looks deferred or split-worthy in the other direction.

No correctness, security, or performance concerns — this is a documentation-only change plus matching contract-test coverage. Nothing blocking.

[justin808]

Address-review summary

Scan scope: full PR history; no previous address-review checkpoint.

Status: cutoff-safe summary. Detailed review outcomes are collapsed below.

Detailed review outcomes

Mattered

• None.

Optional

• Documentation test-shape note — declined without a code change. The existing contract-test pattern, accepted issue behavior, and verified CLI cover this PR's intended boundary.

Skipped

• agent-coord register-batch --file concern — factually resolved by the installed CLI help, which exposes that exact whole-manifest option.
• Three general comments were status, lifecycle, or positive-review summaries and required no action.

No deferred-work tracking was created.

Next default scan starts after this comment. Say check all reviews to rescan the full PR.