chore(context): resync derived adapters from canonical AGENT.md

Clears ContextAdapterDrift; canonical changed in local-dev 12f694b/218cf0d.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.context/mcp.json

@@ -3,6 +3,29 @@
     "knowledge": {
       "url": "http://localhost:3100/mcp",
       "description": "Project knowledge base — vector + graph retrieval"
+    },
+    "brain": {
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://koala.tail30472e.ts.net:8443/mcp",
+      "headers": {
+        "Authorization": "Bearer ${BRAIN_MCP_TOKEN}"
+      }
+    },
+    "gitea": {
+      "_comment": "gitea-mcp authenticates by PASS-THROUGH: the bearer is a Gitea PAT it validates against Gitea and then acts as. GITEA_MCP_TOKEN -- which this entry used until 2026-09-08 -- 401s against it, so every harness synced from this file had a dead gitea server and no signal saying so. Probed 2026-09-08: GITEA_MCP_TOKEN 401, DMABE_GITEA_API_TOKEN 200, on both the public and the Serve URL.",
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://koala.tail30472e.ts.net:8446/mcp",
+      "headers": {
+        "Authorization": "Bearer ${DMABE_GITEA_API_TOKEN}"
+      }
+    },
+    "infra": {
+      "_comment": "The bearer is belt-and-braces: this endpoint answers 200 with or without it, since Serve already limits reach to the tailnet. Sending it anyway means the day the server starts enforcing is not the day every harness breaks.",
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://koala.tail30472e.ts.net:8444/mcp",
+      "headers": {
+        "Authorization": "Bearer ${INFRA_MCP_TOKEN}"
+      }
     }
   }
 }

.context/system-prompt.txt

@@ -78,6 +78,27 @@ These rules apply to every task across every project, regardless of harness.
    when a human reviewer outside the project is required. Document the reason in
    PROJECT.md.
 
+   **Exception — a GitOps repo where a branch cannot be reconciled.** In a repo whose
+   deployment watches one branch (`mathias/infra`: Flux watches `main`), a branch is
+   invisible to the thing that applies it. A `risk/medium` change to `alerts.yaml` or
+   `litellm-config.yaml` can be linted on a branch but never *exercised* there, so a
+   PR would buy a review of a state that was never deployed.
+
+   There, `risk/medium`+ work stays on `main` and instead requires a **recorded
+   adversarial review pass before the push** — `skills:pr-gatekeeper` or equivalent,
+   reviewing the staged diff. **The reviewer's verdict goes in the issue, not a PR
+   thread.** No verdict recorded means the lane was not used, and saying "the gate was
+   green" is not the same claim.
+
+   Be honest about what this is: a recorded *independent* pass, not four-eyes in the
+   sense `assessor-loop` §4.1 means for a regulated organisation, because the reviewer
+   is an agent. It is more than the repo had and less than the model it mirrors; do not
+   describe it as the stronger property. (infra#470, decided 2026-09-29.)
+
+   This lane depends on the `risk/` label being right. A label that triggers a heavier
+   lane is load-bearing, not cosmetic — if work that belongs in it is unlabelled, the
+   lane silently does not apply.
+
 6. **Close the loop — every substantive task ends with the same ritual.** Shipping
    the code is not the end of the task; capturing it is. Run this unprompted:
    - **Tag + bump SemVer** on the change (annotated tag; minor for a feature or
@@ -106,6 +127,43 @@ These rules apply to every task across every project, regardless of harness.
    revisit Y". Those are exactly the items that need a locator. If it is worth
    saying in a summary, it is worth writing where it can be found again without you.
 
+7. **Finish what's closable — only involve me for a genuine call.** If a
+   tracker issue, PR, or checklist item is demonstrably resolved — the fix
+   landed, the state changed, you verified it live — close/merge/check it off
+   in the same turn. Don't leave it open "for the record" or park it waiting
+   on me to confirm something that already happened; that's bookkeeping, not
+   a decision. Reserve asking me (`AskUserQuestion`, a `DECISION NEEDED`
+   comment, or otherwise pausing) for when it's genuinely mine to call:
+   irreversible or prod/host-impacting actions, a real judgment call with no
+   clearly-better option, ambiguous intent, or anything secret-writes/
+   destructive-git already gate. Before claiming something is closable,
+   verify it live (re-check the issue, re-run the command) rather than
+   trusting your own earlier summary (brain: `filed-issue-not-same-as-fixed`).
+
+8. **Control code needs an adversary, not a checklist.** Code whose job is to
+   refuse, deny, gate or contain is not adequately verified by a green gate.
+   Rule 5 makes CI the quality gate and that holds for ordinary work — but a
+   passing suite only asserts what its author already thought of, and for a
+   control the author is precisely the person whose imagination just failed.
+   Measured on `dispatch#75`: five review rounds, five real escapes verified by
+   execution, and **CI was green on every one of them** while `git rm
+   ././.dispatch-allow` deleted the file the control existed to protect. So
+   route this work through a review with authority to block, instructed to
+   verify by execution rather than by reading the implementation. Expect to be
+   blocked more than once; that is the control working, not the reviewer being
+   difficult. (brain: `a-green-gate-is-not-evidence-for-control-code`; the
+   practices live in the `pr-gatekeeper` agent.)
+
+9. **A test's name must not claim more than its assertions prove.** Name a test
+   after the mechanism it observes, not the goal it serves.
+   `DoesNotInheritEnv` is honest; `IsContained` is a claim the test cannot
+   support. This is not pedantry about naming — when name and assertion
+   diverge, the name wins in the reader's head and the gap becomes invisible,
+   which is what lets the defect survive review. Found three times in one PR,
+   twice in tests written to fix the previous instance of it; each passed while
+   the thing it was named for was exploitable. If you cannot name the mechanism,
+   you do not yet know what the test observes.
+
 ## CAD sprint patterns
 
 Two CAD sprint archetypes (defs: brain `wiki/homelab/decisions/continuous-agentic-development-cad-concept-2026-06-16`):
@@ -246,10 +304,16 @@ entries that age well are about *why*, *how to avoid*, and *what to do when*.
 |---------|-------|-------|
 | **Claude Code, Claude Desktop** | `brain_query` (BM25), `brain_answer` (LLM-synth + sources) MCP tools | `brain_write` MCP tool |
 | **Crush, Pi, Antigravity, other MCP-capable** | same MCP server: `ingestion-brain` (via the `mcp__*_brain__*` namespace once authenticated) | same |
-| **Anything HTTP-only (curl, scripts)** | `POST https://brain-mcp.d-ma.be/query` with `{"query":"..."}` (auth via `BRAIN_MCP_TOKEN`) | `POST .../write` with `{"content":"...","filename":"..."}` |
+| **Anything HTTP-only (curl, scripts)** | Tailnet only: `POST https://koala.tail30472e.ts.net:8443/query` with `{"query":"..."}`, sending `BRAIN_MCP_TOKEN` (not yet enforced on REST, hyperguild#149). The public `brain-mcp.d-ma.be` serves `/mcp` only (infra#517). | `POST .../write` with `{"content":"...","wing":"...","hall":"..."}` |
 | **Browser / human inspection** | `https://git.d-ma.be/mathias/hyperguild` → `knowledge/` and `wiki/` markdown files |
 
-- **Scoping**: defaults to `public` collection; client projects filter to `{client}` + `public`.
+- **Scoping — the brain holds no confidential client content.** Nothing on the read path
+  filters by client: every token holder can read every wing, and `wing` on `brain_query`
+  is an optional argument, not an access control. Client confidentiality is enforced only
+  at write time (`capture`'s I1 gate refuses internal/confidential). So never `brain_write`
+  client material; generalise it first or keep it in the client's own repo. (hyperguild#144,
+  decided 2026-10-01. This line previously claimed client projects were filtered; they
+  were not.)
 - **Routing**: brain_answer's LLM uses berget.ai as primary, iguana ollama as
   fallback. Both are configurable in the `supervisor/ingestion-deployment.yaml`
   on the koala k3s cluster; don't hardcode local-only model names into the
@@ -319,8 +383,20 @@ Workflow:
    and missing-untracked adapters). A drift fails the check with a
    message telling you to stage the regenerated files.
 
-Behavior rules in this file and per-project rules in `PROJECT.md` apply
-unconditionally on every host, every harness.
+Behavior rules in this file and per-project rules in `PROJECT.md` apply on every
+host and every harness.
+
+**Where a project rule contradicts a rule here, the project rule governs — and it
+must state its reason.** Both halves matter: the project file wins because it knows
+something this file cannot (infra's Flux constraint is real and not visible from
+here), and it must say why because a bare override is indistinguishable from drift.
+
+This replaces the previous wording, which said rules here and in `PROJECT.md` both
+apply *"unconditionally"*. That was not a tiebreak but a contradiction, and it went
+unnoticed until rule 5 and infra's "never create feature branches" had to be obeyed
+at the same time (infra#470). A standard can hold two individually sensible clauses
+that are jointly unsatisfiable, and survive for as long as everyone reads it
+charitably — the same failure the Inception Sprint Oath's G6 had.
 
 ## Engineering Skills
 

AGENTS.md

@@ -73,6 +73,27 @@ These rules apply to every task across every project, regardless of harness.
    when a human reviewer outside the project is required. Document the reason in
    PROJECT.md.
 
+   **Exception — a GitOps repo where a branch cannot be reconciled.** In a repo whose
+   deployment watches one branch (`mathias/infra`: Flux watches `main`), a branch is
+   invisible to the thing that applies it. A `risk/medium` change to `alerts.yaml` or
+   `litellm-config.yaml` can be linted on a branch but never *exercised* there, so a
+   PR would buy a review of a state that was never deployed.
+
+   There, `risk/medium`+ work stays on `main` and instead requires a **recorded
+   adversarial review pass before the push** — `skills:pr-gatekeeper` or equivalent,
+   reviewing the staged diff. **The reviewer's verdict goes in the issue, not a PR
+   thread.** No verdict recorded means the lane was not used, and saying "the gate was
+   green" is not the same claim.
+
+   Be honest about what this is: a recorded *independent* pass, not four-eyes in the
+   sense `assessor-loop` §4.1 means for a regulated organisation, because the reviewer
+   is an agent. It is more than the repo had and less than the model it mirrors; do not
+   describe it as the stronger property. (infra#470, decided 2026-09-29.)
+
+   This lane depends on the `risk/` label being right. A label that triggers a heavier
+   lane is load-bearing, not cosmetic — if work that belongs in it is unlabelled, the
+   lane silently does not apply.
+
 6. **Close the loop — every substantive task ends with the same ritual.** Shipping
    the code is not the end of the task; capturing it is. Run this unprompted:
    - **Tag + bump SemVer** on the change (annotated tag; minor for a feature or
@@ -101,6 +122,43 @@ These rules apply to every task across every project, regardless of harness.
    revisit Y". Those are exactly the items that need a locator. If it is worth
    saying in a summary, it is worth writing where it can be found again without you.
 
+7. **Finish what's closable — only involve me for a genuine call.** If a
+   tracker issue, PR, or checklist item is demonstrably resolved — the fix
+   landed, the state changed, you verified it live — close/merge/check it off
+   in the same turn. Don't leave it open "for the record" or park it waiting
+   on me to confirm something that already happened; that's bookkeeping, not
+   a decision. Reserve asking me (`AskUserQuestion`, a `DECISION NEEDED`
+   comment, or otherwise pausing) for when it's genuinely mine to call:
+   irreversible or prod/host-impacting actions, a real judgment call with no
+   clearly-better option, ambiguous intent, or anything secret-writes/
+   destructive-git already gate. Before claiming something is closable,
+   verify it live (re-check the issue, re-run the command) rather than
+   trusting your own earlier summary (brain: `filed-issue-not-same-as-fixed`).
+
+8. **Control code needs an adversary, not a checklist.** Code whose job is to
+   refuse, deny, gate or contain is not adequately verified by a green gate.
+   Rule 5 makes CI the quality gate and that holds for ordinary work — but a
+   passing suite only asserts what its author already thought of, and for a
+   control the author is precisely the person whose imagination just failed.
+   Measured on `dispatch#75`: five review rounds, five real escapes verified by
+   execution, and **CI was green on every one of them** while `git rm
+   ././.dispatch-allow` deleted the file the control existed to protect. So
+   route this work through a review with authority to block, instructed to
+   verify by execution rather than by reading the implementation. Expect to be
+   blocked more than once; that is the control working, not the reviewer being
+   difficult. (brain: `a-green-gate-is-not-evidence-for-control-code`; the
+   practices live in the `pr-gatekeeper` agent.)
+
+9. **A test's name must not claim more than its assertions prove.** Name a test
+   after the mechanism it observes, not the goal it serves.
+   `DoesNotInheritEnv` is honest; `IsContained` is a claim the test cannot
+   support. This is not pedantry about naming — when name and assertion
+   diverge, the name wins in the reader's head and the gap becomes invisible,
+   which is what lets the defect survive review. Found three times in one PR,
+   twice in tests written to fix the previous instance of it; each passed while
+   the thing it was named for was exploitable. If you cannot name the mechanism,
+   you do not yet know what the test observes.
+
 ## CAD sprint patterns
 
 Two CAD sprint archetypes (defs: brain `wiki/homelab/decisions/continuous-agentic-development-cad-concept-2026-06-16`):
@@ -241,10 +299,16 @@ entries that age well are about *why*, *how to avoid*, and *what to do when*.
 |---------|-------|-------|
 | **Claude Code, Claude Desktop** | `brain_query` (BM25), `brain_answer` (LLM-synth + sources) MCP tools | `brain_write` MCP tool |
 | **Crush, Pi, Antigravity, other MCP-capable** | same MCP server: `ingestion-brain` (via the `mcp__*_brain__*` namespace once authenticated) | same |
-| **Anything HTTP-only (curl, scripts)** | `POST https://brain-mcp.d-ma.be/query` with `{"query":"..."}` (auth via `BRAIN_MCP_TOKEN`) | `POST .../write` with `{"content":"...","filename":"..."}` |
+| **Anything HTTP-only (curl, scripts)** | Tailnet only: `POST https://koala.tail30472e.ts.net:8443/query` with `{"query":"..."}`, sending `BRAIN_MCP_TOKEN` (not yet enforced on REST, hyperguild#149). The public `brain-mcp.d-ma.be` serves `/mcp` only (infra#517). | `POST .../write` with `{"content":"...","wing":"...","hall":"..."}` |
 | **Browser / human inspection** | `https://git.d-ma.be/mathias/hyperguild` → `knowledge/` and `wiki/` markdown files |
 
-- **Scoping**: defaults to `public` collection; client projects filter to `{client}` + `public`.
+- **Scoping — the brain holds no confidential client content.** Nothing on the read path
+  filters by client: every token holder can read every wing, and `wing` on `brain_query`
+  is an optional argument, not an access control. Client confidentiality is enforced only
+  at write time (`capture`'s I1 gate refuses internal/confidential). So never `brain_write`
+  client material; generalise it first or keep it in the client's own repo. (hyperguild#144,
+  decided 2026-10-01. This line previously claimed client projects were filtered; they
+  were not.)
 - **Routing**: brain_answer's LLM uses berget.ai as primary, iguana ollama as
   fallback. Both are configurable in the `supervisor/ingestion-deployment.yaml`
   on the koala k3s cluster; don't hardcode local-only model names into the
@@ -314,8 +378,20 @@ Workflow:
    and missing-untracked adapters). A drift fails the check with a
    message telling you to stage the regenerated files.
 
-Behavior rules in this file and per-project rules in `PROJECT.md` apply
-unconditionally on every host, every harness.
+Behavior rules in this file and per-project rules in `PROJECT.md` apply on every
+host and every harness.
+
+**Where a project rule contradicts a rule here, the project rule governs — and it
+must state its reason.** Both halves matter: the project file wins because it knows
+something this file cannot (infra's Flux constraint is real and not visible from
+here), and it must say why because a bare override is indistinguishable from drift.
+
+This replaces the previous wording, which said rules here and in `PROJECT.md` both
+apply *"unconditionally"*. That was not a tiebreak but a contradiction, and it went
+unnoticed until rule 5 and infra's "never create feature branches" had to be obeyed
+at the same time (infra#470). A standard can hold two individually sensible clauses
+that are jointly unsatisfiable, and survive for as long as everyone reads it
+charitably — the same failure the Inception Sprint Oath's G6 had.
 
 ## Engineering Skills
 

scripts/context-sync.sh

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ if [ "$FORCE" = false ]; then
     while IFS= read -r _match; do
       _lineno="${_match%%:*}"
       _content="${_match#*:}"
-      _token=$(printf '%s' "$_content" | grep -o '{{[^}]*}}' | head -1)
+      _token=$(head -1 < <(grep -o '{{[^}]*}}' <<<"$_content"))
       echo "  $PROJECT_FILE:$_lineno: unfilled placeholder $_token" >&2
     done <<< "$_placeholders"
     echo "" >&2