| 1 | Reviewed HEAD `f649d972825a085aa444b30687b093d38dab7ae4`. |
| 2 | |
| 3 | 1. **P2 — Replica exclusion stops minting, but still delivers configured keys.** [Plan:1546](/home/paulca/amadan.net/carlos/platform/.claude/worktrees/instance-key-provision/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-10-instance-key-provision.md:1546) |
| 4 | Returning `InstanceKeyReplica` leaves environment composition unchanged. A home can retain platform key A in its own env while configuration supplies B; the replica receives B because it has no minted override. `InstanceKey("")` then returns B successfully. The adoption endpoint’s 409 cannot enforce refusal because the helper explicitly ignores failures and returns the key ([plan:604](/home/paulca/amadan.net/carlos/platform/.claude/worktrees/instance-key-provision/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-10-instance-key-provision.md:604)). This permits the wrong key over the home’s replicated data, contrary to ruling 17’s promised exclusion. Enforce the exclusion at key delivery/resolution, and test an actual replica launch with configured and pre-existing env keys. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | 2. **P3 — The final dependency order contradicts the shipping gate.** [Plan:3585](/home/paulca/amadan.net/carlos/platform/.claude/worktrees/instance-key-provision/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-10-instance-key-provision.md:3585) |
| 7 | “O6 and O7 … in that order” conflicts with ruling 24 and O6’s explicit requirement that O7 ship first. Correct the final instruction so it cannot direct implementation back into R2-5’s artifact-retirement defect. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | The five round 2 findings are addressed **at the plan-contract level**: |
| 10 | |
| 11 | - **R2-1/2:** configuration presence no longer counts; adoption identifies the key, and installation checks its pinned digest. |
| 12 | - **R2-3:** writer binding and admission-time invalidation reject stale-session and rollback records. |
| 13 | - **R2-4:** the relay supplies continuous publication; O6 explicitly gates relocation. A lost first report causes refusal. |
| 14 | - **R2-5:** O7 specifies retirement, inventory and rollback handling before the writer ships, subject to correcting finding 2 above. |
| 15 | |
| 16 | The `source` check is sound as specified: the agent derives it and the digest from the launch’s actual environment layers, then checks the helper’s echo against captured launch state. Replica adoption evidence is refused; finding 1 concerns the process still using the delivered key. |
| 17 | |
| 18 | The configured-secret digest warrants the existing **P3 note**. A public per-host salt would reduce cross-host correlation and reusable guessing work, but would still permit guessing weak keys. It need not block this plan under the stated threat model. |
| 19 | |
| 20 | Static review only; I did not independently compile or execute the proposed snippets. |
| 21 | |
| 22 | --- |
| 23 | |
| 24 | **FIRST PROMPT:** |
| 25 | Review the instance-key plan at HEAD using the round 3 brief. |
| 26 | |
| 27 | **WHAT:** |
| 28 | Assess whether the revised plan is ready to build. |
| 29 | |
| 30 | **STATUS:** |
| 31 | Review complete: one P2 and one P3. No files changed. |
| 32 | |
| 33 | **NEEDED:** |
| 34 | Nothing for this review. |
| 35 | |
| 36 | **RECOMMENDED:** |
| 37 | Close the replica delivery gap and correct the dependency order. |
| 38 | |
| 39 | **SESSION:** |
| 40 | Safe to close; no processes or scratch files left behind. |
| 41 | |
| 42 | **Verdict: not ready to build.** |
amadan