[kyle-sexton]

Refs: melodic-software/claude-code-account-rotation#288

Summary

Registers the ci-workflows v0.61.0 tag (164c2809f6150429b6f24d4a2777bb377af953d9) contracts for intake-triage.yml, pr-review.yml and pr-review-security.yml, in the same shape as #842 did for v0.60.0.

Fix

• components/runner-policy/policy.json: three entries keyed @164c2809…, verbatim copies of the @82ca5ca… (v0.60.0) entries, each placed right after its v0.60.0 entry.
• components/runner-policy/README.md: a v0.61.0 sign-off paragraph after the v0.60.0 one.
• components/runner-policy/runner-policy.test.mjs: REPINE_LANE_SHA_V0_61_0 and a test that the three v0.61.0 contracts equal their v0.60.0 entries and that exactly three v0.61.0 contracts exist.

v0.61.0 is v0.60.0 plus melodic-software/ci-workflows#856 and melodic-software/ci-workflows#857 (git log 82ca5ca..164c280). In git diff 82ca5ca 164c280:

• intake-triage.yml: no change to workflow_call inputs, secrets, job permissions or runs-on; only steps, job outputs and the status job change.
• pr-review.yml and pr-review-security.yml: each adds two optional inputs, credential-name (default CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN) and fallback-credential-name (default empty). Callers do not pass them, so allowedInputs stays as at v0.60.0. Secrets, permissions and routing are unchanged.

Verification

• npm run test:runner-policy: 328 tests, 328 pass, 0 fail, including the new v0.61.0 test.
• Adding credential-name to the new pr-review entry made the new test fail (1 fail); the file was then restored.
• npm run lint:runner-policy: Runner policy passed.
• biome (components/biome/biome.json) on components/runner-policy, markdownlint, typos, editorconfig-checker and gitleaks: clean (lefthook pre-commit also passed).

Related

• feat(runner-policy): register ci-workflows v0.60.0 intake and review contracts #842 (v0.60.0 registration this copies)
• feat(review): name the credential in review-lane and intake handoff lane records ci-workflows#856
• test: fail any lane workflow that does not emit the lane-outcome record ci-workflows#857
• Limit-stop warning: read only lane workflow runs, so the 30-run cap spans the 7-day window claude-code-account-rotation#288

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[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 2026-10-22T13:59:16.312696Z	2aeadc6	PR opened

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.

[github-actions]

claude-review reviewed e19b8d0e0dcc9855ad2bab26743e6882a0e04c25: 0 finding(s), 0 as inline comments.

Incremental review (e19b8d0, since 2aeadc6)

I found nothing to report. The only change is in components/runner-policy/README.md, in the v0.61.0 paragraph.

• Sign-off wording: the paragraph now says the owner approved on 2026-10-22 on condition that an independent security review of the v0.60.0 to v0.61.0 diff passed. It also says that review found nothing above informational. I read the new sentence against the rest of the paragraph and found nothing that contradicts it.
• Review-workflow description: "the review workflows report the first attempt's usage limit as its own record, a step that needs a fallback token no allowed caller can pass" is consistent with the PR body. The body says fallback-credential-name defaults to empty, callers don't pass it, and allowedInputs is unchanged. That is also why the README says neither new input is allowed.
• Test coverage: runner-policy.test.mjs does not read README prose, so this wording change can't break a test.

Two things I could not check from this diff:

• I couldn't verify that the independent security review happened or what it found. The README presents it as the owner's recorded approval condition, so it rests on the owner's word.
• The unchanged first sentence of the paragraph is hard to read. After "informational," the list "intake-triage, pr-review and pr-review-security" could be taken as part of the preceding clause. That is a style point, so I did not report it.

[github-actions]

claude-security-review needs no new review of e19b8d0e0dcc9855ad2bab26743e6882a0e04c25: every file in scope matches docs-only-paths.

Security review: PR #843 (head 2aeadc6)

No security findings.

The PR adds three allowlist entries to components/runner-policy/policy.json for ci-workflows v0.61.0 (164c2809…): intake-triage, pr-review and pr-review-security. It also adds a README paragraph and a test that checks the new entries against the old ones.

• Entries match v0.60.0. I compared each new entry with its v0.60.0 entry (82ca5ca9…) using jq, and all three are identical. They have the same allowedInputs, allowedSecrets, allowedCallerPermissions and routing. Nothing widens: no new input, no new secret, no higher caller permission.
• New optional inputs stay out. The credential-name and fallback-credential-name inputs that v0.61.0 adds to pr-review and pr-review-security are not in allowedInputs. A caller that passed them would be rejected by the policy gate, which is the safe default.
• Pin is a full SHA. Every added entry is keyed on the full 40-character commit SHA, not a tag or branch. I could not check that the SHA is the v0.61.0 tag, because the sandbox gave no cross-repo access. The README says it was signed off by hand.
• Test only reads data. The added test reads the policy and compares entries. It adds no execution surface and does not weaken any assertion.
• Skip gates and register. No .claude-plugin manifests changed, so there are no manifest <field> lines. No standing instruction was deleted, narrowed or softened, so the instruction-exception register did not apply.