Skip to content

Add unsafe Rust skill V1 and preserve predecessor pilot - #3520

Merged
joshlf merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

Add unsafe Rust skill V1 and preserve predecessor pilot#3520
joshlf merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct

Conversation

@joshlf

@joshlf joshlf commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Introduce a proof-oriented unsafe Rust authoring and audit skill. Treat safety
documentation as an English-language theorem and each SAFETY comment as its
proof, with every material premise grounded in exact versioned Rust Reference
or standard-library text or recorded conspicuously in the TCB.

Require obligation-first review, local invariant composition, adversarial
caller reasoning, explicit dependency trust, complete safe-API and
configuration surfaces, documented postconditions, and proof-grade audit
artifacts. Include the conditional abstraction-design workflow, module-boundary
discipline, API-evolution and SemVer analysis, generated-code coverage, TCB and
report templates, and a source catalog and evaluation plan.

Preserve the paired exploratory smoke test that preceded this V1 snapshot. Ten
fresh source-only agents reviewed synthetic vulnerable/fixed code, a historical
zerocopy defect/fix pair, and current zerocopy. The treatment retained complete
known-defect recall and improved authority, configuration, surface, TCB, and
report closure, while the current-code challenge exposed missed version
applicability, literal contract clauses, and indirect derivations.

The exact predecessor skill archive and several raw pilot artifacts were not
retained. Record its digest and results without claiming a byte-exact
predecessor-to-V1 diff. The pilot used procedural rather than hardened
isolation, one replicate per cell, and cannot establish release readiness.

Agent-Authored-By: AI agent acting on Josh Liebow-Feeser's behalf


This PR is on branch codex/unsafe-rust-stack.

Latest Update: v7 — Compare vs v6

📚 Full Patch History

Links show the diff between the row version and the column version.

Version v6 v5 v4 v3 v2 v1 Base
v7 vs v6 vs v5 vs v4 vs v3 vs v2 vs v1 vs Base
v6 vs v5 vs v4 vs v3 vs v2 vs v1 vs Base
v5 vs v4 vs v3 vs v2 vs v1 vs Base
v4 vs v3 vs v2 vs v1 vs Base
v3 vs v2 vs v1 vs Base
v2 vs v1 vs Base
v1 vs Base
⬇️ Download this PR

Branch

git fetch origin refs/heads/G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct && git checkout -b pr-G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct FETCH_HEAD

Checkout

git fetch origin refs/heads/G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct && git checkout FETCH_HEAD

Cherry Pick

git fetch origin refs/heads/G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct && git cherry-pick FETCH_HEAD

Pull

git pull origin refs/heads/G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct

Stacked PRs enabled by GHerrit.

@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.85%. Comparing base (eb56b4a) to head (de6c8f1).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3520   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.85%   91.85%           
=======================================
  Files          20       20           
  Lines        6093     6093           
=======================================
  Hits         5597     5597           
  Misses        496      496           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 63e27557e1

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".

Comment thread evals/unsafe-rust/testing-plan.md
Comment thread evals/unsafe-rust/fixtures/pilot/README.md
Comment thread evals/unsafe-rust/runs/2026-07-30-exploratory-pilot/report.md
@joshlf
joshlf force-pushed the G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct branch 2 times, most recently from 6dfbeb8 to 788854e Compare August 29, 2026 11:11
@joshlf
joshlf force-pushed the G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct branch from 788854e to de6c8f1 Compare September 1, 2026 22:15
@joshlf
joshlf enabled auto-merge September 2, 2026 19:52
Introduce a proof-oriented unsafe Rust authoring and audit skill. Treat safety
documentation as an English-language theorem and each SAFETY comment as its
proof, with every material premise grounded in exact versioned Rust Reference
or standard-library text or recorded conspicuously in the TCB.

Require obligation-first review, local invariant composition, adversarial
caller reasoning, explicit dependency trust, complete safe-API and
configuration surfaces, documented postconditions, and proof-grade audit
artifacts. Include the conditional abstraction-design workflow, module-boundary
discipline, API-evolution and SemVer analysis, generated-code coverage, TCB and
report templates, and a source catalog and evaluation plan.

Preserve the paired exploratory smoke test that preceded this V1 snapshot. Ten
fresh source-only agents reviewed synthetic vulnerable/fixed code, a historical
zerocopy defect/fix pair, and current zerocopy. The treatment retained complete
known-defect recall and improved authority, configuration, surface, TCB, and
report closure, while the current-code challenge exposed missed version
applicability, literal contract clauses, and indirect derivations.

The exact predecessor skill archive and several raw pilot artifacts were not
retained. Record its digest and results without claiming a byte-exact
predecessor-to-V1 diff. The pilot used procedural rather than hardened
isolation, one replicate per cell, and cannot establish release readiness.

gherrit-pr-id: G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct
Agent-Authored-By: AI agent acting on Josh Liebow-Feeser's behalf
@joshlf
joshlf added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 2, 2026
@github-merge-queue
github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Sep 2, 2026
@joshlf
joshlf added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 2, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 2916684 Sep 2, 2026
104 checks passed
@joshlf
joshlf deleted the G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct branch September 2, 2026 21:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants