approve: the CLI decides before it shows — a reviewer approves a plan they have not seen #46

Description

@Shashankss1205

What happens

grapharc approve <trace> reads the parked request and writes an approve decision immediately; the plan's contents — approved: plan 337ed97f9a2c (triage, patch, verify) and the fingerprint — are printed after the decision is already written. There is no way to look first: no flag that prints the pending request without deciding, and no argument that binds the decision to a fingerprint the reviewer previously read.

The file protocol underneath is already careful — write_decision quotes the request's fingerprint and the loop discards a decision whose fingerprint does not match the parked request — so a stale decision cannot land on a newer plan. What is missing is the human half: the CLI never shows the reviewer what they are saying yes to.

Why it matters

The approval gate is the product's central trust claim ("there is no already-approved path"). An approve command that works sight-unseen reduces that gate to a button — in a Slack-driven workflow especially, approve becomes a reflex, and the audit trail then records informed consent that never happened.

What to consider

  • grapharc approve <trace> --show (or approve with no decision flag): print the parked plan — nodes, kinds, edges, fingerprint, estimated cost — and exit without deciding.
  • grapharc approve <trace> --fingerprint <fp>: write the decision bound to the fingerprint the reviewer actually reviewed; refuse with exit 2 if the parked request differs. The plumbing already exists — the CLI just never exposes it.
  • Keep the current one-shot behaviour available (--yes?) for automation; the default should lean toward review-then-decide for humans.

Out of scope

The decision file format and the loop's fingerprint matching — both are correct today.

Acceptance criteria

A reviewer can print a parked plan without deciding; a decision bound to a stale fingerprint is refused with a message naming both fingerprints; the existing approve/deny tests pass unchanged.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementNew feature or requesthelp wantedExtra attention is needed

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
       blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
      }
      } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
      })();
      (function(){
      try {
      var __m = "github.com";
      var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
      
      Skip to content

      approve: the CLI decides before it shows — a reviewer approves a plan they have not seen #46

      Description

      @Shashankss1205

      What happens

      grapharc approve <trace> reads the parked request and writes an approve decision immediately; the plan's contents — approved: plan 337ed97f9a2c (triage, patch, verify) and the fingerprint — are printed after the decision is already written. There is no way to look first: no flag that prints the pending request without deciding, and no argument that binds the decision to a fingerprint the reviewer previously read.

      The file protocol underneath is already careful — write_decision quotes the request's fingerprint and the loop discards a decision whose fingerprint does not match the parked request — so a stale decision cannot land on a newer plan. What is missing is the human half: the CLI never shows the reviewer what they are saying yes to.

      Why it matters

      The approval gate is the product's central trust claim ("there is no already-approved path"). An approve command that works sight-unseen reduces that gate to a button — in a Slack-driven workflow especially, approve becomes a reflex, and the audit trail then records informed consent that never happened.

      What to consider

      • grapharc approve <trace> --show (or approve with no decision flag): print the parked plan — nodes, kinds, edges, fingerprint, estimated cost — and exit without deciding.
      • grapharc approve <trace> --fingerprint <fp>: write the decision bound to the fingerprint the reviewer actually reviewed; refuse with exit 2 if the parked request differs. The plumbing already exists — the CLI just never exposes it.
      • Keep the current one-shot behaviour available (--yes?) for automation; the default should lean toward review-then-decide for humans.

      Out of scope

      The decision file format and the loop's fingerprint matching — both are correct today.

      Acceptance criteria

      A reviewer can print a parked plan without deciding; a decision bound to a stale fingerprint is refused with a message naming both fingerprints; the existing approve/deny tests pass unchanged.

      Activity

      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

      Metadata

      Metadata

      Assignees

      No one assigned

        Labels

        enhancementNew feature or requesthelp wantedExtra attention is needed

        Type

        No type

        Projects

        No projects

          Milestone

          No milestone

          Relationships

          None yet

          Development

          No branches or pull requests

          Issue actions

          , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
          Skip to content

          approve: the CLI decides before it shows — a reviewer approves a plan they have not seen #46

          Description

          @Shashankss1205

          What happens

          grapharc approve <trace> reads the parked request and writes an approve decision immediately; the plan's contents — approved: plan 337ed97f9a2c (triage, patch, verify) and the fingerprint — are printed after the decision is already written. There is no way to look first: no flag that prints the pending request without deciding, and no argument that binds the decision to a fingerprint the reviewer previously read.

          The file protocol underneath is already careful — write_decision quotes the request's fingerprint and the loop discards a decision whose fingerprint does not match the parked request — so a stale decision cannot land on a newer plan. What is missing is the human half: the CLI never shows the reviewer what they are saying yes to.

          Why it matters

          The approval gate is the product's central trust claim ("there is no already-approved path"). An approve command that works sight-unseen reduces that gate to a button — in a Slack-driven workflow especially, approve becomes a reflex, and the audit trail then records informed consent that never happened.

          What to consider

          • grapharc approve <trace> --show (or approve with no decision flag): print the parked plan — nodes, kinds, edges, fingerprint, estimated cost — and exit without deciding.
          • grapharc approve <trace> --fingerprint <fp>: write the decision bound to the fingerprint the reviewer actually reviewed; refuse with exit 2 if the parked request differs. The plumbing already exists — the CLI just never exposes it.
          • Keep the current one-shot behaviour available (--yes?) for automation; the default should lean toward review-then-decide for humans.

          Out of scope

          The decision file format and the loop's fingerprint matching — both are correct today.

          Acceptance criteria

          A reviewer can print a parked plan without deciding; a decision bound to a stale fingerprint is refused with a message naming both fingerprints; the existing approve/deny tests pass unchanged.

          Activity

          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

          Metadata

          Metadata

          Assignees

          No one assigned

            Labels

            enhancementNew feature or requesthelp wantedExtra attention is needed

            Type

            No type

            Projects

            No projects

              Milestone

              No milestone

              Relationships

              None yet

              Development

              No branches or pull requests

              Issue actions

              , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
              Skip to content

              approve: the CLI decides before it shows — a reviewer approves a plan they have not seen #46

              Description

              @Shashankss1205

              What happens

              grapharc approve <trace> reads the parked request and writes an approve decision immediately; the plan's contents — approved: plan 337ed97f9a2c (triage, patch, verify) and the fingerprint — are printed after the decision is already written. There is no way to look first: no flag that prints the pending request without deciding, and no argument that binds the decision to a fingerprint the reviewer previously read.

              The file protocol underneath is already careful — write_decision quotes the request's fingerprint and the loop discards a decision whose fingerprint does not match the parked request — so a stale decision cannot land on a newer plan. What is missing is the human half: the CLI never shows the reviewer what they are saying yes to.

              Why it matters

              The approval gate is the product's central trust claim ("there is no already-approved path"). An approve command that works sight-unseen reduces that gate to a button — in a Slack-driven workflow especially, approve becomes a reflex, and the audit trail then records informed consent that never happened.

              What to consider

              • grapharc approve <trace> --show (or approve with no decision flag): print the parked plan — nodes, kinds, edges, fingerprint, estimated cost — and exit without deciding.
              • grapharc approve <trace> --fingerprint <fp>: write the decision bound to the fingerprint the reviewer actually reviewed; refuse with exit 2 if the parked request differs. The plumbing already exists — the CLI just never exposes it.
              • Keep the current one-shot behaviour available (--yes?) for automation; the default should lean toward review-then-decide for humans.

              Out of scope

              The decision file format and the loop's fingerprint matching — both are correct today.

              Acceptance criteria

              A reviewer can print a parked plan without deciding; a decision bound to a stale fingerprint is refused with a message naming both fingerprints; the existing approve/deny tests pass unchanged.

              Activity

              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

              Metadata

              Metadata

              Assignees

              No one assigned

                Labels

                enhancementNew feature or requesthelp wantedExtra attention is needed

                Type

                No type

                Projects

                No projects

                  Milestone

                  No milestone

                  Relationships

                  None yet

                  Development

                  No branches or pull requests

                  Issue actions

                  , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
                  Skip to content

                  approve: the CLI decides before it shows — a reviewer approves a plan they have not seen #46

                  Description

                  @Shashankss1205

                  What happens

                  grapharc approve <trace> reads the parked request and writes an approve decision immediately; the plan's contents — approved: plan 337ed97f9a2c (triage, patch, verify) and the fingerprint — are printed after the decision is already written. There is no way to look first: no flag that prints the pending request without deciding, and no argument that binds the decision to a fingerprint the reviewer previously read.

                  The file protocol underneath is already careful — write_decision quotes the request's fingerprint and the loop discards a decision whose fingerprint does not match the parked request — so a stale decision cannot land on a newer plan. What is missing is the human half: the CLI never shows the reviewer what they are saying yes to.

                  Why it matters

                  The approval gate is the product's central trust claim ("there is no already-approved path"). An approve command that works sight-unseen reduces that gate to a button — in a Slack-driven workflow especially, approve becomes a reflex, and the audit trail then records informed consent that never happened.

                  What to consider

                  • grapharc approve <trace> --show (or approve with no decision flag): print the parked plan — nodes, kinds, edges, fingerprint, estimated cost — and exit without deciding.
                  • grapharc approve <trace> --fingerprint <fp>: write the decision bound to the fingerprint the reviewer actually reviewed; refuse with exit 2 if the parked request differs. The plumbing already exists — the CLI just never exposes it.
                  • Keep the current one-shot behaviour available (--yes?) for automation; the default should lean toward review-then-decide for humans.

                  Out of scope

                  The decision file format and the loop's fingerprint matching — both are correct today.

                  Acceptance criteria

                  A reviewer can print a parked plan without deciding; a decision bound to a stale fingerprint is refused with a message naming both fingerprints; the existing approve/deny tests pass unchanged.

                  Activity

                  Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                  Metadata

                  Metadata

                  Assignees

                  No one assigned

                    Labels

                    enhancementNew feature or requesthelp wantedExtra attention is needed

                    Type

                    No type

                    Projects

                    No projects

                      Milestone

                      No milestone

                      Relationships

                      None yet

                      Development

                      No branches or pull requests

                      Issue actions

                      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
                      Skip to content

                      approve: the CLI decides before it shows — a reviewer approves a plan they have not seen #46

                      Description

                      @Shashankss1205

                      What happens

                      grapharc approve <trace> reads the parked request and writes an approve decision immediately; the plan's contents — approved: plan 337ed97f9a2c (triage, patch, verify) and the fingerprint — are printed after the decision is already written. There is no way to look first: no flag that prints the pending request without deciding, and no argument that binds the decision to a fingerprint the reviewer previously read.

                      The file protocol underneath is already careful — write_decision quotes the request's fingerprint and the loop discards a decision whose fingerprint does not match the parked request — so a stale decision cannot land on a newer plan. What is missing is the human half: the CLI never shows the reviewer what they are saying yes to.

                      Why it matters

                      The approval gate is the product's central trust claim ("there is no already-approved path"). An approve command that works sight-unseen reduces that gate to a button — in a Slack-driven workflow especially, approve becomes a reflex, and the audit trail then records informed consent that never happened.

                      What to consider

                      • grapharc approve <trace> --show (or approve with no decision flag): print the parked plan — nodes, kinds, edges, fingerprint, estimated cost — and exit without deciding.
                      • grapharc approve <trace> --fingerprint <fp>: write the decision bound to the fingerprint the reviewer actually reviewed; refuse with exit 2 if the parked request differs. The plumbing already exists — the CLI just never exposes it.
                      • Keep the current one-shot behaviour available (--yes?) for automation; the default should lean toward review-then-decide for humans.

                      Out of scope

                      The decision file format and the loop's fingerprint matching — both are correct today.

                      Acceptance criteria

                      A reviewer can print a parked plan without deciding; a decision bound to a stale fingerprint is refused with a message naming both fingerprints; the existing approve/deny tests pass unchanged.

                      Activity

                      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                      Metadata

                      Metadata

                      Assignees

                      No one assigned

                        Labels

                        enhancementNew feature or requesthelp wantedExtra attention is needed

                        Type

                        No type

                        Projects

                        No projects

                          Milestone

                          No milestone

                          Relationships

                          None yet

                          Development

                          No branches or pull requests

                          Issue actions

                          , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
                          Skip to content

                          approve: the CLI decides before it shows — a reviewer approves a plan they have not seen #46

                          Description

                          @Shashankss1205

                          What happens

                          grapharc approve <trace> reads the parked request and writes an approve decision immediately; the plan's contents — approved: plan 337ed97f9a2c (triage, patch, verify) and the fingerprint — are printed after the decision is already written. There is no way to look first: no flag that prints the pending request without deciding, and no argument that binds the decision to a fingerprint the reviewer previously read.

                          The file protocol underneath is already careful — write_decision quotes the request's fingerprint and the loop discards a decision whose fingerprint does not match the parked request — so a stale decision cannot land on a newer plan. What is missing is the human half: the CLI never shows the reviewer what they are saying yes to.

                          Why it matters

                          The approval gate is the product's central trust claim ("there is no already-approved path"). An approve command that works sight-unseen reduces that gate to a button — in a Slack-driven workflow especially, approve becomes a reflex, and the audit trail then records informed consent that never happened.

                          What to consider

                          • grapharc approve <trace> --show (or approve with no decision flag): print the parked plan — nodes, kinds, edges, fingerprint, estimated cost — and exit without deciding.
                          • grapharc approve <trace> --fingerprint <fp>: write the decision bound to the fingerprint the reviewer actually reviewed; refuse with exit 2 if the parked request differs. The plumbing already exists — the CLI just never exposes it.
                          • Keep the current one-shot behaviour available (--yes?) for automation; the default should lean toward review-then-decide for humans.

                          Out of scope

                          The decision file format and the loop's fingerprint matching — both are correct today.

                          Acceptance criteria

                          A reviewer can print a parked plan without deciding; a decision bound to a stale fingerprint is refused with a message naming both fingerprints; the existing approve/deny tests pass unchanged.

                          Activity

                          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                          Metadata

                          Metadata

                          Assignees

                          No one assigned

                            Labels

                            enhancementNew feature or requesthelp wantedExtra attention is needed

                            Type

                            No type

                            Projects

                            No projects

                              Milestone

                              No milestone

                              Relationships

                              None yet

                              Development

                              No branches or pull requests

                              Issue actions

                              , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
                              Skip to content

                              approve: the CLI decides before it shows — a reviewer approves a plan they have not seen #46

                              Description

                              @Shashankss1205

                              What happens

                              grapharc approve <trace> reads the parked request and writes an approve decision immediately; the plan's contents — approved: plan 337ed97f9a2c (triage, patch, verify) and the fingerprint — are printed after the decision is already written. There is no way to look first: no flag that prints the pending request without deciding, and no argument that binds the decision to a fingerprint the reviewer previously read.

                              The file protocol underneath is already careful — write_decision quotes the request's fingerprint and the loop discards a decision whose fingerprint does not match the parked request — so a stale decision cannot land on a newer plan. What is missing is the human half: the CLI never shows the reviewer what they are saying yes to.

                              Why it matters

                              The approval gate is the product's central trust claim ("there is no already-approved path"). An approve command that works sight-unseen reduces that gate to a button — in a Slack-driven workflow especially, approve becomes a reflex, and the audit trail then records informed consent that never happened.

                              What to consider

                              • grapharc approve <trace> --show (or approve with no decision flag): print the parked plan — nodes, kinds, edges, fingerprint, estimated cost — and exit without deciding.
                              • grapharc approve <trace> --fingerprint <fp>: write the decision bound to the fingerprint the reviewer actually reviewed; refuse with exit 2 if the parked request differs. The plumbing already exists — the CLI just never exposes it.
                              • Keep the current one-shot behaviour available (--yes?) for automation; the default should lean toward review-then-decide for humans.

                              Out of scope

                              The decision file format and the loop's fingerprint matching — both are correct today.

                              Acceptance criteria

                              A reviewer can print a parked plan without deciding; a decision bound to a stale fingerprint is refused with a message naming both fingerprints; the existing approve/deny tests pass unchanged.

                              Activity

                              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                              Metadata

                              Metadata

                              Assignees

                              No one assigned

                                Labels

                                enhancementNew feature or requesthelp wantedExtra attention is needed

                                Type

                                No type

                                Projects

                                No projects

                                  Milestone

                                  No milestone

                                  Relationships

                                  None yet

                                  Development

                                  No branches or pull requests

                                  Issue actions