Correct the counts in README and CONTRIBUTING - #24
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Both claimed 22 invariants and "7 invariants, 4 tooling groups" in the suite. The real figures are 25, 8 and 10 — the three invariants added this week and six tooling groups that arrived with them. A count in prose is an authored copy of something derived, which is the failure INV-001 describes. These two are not worth a checker, but they are worth being right: a stale number in the first screen of the README undermines the numbers that do have checkers behind them. Found while reviewing #23, and separated from it because the drift predates that branch. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
junixlabs
added a commit
to jabrailkhalil/traceos
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2026
The conflict is mine: junixlabs#24 corrected stale counts in README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md an hour after I told this branch's author those files were not theirs to fix. Resolved to keep both sides — their packaged commands, my corrected counts. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
junixlabs
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2026
…th (#23) Closes #6. `tools/*.py` becomes a `traceos/` package with a `traceos` entry point, a hatchling build backend, and `schema/` resolved through `importlib.resources` so the engine works from an installed wheel as well as from a checkout. `init` no longer copies `tools/` and `schema/` into the scaffold. That goes further than #6 asked and is the better call: a copied engine is a frozen engine, and a frozen engine is the failure most of this project's rules exist to prevent. `skills/` is still copied, because the agent reads those in the target repository. Reviewed against the contributor's fork rather than their summary: 31 groups / 135 assertions, 25 invariants, 34/34 locators, ruff clean, both models validate, CI 8/8. All 34 declared evidence references were audited by comparing each reference's latest `observed_blob` against current content — 34/34 match, so the re-observations came from real `observe` runs. Security pass found no network calls, no dynamic execution, no custom build hooks, no new Actions, and no change to the workflow trust boundary. Two review items and one conflict were finished on the branch: the reference model's README still documented `python3 ../../tools/traceos.py`, `tests/run_tests.py` tripped CodeQL's `py/import-and-import-from`, and the README/CONTRIBUTING conflict came from #24 landing underneath the branch. Co-Authored-By: jabrailkhalil <jabrailkhalil@gmail.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Both claimed 22 invariants and
7 invariants, 4 tooling groups. The real figures are 25, 8 and 10.A count in prose is an authored copy of a derived value — the failure INV-001 names. These two aren't worth a checker, but they are worth being right: a stale number on the first screen of the README undermines the numbers that do have checkers behind them.
Found while reviewing #23; separated because the drift predates that branch and isn't the contributor's to carry.