fix(gh-aw): enforce maintainer authorization for direct Squad commands

docs/src/content/docs/guide/gh-aw.md

@@ -741,6 +741,25 @@ PR conversation comment. On a pull request, post the command in the
 Commands are matched longest-prefix-first, so the most specific command string
 wins: `/squad plan accept scope` is not treated as `/squad plan`.
 
+### Command diagnostics
+
+The dispatcher and command router disable automatic failure, failed-job,
+detection and no-op tracking-issue reporting, plus generic activation/completion
+comments. Those framework paths run outside the deterministic safe-output guard;
+completion comments can also append raw agent no-op text even when that guard
+rejects the output. This restriction applies to maintainer runs as well as open
+modes. Guarded command replies, research/planning artifacts and Cast failure
+comments remain supported.
+
+Use the Actions run's logs and summaries for framework diagnostics. No-op messages
+remain visible there, `report_incomplete` fails the conclusion step, and
+`missing_data` remains logged (it does not by itself guarantee a red run).
+Threat detection still runs and retains its enforcement behavior; only its
+tracking-issue reporting is disabled. No diagnostic is permission to bypass
+command authorization or the open-mode artifact restrictions.
+
+### Command reference
+
 | Category | Command | Purpose | Notes |
 |----------|---------|---------|-------|
 | Team | `/squad` | Cast a new team | Same as `/squad cast` |
@@ -845,6 +864,41 @@ together. Direct manual dispatches of either worker fail closed; use
 `/squad implement` or the retrospective relay so the dispatcher can create the
 authoritative receipt and bound session inputs.
 
+### Deterministic command authorization
+
+Direct slash commands and discovered commands share a trusted runtime check,
+independent of agent instructions. Mutating commands require live **write,
+maintain, or admin** repository permission for both the event actor and the
+original issue/comment author. Missing identities, bot-authored text, failed
+permission lookups, and edited events without changed-command evidence fail
+closed. Editing a maintainer's old comment does not inherit their authority.
+
+`status`, `review`, `research`, and `plan` remain open to identifiable human
+contributors without write permission. Their safe outputs are restricted to
+comments on the originating issue and mode-specific draft artifacts. They
+cannot create issues or PRs, change labels, dispatch workers, or write acceptance
+or activation artifacts, even when the caller is a maintainer. Research and
+plan can update only their own nonterminal lifecycle state. Put structured data
+in the tool's `data` field, not JSON fences or `Structured data:` blocks in the
+comment body. This restriction includes HTML comments and quoted/code regions:
+gh-aw preserves HTML comments inside code fences, and lifecycle readers inspect
+the complete posted text rather than its rendered visibility.
+
+The guard validates the entire emitted batch before the built-in handlers run.
+Research/lifecycle custom jobs and terminal lifecycle repair require a successful
+safe-output job. The command router permits no agent-authored mutations; only
+its deterministic handler can forward a validated command.
+
+Authenticated `workflow_dispatch` events retain GitHub's platform Actions-write
+authorization, including the router and implementation worker's `GITHUB_TOKEN`
+continuations. This exception is bound to the actual event and matching platform
+actor/sender, never an `aw_context` claim, issue text, or a blanket bot exemption.
+Open-mode output restrictions still apply to dispatched commands. Empty activation
+probes cannot produce safe outputs.
+
+Install this protection as a complete immutable package update using
+[Upgrading](#upgrading), not by editing an integrity-pinned runtime file.
+
 ### Where you can use slash commands
 
 | Surface | How it works |
@@ -1447,14 +1501,13 @@ interchangeable — the trigger, the wording, and the remedy differ:
 | Issues not created | Created count is below the plan's declared total | `N of M issues created so far — rerun the identical activation command to continue.` |
 | Labels not applied | An activated issue had no `add_labels` call accepted | `{labeled} of {activated} activated issues had a label operation accepted` |
 
-Either one calls `report_incomplete`. **This does not fail the run.** The workflow
-run still concludes `success`, so `gh run view --json conclusion` is not a way to
-detect a truncated activation. The durable, user-visible signal is a tracking
-issue in your repository titled `[aw] ... reported incomplete result`, which
-gh-aw opens or updates:
+Either one calls `report_incomplete`. With pinned gh-aw v0.89.22, **this fails the
+conclusion step** and records the reason in the Actions logs. The dispatcher
+does not create or update a separate tracking issue. Inspect the run and the
+guarded activation summary on the originating issue:
 
 ```bash
-gh issue list --search '"reported incomplete result" in:title' --state all
+gh run view <run-id> --log-failed
 ```
 
 If a cap was actually reached, the report names which cap and lists the work
@@ -1469,7 +1522,9 @@ IDs the run minted — `#aw_epic{K}` and `#aw_task{N}` on the hierarchical path,
 — rather than by issue number, because at that point creation is still deferred
 and no real number exists yet.
 
-Do not read a green run as a complete activation. Check for that tracking issue.
+Do not read a green run as proof of complete activation: an omitted
+`report_incomplete` signal cannot be detected by that handler. Check the
+activation summary and verify the resulting issues and labels.
 
 #### Verifying an activation: the bindings block
 
@@ -2130,8 +2185,8 @@ other refs.
 | `/squad` command is ignored | Lock file not committed or workflow not compiled | Run `gh aw compile --strict`, commit the lock file, and push |
 | Universe is full on cast-member | All character names in the universe are allocated | Retire an unused member first, or re-cast with `/squad cast` |
 | "No plan found" on plan accept | No `/squad plan` comment exists yet | Run `/squad plan` first to generate a plan for review |
-| Plan activation creates fewer issues than the accepted plan declares | The run ended early, or it reached the `create-issue` (75) or `add-labels` (110) safe-output cap | Look for an `[aw] ... reported incomplete result` tracking issue — it names the shortfall and, when a cap was reached, which cap and what did not fit. Re-run the identical activation command (title matching resumes without duplicating existing issues), or activate one phase at a time with `/squad plan activate phase {N}` |
-| Activation run is green but some issues are missing or unlabeled | `report_incomplete` records truncation without failing the run | A green run is not proof of a complete activation. Check for the `[aw] ... reported incomplete result` tracking issue, then verify with `gh issue list --label squad` |
+| Plan activation creates fewer issues than the accepted plan declares | The run ended early, or it reached the `create-issue` (75) or `add-labels` (110) safe-output cap | Inspect the Actions logs and originating issue's activation summary for the shortfall and any cap reached. Re-run the identical activation command (title matching resumes without duplicating existing issues), or activate one phase at a time with `/squad plan activate phase {N}` |
+| Activation run is green but some issues are missing or unlabeled | The agent may have omitted `report_incomplete`, which would fail the conclusion step if emitted | A green run is not proof of a complete activation. Check the activation summary and Actions logs, then verify with `gh issue list --label squad`; automatic tracking-issue reporting is disabled |
 | A Squad label has no description and an unexpected color | It was auto-created on a fresh repo by `create-if-missing` | Expected, not a failure. Edit the label if you want a description or a specific color |
 | `/squad implement` cannot create a PR | Expected under Profile A (recommended); Actions is not allowed to create pull requests and there is no automatic fallback for this workflow | Push the worker's branch and open the PR manually, or switch to [Profile B](#profile-b-opt-in-automatic-pr-creation) if you accept its repository-wide self-approval tradeoff |
 | Epic implementation dispatches no workers | Every child is blocked or already has an open implementation PR | Merge dependency PRs, then run `/squad implement` on the epic again |

test/gh-aw-activation-capacity.test.ts

@@ -14,16 +14,15 @@
  *    that believed the label reading would conclude a 50-issue activation (up to 100 label
  *    names) had overrun its budget, and could stop labeling early or batch issues together.
  *    This is agent self-truncation, and it was reachable at 80.
- * 2. **Neither enforcement layer fails the run.** Even when a cap is genuinely hit, the
- *    workflow run still concludes successfully, so nothing forces the truncation to
- *    surface. See below.
+ * 2. **Neither cap-enforcement layer fails the run by itself.** Even when a cap is
+ *    genuinely hit, truncation needs an explicit incomplete report to surface. See below.
  *
  * Note what is *not* claimed: at `max: 80`, 50 `add_labels` calls did **not** overflow the
  * operation cap. Runtime truncation was not reachable at the documented maximum. The cap
  * moves to 110 to defeat the misleading injected wording and to hold a bounded margin —
  * not to fix a proven 80-item overflow.
  *
- * ## Runtime semantics this suite is written against (gh-aw v0.87.10, the CI pin)
+ * ## Runtime semantics this suite is written against (gh-aw v0.89.22, the CI pin)
  *
  * **Cap enforcement is dual (Safe Outputs Specification MCE4) and neither half is fatal.**
  * Invocation time — `safe_outputs_handlers.cjs`, `enforcePerTypeMax` via
@@ -38,20 +37,17 @@
  * That is a JSON-RPC error the agent **does** observe. Collection time —
  * `collect_ndjson_output.cjs` — is the second half: a surplus item is dropped with
  * `continue` and reported via `core.warning`. Neither path calls `core.setFailed`, so the
- * run concludes successfully with label operations missing.
+ * run can conclude successfully with label operations missing unless incompletion is reported.
  *
  * `max` therefore caps **operations of that type**, not label names inside one call. One
  * `add_labels` call carrying two labels costs one unit of budget, not two.
  *
- * **`report_incomplete` does not turn the run red.** gh-aw's own tool description claims it
- * is "treated as a failure signal even when the agent exits successfully" — misleading in
- * precisely the way this issue is about. In the pinned runtime,
- * `report_incomplete_handler.cjs` emits `core.warning` only, and `handle_agent_failure.cjs`
- * contains no `core.setFailed` or `process.exit`: its "failure handling" opens or updates an
- * `[aw] {workflow} reported incomplete result` tracking issue/comment. That is a durable,
- * human-actionable record — it satisfies #1961's "explicit incomplete result" — but the run
- * conclusion stays green. No narrower supported mechanism in v0.87.10 makes it red, so the
- * workflow states that limitation rather than implying a failure it cannot produce.
+ * **`report_incomplete` fails the conclusion step.** In v0.89.22,
+ * `report_incomplete_handler.cjs` logs a warning, then `handle_agent_failure.cjs` calls
+ * `core.setFailed` even when the agent succeeded. #2185 disables that conclusion handler's
+ * independent tracking-issue writes, not its failure status or logged evidence. The guarded
+ * activation summary must also report the shortfall on the originating issue. The real pinned
+ * handler and zero-write boundary are exercised by gh-aw-command-authorization.test.ts.
  *
  * ## The capacity calculation this suite locks in
  *
@@ -412,33 +408,24 @@ describe('gh-aw: self-validation reconciles activated items with label operation
     ).toBe(true);
   });
 
-  it('states report_incomplete semantics accurately — a tracking record, not a red run', () => {
-    // Verified against pinned gh-aw v0.87.10 rather than gh-aw's own tool description
-    // (which says "treated as a failure signal even when the agent exits successfully"
-    // — misleading in exactly the way this issue is about):
-    //   report_incomplete_handler.cjs   -> core.warning only.
-    //   handle_agent_failure.cjs        -> contains no core.setFailed / process.exit;
-    //                                      "failure handling" opens/updates an
-    //                                      "[aw] ... reported incomplete result" issue.
-    // The run still concludes successfully. The workflow must say so, so the agent does
-    // not assume a red run is carrying the signal for it.
+  it('describes pinned report_incomplete failure status without tracking-issue writes', () => {
+    // v0.89.22 fails conclusion for report_incomplete. #2185 disables its independent
+    // issue-writing path; the real-handler regression lives in command-authorization.
     expect(
-      /reported incomplete result/i.test(activateProse),
-      'The workflow must name the durable artifact report_incomplete actually produces.',
+      /`report_incomplete` records the reason in Actions logs and fails the conclusion step/i.test(activateProse),
+      'The workflow must describe the failure status and logged evidence from the pinned runtime.',
     ).toBe(true);
     expect(
-      /does \*\*not\*\* change the run's conclusion/i.test(activateProse),
-      'The workflow must state that report_incomplete does not change the run conclusion.',
+      /automatic tracking-issue reporting is disabled/i.test(activateProse),
+      'The workflow must not promise an issue from the disabled conclusion reporting path.',
     ).toBe(true);
     expect(
-      /never rely on a red run/i.test(activateProse),
-      'The workflow must forbid relying on a failed run to carry the incompletion signal.',
+      /Include the shortfall in the guarded activation summary as well, so the originating issue retains an actionable signal/i.test(activateProse),
+      'The authorized originating-issue summary must still identify incomplete activation.',
     ).toBe(true);
-    // Guard against reintroducing the overclaim this test previously asserted.
     expect(
-      /failure signal even when the agent exits successfully/i.test(activateProse),
-      'The workflow must not repeat gh-aw\'s misleading "failure signal" phrasing: the ' +
-        'pinned runtime emits a warning and a tracking issue, and never fails the run.',
+      /does \*\*not\*\* change the run's conclusion/i.test(activateProse),
+      'The obsolete v0.87.10 success-conclusion claim must not return.',
     ).toBe(false);
   });