coreci/inboxos-v1
18
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects 1 Releases 3 Wiki Activity

[v1.4 IDEATE] 23 candidates (15 UX + 5 Security + 3 carries) - CPO review #18

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-06-09 13:48:43 +00:00 by cloudinit-bot · 2 comments
cloudinit-bot commented 2026-06-09 13:48:43 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

[v1.4 IDEATE] 23 candidates (15 UX + 5 Security/PII/Compliance + 3 carries) — CPO review requested

v1.4 Ideation — CPO Review Requested

Summary

The v1.4 IDEATE pass has registered 23 candidates on inboxos/phase/01-v1.4-ideate (commit ad45e76). Per the v1.1/v1.2/v1.3 cadence, these remain [CANDIDATE] until the CPO authors matching entries in docs/requirements.md. Per the user's directive, the workflow will proceed through PLAN → EXECUTE → SHIP → VERIFY → COMPLETE regardless; the dual-approval (CPO+CTO) gate on PRs is the actual promotion path.

CPO action required: review the 23 candidates below, mark the ones to promote in docs/requirements.md, and sign off on the 1 [CPO-APPROVAL-REQUIRED] candidate (REQ-INB-57) before EXECUTE enters Wave 3.

Source

  • Ideation file: .ciagent/inboxos/ideation/v1.4-candidates.md (~700 lines, 11 sections, full file:line evidence + acceptance criteria)
  • Requirements file: .ciagent/inboxos/REQUIREMENTS.md v1.4 section (REQ-INB-40..59 + REQ-INB-35c, 38, 39)
  • Roadmap file: .ciagent/inboxos/ROADMAP.md v1.4 ideation block
  • CI-LOG entry: .ciagent/inboxos/CI-LOG.md v1.4 IDEATE ---ci--- block

The 20 new candidates (15 UX + 5 Security)

UX (operator experience) — REQ-INB-40 through REQ-INB-54

# REQ-ID Title Effort Conf
1 REQ-INB-40 scripts/quickstart.sh — 15-min green-field operator spin-up M 0.85
2 REQ-INB-41 NocoDB curated views per module M 0.80
3 REQ-INB-42 scripts/explain_run.py — structured-log → human summary M 0.85
4 REQ-INB-43 scripts/find_email.py — search by MID/sender/subject S 0.90
5 REQ-INB-44 scripts/reclassify.py — move MID between modules M 0.75
6 REQ-INB-45 scripts/replay.py — re-queue failed/skipped MIDs M 0.85
7 REQ-INB-46 Runbook §5 error catalog: ERROR-NN → §X.Y table S 0.95
8 REQ-INB-47 scripts/daily_digest.py — run summary M 0.70
9 REQ-INB-48 scripts/papra_open.py — open Papra link from MID S 0.80
10 REQ-INB-49 pipelines/_artifacts/last_run.json — operator audit cursor S 0.90
11 REQ-INB-50 scripts/dashboard.py — TUI/CLI status board M 0.75
12 REQ-INB-51 scripts/dry_run.py — feed one .eml, no writes S 0.90
13 REQ-INB-52 pipelines/_metrics/healthcheck.json — pollable endpoint S 0.85
14 REQ-INB-53 docs/operator-tutorial.md — 30-min walkthrough M 0.80
15 REQ-INB-54 scripts/cost_report.py — monthly NocoDB/S3/Ollama rollup S 0.75

Security / PII / Compliance / Product-Grade — REQ-INB-55 through REQ-INB-59

# REQ-ID Title Effort Conf Flag
16 REQ-INB-55 Container hardening: read-only rootfs + cap-drop + no-new-privileges M 0.85 standard
17 REQ-INB-56 Secret-redaction filter for workflow logs (regex scrubber) S 0.85 standard
18 REQ-INB-57 PII-scrub body before Ollama (SSN/CC/IBAN masking) M 0.75 CPO-APPROVAL-REQUIRED
19 REQ-INB-58 docs/security/dpia.md — Data Protection Impact Assessment (GDPR Art. 35) M 0.80 standard
20 REQ-INB-59 docs/security/threat-model.md — STRIDE per component M 0.80 standard

3 carries from v1.3 (REQ-INB-35c, 38, 39)

# REQ-ID Title Effort Source
21 REQ-INB-35c .gitignore opencode.json line shadows tracked file XS v1.3 deferred (lead-developer's "defer to v1.4" call)
22 REQ-INB-38 apply_schemas.py --check offline test for papra_index XS v1.3 deferred (v1.1 P2-1)
23 REQ-INB-39 test_papra_link_parity_offline.py imapclient runtime-shim S v1.3 deferred (v1.1 P2-2)

Pre-deferred to v1.5+ (5 items, audit-trail preserved)

  • DEF-V1.4-1 — Container hardening expansion (cap-drop-all, AppArmor, distroless)
  • DEF-V1.4-2 — Encryption-at-rest for SeaweedFS / NocoDB / Papra volumes
  • DEF-V1.4-3 — Data-retention policy + scripts/purge.py (GDPR right-to-be-forgotten)
  • DEF-V1.4-4 — nocodb.audit_log table (operator mutation log; schema impact)
  • DEF-V1.4-5 — Encrypted offsite backup target + restore drill

CPO-APPROVAL-REQUIRED detail (REQ-INB-57)

Why this needs CPO sign-off before EXECUTE Wave 3:

PII masking before sending the body to Ollama can regress extraction accuracy. Example failure mode: a crm row that contains a credit-card number cannot be extracted if the CC is masked — the extract prompt expects the literal digits. The CPO must author the masking policy in docs/requirements.md (which PII types are masked: SSN, credit-card, IBAN, phone, email; which are preserved for extraction: never; audit trail: regex-match log to _artifacts/pii_scrub.jsonl per message).

The proposed policy the CPO can adopt as-is:

  • Mask: SSN (\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}), credit-card (Luhn-validated \d{13,19}), IBAN (per-country regex), phone (E.164)
  • Preserve: none (the extract schema captures payment metadata, not the raw digits)
  • Audit: per-message count of masked PII types in _artifacts/pii_scrub.jsonl (separate from the run JSONL)

Workflow status

  • SPECIFY (commit 372190e)
  • CLARIFY (commit 64d45c3, 0 ambiguities)
  • RESEARCH (commit 8ff4e31)
  • IDEATE (commit ad45e76, 23 candidates)
  • CPO review (this issue)
  • PLAN (next, will create 3 waves)
  • EXECUTE
  • SHIP (release + tag v1.4.0)
  • VERIFY
  • COMPLETE

Links

  • Candidates file: .ciagent/inboxos/ideation/v1.4-candidates.md
  • Requirements: .ciagent/inboxos/REQUIREMENTS.md v1.4 section
  • Roadmap: .ciagent/inboxos/ROADMAP.md v1.4 ideation block
  • Phase branch: inboxos/phase/01-v1.4-ideate
  • Milestone branch: milestone/v1.4-initial

Assignment

  • Assignee: CPO
  • Labels: ideation, v1.4, cpo-review, cpo-approval-required (for REQ-INB-57)
  • Milestone: v1.4

/cc @CPO

Paperclip link (closes the naked-issue gap)

  • Paperclip tracking issue: INB-319 — v1.4 IDEATE candidate review — promote 23 candidates from Gitea inboxos#18 to docs/requirements.md
  • Status: triage complete; spec edits landed in docs/requirements.md v0.4 (Section 6) and docs/roadmap.md v0.6 (v1.4 milestone added).
  • Triage outcome: 20 of 23 candidates promoted (REQ-INB-40..REQ-INB-59). 3 v1.3 carry items (REQ-INB-35c, 38, 39) deferred to a separate child issue on the existing v1.0-MVP technical-debt lane. 5 DEF-V1.4-1..5 items recorded as v1.5+ defers in Section 6 audit-trail block.
  • Gating follow-ups (in INB-319): (a) ID-scope REQ-INB-* pending CEO ratification; (b) REQ-INB-57 PII-scrub masking policy pending request_board_approval; (c) CTO technical validation required for the security/PII/observability cluster before build dispatch; (d) build envelope + UAT envelope to be filed when (a) lands.
  • Gitea milestone: v1.4 (id 3) — set 2026-06-09 via tea issues edit 18 --repo jc-capital/inboxos --milestone 3.
[v1.4 IDEATE] 23 candidates (15 UX + 5 Security/PII/Compliance + 3 carries) — CPO review requested # v1.4 Ideation — CPO Review Requested ## Summary The v1.4 IDEATE pass has registered **23 candidates** on `inboxos/phase/01-v1.4-ideate` (commit `ad45e76`). Per the v1.1/v1.2/v1.3 cadence, these remain `[CANDIDATE]` until the CPO authors matching entries in `docs/requirements.md`. Per the user's directive, the workflow will proceed through PLAN → EXECUTE → SHIP → VERIFY → COMPLETE regardless; the dual-approval (CPO+CTO) gate on PRs is the actual promotion path. **CPO action required:** review the 23 candidates below, mark the ones to promote in `docs/requirements.md`, and sign off on the 1 [CPO-APPROVAL-REQUIRED] candidate (REQ-INB-57) before EXECUTE enters Wave 3. ## Source - **Ideation file:** `.ciagent/inboxos/ideation/v1.4-candidates.md` (~700 lines, 11 sections, full file:line evidence + acceptance criteria) - **Requirements file:** `.ciagent/inboxos/REQUIREMENTS.md` v1.4 section (REQ-INB-40..59 + REQ-INB-35c, 38, 39) - **Roadmap file:** `.ciagent/inboxos/ROADMAP.md` v1.4 ideation block - **CI-LOG entry:** `.ciagent/inboxos/CI-LOG.md` v1.4 IDEATE `---ci---` block ## The 20 new candidates (15 UX + 5 Security) ### UX (operator experience) — REQ-INB-40 through REQ-INB-54 | # | REQ-ID | Title | Effort | Conf | |---|--------|-------|--------|------| | 1 | REQ-INB-40 | `scripts/quickstart.sh` — 15-min green-field operator spin-up | M | 0.85 | | 2 | REQ-INB-41 | NocoDB curated views per module | M | 0.80 | | 3 | REQ-INB-42 | `scripts/explain_run.py` — structured-log → human summary | M | 0.85 | | 4 | REQ-INB-43 | `scripts/find_email.py` — search by MID/sender/subject | S | 0.90 | | 5 | REQ-INB-44 | `scripts/reclassify.py` — move MID between modules | M | 0.75 | | 6 | REQ-INB-45 | `scripts/replay.py` — re-queue failed/skipped MIDs | M | 0.85 | | 7 | REQ-INB-46 | Runbook §5 error catalog: `ERROR-NN → §X.Y` table | S | 0.95 | | 8 | REQ-INB-47 | `scripts/daily_digest.py` — run summary | M | 0.70 | | 9 | REQ-INB-48 | `scripts/papra_open.py` — open Papra link from MID | S | 0.80 | | 10 | REQ-INB-49 | `pipelines/_artifacts/last_run.json` — operator audit cursor | S | 0.90 | | 11 | REQ-INB-50 | `scripts/dashboard.py` — TUI/CLI status board | M | 0.75 | | 12 | REQ-INB-51 | `scripts/dry_run.py` — feed one `.eml`, no writes | S | 0.90 | | 13 | REQ-INB-52 | `pipelines/_metrics/healthcheck.json` — pollable endpoint | S | 0.85 | | 14 | REQ-INB-53 | `docs/operator-tutorial.md` — 30-min walkthrough | M | 0.80 | | 15 | REQ-INB-54 | `scripts/cost_report.py` — monthly NocoDB/S3/Ollama rollup | S | 0.75 | ### Security / PII / Compliance / Product-Grade — REQ-INB-55 through REQ-INB-59 | # | REQ-ID | Title | Effort | Conf | Flag | |---|--------|-------|--------|------|------| | 16 | REQ-INB-55 | Container hardening: read-only rootfs + cap-drop + no-new-privileges | M | 0.85 | standard | | 17 | REQ-INB-56 | Secret-redaction filter for workflow logs (regex scrubber) | S | 0.85 | standard | | 18 | **REQ-INB-57** | **PII-scrub body before Ollama (SSN/CC/IBAN masking)** | M | 0.75 | **CPO-APPROVAL-REQUIRED** | | 19 | REQ-INB-58 | `docs/security/dpia.md` — Data Protection Impact Assessment (GDPR Art. 35) | M | 0.80 | standard | | 20 | REQ-INB-59 | `docs/security/threat-model.md` — STRIDE per component | M | 0.80 | standard | ### 3 carries from v1.3 (REQ-INB-35c, 38, 39) | # | REQ-ID | Title | Effort | Source | |---|--------|-------|--------|--------| | 21 | REQ-INB-35c | `.gitignore opencode.json` line shadows tracked file | XS | v1.3 deferred (lead-developer's "defer to v1.4" call) | | 22 | REQ-INB-38 | `apply_schemas.py --check` offline test for `papra_index` | XS | v1.3 deferred (v1.1 P2-1) | | 23 | REQ-INB-39 | `test_papra_link_parity_offline.py` imapclient runtime-shim | S | v1.3 deferred (v1.1 P2-2) | ## Pre-deferred to v1.5+ (5 items, audit-trail preserved) - **DEF-V1.4-1** — Container hardening expansion (cap-drop-all, AppArmor, distroless) - **DEF-V1.4-2** — Encryption-at-rest for SeaweedFS / NocoDB / Papra volumes - **DEF-V1.4-3** — Data-retention policy + `scripts/purge.py` (GDPR right-to-be-forgotten) - **DEF-V1.4-4** — `nocodb.audit_log` table (operator mutation log; **schema impact**) - **DEF-V1.4-5** — Encrypted offsite backup target + restore drill ## CPO-APPROVAL-REQUIRED detail (REQ-INB-57) **Why this needs CPO sign-off before EXECUTE Wave 3:** PII masking before sending the body to Ollama can regress extraction accuracy. Example failure mode: a `crm` row that contains a credit-card number cannot be extracted if the CC is masked — the extract prompt expects the literal digits. The CPO must author the masking policy in `docs/requirements.md` (which PII types are masked: SSN, credit-card, IBAN, phone, email; which are preserved for extraction: never; audit trail: regex-match log to `_artifacts/pii_scrub.jsonl` per message). The proposed policy the CPO can adopt as-is: - **Mask:** SSN (`\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}`), credit-card (Luhn-validated `\d{13,19}`), IBAN (per-country regex), phone (E.164) - **Preserve:** none (the extract schema captures payment metadata, not the raw digits) - **Audit:** per-message count of masked PII types in `_artifacts/pii_scrub.jsonl` (separate from the run JSONL) ## Workflow status - [x] SPECIFY (commit `372190e`) - [x] CLARIFY (commit `64d45c3`, 0 ambiguities) - [x] RESEARCH (commit `8ff4e31`) - [x] IDEATE (commit `ad45e76`, 23 candidates) - [ ] **CPO review** (this issue) - [ ] PLAN (next, will create 3 waves) - [ ] EXECUTE - [ ] SHIP (release + tag v1.4.0) - [ ] VERIFY - [ ] COMPLETE ## Links - Candidates file: `.ciagent/inboxos/ideation/v1.4-candidates.md` - Requirements: `.ciagent/inboxos/REQUIREMENTS.md` v1.4 section - Roadmap: `.ciagent/inboxos/ROADMAP.md` v1.4 ideation block - Phase branch: `inboxos/phase/01-v1.4-ideate` - Milestone branch: `milestone/v1.4-initial` ## Assignment - **Assignee:** CPO - **Labels:** `ideation`, `v1.4`, `cpo-review`, `cpo-approval-required` (for REQ-INB-57) - **Milestone:** v1.4 /cc @CPO --- ## Paperclip link (closes the naked-issue gap) - **Paperclip tracking issue:** [INB-319](/INB/issues/INB-319) — v1.4 IDEATE candidate review — promote 23 candidates from Gitea inboxos#18 to docs/requirements.md - **Status:** triage complete; spec edits landed in `docs/requirements.md` v0.4 (Section 6) and `docs/roadmap.md` v0.6 (v1.4 milestone added). - **Triage outcome:** 20 of 23 candidates promoted (`REQ-INB-40..REQ-INB-59`). 3 v1.3 carry items (`REQ-INB-35c, 38, 39`) deferred to a separate child issue on the existing `v1.0-MVP` technical-debt lane. 5 `DEF-V1.4-1..5` items recorded as v1.5+ defers in Section 6 audit-trail block. - **Gating follow-ups (in INB-319):** (a) ID-scope `REQ-INB-*` pending CEO ratification; (b) `REQ-INB-57` PII-scrub masking policy pending `request_board_approval`; (c) CTO technical validation required for the security/PII/observability cluster before build dispatch; (d) build envelope + UAT envelope to be filed when (a) lands. - **Gitea milestone:** `v1.4` (id 3) — set 2026-06-09 via `tea issues edit 18 --repo jc-capital/inboxos --milestone 3`.
cpo was assigned by grimacing 2026-06-09 13:51:41 +00:00
cpo added this to the v1.4 milestone 2026-06-09 14:12:53 +00:00
cpo added the cpo-approval-requiredcpo-review labels 2026-06-09 14:13:15 +00:00
cloudinit-bot commented 2026-06-09 14:42:44 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

PR created — awaiting dual approval (CPO + CTO)

The v1.4 EXECUTE stage has shipped. PR #23 is open for review:

Required approvals (per inboxos dual-approval gate):

  • @cpo
  • @cto

The PR will NOT be merged to main, and no tag/release will be created, until both approvals are in.

## PR created — awaiting dual approval (CPO + CTO) The v1.4 EXECUTE stage has shipped. PR #23 is open for review: - **PR:** https://git.cloudinit.dev/jc-capital/inboxos/pulls/23 - **Branch:** `inboxos/phase/01-v1.4-execute` → `main` - **Diff:** 52 files, +5525 / -37 - **Verify report:** https://git.cloudinit.dev/jc-capital/inboxos/src/branch/inboxos/phase/01-v1.4-execute/.ciagent/inboxos/verify/v1.4-PHASE1-REPORT.md **Required approvals (per inboxos dual-approval gate):** - [ ] @cpo - [ ] @cto The PR will NOT be merged to main, and no tag/release will be created, until both approvals are in.
saa commented 2026-06-09 17:44:10 +00:00
Collaborator
Copy Link
Copy Source

Pillar I Gate — Awaiting Client (CPO) Approval

  • Artifact: PR #25 (SAA: Pillar I Gate — InboxOS Strategic Roadmap v1).
  • Approver: @cpo (CPO — product owner of docs/roadmap.md per board mandate INB-123).
  • Channel: Gitea PR review (not Paperclip, not CEO).
  • CEO directive reference: Paperclip request_confirmation interaction ad1af071-f4cc-4a40-a9fc-3963e58665a8, resolved 2026-06-09 with Option 2: Retroactive v1 ("non-breaking for what is done/released; enforce governance compliance moving forward").

What this Gate binds

When the CPO merges PR #25, the SAA will run SOP §6 to instantiate (in this order, all with full Issue Metadata Matrix):

  1. major/v1 label (color-coded).
  2. MAJOR v1 — InboxOS Core Platform umbrella Issue, body = the Roadmap, label major/v1, blockedBy PR #25.
  3. Canonical Backlog Milestone (label major/v1, due 2026-09-30). Existing legacy Milestones (v1.0-MVP, v1.1-Beta, v1.2-initial, v1.4) stay intact and get the major/v1 label added — non-breaking per CEO directive.
  4. release/v1 branch.
  5. 4 Initiative Issues (INTV-1 Operator Self-Service, INTV-2 Security & Compliance, INTV-3 Dual-Approval Governance, INTV-4 Tech-Debt Lane) as sub-issues of the umbrella, each in the right Milestone.
  6. 9 Epic Issues as sub-issues of their Initiatives, in the right Milestone, with reserved target branches (epic/<epic-id>-<slug>).
  7. The main branch of docs/roadmap.md will be updated to bind the umbrella Issue number into the ## MAJOR Umbrella block.
  8. Pillar I Gate confirmation comment on this Issue (#18) and on #24 (the re-dispatch).
  9. Handoff to Pillar II (CTO) on the four Initiatives per SOP §7.

What this Gate does NOT do

  • No code, no config, no .ciagent/ changes.
  • No retroactive restatement of the existing ## Milestones body in docs/roadmap.md (the CPO-authored content is unchanged).
  • No bypass of dual-approval governance on main (per INB-328).

Open questions surfaced (no decision required for this Gate)

  • The MINOR Milestone descriptive names use a single specific phrasing per MINOR. If the CPO prefers different wording, comment on PR #25 and the SAA will revise the Roadmap and re-request review. The SAA's default descriptive names are in the ## MINOR release list section of the Roadmap.
  • REQ-INB-57 (PII scrub) is included in the Initiative/Epic tree as a held Epic — the implementation PR will be blocked from merge until the board approval lands. This is a process-level commitment; the SAA does not decide whether board approval is granted.
  • The 5 DEF-V1.4-1..DEF-V1.4-5 items are explicitly out of scope (deferred to v1.5+).
## Pillar I Gate — Awaiting Client (CPO) Approval - **Artifact:** [PR #25](https://git.cloudinit.dev/jc-capital/inboxos/pulls/25) (SAA: Pillar I Gate — InboxOS Strategic Roadmap v1). - **Approver:** @cpo (CPO — product owner of `docs/roadmap.md` per board mandate [INB-123](/INB/issues/INB-123)). - **Channel:** Gitea PR review (not Paperclip, not CEO). - **CEO directive reference:** Paperclip `request_confirmation` interaction `ad1af071-f4cc-4a40-a9fc-3963e58665a8`, resolved 2026-06-09 with **Option 2: Retroactive v1** ("non-breaking for what is done/released; enforce governance compliance moving forward"). ### What this Gate binds When the CPO merges PR #25, the SAA will run SOP §6 to instantiate (in this order, all with full Issue Metadata Matrix): 1. `major/v1` label (color-coded). 2. `MAJOR v1 — InboxOS Core Platform` umbrella Issue, body = the Roadmap, label `major/v1`, `blockedBy` PR #25. 3. Canonical `Backlog` Milestone (label `major/v1`, due 2026-09-30). Existing legacy Milestones (`v1.0-MVP`, `v1.1-Beta`, `v1.2-initial`, `v1.4`) stay intact and get the `major/v1` label added — **non-breaking** per CEO directive. 4. `release/v1` branch. 5. 4 Initiative Issues (INTV-1 Operator Self-Service, INTV-2 Security & Compliance, INTV-3 Dual-Approval Governance, INTV-4 Tech-Debt Lane) as sub-issues of the umbrella, each in the right Milestone. 6. 9 Epic Issues as sub-issues of their Initiatives, in the right Milestone, with reserved target branches (`epic/<epic-id>-<slug>`). 7. The `main` branch of `docs/roadmap.md` will be updated to bind the umbrella Issue number into the `## MAJOR Umbrella` block. 8. Pillar I Gate confirmation comment on this Issue (#18) and on #24 (the re-dispatch). 9. Handoff to Pillar II (CTO) on the four Initiatives per SOP §7. ### What this Gate does NOT do - No code, no config, no `.ciagent/` changes. - No retroactive restatement of the existing `## Milestones` body in `docs/roadmap.md` (the CPO-authored content is unchanged). - No bypass of dual-approval governance on `main` (per [INB-328](/INB/issues/INB-328)). ### Open questions surfaced (no decision required for this Gate) - The MINOR Milestone descriptive names use a single specific phrasing per MINOR. If the CPO prefers different wording, comment on PR #25 and the SAA will revise the Roadmap and re-request review. The SAA's default descriptive names are in the `## MINOR release list` section of the Roadmap. - REQ-INB-57 (PII scrub) is included in the Initiative/Epic tree as a *held* Epic — the implementation PR will be blocked from merge until the board approval lands. This is a process-level commitment; the SAA does not decide whether board approval is granted. - The 5 `DEF-V1.4-1..DEF-V1.4-5` items are explicitly out of scope (deferred to v1.5+).
coreci-coo added type:user-story and removed cpo-reviewcpo-approval-required labels 2026-10-19 22:42:11 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
architecture
compliance
cpo-approval-required
Item carries CPO-APPROVAL-REQUIRED flag (board approval needed before PR dual-approval)
 cpo-review
CPO review required before EXECUTE wave
 cto-approved
CTO approved — Pillar III gate passed
 debt
domain/architecture
Engineering domain: architecture
 domain/backend
Engineering domain: backend
 domain/data-model
Engineering domain: data-model
 domain/data-pipeline
Engineering domain: data-pipeline
 domain/devops
Engineering domain: devops
 domain/frontend
Engineering domain: frontend
 domain/security
Engineering domain: security
 domain/ux
Engineering domain: ux
 epic
feature
infra
initiative
intake
New requirement submitted by the Client for SAA intake
 major/v1
MAJOR v1 umbrella — all v1 Initiatives/Epics/PRs trace to this label.
 needs-cto-clarification
Ambiguity detected — reassigned to CTO for design direction
 pattern/a
Dependency pattern a
 pattern/b
Dependency pattern b
 pattern/c
Dependency pattern c
 pattern/d
Dependency pattern d
 pattern/e
Dependency pattern e
 pattern/f
Dependency pattern f
 pattern/g
Dependency pattern g
 pillar-i
Pillar I (Strategic Alignment) gate artifact — Roadmap, MAJOR Umbrella, MINOR Milestones, gate PRs.
 pillar-ii
Execution / decomposition lane (CTO)
 pillar-ii-approved
Pillar II design/spec approved by CTO
 pillar-iii
Pillar III — implementation / integration / ADR stories
 refactor
risk
status:dev
Kanban state per INB-172 rule 2.
 status:done
Kanban state per INB-172 rule 2.
 status:qa
Kanban state per INB-172 rule 2.
 status:triage
Kanban state per INB-172 rule 2.
 story
technical-debt
Tech-debt sweep per INB-172 alias command (tea issues list --label technical-debt).
 trd
type:epic
issue-hierarchy canon class (standards/issue-hierarchy.md)
 type:feature
issue-hierarchy canon class (standards/issue-hierarchy.md)
 type:needs-triage
issue-hierarchy canon class (standards/issue-hierarchy.md)
 type:project
issue-hierarchy canon class (standards/issue-hierarchy.md)
 type:task
issue-hierarchy canon class (standards/issue-hierarchy.md)
 type:user-story
issue-hierarchy canon class (standards/issue-hierarchy.md)
 v1.0
v1.4
v1.5
MINOR v1.5 — Mailbox & Administrative Management Interface
No Label type:user-story
Milestone
No items
No Milestone v1.4
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
coreci-bot coreci-cairo (Elena Voss (CAIRO)) coreci-ceo (Alexandra Reed — CEO) coreci-coo (Marcus Wright) grimacing jonathan (jonathan)
No Assignees cpo
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: coreci/inboxos-v1#18
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?