bvandeusen
35f3f09d12
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 19s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Failing after 20s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Failing after 22s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Has been skipped
A recorded snippet points at a repo · path · symbol that WILL rot: files move, symbols get renamed, implementations diverge from the copy stored here. Nothing detected any of it, so a record degraded silently from "canonical reference" to "confidently wrong" — worse than no record, since it is surfaced with the same authority either way. WHERE THE CHECK RUNS. Agent-side, which the task flagged as the design question to settle first. Scribe has no checkout of the operator's repos and must not acquire one: giving the server repo access would make every install a credential problem and break instance-agnosticism (rule #115). The agent already has the working tree, so it does the comparing; the server remembers the verdict, makes it queryable, and knows when it has expired. New MCP tool verify_snippet teaches the four-step procedure and records the result; a REST endpoint mirrors it so the UI can clear a marker after a manual fix. WHY THE VERDICT CARRIES A CODE HASH. A verdict describes the code it was checked against. Invalidating it on edit means deciding which edits count — a when_to_use tweak shouldn't void a code check, a rewrite must — which is fiddly and easy to get subtly wrong, and easy for a new write path to forget entirely. Stamping the verdict with a hash sidesteps all of it: one whose code_sha no longer matches is self-evidently expired, computed at read time, no invalidation branch to maintain. That makes "expired" the interesting filter case. It is not `drifted` (nothing was found wrong) and not `unverified` (a check did happen), yet it plainly needs looking at — so `verification=attention` covers both. To keep that one index-served predicate rather than a post-filter that would make the pagination total a lie, data now also mirrors the CURRENT code's fingerprint as data.code_sha, and a jsonpath compares the two fields within the row. The filter is implemented in both dialects, SQL and Python, for the same reason the location filter is: the semantic arm's candidates arrive already fetched. A merge deliberately carries no verdict forward — the survivor's code is a union of several sources, so no prior check describes it, and unverified is the honest answer. UI: a danger-toned drift badge on each card (an actively misleading record outranks a merely unused one), and a "Needs attention" filter. Its empty state says plainly that never-verified snippets don't appear there — otherwise `attention` would mean "everything" on day one and be useless as a worklist. Refs #2086 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UaYUaouG9jjhATyuxCKrQs