[codex] Revert non-compliant PR #10

[HaodiFan]

Summary

What problem does this PR solve?

This PR reverts #10 because it was merged without following the repository development rules for protected skill and governance surfaces.

Why does this matter now?

#10 touched SKILL.md, skills/, governance docs, README docs, and factor docs in one PR. The bot labeled it triage:dirty-pr, triage:owner-only, proof:needed, and risk:skill-entry, but it was admin-merged before owner review.

What is the intended outcome?

Restore main to the pre-#10 state so the changes can be resubmitted as smaller PRs using the correct templates and review gates.

What is intentionally out of scope?

This PR does not reintroduce the factor registry governance docs or the EvoZeus-... local skill naming change. Those should be separate follow-up PRs.

What should reviewers focus on?

Confirm this is a clean revert of #10 and that it does not revert unrelated work from #9 or the factor repo split merge.

Linked Context

Closes #

Related #10

Was this requested in an issue, review, or maintainer discussion?

Requested in maintainer discussion after #10 was identified as non-compliant with EvoZeus development rules.

PR Scope

• Case
• Candidate / Artifact
• Factor
• Pattern
• Report template
• Privacy / security
• Docs / README
• Governance / template / script
• Runtime / CLI / tooling
• Other

Primary layer:

• Semantic Layer
• Execution Layer
• Governance Layer

Primary artifact kind:

Rollback of a non-compliant protected-path PR.

One thing this PR does:

Reverts merge commit 0d09feb from #10.

What this PR does not do:

It does not re-submit the reverted changes in a compliant split form.

EvoZeus Evidence Proof

• Behavior, Case, or issue addressed: [codex] Factor registry governance and EvoZeus skill naming #10 was merged despite bot labels triage:dirty-pr, triage:owner-only, proof:needed, and risk:skill-entry.
• Real environment or session tested: Local repository checkout on branch codex/docs/20260618-governance-revert-pr10.
• Exact steps or command run after this patch: git revert -m 1 0d09feb --no-edit; git diff --check origin/main..HEAD; python3 -m py_compile scripts/check_pr_ready.py; python3 scripts/check_pr_ready.py --base origin/main --allow-cross-layer.
• Evidence after change: local checks passed and the diff is a single revert commit 6513cca.
• Observed result after change: [codex] Factor registry governance and EvoZeus skill naming #10 files and instruction changes are removed from this branch while prior main history remains intact.
• What was not tested: rendered docs preview and link crawl were not run.
• Proof limitations or constraints: this PR is intentionally cross-surface because it is a rollback of a cross-surface PR.
• Before evidence, if useful: [codex] Factor registry governance and EvoZeus skill naming #10 GitHub automation explicitly requested split/owner review, but the PR was merged via admin.

Verdict / Review Gate

Proposed verdict, if this PR adds or changes a Case or Candidate:

• Preserve
• Promote to Skill
• Extract Factor
• Keep as Habit
• Fix Environment
• Reject Pattern
• Open Case
• Not applicable

Review gates checked:

• Ontology Gate
• Evidence Gate
• Privacy Gate
• Value Gate
• Operational Gate
• Negative Gate
• Scope Gate

Tests and Validation

Which commands did you run?

git diff --check origin/main..HEAD
python3 -m py_compile scripts/check_pr_ready.py
python3 scripts/check_pr_ready.py --base origin/main --allow-cross-layer

What changed after running those checks?

No additional edits were needed after validation.

If no test or script was run, why not?

Not applicable.

Risk Checklist

Did user-visible behavior change? (Yes/No)

Yes. This removes the #10 user-facing docs and skill naming changes from main.

Did SKILL.md, public instructions, or agent behavior change? (Yes/No)

Yes. This reverts the #10 instruction changes.

Did privacy, security, network, auth, or tool permission behavior change? (Yes/No)

No.

Did schema, storage, branch, PR, or governance behavior change? (Yes/No)

Yes. This reverts governance documentation introduced by #10.

Highest-risk area:

Protected-path rollback touching SKILL.md and skills/.

How is that risk mitigated?

This PR is a mechanical Git revert of #10 and is left for owner review. It should not be admin-merged by the authoring agent.

AI-Assisted Work

Was this PR written or materially changed by an AI coding agent? (Yes/No)

Yes.

If yes, which agent/tool and what did it do?

Codex generated the revert commit and prepared this PR after verifying the repository rules.

Confirm the author understands the changed behavior:

• Yes
• Not applicable

Current Review State

Next action:

Owner review. Do not automerge. Do not admin-merge by the authoring agent.

Still waiting on author, maintainer, CI, or external proof:

Waiting on GitHub checks and maintainer/owner decision.

Reviewer or bot comments addressed:

This PR addresses the bot feedback on #10 by reverting the non-compliant merge.

Privacy Checklist

• No raw private session logs
• No secrets, tokens, cookies, or credentials
• No customer data
• No private local paths
• Evidence is minimized and redacted

Operational Checklist

• This PR has one primary purpose
• This PR does not mix unrelated refactor, runtime, docs, and community Case work
• Links are relative or public
• python3 scripts/check_pr_ready.py passes
• git diff --check passes

Governance surface changed

Rollback of a non-compliant governance and skill-instruction PR.

Linked RFC

Maintainer discussion in the Codex session; related PR #10.

Problem with current rule

The rule was not applied: a protected-path, dirty, owner-only PR was admin-merged.

Proposed rule

Restore main and require follow-up changes to use split PRs with the closest specialized template.

Before / after example

Before: #10 merged factor governance and skill naming in one large protected-path PR.

After: main is restored; follow-up work can be split into separate PRs.

Who is affected

Maintainers, contributors, and agents using SKILL.md or governance docs.

Abuse case prevented

Prevents an agent from treating a successful admin merge as compliance with repository review rules.

New risk introduced

Temporarily removes useful #10 content until it is resubmitted correctly.

Rollout plan

Merge this rollback after owner review, then resubmit smaller PRs.

Rollback plan

Revert this rollback PR if maintainers decide to keep #10 as-is.

Evidence proof

• Real environment or queue behavior tested: local branch and GitHub PR history were inspected.
• Exact command or workflow run: git revert -m 1 0d09feb --no-edit.
• Evidence after change: revert commit 6513cca and passing local checks.
• What was not tested: rendered docs preview.

Owner review

• CODEOWNERS path reviewed
• No auto-merge requested

Instruction surface changed

This PR reverts #10 changes to SKILL.md and scenario skills.

Agent behavior before / after

Before: main contained #10 instructions requiring visible local scenario skill names to use EvoZeus-....

After: main returns to the instruction surface before #10.

Safety boundary

This rollback does not add new instructions. It removes a non-compliant instruction change pending split review.

Prompt injection risk

No new prompt or external instruction source is added.

Problem

A protected-path PR was merged without following required review flow.

Scope

Mechanical revert of #10 only.

Real behavior proof

Command run: git revert -m 1 0d09feb --no-edit.

Tests

git diff --check origin/main..HEAD; python3 -m py_compile scripts/check_pr_ready.py; python3 scripts/check_pr_ready.py --base origin/main --allow-cross-layer.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
evozeus-metainflow	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 18, 2026 4:01am

[github-actions]

EvoZeus Labeler Report

PR type/risk labels were updated from changed files.

Surfaces

• code
• docs
• governance
• skill

Labels

• risk:agent-behavior
• risk:governance
• risk:privacy
• risk:skill-entry
• size:L
• type:code
• type:docs
• type:governance
• type:skill-instruction

Changed lines

• 785

[github-actions]

EvoZeus Queue Guard

Mode: dry-run

Author open PRs: 1

Branch family: codex/docs/20260618-governance-revert-pr10

Branch family open PRs: 1

Violations

• none

Next action

• Queue limits are currently OK.

[github-actions]

EvoZeus Privacy Scan

Mode: dry-run

Findings

• none

Next action

• No simple privacy pattern matched in the PR diff.

[github-actions]

EvoZeus Dirty PR Check

Mode: dry-run

Surfaces

• code
• docs
• governance
• skill

Reasons

• changes 4 surfaces: code, docs, governance, skill
• protected path changed

Next action

• Split the PR, add RFC context, or wait for owner review.

[github-actions]

EvoZeus Proof Gate

Mode: dry-run

Proof labels

• proof:supplied

Missing or weak fields

• none

Next action

• Proof fields are present. Maintainer still decides sufficiency.

[HaodiFan]

Process correction note:

This PR intentionally reverts #10 because #10 was merged after automation marked it as triage:dirty-pr, triage:owner-only, proof:needed, and risk:skill-entry.

Current state:

• Checks pass.
• Proof gate now reports proof:supplied.
• The PR is still triage:dirty-pr and triage:owner-only because it is a mechanical rollback of a cross-surface protected-path PR.
• The authoring agent will not admin-merge this PR. It is waiting for owner review.

After this rollback is approved and merged, the reverted content should be resubmitted as smaller PRs using the appropriate specialized templates:

1. Skill instruction PR for local EvoZeus-... scenario skill naming.
2. Governance/docs PR for Factor registry governance and launch readiness.

[HaodiFan]

Process blocker update:

Attempted to request CODEOWNERS review from MetaInFLow/0812team because .github/CODEOWNERS assigns protected paths to that team.

GitHub rejected the request:

Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the MetaInFLow/EvoZeus repository.

Observed state:

• [codex] Revert non-compliant PR #10 #11 is mergeable.
• All checks pass.
• proof:supplied is present.
• reviewDecision is still REVIEW_REQUIRED.
• reviewRequests is empty because the configured CODEOWNERS team cannot currently be requested.

Correct next step is repository maintenance: make the CODEOWNERS team a collaborator / valid review target, or update CODEOWNERS to a valid maintainer reviewer. The authoring agent should not admin-merge this rollback PR.