Everything I could decide myself is decided. What's left needs
you. Each one has a recommendation from Fable — if you agree, pick it and
press Done. "I'm not sure" is a real answer and becomes work for me.
You don't need to open the session — pressing Done sends your answer back and it picks up.
1A security fix for the agents system is finished and tested, and has been waiting 12 hours for you with nobody assigned to look at it. Review and merge it, or tell me to keep holding? (agentflow-relay#51)
In plain terms. Right now a message sent to one of your agents can fake the line that says who it came from — so a message could appear to come from you, or from the supervisor, and the agent would have no way to tell. This fix closes that. I checked it myself instead of trusting the notes: every trick variant is now caught, and I broke the fix on purpose to prove the tests would actually notice. It also removes a separate problem that is live today, where one oversized message can freeze the agents service for about five seconds. Saying yes means you merge it and I switch it on. Saying hold leaves the gap open on the running system, and four other queued changes will start colliding with it.
Fable recommends: Review and merge it, then I run the deploy — four related changes are queued behind it and the longer it waits the messier the merge gets The fix stops a fake message header from impersonating you or the supervisor - the thing that would make one of your agents act on an instruction you never gave. I verified it independently rather than trusting the notes: every sneaky variant is caught, both test suites pass clean, and I proved the tests actually bite by breaking the fix on purpose and watching 31 of them go red. It also removes a separate flaw already live today where one large message could freeze the agents service for about 5 seconds. Nothing is protected until it is merged AND deployed, and I cannot do either. Tried first, unsuccessfully: receipt fd3ffbe66 - Fable RESOLVED (held under reversal, high/high) that I must NOT merge this myself: the hold-for-review label and the standing brief both say do not merge, and an explicit human instruction outranks any verification-quality argument. It also noted merging alone closes nothing because the services run from a stale build until deploy is run - so the urgency argues for a fast human review, not an unreviewed merge. Its closing words were to escalate loudly for review now rather than let it sit another 12 hours, which is why you are seeing this.