Everything I could decide myself is decided. What's left needs
you. Each one carries the recommendation of the session that raised it — if you
agree, pick it and press Done. A model's opinion, where there is one, appears on the card
as a receipt line; cards with no receipt were never put to a model. "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.
1The AWS cost-spike detector is merged (#583 + #587) but ships SWITCHED OFF, and turning it on takes four steps. Nothing runs it today, so it is a guardrail that exists and detects nothing - the same shape as the $5/day budget that sat in ALARM for 14 breaches notifying nobody. Steps: (1) one manifest line in propflowai config/automations.toml with alerting=false - a real safety prerequisite, because read_recent_alerts gates the autonomous decider on the MANIFEST, not on the Python flag, so without it a transient Cost Explorer fault can route a red row into auto-remediation by a side door (a lane has this PR in flight); (2) restart the Smith worker so it carries the new workflow class - it is still the 01:45 process and predates the 03:31 merge; (3) register the schedule, which creates it PAUSED and arms nothing; (4) unpause, the actual arming. All reversible: --remove deletes the schedule, a pause is one command. CORRECTION I made before asking: the restart must be SIGTERM + wait, NOT 'launchctl kickstart -k' - agent-smith #422 / ADR-0012 made the worker DRAIN in-flight activities on SIGTERM, and kickstart -k would kill them mid-flight across the whole fleet. Your call because it is a cron schedule plus a restart of the daemon every fleet activity runs on - the class your standing instruction says I stop on. The model ladder SPLIT: both passes high-confidence and they FLIPPED when the options were reordered, which is position bias rather than judgement, so it escalated.
In plain terms. We built an alarm that watches for AWS overspending, and it is finished but sitting switched off, so right now it would not catch anything. Switching it on means restarting Smith and letting the alarm check once a day and post into the alerts channel; leaving it off means the next runaway bill goes unnoticed the way the last one did for four days.
The session raising this recommends: Arm it yourself now, using the graceful drain You told me to just do the adjacent one (b89624553, the AWS alert routing) and it worked - a real budget alert reached #alerts within a minute. This is the same shape: in-plan, reversible, and the schedule is created paused so nothing fires until the last command. The honest counter-argument, and why I am asking rather than assuming: your standing instruction names cron schedules and infra blast radius explicitly, and step 2 restarts the daemon the whole fleet's activities run on, which is wider than the AWS routing change was. The drain from #422 makes that restart safe rather than merely polite. Either way I will wait for the manifest PR to merge first, and if you would rather run it yourself it is four commands and I will paste them exactly. FABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt fbbd52d62 — NEEDS HUMAN. ANSWERED BY ASTRA, NOT FABLE — Fable did not answer because its weekly allowance is exhausted.
THE TWO PASSES DISAGREED, AND ONLY THE OPTION ORDER DIFFERED. as-given → 'The Driver runs the four steps itself now — arming is literally its acceptance criterion, each step has a documented inverse, the schedule is created paused so nothing fires until the final command, and a merged-but-unarmed detector is the exact failure this task was opened to fix' (high) reversed → "The Driver prepares the exact commands and waits for the account owner — the standing instruction names cron schedules and i…
f82b4f0d is parked on this. 1 other session waiting on this same answer.
Asked by more than one session. Your answer above goes back to all of them.
db7df5c8 asked it this way: Task aws-cost-rca-guardrails has met its full acceptance criterion (RCA doc live and content-verified, guardrail PR agent-smith#583 merged, summary posted to the origin thread) and the raised decision b89628085 is resolved and correctly recorded as superseded by b89623450. The only remaining step is the operator skill's terminal /post-updates to #updates-gera. This session exposes only mcp__plugin_slack_slack__authenticate and complete_authentication — no send tool — and the smith-slack-post bot-token path is forbidden for a personal update (posts as Agent Smith). Body is drafted and held at ~/.claude/jobs/tasks/aws-cost-rca-guardrails/POST-UPDATES-DRAFT.md. AUTH URL: https://slack.com/oauth/v2_user/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=1601185624273.8899143856786&code_challenge=9lL3LdllWum_aJJ7puI-c5brTf_rEL6TCVp_iWObdJQ&code_challenge_method=S256&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A3118%2Fcallback&state=9TYeSMi-zwKvRZyQWPWYwl9ZAMcMEP7HmsGnKtIBcio&resource=https%3A%2F%2Fmcp.slack.com%2F — after authorizing, the browser shows a connection error on localhost:3118; copy that full address-bar URL back and I will complete the flow and send.
2What do you want to do?
What do you want to do? ❯ 1. Stop and wait for limit to reset 2. Wait here, then continue automatically shortly 3. Upgrade your plan Enter to confirm · Esc to cancel
In plain terms. Session f82b4f0d is frozen on a prompt in its terminal (tmux pane %462) that Smith will not answer. Deciding here records your choice on the block; the keystroke itself still has to happen at the pane — nothing will type into a live menu on your behalf.
The session raising this recommends: Stop and wait for limit to reset the safe default for a guard Smith refuses to answer is the option that runs nothing — pick another option if you want it to proceed Tried first, unsuccessfully: Smith's prompt responder read the pane and refused by policy (shape numbered_select, rule no_option_advances_the_work): no option on this prompt could be identified as advancing the work. Refusing rather than guessing — picking an unrecognised option is how a responder answers a question nobody read. A permission guard is answerable only by a human, so no model was consulted — the refusal IS the NEEDS-HUMAN verdict.