Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

[CROSS-B] Verified author, EPIC ancestry, and Issue/PR target resolver

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#308 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
15/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Needs clarification
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
github, graphql, python
Domain
authorization, backend

Research direction

Begin by reading EPIC #306 and linked issues #307, #293, #287 to understand the native GitHub parent/sub-issue graph and existing validation. Study GitHub GraphQL/REST availability for PR-vs-Issue and creator ID. Done means a read-only resolver with deterministic fake-GitHub test matrix covering #280→#23 and refusing cross-repo mismatches.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

Parent EPIC: #306 (planning link; native parent association pending verification). Phase: B. Priority: P0. Blocked by: #306 architecture child #307. Coordinates: #293, #287.

Goal

Build provider-neutral, read-only GitHub target validation for proposed policy scopes, independently of any new writer.

Deliverables

  • Canonical repository/object identifiers, PR-vs-Issue distinction (GitHub PRs are also issue-numbered), verified creator identity, closed/open state, inaccessible/transferred/deleted objects.
  • Native GitHub parent/sub-issue graph with defined direct-child versus ancestry semantics, cycles, partial/truncated pages, absent parent, changed parent, and GraphQL REST feature availability; never infer security-relevant membership from prose, labels, comments, issue references, or unchecked state.epic_url.
  • Same-author comparison based on authenticated GitHub creator ID, explicitly treating bot identity and shared maintainer identity as weak relationship constraints (not approval); fork and transferred/renamed repo handling.
  • Same-EPIC and same-author-and-EPIC criteria, including whether EPIC itself qualifies and explicit native root identity. Reuse native validation from #293 only when actually shipped; do not duplicate conflicting definitions.
  • Bounded snapshot with provenance and audit reason; recheck before committing a new effect (fail closed on drift/unavailable).

Acceptance criteria

  • Deterministic fake-GitHub test matrix for all scopes/types; includes #280→#23 same_author true but same_epic false/unknown.
  • Read failures or ambiguous native graph cannot broaden authorization.
  • Cross-repository/fork/PR-subtype mismatch refused; no generic API mutation introduced.
  • Works without touching existing K10 persistence or active runs.
Dominant language
Python
Stars
0
Forks
0
Avg merge
5h 51m
Merged PRs (30d)
66

Getting set up

This project ships no dev container, Dockerfile or contributing guide, so setting up is up to you: start from its README, and see our first-contribution guide for the general steps.

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from iceboundrock/AutoForge

All issues in iceboundrock/AutoForge

Similar issues

More Python issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.