💡 Revise Guardrail Script Inclusion UI for New Constitution Proposal Type
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
@mesudip ci sta già lavorando.
Dal 3/11/2026.
Valutazione
Questa issue non è ancora stata valutata.
Descrizione
Area
Proposal Pillar
Is there new design needed?
Yes
What?
The current UI for creating a proposal of the "New Constitution" type in the GovTool proposal discussion forum includes a checkbox:
"Do you want to include new guardrail scripts?"
This checkbox is misleading, as not including new guardrail scripts results in deleting all existing guardrails, which is a drastic and potentially unintended action.
This task proposes to revise the UI and interaction flow to:
- Make guardrail inclusion default and explicit
- Prevent unintentional deletion of existing guardrails
- Communicate the consequences of excluding them clearly
Why?
- The current checkbox creates confusion and might mislead proposers into unintentionally removing important security mechanisms.
- Deleting all guardrails without a strong confirmation step is too radical to be a single toggle.
- Clearer communication helps align user expectations with governance protocol rules under CIP-1694.
How?
- Replace the checkbox with a descriptive UI element, such as:
- A toggle with explicit labels like “Include guardrail scripts (recommended)” vs. “Remove all existing guardrails (advanced)”
- Or, a mandatory section where all included guardrails must be listed and reviewed
- Add a warning tooltip or modal when a user attempts to exclude guardrails, explaining:
- That doing so deletes all existing guardrails
- This action may have serious protocol implications
- Ensure the default behavior includes guardrails, and require a conscious override to remove them
(Optional) User Story with acceptance criteria
As a community member proposing a new constitution,
I want the interface to clearly show whether I'm including or removing guardrail scripts,
So that I don’t accidentally delete critical security scripts and undermine protocol safety.
Acceptance Criteria
- The guardrail checkbox is replaced with a more descriptive UI control
- The default behavior includes existing guardrails
- A user choosing to exclude guardrails must confirm this choice explicitly
- A warning tooltip or modal explains the consequence of removing guardrails
- The final proposal draft reflects the correct choice before submission
- Lingua principale
- HTML
- Stelle
- 22
- Fork
- 28
- Merge medio
- 17h 44m
- PR unite (30g)
- 27
Preparare l'ambiente
- Nessun Dockerfile né file Docker Compose
- Ha un modello di pull request
- Leggi la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Altre issue di IntersectMBO/govtool
-
🏗 Infrastructure
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 55/100
IntersectMBO/govtool#4297 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
⚙ Backend 📜 Proposal Pillar 2026-Revamp
Difficoltà 5/5 Più di una settimana Idoneità per principianti 25/100
IntersectMBO/govtool#4279 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
🖥 Frontend 2026-Revamp
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 65/100
IntersectMBO/govtool#4275 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
🐛 Bug
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 58/100
IntersectMBO/govtool#4274 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
💡 Feature idea
Difficoltà 5/5 Più di una settimana Idoneità per principianti 35/100
IntersectMBO/govtool#4268 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno