Run #21 closed with four findings handed off together — a deterministic GitHub-handoff ordering bug, a silent-500 observability gap, an unapplied migration, and a newly-found client-liveness gap — and explicit direction to implement all of them. Run #22 launched on the code that resulted.
What we did to prepare
Two real fixes shipped this time, not a rerun on untouched code. modules/workflows/engine.ts's
completion ordering was corrected — the run's true status is now captured and threaded through to
the GitHub-write authorization check, instead of the engine's own already-mutated "completed"
value Run #20 had tripped over. Alongside it, three more
items from the same handoff landed together, per explicit direction to implement "all of it": the
long-unapplied blocked_governance_intervention migration was applied to production, unrecognized
server errors now write a real stack trace to the server log instead of vanishing without a trace,
and the client-side loop that drives a run forward gained retry-with-backoff and a resume-on-reload
path — closing the exact stall Run #21 hit. Neither headline fix — the ordering correction or the
observability hardening — had yet been exercised against a real run when Run #22 launched.
What happened
Scope, Architecture, Security, and UX completed, the same as every recent run, and Builder dispatched. Builder truncated — 116,527 milliseconds, exactly 8,192 output tokens — the same hard ceiling, hit exactly the same way, that stopped Run #19 three runs back. The input (25,608 tokens) sat in the same narrow band Builder has produced from throughout this project's history — materially the same request that Run #20 had handled cleanly at 6,807 output tokens, and Run #21 at 6,713.
Nothing downstream of Builder ran. Both fixes prepared for this run depend on a run reaching the real GitHub handoff, five steps past where this one stopped. Whatever either fix does, Run #22 never gave it the chance to do it.
What the evidence actually supports
This is no longer a one-off. Run #19's truncation was treated, correctly at the time, as a single data point — this project's own standing rule is that a limit doesn't move on one occurrence, and an immediate clean rerun (Run #20) supported leaving it alone. Run #22 is a second occurrence of the identical failure — same ceiling, same precision (8,192 tokens exactly, not approached), same narrow input band — the second time in three real attempts at this specific request. That crosses the threshold the one-occurrence rule exists for.
Neither shipped fix is confirmed or disproven by this run. The ordering correction and the observability hardening were built to solve problems that only surface after Builder succeeds and a run reaches its later steps. Run #22 says nothing about whether either one works — only that Builder's own ceiling is a real, recurring obstacle standing in front of both.
Where this leaves things
- Builder's output-truncation question reopens, no longer closeable as a one-off — two failures in three attempts, at the identical ceiling, on the identical request shape, is a pattern worth investigating on its own terms rather than a coincidence to rerun past.
- The ordering fix and the observability hardening remain unexercised against a real run — Run #22 never reached far enough to test either one, leaving both exactly as untested as they were before this run launched.
- A dedicated investigation into the truncation pattern is the clear next step, separate from and prior to any further attempt at this same request — this run is handed off for that, not for another blind rerun.