overnight-worktree-verification-fallback
Verify overnight multi-worktree Codex batches when auto-sync, duplicate-lane convergence, and sandbox-blocked review create misleading local state or review provenance.
Best use case
overnight-worktree-verification-fallback is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Verify overnight multi-worktree Codex batches when auto-sync, duplicate-lane convergence, and sandbox-blocked review create misleading local state or review provenance.
Teams using overnight-worktree-verification-fallback should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/overnight-worktree-verification-fallback/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How overnight-worktree-verification-fallback Compares
| Feature / Agent | overnight-worktree-verification-fallback | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Verify overnight multi-worktree Codex batches when auto-sync, duplicate-lane convergence, and sandbox-blocked review create misleading local state or review provenance.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Overnight worktree verification fallback Use this after overnight parallel Codex runs in workspace-hub-style repos. ## Core problems this skill handles 1. A worker lands a commit on `origin/main`, but the isolated worktree remains at an older local `HEAD`. 2. A second worker verifies the same issue and correctly decides not to push because the change already landed elsewhere. 3. A planning-only worker cannot run `scripts/review/cross-review.sh` due to sandbox permissions, yet still writes review artifacts. 4. Morning verification can be misled by stale local worktrees, empty logs, or self-review artifacts that look like true cross-provider review. ## Verification protocol for each overnight lane 1. Check the background process outcome and save the worker's own summary. 2. Verify the canonical repo state, not just the worker worktree: - `git fetch origin main` - compare `HEAD` and `origin/main` - inspect the claimed landed commit on `origin/main` 3. If the worktree is stale, do not treat stale grep results as proof of failure. - verify the landed commit/content from the canonical repo or a fresh checkout - only then decide whether the issue truly landed 4. For implementation lanes, confirm all of: - commit hash exists on remote main - expected content is present - issue comment/closeout exists - issue state matches the evidence 5. For verification-only duplicate lanes: - accept `landed-but-blocked` or `already-landed` as a successful outcome if the worker correctly avoided a duplicate push - preserve the evidence comment rather than forcing a second implementation ## Auto-sync / hook-push gotcha Some repos auto-push after commit via hooks or sync automation. Observed failure mode: - worker reports commit hash landed on `origin/main` - explicit `git push origin HEAD:main` says `Everything up-to-date` - local worktree `HEAD` is still the pre-run commit Interpretation: - the worker's local checkout may not have been fast-forwarded after the auto-push - remote main is authoritative for morning verification Required morning check: ```bash git fetch origin main git rev-parse --short HEAD git rev-parse --short origin/main git show --stat <claimed-commit> ``` ## Duplicate-lane convergence rule When two lanes target the same deterministic transformation: - the first lane may land the change - the second lane should fetch before editing - if the second lane can prove origin/main is byte-identical to the approved transform, that lane should not push Treat this as success, not wasted work, when the second lane: - detects the landed state early - avoids a duplicate commit - posts verification evidence on the issue - leaves the issue in the correct state (closed or still open if residual blockers remain) ## Sandboxed planning-review fallback rule If a planning-only lane cannot run `scripts/review/cross-review.sh`: - do NOT present the resulting artifacts as true cross-provider review - every fallback artifact must contain a provenance note stating it is a single-author adversarial self-review - every GitHub issue update must disclose that real cross-provider review is still required - keep the issue in `status:plan-review` - queue a real unsandboxed cross-review pass before any move to `status:plan-approved` Acceptable fallback output: - revised plan text - self-review artifacts with provenance note - issue comment summarizing what appears retired vs what still needs real review Not acceptable: - claiming Codex/Gemini/Codex review happened when only one author reviewed - treating self-review artifacts as approval-equivalent ## Morning scoreboard template For each lane classify as one of: - `completed-and-closed` - `landed-but-still-blocked` - `already-landed-no-new-push` - `planning-advanced-still-plan-review` - `failed-needs-rerun` Then include: - issue number - landed commit(s) - current issue state - evidence source (remote commit, CI run, GH comment, child issue) - next action if still open ## Good outcomes from this pattern - #2437-style: implementation landed on main, issue closed, child follow-ons created, stale worktree ignored after remote verification - #2442-style: P1/P2 already landed elsewhere, verifier lane proves byte-identical state and leaves issue open with residual blocker follow-up - #2441/#2443/#2444-style: plans improved, but artifacts explicitly disclose self-review provenance and issues remain in `status:plan-review` ## Anti-patterns to avoid - trusting stale local worktree grep over `origin/main` - closing an issue because a worker claimed success without verifying remote content and issue comments - treating self-review `-r3.md` artifacts as cross-provider approval evidence - creating duplicate implementation commits when a deterministic change already landed
Related Skills
subagent-write-verification
Independently verify subagent-claimed file writes with filesystem and git checks before treating the artifact as real, before committing it, and before referencing the path in downstream prompts.
digitalmodel-worktree-test-execution-with-shared-venv
Run digitalmodel tests from isolated worktrees without uv editable-dependency failures by using the main repo's existing virtualenv and PYTHONPATH.
blender-worktree-test-hardening
Recover and harden digitalmodel Blender automation work in isolated worktrees when uv/editable dependency paths break and local machines lack a Blender executable.
worktree-pre-push-bypass-for-tier1-checks
Handle workspace-hub integration-branch pushes from isolated git worktrees when the pre-push hook incorrectly assumes sibling tier-1 repos exist under the worktree path.
worktree-branch-sync-hygiene
Class-level branch, worktree, dirty-main, stash, sync, and hook hygiene for workspace-hub style multi-repo work.
workspace-hub-overnight-plan-monitor
Monitor and reconcile workspace-hub overnight planning or implementation batches, including process status, result artifacts, issue/commit verification, and controlled failed-lane recovery.
tdd-verification-and-adversarial-review
Verify pre-written TDD tests pass, conduct adversarial code review on committed diffs, and route findings to existing issues
tax-form-navigation-verification
Systematic workflow for verifying tax software calculations against entry guide specifications
portable-pattern-verification-workflow
Multi-package implementation with verification strategy for cross-platform configuration hardening
multi-year-tax-filing-verification-workflow
Verify and reconcile complex multi-form tax filings by cross-referencing source documents, identifying data dependencies, and validating line-by-line against authoritative records.
git-worktree-cleanup-at-scale
Identify and remove stale git worktrees blocking branch deletion in multi-repo environments
git-worktree-cleanup-and-branch-reconciliation
Systematic process for cleaning up stale git worktrees, resolving merge conflicts in diverged branches, and reconciling branch state across multiple repositories.