Add bounded strict portable record decoding

[omry]

Add schema dispatch and bounded exact JSON decoding for every v1 record family, rejecting duplicate members, unknown and case-variant fields, missing required fields, JSON numbers and nulls, invalid UTF-8, unpaired surrogates, trailing tokens, and payloads past the file, depth, member, and string limits.

Add the canonical value rules the model depends on: record IDs and references, positive decimals, relative and absolute record paths, credential-free HTTPS source URLs, reversible percent-encoded tool version segments, and bounded sorted unique collections.

Scope authority

Task: PTD-03 — Add Bounded Strict Portable Record Decoding, defined in docs/PORTABLE_TOOL_DEFINITION_IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md (PR #86 in this stack), under the normative Portable Tool Definition Design.

Acceptance criteria:

• every schema round-trips;
• ambiguous encodings and every structural limit have negative coverage;
• decoding performs no graph or network work.

Sequencing note

In the parked source, decodeRecordV1 called record-local validation and decodeValidationEvidenceV1 called evidence validation. Those validators are owned by PTD-04 and PTD-06, and this slice's non-goals exclude record business rules, so decoding does not call them here — the slices that own those validators wire them in. One assertion in the evidence decode test depends on that wiring and moves with it, as does the reference-collection limit test that exercised it through record validation; this slice covers the same bound directly against validateReferenceListV1.

Exclusions: record business rules, cross-record validation, graph traversal, resolution. Source: parked extraction source b39985d247e5.

[omry]

PR-cycle state — maintained automatically. Do not edit.

{
  "approval": {
    "approved_revision_fingerprint": "sha256:d7a8ca6fb99451ef042bf4094699a7067e74a0663848fcd0c44a1af59807ebde",
    "evidence": {
      "delivery_deferral_ledger_digest": "sha256:4f53cda18c2baa0c0354bb5f9a3ecbe5ed12ab4d8e11ba873c2f11161202b945",
      "required_checks": [
        [
          "Linux CI checks",
          "success"
        ],
        [
          "Target smoke (darwin-amd64)",
          "success"
        ],
        [
          "Target smoke (darwin-arm64)",
          "success"
        ],
        [
          "Target smoke (linux-amd64)",
          "success"
        ],
        [
          "Target smoke (linux-arm64)",
          "success"
        ],
        [
          "Windows host smoke (windows-amd64)",
          "success"
        ],
        [
          "Windows host smoke (windows-arm64)",
          "success"
        ]
      ],
      "review_request": {
        "body_digest": "sha256:84b8dff8f036f7ad76ef94edcb8d31ad42a9a215594b3f11d9e086df2e77e725",
        "id": 5328395368
      },
      "review_result": {
        "body_digest": "sha256:baca04ea444f0b30cb149427ea758c1c99806cd9774b909e44825181add2a85b",
        "id": 5328444278
      },
      "revision_fingerprint": "sha256:d7a8ca6fb99451ef042bf4094699a7067e74a0663848fcd0c44a1af59807ebde",
      "thread_dispositions": {
        "resolved": 1,
        "total": 1
      }
    },
    "evidence_fingerprint": "sha256:a3c9f2d35abbf6521d4fab0cc206b04e56a3f89af4c3f5b9a270f414af641838",
    "rounds": 2
  },
  "checks": {
    "conclusion": "success",
    "count": 7
  },
  "delivery_deferrals": [],
  "findings": [
    {
      "classification": "current-slice defect",
      "disposition": "fixed in 42c6f5fa01b9; also applied to validateAbsoluteRecordPathV1, which had the same gap and was not flagged",
      "id": "reject-backslashes-in-record-paths",
      "location": "internal/toolcatalog/records_decode.go:593",
      "named_invariant": "portable record paths must match their consumer's rule in providerstore.ArtifactDescriptor.Validate, which forbids backslashes",
      "note": "the preflight design-to-code audit did not catch this: the inconsistency is between a validator and its Go consumer, not between code and design",
      "severity": "P2"
    }
  ],
  "preflight_audit": "design decoding rules diffed against implementation before review: reject invalid UTF-8, duplicate member names, and schema-unrepresentable values before semantic decoding, plus lowercase-hex rejection in version segments \u2014 all implemented; aggregate byte, record-count, and graph-depth limits belong to PTD-07 and closure contributions to PTD-09 per the plan",
  "pull_request": {
    "base": {
      "ref": "pr89",
      "sha": "97ae8d8f7daf852c5ba5f1406bad93d12e00de39"
    },
    "head": {
      "ref": "pr90",
      "sha": "42c6f5fa01b9"
    },
    "number": 90,
    "repository": "github.com/omry/reploy"
  },
  "review": {
    "request": "@codex, regular review 42c6f5fa01b9",
    "result": "Codex Review \u2014 no issues on 42c6f5fa01"
  },
  "revision_fingerprint": "sha256:d7a8ca6fb99451ef042bf4094699a7067e74a0663848fcd0c44a1af59807ebde",
  "rounds": [
    {
      "attempt": 1,
      "finding": "backslashes accepted in record paths",
      "resulting_head": "42c6f5fa01b9",
      "reviewed_head": "7e823b69d2fe"
    },
    {
      "attempt": 2,
      "finding": "none \u2014 clean",
      "resulting_head": "42c6f5fa01b9",
      "reviewed_head": "42c6f5fa01b9"
    }
  ],
  "scope_authority": {
    "docs/PORTABLE_TOOL_DEFINITION_DESIGN.md": "sha256:4c8fa535721baf22f67486a46b0b4a04eb7054713d0a892e2d6f9667bba914b6",
    "docs/PORTABLE_TOOL_DEFINITION_IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md": "sha256:971113afcedea93da5df3fab42433a1e5f9fea62554f02a3f630e306b9455f00"
  },
  "version": 2
}

[omry]

@codex, regular review 7e823b6

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for security reviews. Please try again later.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7e823b69d2

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[omry]

@codex, regular review 42c6f5f

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up!

Reviewed commit: 42c6f5fa01

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".