8586da2cb9
Reverses the org team added an hour ago. It was solving the wrong problem. Measured on the bare account, with no team and no collaborator role: pushing to its own fork works, opening a cross-repo pull request works, commenting works, creating an issue works. Pushing to a lair repo is denied and so is deleting it. Exactly one §2.2 capability is out of reach — applying a label — and that is the one that must not be bought by granting code write. So the runner gets nothing at all, which is a better property than a carefully scoped grant: there is no permission to review, no team to audit, and no rule to forget on the next repo added. Adding a repo to its remit is now one step, a fork, rather than three. Labelling moves to a separate identity, which lines up with the split the two units already have. The runner records state in Postgres — already the authority per §2.2 — and the poller reconciles labels onto the forge under its own account with issue write and no code access. The token that can touch issues is held by the process that never runs an agent; the token held by the process running unattended agents can only push to a repository nobody depends on. That also removes a silent failure I found while testing this. Creating an issue *with* labels as an unprivileged user returns 201 and drops the labels — no error, an issue that never gets picked up. A Plan job stamping inherited admission on its children would have failed precisely that way and looked fine. Children are now created bare, with their intended labels recorded in Postgres for the poller to apply. The second identity is provisioned with stage 2, when the first label is written. Nothing before then needs it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013TxK1CWPkFXqdcXMJ4hVe6
tireless
Keeps several repositories moving without an operator driving each change by hand. It watches Gitea (and GitHub, for legacy repos) and does three things:
- discovers — surveys a repo and proposes issues worth opening;
- plans — decomposes an issue into an epic and child issues, each specified well enough for a model that cannot ask questions;
- implements — produces a branch and a pull request.
Those chain into a loop with exactly two human gates: a person decides what enters the system, and a person decides what merges. Discovery proposes but never admits its own proposals; nothing merges itself.
Two coding agents do the work, each spawned as the vendor's own binary:
- Claude Code — discovery, planning, and implementation of issues that need interpretation. Uses the operator's Claude subscription by default, or pay-as-you-go if an API key is supplied.
- OpenCode — implementation of issues that a tireless plan already specified, against the self-hosted helexa fleet. Never Anthropic; enforced at startup.
The rule of thumb: Claude Code gets judgement, OpenCode gets specification.
Full design, constraints and the staged implementation plan:
doc/plan/design.md.
Status
Stage 0 (foundations) is built, deployed and verified.
Working: the domain model, routing, budgets, plan validation, the policy guards,
configuration loading and validation, the four system prompts, and preflight.
All three units run on bob, the dashboard is served at
https://tireless.internal, and the deploy workflow is green end to end.
Nothing is polled or claimed yet — that is stage 1. The runner is up but has no job store to claim from.
Not built: Postgres persistence, the forge clients, the poll loop, and every agent executor. Stages 1–8 in §7 of the design document say what lands when.
tireless is its own first tracked repo — see design.md §10 for what that implies, including which parts of this repo are deliberately routed to the stronger lane.
Build
cargo test --workspace
cargo clippy --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings
cargo fmt --all
cd dashboard && npm ci && npm run lint && npm run build
Run locally
cargo run -p tireless-api -- --config ./config.toml
cargo run -p tireless-worker -- --config ./config.toml poll
cargo run -p tireless-worker -- --config ./config.toml run
cd dashboard && npm run dev # proxies /v1 to 127.0.0.1:23296
tireless preflight verifies configuration and credentials without starting a
service: it reports which billing mode a Claude Code run would use and asserts
the OpenCode lane is not pointed at Anthropic.
Deploy
CI-driven via Gitea Actions on merge to main
(architecture/deployment-gitea-actions.md). One-time host provisioning —
including the interactive Claude Code login and the Gitea bot account — is
script/infra-setup.sh.
| Host | bob.hanzalova.internal (binaries, units, job trees) |
| API port | 23296 (registered in architecture/port-allocations.md), bound 0.0.0.0, mesh-only |
| Ingress | nginx on the hanzalova proxy — not on bob |
| Dashboard | https://tireless.internal (mesh only), served from the proxy |
| Database | magrathea.kosherinata.internal:5432, mTLS |
Conventions
Follows lair/architecture;
generic.md is the baseline. Three deliberate deviations:
tireless-agentcrate beyond the standard entities/core/data split. Process orchestration is not data access, and it is shared by the runner and the CLI. (§1)MemoryDenyWriteExecute=falseontireless-runner. Both agents are Node programs and V8's JIT needs write-then-execute pages. The API and poller keep the setting. (§8)AGENTS.mdis a symlink toCLAUDE.md. Both agents look for their own filename and the instructions are identical; a symlink is the only version of this that cannot drift.