Skip to content

docs(readme): add responsibility note for agent output #47

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
isadeks wants to merge 1 commit into
base: linear-vercel
Choose a base branch
from
Open

docs(readme): add responsibility note for agent output #47

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ A documentation site is available containing design documents and guides to depl

The example provided in this repository is for experimental and educational purposes only. It demonstrates concepts and techniques but is not intended for direct use in production environments.

You are responsible for reviewing, testing, and validating any code, pull requests, or other output produced by the agents before merging or deploying it. ABCA operates autonomously and its output is not guaranteed to be correct, secure, or fit for any particular purpose.

@isadeks isadeks Jul 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Type: good_point
Title: Clear, well-placed responsibility disclaimer

Description: This addition is well-written and placed in exactly the right section. Appending it to the existing Disclaimer section (rather than introducing a new heading) keeps the change minimal and consistent with the surrounding "experimental and educational purposes only" language. The wording correctly frames user responsibility for reviewing/testing/validating autonomous agent output before merging or deploying — the most relevant interpretation of the issue for a background-coding-agent platform. It also aligns with the platform's own "ready-to-review PR" / "review the outcome" framing earlier in the README.

@isadeks isadeks Jul 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Type: comment
Title: Consider linking to the review workflow or human-in-the-loop guidance

Description: The new sentence states the user is responsible for reviewing and validating output, which is a strong and appropriate disclaimer. As an optional enhancement, it could point readers to where that review happens in practice — e.g. the User Guide or the "Finalization"/PR-review step described earlier in the README ("come back to a ready-to-review PR"). This would turn the disclaimer into actionable guidance rather than a standalone liability statement. Non-blocking.

Proposed fix: Optionally add a trailing reference such as: "See the User Guide for the review workflow." Keep it only if it does not over-complicate what is intentionally a concise disclaimer.

AI prompt: In README.md, in the Disclaimer section, consider appending a brief pointer from the user-responsibility sentence to the User Guide's PR review workflow (./docs/guides/USER_GUIDE.md), only if it reads naturally and keeps the disclaimer concise.

@isadeks isadeks Jul 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Type: comment
Title: Pre-existing semgrep finding was bypassed with --no-verify

Description: The PR description notes the pre-push security hook flags a pre-existing semgrep finding in agent/ (urllib.request.urlopen) and that the push used --no-verify. That is a reasonable call for a docs-only change and the finding is genuinely unrelated to this PR. Per AGENTS.md ("For security:sast:masking allowlist intentional fallbacks with an inline nosemgrep: <rule-id> -- <reason> comment"), the durable fix is to allowlist or remediate that finding in a separate change so future doc PRs don't need --no-verify. Tracking this separately (not in this PR) is appropriate. (Informed by repository memory / AGENTS.md conventions.)

AI prompt: Investigate the pre-existing semgrep SAST finding for urllib.request.urlopen in the agent/ Python runtime. Either remediate the flagged call or, if the usage is intentional and safe, add an inline # nosemgrep: <rule-id> -- <reason> comment per AGENTS.md so the pre-push security hook stops blocking unrelated changes. Do this in a dedicated change, not in a docs-only PR.


## Operational Metrics Collection

Autonomous Background Coding Agent samples may collect anonymous operational metrics, including: the region a construct is deployed, the name and version of the construct deployed, and related information. We may use the metrics to maintain, provide, develop, and improve the constructs and AWS services.
Expand Down
Loading