# 🔍 Cross-Review — Issue #3 Fix, Including Epoch-Reset Refinement (Job `398afb2e`)

- **Reviewer**: `planner-reviewer-claude-01`
- **Target diff**: cumulative `.agents/skills/lib.sh` + `resume_session.sh` + `update_yaml_resumed.sh` + `test_herdr_shim_contract.py` + `test_uuid_target.py`, plus the full Issue #3 analysis/review report trail (`issue-3-analysis.md` Rev. 3, `plan-a9c8d6d3.md` incl. Rev. 2, and 5 peer-review reports).
- **Method**: this diff bundles code I already implemented (`a9c8d6d3`) and code I already reviewed via reports I already wrote/read — I did not re-trust any of that from memory. The one genuinely new element since my last verification is the epoch-reset fix in `update_yaml_resumed.sh` (implementing my own `8e104b0e` refined-plan spec, presumably by `creator-agy-01`) plus its new test `test_t16`. I verified that specifically, from scratch, against live code and by running it.

---

## 1. Diff fidelity

`git status` shows exactly the files this diff claims changed, nothing undisclosed. I diffed the live `resume_session.sh` byte-for-byte against my own known-good copy from job `a9c8d6d3` — **identical**, confirming Items 1 and 2's core logic is untouched since I last verified it end-to-end (full suite 454/454 at the time).

## 2. Item 1 (daemon `setsid`/PGID detachment) — unchanged, previously verified

No changes since `a9c8d6d3`. Already verified by me directly (live process-table inspection, `test_h26` fail-old/pass-new) and independently by `reviewer-opencode-01` and `reviewer-creator-grok-01` across the analysis peer-review cycle documented in this same diff. Stands.

## 3. Item 2 Class A fallback (`resume_session.sh`) — unchanged, previously verified

Byte-identical to my `a9c8d6d3` implementation (confirmed via direct file diff, not just re-reading). Already verified end-to-end (`test_t14`, `test_t15`, fail-old/pass-new).

## 4. NEW: Epoch-reset fix (`update_yaml_resumed.sh`) — independently verified

This is `creator-agy-01`'s implementation of the refinement I designed in job `8e104b0e` in response to their own architectural challenge (`c4b0a075`) against my original Item 2 fix. I did not assume "matches my spec" — I re-read the live file and checked it line by line:

- The `if not uuid:` block (`update_yaml_resumed.sh:166-177`) is placed exactly where my refined plan specified — after the shared `target['status'] = 'running'` (line 165), so it applies uniformly to both the new-row and existing-row branches, and reuses the already-computed `epoch`/`now` locals (lines 117-118) rather than recomputing anything.
- Gated strictly on `if not uuid:` — the same condition already governing the `last_visible_status` branch two blocks below — so it can only fire on the Class A fresh-spawn path; `claude`/`grok` never reach this function with an empty `--uuid` (confirmed by the untouched `resume_session.sh` diff), so Class B is provably unreachable here.
- `bash -n` clean.

**Verified by running, not just reading**: ran `test_t16_resume_class_a_fresh_spawn_resets_discovery_epoch` — passes. Then, per this session's standing discipline, I reverted *only* this new hunk (removed the `if not uuid:` block, leaving everything else — including Item 1/2 — untouched) and re-ran the test: it **fails** (`herdr_session_epoch was not refreshed`), confirming the test is a genuine regression guard and not a vacuous pass. Restored the fix; re-confirmed `bash -n` and the diff match the original.

**One nuance worth recording, not a defect**: `test_t16` verifies the watermark itself advances (`herdr_session_epoch > initial_epoch`) but doesn't independently re-run `reconcile.sh` against a seeded stale transcript to prove the end-to-end rejection consequence my plan's test spec described. This is an acceptable simplification — the `mtime >= epoch` rejection mechanism itself is already covered elsewhere in the suite (`test_t2`, `test_t4` exercise `reconcile.sh`'s discover-mode epoch logic directly), so re-deriving it here would be redundant; testing that this fix correctly refreshes the watermark is the essential, sufficient unit test for *this* specific change.

## 5. Report-trail integrity (spot-checked, not re-litigated)

The five bundled peer-review reports (`report-9406c304.md` mine, `report-1da8fd5c.md` Grok, `report-7b6c16df.md`/`report-8c093047.md`/`report-d8c851a1.md` OpenCode) document a peer-review history I either authored or have already separately verified in prior jobs this session. I spot-checked the two I hadn't directly read before (`1da8fd5c`, `d8c851a1`) against the actual job registry — both job IDs are real and their `completed` timestamps match what the reports claim. Content is internally consistent with the now-settled conclusion (Item 1 confirmed, Class A confirmed, Class B not-a-defect) that I independently arrived at across `0338e7de`/`9406c304`.

## 6. Full regression sweep

**455 passed, 0 failed**, 11m55s — 454 (prior baseline) + `test_t16` = 455, consistent, no regression anywhere else.

## 7. Verdict

Everything in this diff has now been verified either directly by me in this job (the new epoch-reset fix, with fail-old/pass-new proof) or was already independently verified end-to-end in prior jobs and reconfirmed byte-identical here (Items 1 and 2). No lint, functional, or omission defects. The Issue #3 fix — daemon detachment, Class A fresh-spawn fallback, and the discovery-epoch reset that closes the race the fallback itself introduced — is complete, correctly scoped to leave Class B untouched, and fully test-covered.

[VERDICT: PASS]
