Skip to content

Conversation

@SidestreamColdMelon
Copy link
Contributor

@SidestreamColdMelon SidestreamColdMelon commented Oct 21, 2025

This PR:

* IF Prime Agent spell is provided
* [ ] Handover message matches `XXX spell YYYY-MM-DD deployed to 0x… with hash 0x…, direct execution: yes / no` template
* [ ] IF `direct execution` is `no`
* [ ] The spell is plotted using `StarGuardLike(XXX_STARGUARD).plot(XXX_SPELL, XXX_SPELL_HASH)`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please, update the name here as well.

@SidestreamColdMelon SidestreamColdMelon changed the title Add StarGuard support, rename SubDAOs to Agents Add StarGuard support, rename SubDAOs to Prime Agents Nov 4, 2025
@riccardopersiani
Copy link
Member

I think it would be helpful to add the verification commands, near L253

[ ] The codehash matches one produced locally from the reviewed source code.

Something like:

forge verify-bytecode 0xF538909eDF14d2c23002C2b3882Ad60f79d61893  ObexEthereum_20251113.sol:ObexEthereum_20251113 --rpc-url https://eth.llamarpc.com

What do you think?

@oddaf
Copy link
Member

oddaf commented Nov 11, 2025

Checklist looks good!

Just one note after seeing the first interactions with Star teams after Starguard: I think the Star teams should not chose "direct execution", we should just default to running their spells through Starguard, and fallback to direct execution only if truly needed (on an exception basis. If they need to run something direct they should go through the usual core spell process, including core process forum post, then polling, then Govops includes the items in the exec-sheet/doc).

Basically pushing them towards using the tool (safer, decoupled from the main spell, etc.) by making the other "direct" path way more difficult.

This is not a blocker though, it's something that can be discussed later on.

@SidestreamColdMelon
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think it would be helpful to add the verification commands, near L253

@riccardopersiani I think this is out of scope of this PR that adds StarGuard support, so you can open a separate PR. Historically, through, core developers never verified source code of the Star Spells as this is done by the Star spell reviewers.

I think the Star teams should not chose "direct execution", we should just default to running their spells through Starguard

I agree, it is recommended to use StarGuard. But it's important that "direct execution" is always considered and explicitly specified by the Star team – it should not be a responsibility of the core to consider it. The responsibility of the core is to scrutinise if the reason for "direct execution" is good enough.

@SidestreamColdMelon SidestreamColdMelon merged commit bb717d1 into master Nov 18, 2025
2 checks passed
@SidestreamColdMelon SidestreamColdMelon deleted the support-star-guard branch November 18, 2025 11:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants