Take the next task on the to-do list and work on it. Confirm that all tests pass. Review your work for sanity (e.g. by looking at images and considering what to see there as well as reading reports) and add any new tests that would be needed for those sanity checks. When you have reached a suitable stopping point, git add, commit and push; then deploy to merah.

Nearby Git Commits (Thread)

• 994e94a4 Split release geometry into explicit subassemblies (2026-03-18T01:27:45+11:00)
• b9f8a11e Add nightly Codex runner script (2026-03-17T17:24:16+11:00)
• c966592a Add deployment sequence planning tasks (2026-03-17T16:57:31+11:00)
• c5f1bae0 Model explicit hexapod attachment hardware (2026-03-17T14:59:39+11:00)
• c7c60d96 Add explicit secondary alignment interface hardware (2026-03-17T13:38:27+11:00)
• d592a27c Close Ariane LPSS interface assumptions with confirmed ICD values (2026-03-17T12:08:47+11:00)
• 94785735 Add optional image postprocessing provenance flow (2026-03-17T11:27:03+11:00)
• 516ea8ab Add explicit stowed launch hardware release data (2026-03-17T10:40:02+11:00)
• 77a9dcb8 Add internal interface completeness gate (2026-03-18T02:23:11+11:00)

Transcript

<permissions instructions>
Filesystem sandboxing defines which files can be read or written. `sandbox_mode` is `danger-full-access`: No filesystem sandboxing - all commands are permitted. Network access is enabled.
Approval policy is currently never. Do not provide the `sandbox_permissions` for any reason, commands will be rejected.
</permissions instructions>

# AGENTS.md instructions for /Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd

<INSTRUCTIONS>
## Skills
A skill is a set of local instructions to follow that is stored in a `SKILL.md` file. Below is the list of skills that can be used. Each entry includes a name, description, and file path so you can open the source for full instructions when using a specific skill.
### Available skills
- atlas: macOS-only AppleScript control for the ChatGPT Atlas desktop app. Use only when the user explicitly asks to control Atlas tabs/bookmarks/history on macOS and the "ChatGPT Atlas" app is installed; do not trigger for general browser tasks or non-macOS environments. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/atlas/SKILL.md)
- doc: Use when the task involves reading, creating, or editing `.docx` documents, especially when formatting or layout fidelity matters; prefer `python-docx` plus the bundled `scripts/render_docx.py` for visual checks. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/doc/SKILL.md)
- gh-address-comments: Help address review/issue comments on the open GitHub PR for the current branch using gh CLI; verify gh auth first and prompt the user to authenticate if not logged in. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/gh-address-comments/SKILL.md)
- gh-fix-ci: Use when a user asks to debug or fix failing GitHub PR checks that run in GitHub Actions; use `gh` to inspect checks and logs, summarize failure context, draft a fix plan, and implement only after explicit approval. Treat external providers (for example Buildkite) as out of scope and report only the details URL. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/gh-fix-ci/SKILL.md)
- jupyter-notebook: Use when the user asks to create, scaffold, or edit Jupyter notebooks (`.ipynb`) for experiments, explorations, or tutorials; prefer the bundled templates and run the helper script `new_notebook.py` to generate a clean starting notebook. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/jupyter-notebook/SKILL.md)
- openai-docs: Use when the user asks how to build with OpenAI products or APIs and needs up-to-date official documentation with citations (for example: Codex, Responses API, Chat Completions, Apps SDK, Agents SDK, Realtime, model capabilities or limits); prioritize OpenAI docs MCP tools and restrict any fallback browsing to official OpenAI domains. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/openai-docs/SKILL.md)
- paper-annotation-sync: Extract handwritten annotations from annotated paper PDFs and convert them into structured, section-aware source edit tasks (especially for LaTeX manuscripts). Use when a user provides an annotated PDF plus source files and asks to read red/blue ink marks, map each change to precise context anchors, generate a checkable markdown edit plan, and apply only unambiguous edits without confirmation. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/paper-annotation-sync/SKILL.md)
- pdf: Use when tasks involve reading, creating, or reviewing PDF files where rendering and layout matter; prefer visual checks by rendering pages (Poppler) and use Python tools such as `reportlab`, `pdfplumber`, and `pypdf` for generation and extraction. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/pdf/SKILL.md)
- playwright: Use when the task requires automating a real browser from the terminal (navigation, form filling, snapshots, screenshots, data extraction, UI-flow debugging) via `playwright-cli` or the bundled wrapper script. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/playwright/SKILL.md)
- quickbooks: Use when working with QuickBooks accounting workflows, including reconciliation checks, company-level diagnostics, or chart-of-accounts and transaction integrity reviews. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/quickbooks/SKILL.md)
- screenshot: Use when the user explicitly asks for a desktop or system screenshot (full screen, specific app or window, or a pixel region), or when tool-specific capture capabilities are unavailable and an OS-level capture is needed. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/screenshot/SKILL.md)
- sora: Use when the user asks to generate, remix, poll, list, download, or delete Sora videos via OpenAI’s video API using the bundled CLI (`scripts/sora.py`), including requests like “generate AI video,” “Sora,” “video remix,” “download video/thumbnail/spritesheet,” and batch video generation; requires `OPENAI_API_KEY` and Sora API access. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/sora/SKILL.md)
- speech: Use when the user asks for text-to-speech narration or voiceover, accessibility reads, audio prompts, or batch speech generation via the OpenAI Audio API; run the bundled CLI (`scripts/text_to_speech.py`) with built-in voices and require `OPENAI_API_KEY` for live calls. Custom voice creation is out of scope. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/speech/SKILL.md)
- spreadsheet: Use when tasks involve creating, editing, analyzing, or formatting spreadsheets (`.xlsx`, `.csv`, `.tsv`) using Python (`openpyxl`, `pandas`), especially when formulas, references, and formatting need to be preserved and verified. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/spreadsheet/SKILL.md)
- transcribe: Transcribe audio files to text with optional diarization and known-speaker hints. Use when a user asks to transcribe speech from audio/video, extract text from recordings, or label speakers in interviews or meetings. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/transcribe/SKILL.md)
- skill-creator: Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Codex's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations. (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md)
- skill-installer: Install Codex skills into $CODEX_HOME/skills from a curated list or a GitHub repo path. Use when a user asks to list installable skills, install a curated skill, or install a skill from another repo (including private repos). (file: /Users/gregb/.codex/skills/.system/skill-installer/SKILL.md)
### How to use skills
- Discovery: The list above is the skills available in this session (name + description + file path). Skill bodies live on disk at the listed paths.
- Trigger rules: If the user names a skill (with `$SkillName` or plain text) OR the task clearly matches a skill's description shown above, you must use that skill for that turn. Multiple mentions mean use them all. Do not carry skills across turns unless re-mentioned.
- Missing/blocked: If a named skill isn't in the list or the path can't be read, say so briefly and continue with the best fallback.
- How to use a skill (progressive disclosure):
  1) After deciding to use a skill, open its `SKILL.md`. Read only enough to follow the workflow.
  2) When `SKILL.md` references relative paths (e.g., `scripts/foo.py`), resolve them relative to the skill directory listed above first, and only consider other paths if needed.
  3) If `SKILL.md` points to extra folders such as `references/`, load only the specific files needed for the request; don't bulk-load everything.
  4) If `scripts/` exist, prefer running or patching them instead of retyping large code blocks.
  5) If `assets/` or templates exist, reuse them instead of recreating from scratch.
- Coordination and sequencing:
  - If multiple skills apply, choose the minimal set that covers the request and state the order you'll use them.
  - Announce which skill(s) you're using and why (one short line). If you skip an obvious skill, say why.
- Context hygiene:
  - Keep context small: summarize long sections instead of pasting them; only load extra files when needed.
  - Avoid deep reference-chasing: prefer opening only files directly linked from `SKILL.md` unless you're blocked.
  - When variants exist (frameworks, providers, domains), pick only the relevant reference file(s) and note that choice.
- Safety and fallback: If a skill can't be applied cleanly (missing files, unclear instructions), state the issue, pick the next-best approach, and continue.
</INSTRUCTIONS>

<environment_context>
  <cwd>/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd</cwd>
  <shell>zsh</shell>
  <current_date>2026-03-17</current_date>
  <timezone>Australia/Sydney</timezone>
</environment_context>

Take the next task on the to-do list and work on it. Confirm that all tests pass. Review your work for sanity (e.g. by looking at images and considering what to see there as well as reading reports) and add any new tests that would be needed for those sanity checks. When you have reached a suitable stopping point, git add, commit and push; then deploy to merah.

I’m going to inspect the repo state, find the to-do list, and identify the next actionable task before I touch anything. After that I’ll trace the relevant code/tests, implement the change, run the full verification pass, and handle commit/push/deploy if everything checks out.

I’ve confirmed the tree is clean and found the todo files. Next I’m reading the todo list and project docs to locate the next task and the repo’s testing/deploy workflow so we can carry the change all the way through cleanly.

I’ve reached the first open engineering item after the top-level exit criteria: the geometry still has concept primitives that need to become explicit released subassemblies. I’m going to inspect the current geometry/completeness/manufacturing paths to see exactly what remains implicit, then I’ll turn that into a bounded implementation plan before editing anything.

The geometry code already has quite a few explicit sub-parts, so I’m now tracing where the remaining “concept” gap actually shows up: part-family modeling, BOM coverage, and release checks. I’m digging into the families/manufacturing definitions next so we can target a real missing subassembly rather than churn already-closed work.

I’ve kicked off the geometry-completeness path so I can see the repo’s current released-state evidence, not just the source code. While that runs, I’m comparing the existing BOM/assembly assertions against the open TODO wording to see whether the real gap is missing geometry or missing proof.

<subagent_notification>
{"agent_id":"019cf9c6-be7b-7112-9909-0ed7b8ee8425","status":{"completed":"Most of the repo’s “released” geometry is now named and cross-linked, but the first open Geometry/CAD TODO is still real because the current gate only proves BOM/family coverage, not that those families are modeled as credible hardware.\n\n**Most concrete remaining concept-only geometry**\n\n- The spacecraft bus / launch-interface stack is still mostly primitive solids in [src/geometry/export.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/src/geometry/export.py#L841). `bus` is built from a handful of `_box(...)` slabs at lines 849-871, `launch_umbilical_bracket_*` are literal boxes at lines 976-989, `avionics_tray_*` are flat boxes at lines 990-999, and the bus harnesses are single cylinders plus box connectors at lines 1001-1045. In the current renders, this reads as a monolithic rectangular block rather than a panel/frame assembly: [launch_interface_closeup.png](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/outputs/blender_renders/launch_interface_closeup.png), [underside_bus.png](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/outputs/blender_renders/underside_bus.png).\n- The radiator package is still a box-model assembly, even though the load path is explicit. In [src/geometry/export.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/src/geometry/export.py#L647), radiator panels are `_box(...)` slabs at lines 654-670, the shroud is entirely boxes at lines 678-758, and the mount beams are boxes at lines 790-808. It passes support/load-path checks, but visually and structurally it is still a concept package rather than a released panel/frame/hinge assembly: [radiator_side.png](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/outputs/blender_renders/radiator_side.png).\n- The hexapod and sunshield support attachments are still “rods into raw structure.” `strut_*` are bare cylinders with no end fittings at [src/geometry/export.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/src/geometry/export.py#L1218), and `sunshield_hinge_*` / `sunshield_latch_*` are coarse boxes at lines 1181-1217. This matches the BOM note that hexapod joints/fasteners are still TBD in [scripts/build_manufacturing_package.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/scripts/build_manufacturing_package.py#L443).\n- The internal attachment hardware is no longer missing, but it is still autogenerated placeholder geometry. `_add_internal_interface_hardware()` in [src/geometry/export.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/src/geometry/export.py#L1320) creates `primary_mount_pad_*`, `secondary_*_clevis_*`, `secondary_mount_adjuster_*`, `focal_*_clevis_*`, and `focal_flexure_*` from endpoint inference plus boxes/cylinders. That is a big improvement over bare overlap, but it is still not “real subassemblies.”\n- The manufacturing package explicitly admits this gap. [scripts/build_manufacturing_package.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/scripts/build_manufacturing_package.py#L907) says there is still no GD&T/joint design, materials/thicknesses are placeholders, and some release hardware remains concept-level. The bus row even has `key_dims: \"TBD\"` at [scripts/build_manufacturing_package.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/scripts/build_manufacturing_package.py#L409).\n\n**Why the current gate still passes**\n\n- [scripts/check_geometry_completeness.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/scripts/check_geometry_completeness.py#L22) only checks:\n  - every exported part has a known family,\n  - every family maps to a BOM row,\n  - every BOM family appears in geometry.\n- It does not check whether a family is represented by a single placeholder box/rod versus an explicit subassembly with fittings, wall thickness, and interfaces.\n\n**Smallest credible implementation slice**\n\nIf the goal is the smallest slice that materially advances this TODO without spilling into the later “internal attachment solids” TODO, I’d do the **hexapod bus-to-platform attachment stack** first.\n\nScope:\n- Replace each `strut_*` with a small released subassembly: `strut_tube_*`, `strut_upper_clevis_*`, `strut_lower_clevis_*`, `platform_lug_*`, `bus_lug_*`, and optionally `strut_pin_*`.\n- Keep the existing tube length/radius logic, but stop attaching rods directly to raw `bus` and `platform_ring`.\n- Add classifier/BOM coverage for those new families and update the assembly check so each strut tube must terminate in explicit lugs/clevises rather than raw structure.\n- Add a geometry-completeness-style subassembly rule for the hexapod family so “one rod per leg” no longer passes as sufficient.\n\nWhy this slice:\n- It is tightly bounded in one area of [src/geometry/export.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/src/geometry/export.py#L1218).\n- It directly addresses all four words in the TODO: real subassemblies, joints, interfaces, and wall thicknesses.\n- It avoids stepping on the later internal-mount TODO too much.\n- It creates a repeatable pattern you can then apply to the radiator and bus.\n\nIf you wanted the smallest slice that could plausibly **close** the broader TODO rather than just advance it, I’d widen that to: `hexapod attachment stack + bus deck/panel decomposition + radiator panel/frame/shroud decomposition`. That looks like the minimum set of obvious remaining primitives in the released renders."}}
</subagent_notification>

I’ve identified a bounded slice of the first open Geometry/CAD task that looks both meaningful and safe to land: the hexapod legs still attach as bare rods to raw structure. I’m going to turn each leg into an explicit attachment stack with clevis/lug/pin hardware, then wire that through the family/BOM/assembly checks and add regression coverage around the new interfaces.

I’ve got a concrete edit set now. I’m updating the geometry generator, family/state/material mappings, and the release/BOM/assembly checks together so the new hexapod attachment hardware lands as one coherent slice instead of half-wired geometry.

The geometry/edit pass is in place. I’m switching to tight feedback now: targeted unit tests first to catch any family/wiring mistakes, then I’ll fix whatever falls out before I run the broader verification set.

The first targeted pass mostly held up. One geometry-completeness regression test exposed that I made the new explicit-subassembly rule too global, so I’m narrowing it to fire only when the hexapod families are actually in play rather than on unrelated synthetic BOM fixtures.

The focused regressions are green, including new geometry, BOM, completeness, assembly, and SCAD coverage around the hexapod attachment stack. I’m moving to the repo-wide verification/build path next so we can regenerate artifacts, inspect the new renders/reports, and only then do the git/push/deploy steps.

The repo-wide unit suite is running now. It’s touching some of the heavier artifact-backed tests, so I’m letting it finish before I kick off the website/release build; after that I’ll inspect the regenerated renders and reports for the new hexapod hardware.

The full suite is in the heavy tail now with the artifact-backed checks, but it’s still alive. I’m holding until it fully exits so I can report the complete repo-wide result rather than an estimate.

The full unit suite surfaced one repo-wide gap outside the immediate hexapod checks: the materials policy also tracks known part families, and it doesn’t yet know about the new attachment hardware. I’m wiring those same new families into that policy layer now, then I’ll rerun the full suite so the “all tests pass” claim stays clean.

The materials-policy gap is fixed and I’m rerunning the full suite from scratch. Once this comes back clean, I’ll move straight into the full website/release build and visual sanity pass.

The clean website/release build is underway now, which is the final proof path before deployment. After it finishes I’ll review the regenerated reports plus the new rendered geometry so we’re not trusting the checks blindly.

The clean release/site build completed successfully. I’m doing the last sanity pass now by checking the regenerated reports and a couple of the low-angle renders where the new hexapod attachment hardware should actually be visible.

I’ve got the implementation and test suite in a good place already, so I’m doing the last-mile sanity pass now: checking repo state, reviewing the generated reports, and confirming the rendered output still looks coherent before I commit, push, and deploy.

The reports are still clean, and the package outputs look internally consistent. I’m also doing a render sanity pass from a couple of angles so we don’t ship something that technically passes tests but looks obviously wrong.

I’ve confirmed the release reports and found the repo’s deploy path: local fallback is `make deploy-website`, which pushes the stakeholder site to `merah`. I’m doing one more pass over the config/policy changes so the commit only carries a coherent slice.

<subagent_notification>
{"agent_id":"019cf9f1-c981-7160-9897-8da74158e3f0","status":{"completed":"From these two views, the new attachment hardware reads as present and generally plausible. Small clevis/lug/pin-like terminations are visible at several strut ends, especially in the underside view, so the legs no longer look like they just fade into surfaces.\n\nI don’t see any obvious detached parts or major “floating” hardware. I also don’t see a glaring hard intersection that immediately looks broken. The visible leg/joint layout feels broadly consistent rather than obviously asymmetric.\n\nThe only caution is visibility: the joints are fairly small and the large white side structure hides a lot of the right-hand side, so full symmetry and all six attachments can’t be confirmed from these images alone. A few thin members visually blend into nearby surfaces, but that reads more like render/contrast ambiguity than a clear modeling error."}}
</subagent_notification>

The render sanity pass came back clean enough to ship this slice: the attachment hardware is visible and plausible from the checked angles, with no obvious floating parts or broken asymmetry. I’m checking the exact TODO wording once more so the commit message and stopping point match the backlog honestly, then I’ll stage and commit.

This slice lines up with the top open Geometry/CAD item: it doesn’t close the whole backlog entry, but it does replace another concept-only interface with explicit released hardware and hardens the checks around it. I’m staging the coherent set now and committing it as that scoped step forward.

The scoped commit is in place. Next I’m pushing `main` to `origin`, and if that succeeds I’ll immediately run the site deployment to `merah`.

The push landed on `origin/main`. I’m running the repo’s publish path now, which rebuilds the stakeholder site as needed and `rsync`s it to the `merah` host.

The deploy target has started with the repo’s guarded path, so it’s re-running the test suite first rather than publishing blindly. I’m staying with it through the full build and rsync so we know the deployed site came from a passing release state.

The deploy is still moving through the gated build, which is a good sign here because this target exercises a lot more than a bare `git push`. I’m waiting for the final site build and rsync confirmation so I can give you the exact deployed state, not just “tests passed locally.”

The deploy build has cleared the full `321`-test suite and all of the release gates again, and it’s into the render-and-publish leg now. I’m waiting for the final rsync confirmation, but the important part is already holding together under the repo’s full release pipeline.

The site build is complete and the deploy script is in the final `rsync` step now. I’m waiting for the success line from `merah` so I can close this out with the exact commit and deploy status.

Advanced the next open Geometry/CAD item by replacing bare hexapod rod terminations with explicit clevis/lug/pin attachment hardware in the released geometry and tying that through the checks/BOM/material handling in [export.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/src/geometry/export.py), [assembly_check.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/src/geometry/assembly_check.py), and [check_geometry_completeness.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/scripts/check_geometry_completeness.py). I also added regressions in [test_assembly_check.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/tests/test_assembly_check.py), [test_geometry_completeness.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/tests/test_geometry_completeness.py), [test_manufacturing_package.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/tests/test_manufacturing_package.py), and [test_scad_export.py](/Users/gregb/Documents/devel/aao-mechd/tests/test_scad_export.py). This moves that TODO forward, but does not fully close the broader “replace remaining concept primitives” item yet.

Verification is clean. `make deploy-website` re-ran the full suite and release pipeline: `321` tests passed, release/geometry/interference/materials/site gates passed, and the stakeholder site rebuilt and deployed successfully to `merah`. I also sanity-checked the generated reports and renders; the new hexapod attachment details read as present and plausible in the reviewed views, with no obvious floating hardware or glaring broken intersections. The commit is `c5f1bae` (`Model explicit hexapod attachment hardware`), it’s pushed to `origin/main`, and the worktree is clean.