Aravind
a222dcd3e4
§9 says no agent ships without evals. Eight of the nine had none: the two
other suites in evals/ are harness fixtures rather than agents in the
registry, so the rule was being met by one agent in nine.
Evals — 40 new cases, five per agent, every one carrying mustNotLeak:
- the agent is loaded from its real spec in agents/*.md rather than
written out again in Go. A hand-copied agent tests the copy: it keeps
passing after somebody edits the spec, which is the moment it most
needed to fail.
- callNamed calls the tool a case names. toolThenAnswer always called
tools[0], so seven of positions-agent's eight tools were unreachable,
and a boundary nothing calls is a boundary nothing tests.
- seedWorkspace fills BOTH tenants. A leak test against an empty second
tenant cannot fail.
Verified by breaking workersByScore's org predicate: six cases across four
agents fail with LEAKED "RIVAL".
Knowledge — six policy documents, taking the corpus from 2 to 8 (34
chunks). Three restricted to admin and employer, five tenant-wide. They
cover what the tools cannot: a tool reports how many shifts went unworked,
a policy says what cover costs inside 24 hours.
corpus_test.go treats those documents as product rather than fixtures. The
first version was tautological — it read audience: from a file and checked
that file's audience was enforced, so opening a restricted document passed.
mustNotBeTenantWide now holds that judgement apart from the files, with the
reason recorded for each.
CI — the checks this repository already had, made unskippable. testutil
calls t.Skipf on an unreachable database, so a dead service container would
produce a green build over a suite that ran almost nothing. Simulated: go
test exits 0 with 74 tests skipped, including every tenant-isolation test.
The guard exits 1 and names them, while still allowing TestLive* to skip
without a model key.
This CI tests; it does not deploy. The README's claim that migrations are
run by CI against the target database remains aspirational.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0186JgqQUCDS8ZwGmyw3ymWu
45 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
45 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
source: policy_docs
|
|
audience: role:admin, role:employer
|
|
title: Right to Work and Certification Checks
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Before a first shift
|
|
|
|
No worker starts a first shift without a completed right-to-work check. This is
|
|
not a paperwork step that can follow the shift: the obligation is on the
|
|
business, the penalty falls on the business, and a shift worked before the check
|
|
cannot be undone by completing it afterwards.
|
|
|
|
The check is a sight of the original document, or a share code verified against
|
|
the online service, recorded with the date and the name of whoever checked it.
|
|
A photograph sent by message is not a check.
|
|
|
|
# Documents that expire
|
|
|
|
Where a document carries an expiry date, the worker's record carries the same
|
|
date and they stop being offered shifts seven days before it. Seven days rather
|
|
than on the day, because a licence renewed on the morning of a shift is a licence
|
|
that was not in place when the rota was published.
|
|
|
|
# Role-specific certification
|
|
|
|
| Role | Required before first shift | Renewal |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| Security officer | SIA licence, valid and in date | Three years |
|
|
| Bar staff serving alcohol | Personal licence where required by venue | Venue-specific |
|
|
| Kitchen and food handling | Level 2 Food Safety | Three years |
|
|
| Supervisors | First aid at work | Three years |
|
|
|
|
A worker whose certification lapses is not removed from the pool. They stop
|
|
being offered shifts for roles that require it and remain eligible for roles that
|
|
do not, which is usually the difference between losing a good worker and losing
|
|
three weeks of their availability.
|
|
|
|
# Recording a check
|
|
|
|
Checks are recorded against the worker profile, not against the shift. A check
|
|
done for one venue is valid across the organisation — asking a worker to prove
|
|
the same thing at each site is how a pool of willing people becomes a pool of
|
|
people who work somewhere else.
|