The detector was exhaustive over the `${{ }}` expression grammar and blind to
`jobs.<id>.secrets: inherit` on a `uses:` job, which passes the caller's whole
store to the called workflow while naming nothing. `secret_refs` reads only
inside expression spans — correctly, since outside one `secrets.` is a full stop
— and `inherit` is a plain scalar, so such a job was put in the derived
population by `pull_request_jobs`, walked, and reported CLEAN. Measured against
the predecessor:
stored_secret_faults('synthetic.yml', {True: {'pull_request': None},
'jobs': {'reused': {'uses': './.gitea/workflows/reusable.yml',
'secrets': 'inherit'}}}) -> []
... the same job with secrets: {TOK: '${{ secrets.RENOVATE_TOKEN }}'} -> 1 fault
so the miss was specific to the VALUE SHAPE, not the key. That is the failure the
done-condition names — a new job joining the population unprotected without
reddening anything — in a guard whose stated selling point is exhaustiveness over
the grammar and no exemption list.
`opaque_secret_handovers` now faults a `secrets:` key whose value is not a mapping
of names, under the existing `secrets.*` whole-context sentinel, and both fault
sites read through one `held_secret_names` so the workflow scope and the job
subtree cannot drift on which references are forgiven. The test is on the value
shape and not on the word `inherit`, for the reason the residue counter is not a
match on `toJSON`: any non-mapping value hands over a set the guard cannot
enumerate, a spelling act_runner grows later included.
Both halves of the predecessor measurement are re-derived every run rather than
left as prose: the new test asserts `secret_names(job) - INJECTED_SECRETS` — the
collector verbatim as it read before this clause — empty on the same fixtures it
asserts the fault on, and asserts the job is in the population. Reverting
`held_secret_names` to that expression reddens that test and only that test
(measured: 1 failed, 18 passed).
The clause reads the DOCUMENT only and the text-versus-walk cross-check cannot
cover it — there is no expression for its half to match, which is a stronger
reason than the shared-blind-spot one the cross-check already discloses. Said at
the definition, in the cross-check's "STRUCTURALLY CANNOT REPORT" paragraph, and
in the record, rather than left to be discovered; it does not redden the
cross-check either, since the clause feeds the fault collector and not
`secret_name_counts`.
Whether Gitea 1.27.1 / act_runner resolves `workflow_call` + `secrets: inherit`
on this instance was NOT probed — that affects reachability today, not the
guard's silence, and the direction is the one the spelling rows already take.
No tracked workflow uses a job-level `uses:`, so nothing reddens.
Refs #885
Decisions-Edit: yes
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015QqCpYFsKgnAnx6jVwrKiV
timothyandClaude Fable 5.1
c325cd6ee4