Coordinator review of Task 6's resolution engine (plan amendment
86b3dc1e) found two critical and four important defects, all inherited
from the brief's original engine snippet:
- C1: anonymous callers on a public permission returned allow before
running bound policies, so the least-trusted caller got the weakest
evaluation. Policies now run for anonymous subjects too.
- C2: the policy verdict check was a truthiness test (`!verdict.allowed`),
so a policy returning `{allowed: "yes"}` granted access. Now requires
`verdict?.allowed === true` exactly, and no longer spreads the raw
verdict into the decision (which leaked arbitrary policy fields).
- I1: a binding naming a policy the catalog doesn't have was silently
`continue`d, granting whatever the policy was meant to guard. Now
denies with "Policy unavailable".
- I3: denies were checked by exact string equality, so a wildcard deny
(e.g. "post:*") was accepted and silently did nothing. Denies now go
through the same depth-aware wildcard matching as grants, via the new
exported `deniedBy()`.
- I2: `permissionsFor` now subtracts denied entries so it agrees with
`decide()` — needed for Task 7's UI gating to compose correctly.
- I4: non-string/empty `subject.id` (0, "", 123, {}) no longer silently
falls back to anonymous; it denies with "Invalid subject". `subject:
null` (no subject at all) remains genuinely anonymous.
Added six regression tests, each verified by reverting its fix and
confirming the test fails against the old code before restoring.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ClintchizandClaude Opus 5
ae37c9b57a