git:20260930.d67320d to git:20261001.8e9b3cf

---

name: submit-suggestion

description: Propose declarative configuration updates securely by committing file changes and submitting GitHub Pull Requests (PRs) for SRE review. Not for fleet-audit finding fixes — the fleet-audit skill opens and tracks those PRs itself.

---

# submit-suggestion - Secure GitOps Pull Request Orchestrator

This skill equips the Platform Agent to propose declarative file updates, GKE infrastructure adjustments, or configuration changes securely by committing local repository changes and submitting GitHub Pull Requests (PRs) for human review.

## When to Use

- **Declarative File Provisioning:** Triggered when new GKE manifests or configs are requested.

- **Configuration Upgrades:** Triggered when upgrading version configurations, security patches, or network policies.

- **Governance Policy Syncs:** Triggered when compliance playbooks or settings require updates.

_Crucially, you are strictly forbidden from executing direct, manual mutations. All changes must flow through a secure PR path — this skill, or the **fleet-audit** skill for fixes of its findings (below)._

## When NOT to Use

- **Fixing a fleet-audit finding.** The bullets above match audit fixes too — a

security patch, a policy update — which is exactly why this warning exists. If

the change addresses a fleet-audit finding (it carries a finding id, or an

`[audit]` ledger issue lists that exact deviation as a finding), the

**fleet-audit** skill opens that pull request itself, through its `remediate`

subcommand — see `skills/fleet-audit/SKILL.md` for the invocation. That path

keys the branch on the files the fix touches, so a rerun cannot open a

duplicate: a live PR is left untouched rather than force-pushed over, and one

the harness withdrew as stale is re-proposed on the same branch. It applies

the audit labels, links the ledger, and closes the PR when the finding stops

reproducing. A PR opened through _this_ skill gets none of that — nothing

dedupes it and nothing ever closes it, which is how one workload's findings

once became five near-duplicate PRs.

Two cautions when you take that path. `remediate` consumes the findings

document the audit run wrote (`start` prints its path); if it no longer

exists, stop and say the fix should be requested as `/remediate <finding-id>`

on the ledger — do **not** run `start` yourself to mint a fresh document (it

scrubs that stream's workspace, possibly under a scheduled run), and never

hand-write one. And a change a user asked for on its own terms is not an

audit fix, even when the same file appears in a ledger — this section is

about fixes _of findings_, not about files findings happen to mention.

## Execution Instructions

Follow these steps to make, commit, and submit your GitOps suggestions asynchronously:

### Step 1: Prepare

Never run the plain `git` on this machine and never work from wherever your

shell happens to start. That `git` is a different program: it reaches the

network with a credential, and it is not the one your working copy answers to.

`prepare` brings the repository down and stands you on the branch this change

goes on.

The script path is spelled out from `$HERMES_HOME` rather than as `./skills/…`

because this skill is reached from a kanban card as well as from a cron turn,

and a card dispatch starts you in the task's workspace, not the profile

directory. `$HERMES_HOME` is the profile directory in both. Use that form

everywhere below, including for `vcs.py` in Step 5.

If you do meet a `No such file or directory` on one of these scripts, do **not**

recover by writing the absolute path out: `/opt/data/profiles/platform/…` is

refused by the gateway lifecycle guard, under an error about restarting the

gateway that has nothing to do with what you ran. Observed live — the refusal

sent one worker on to report a change it had not made.

```bash

python3 "$HERMES_HOME"/skills/submit-suggestion/scripts/submit_suggestion.py prepare \

--repo "<owner>/<repo>" \

--branch "platform-agent/<change_type>-<target_id>"

```

_(Example: `--repo "acme/fleet" --branch "platform-agent/provision-mercury-09"` or `--repo "acme/fleet" --branch "platform-agent/upgrade-policy-baseline"`)_

In a multi-repository environment, pass `--repo "<owner>/<repo>"` for the repository your task targets (identified from cluster annotations or task context per SOUL.md §3.4).

It prints one JSON line. **Keep it — Step 2 works inside its `workspace`.** The

`workspace` is named for your branch as well as the repository, because

`/opt/data/scratch` is shared with every other card: another card suggesting a

change to the same repository right now derives a different branch name for it,

so it works in a different directory. Different, not protected — every card here

runs as the same account and the whole tree is readable and writable from all of

them. What keeps two suggestions apart is that no two of them share a branch

name, which is why the name has to describe the change.

```json

{

"workspace": "/opt/data/scratch/vcs/github__acme__fleet__platform-agent__provision-mercury-09",

"repo": "acme/fleet",

"branch": "platform-agent/provision-mercury-09",

"base": "main",

"started_from": "main",

"proposal": ""

}

```

`base` is what the change merges into: the repository's own default branch, not

a hardcoded `main` — or, when a pull request for this branch is already open,

whatever that one is already targeting.

`started_from` and `proposal` are two halves of one answer — whether this is new

work or another round on a change already under review. `prepare` asks the forge

rather than taking your word for it. When a pull request is open for the branch,

its URL is in `proposal`, the copy is taken **of that branch** so every reviewed

revision comes down with it, and `started_from` is the branch itself. Otherwise

`proposal` is empty, the copy is taken of the base, and `started_from` is the

base.

There is one working copy per repository **and branch**, so preparing a second

change to the same repository does not disturb the first. If the copy for this

branch holds revisions that were never published, `prepare` refuses to replace

it. Finishing them is the way past, not the flag: go to the copy the refusal

names, publish what is in it and open the proposal, and this `prepare` becomes a

second round on that branch instead of a replacement. `--force` deletes those

revisions; it is the answer only once you have read them and decided they should

not exist.

A name can also be spent: the proposal it was last used for is closed or

squash-merged, and its revisions are not in the history you just cloned. If the

forge still holds that branch, a change cut fresh from the base does not build

on it and `submit` would be refused as `BRANCH_DIVERGED`. `prepare` handles this

itself: it asks the forge whether the branch is still there and, when it is,

deletes it — the broker allows that only for a branch under `platform-agent/`,

with no open proposal, whose tip is exactly what a closed proposal from this

repository carried, and every proposal on it opened by this install's

credential. A credential that cannot name its own login cannot show the last

part, so for it the prefix and the same-repository rule are the whole bar.

The log line says which happened. On GitHub nothing is lost: the revisions stay

reachable from the closed pull request.

If the broker refuses the delete, `prepare` refuses the name and names the

code. `NOT_SPENT` means the branch moved on after its proposal closed;

`BRANCH_MOVED` means something pushed to it a moment ago — run `prepare` once

more, which reads it again; if a person or a sibling card on the same name added

to it, that second run refuses it as `NOT_SPENT`. `OPEN_PROPOSAL` means a

proposal was opened on the name since `prepare` looked; run `prepare` once

more, and it adds to that proposal's branch. `BRANCH_NOT_OURS` means a proposal from it was

not this install's, or the name is not under `platform-agent/`, or it has

carried a full page of proposals, too long a history to read, or an open

proposal targets it (the message says which). Either way, do not delete it another way. `DELETE_REFUSED` means the

repository itself refuses to delete the branch (a branch rule, a hook, or a

credential without the right), and it will refuse again. Choose a different name where

the derived one is only a default, or report the refusal and stop where the name

is fixed. `FORGE_CALL_FAILED`, `GIT_FAILED`, or a delete refused with no code

is different: the delete did not complete (it may have landed before the

failure), and running `prepare` once more, which reads the branch afresh, is

the move; a second failure is reported, not retried. `FORGE_RATE_LIMITED` or

`FORGE_UNAVAILABLE` from the delete is the forge turning it away for now: wait

a few minutes, then run `prepare` once more. The same codes from the read of

the branch that comes before the delete get the same moves, and `prepare` says

which one. A proxy older than the

sandbox cannot read the branch at all; `prepare` then refuses the name with

`BROKER_ROUTE_UNSUPPORTED` and says so — use another name, or report it where the name is fixed.

### Step 2: Make the Changes

Generate or edit the files **inside the returned `workspace`**.

The local version control binary is `/opt/vcs/libexec/git`. It holds no

credential and cannot reach a forge, which is exactly why it is the one to use

```bash

cd <workspace>

# create or edit the declarative files here

```

**CRITICAL SECURITY RULE:** explicitly stage only the targeted declarative files

you generated or modified. **Never use `git add .` or `git add -A`** — this is a

real clone on a filesystem you also scratch in, and a blanket add sweeps

transient debugging output, logs and anything else that landed there into a

public pull request.

Committing here is optional. Uncommitted changes **to files the copy already

tracks** are recorded as a single revision under the `--title` you pass when you

run Step 3, which is what a single-purpose change wants. Commit yourself when

the change deserves more than one revision, or a message that is not the pull

request's headline.

The rule above still holds at Step 3: a file the copy has never seen is not

swept in for you. `submit` refuses and names it, because it cannot tell a

manifest you generated from a log you left behind. Stage the ones that belong

### Step 3: Call the Secure Submit Suggestion Script

The same helper with `submit` publishes the branch and opens the pull request —

or updates the one already open. It finds the working copy Step 1 made, so the

only thing to pass back is the branch name.

Write the description to a file first and pass the path. Inside double quotes

bash expands backticks and `$(...)`, and a pull request body is full of

backticks — through `--body` a benign one silently deletes its own text and a

hostile one runs in the working copy you are about to publish:

```bash

BODY=$(mktemp -p /opt/data/scratch pr_body.XXXXXX.md)

cat > "$BODY" <<'EOF'

This Pull Request was generated automatically by the **Platform Agent** control plane.

### 🚀 Functional Impact:

<detailed_markdown_bulleted_impact_description>

Please review the code diffs and merge this PR to trigger the GitOps CI/CD rollout!

EOF

```

The quoted `<<'EOF'` matters as much as `--body-file`: unquoted, the heredoc

expands the same constructs the argument would have. `mktemp` matters because

`/opt/data/scratch` is shared with every other card running right now, and a

fixed name there is two cards writing one file — one card's description on the

other's pull request. Keep the file directly in `/opt/data/scratch`, the only

directory `--body-file` reads from, and **not** inside the `workspace`: a file

written there is untracked, and `commit` refuses rather than guess — it names

the file and tells you to name the paths that belong in the change — so a

description left in the working copy stops the submit instead of riding along

in it.

```bash

python3 "$HERMES_HOME"/skills/submit-suggestion/scripts/submit_suggestion.py submit \

--repo "<owner>/<repo>" \

--branch "platform-agent/<change_type>-<target_id>" \

--title "<pr_title>" \

--body-file "$BODY"

```

`--base <branch>` names what the change merges into, for the rare case where it

is not the `base` Step 1 reported. It may not name the branch you are

submitting: a head branch that is its own base carries nothing for anyone to

review, and `prepare`, `submit` and the broker each refuse it. That covers the

repository whose trunk is called something other than `main` — the name is read

from the remote, not from a list.

The script returns the clean, live pull request URL. If a pull request for this

branch is already open, it updates that one's title and body in place and

returns its URL — resubmitting is not an error. `--keep-description` (Step 5) is

the one exception: it leaves the open pull request's title and body as their

author wrote them.

Older invocations carried `--workspace`, `--lease`, `--handle`, `--from`,

`--delete` and `--base-sha`, and had `list` and `fetch` as commands of their

own. The flags are still accepted, and read and ignored with a line saying so;

the two commands refuse with a line saying where the files are now. That is all

any of it buys: a command written against the old shape fails on what is

actually wrong with it — there is no working copy here, take the branch with

`prepare` — rather than on "unrecognized arguments" or "invalid choice", which

say nothing and hide the real cause. A card that prepared before an upgrade

cannot submit after one; its clone was on a volume this script no longer has.

Prepare again. Do not write new commands with these flags.

### Step 4: Confirm Suggestion

Record the PR link returned by the script, update the pending status inside your local state registry (if applicable), and present a clean, human-readable confirmation containing the PR URL link back to the user.

### Step 5: Addressing Review Feedback on an Existing PR

When you are asked to **address review comments / reviewer feedback** on an

existing PR, **read the comments yourself — never expect them pasted into the

task.** The `version-control` skill reads and writes them through the same

broker this skill publishes through; there is no forge CLI to authenticate and

no token to refresh.

1. **Read the pull request and all its feedback** — the conversation and the

inline review comments arrive together, each carrying the file and line it

sits on where it has one:

```bash

V="$HERMES_HOME"/skills/version-control/scripts/vcs.py

python3 "$V" proposal view <PR_NUMBER> --repo "<owner>/<repo>" --comments

```

Add `--diff` for the change under discussion. The `source` field of that

answer is the branch to work on in the next step.

2. **Apply the requested changes on the PR's own branch.** Run Step 1 against

that branch — `prepare --repo "<owner>/<repo>" --branch <source>` — then

Steps 2 and 3 exactly as written. Two things differ from a first submission

and both are handled for you: the copy comes down with the revisions already

under review on it and yours go on top, and `submit` adds to the branch

rather than replacing it, refusing outright if somebody else has moved it in

the meantime.

Edit the files the reviewer commented on in the `workspace` — what is on the

branch is what you are being asked to change, and rewriting a file from

memory loses the rest of it. Stage only those specific files

(**never `git add .` / `-A`**).

Pass `--title` and `--body-file` again so the description matches the

revisions now on the branch — or `--keep-description` and no body-file, when

what you were asked for does not alter what the pull request is for. That

flag keeps the title along with the body, so a `--title` passed beside it

does **not** reach the pull request, and the run says so. It is not inert,

though: it is still the message any uncommitted edits are recorded under, so

pass the one you would want on that revision and not a placeholder. Pass one

whenever you left edits uncommitted at Step 2 — without it the run is refused

for having changes and no message to record them under. `--keep-description`

also needs the pull request to still be open: a merged or closed one is not a

description to keep, and the script refuses before publishing anything rather

than opening a fresh pull request with no description at all.

3. **Reply on the PR** summarizing what changed, then relay a clean

confirmation (PR URL + what you changed) back through your kanban result.

Through a file, for the reason Step 3 gives. A reply is a summary of edits

you just made and often quotes the comment you are answering — backticks in

your own text, and `$(...)` in somebody else's. `proposal comment` takes no

`--body-file`, so the file is read by a command substitution you write

yourself; what it expands to is an argument and is not expanded again.

```bash

REPLY=$(mktemp -p /opt/data/scratch pr_reply.XXXXXX.md)

cat > "$REPLY" <<'EOF'

<what changed>

EOF

python3 "$V" proposal comment <PR_NUMBER> --repo "<owner>/<repo>" --body "$(cat "$REPLY")"

```

Never ask the requester to paste the comment text — fetching it and addressing it is your job.