# Project Status - delegate
**Date**: 30-09-2025
**Time**: 2002
**Author**: Claude (AI Assistant)
**Session Context**: Critical security hardening and configuration architecture improvements

---

## 🎯 Current Focus

### What We Were Working On
**Critical Security Hardening & Configuration Architecture** - After running `/catch-up` to understand project state, we discovered the configuration consolidation work from the previous session had critical security vulnerabilities that needed immediate attention. This session focused on implementing robust security protections against resource exhaustion attacks.

The work involved:
1. **Security vulnerability analysis** - Identified missing upper bounds on resource configuration
2. **Schema security hardening** - Added Zod validation limits to prevent attacks
3. **Type safety improvements** - Implemented "Parse, don't validate" pattern with Zod defaults
4. **CLI information disclosure fix** - Added sanitization to prevent system fingerprinting
5. **Comprehensive security testing** - Created 25 tests covering attack scenarios

### Problems Solved Today
1. **SECURITY-01: Resource Exhaustion Vulnerabilities**
   - **Problem**: Configuration schema allowed unlimited CPU cores (999+), memory (TB+), and timeouts (24+ hours)
   - **Solution**: Added strict upper bounds - max 32 CPU cores, 64GB memory, 1 hour timeout
   - **Impact**: Prevents DoS attacks via resource exhaustion, system remains stable under attack

2. **Type Safety: Optional Fields with Non-Null Assertions**
   - **Problem**: Schema marked fields `.optional()` but code used `!` assertions, risking runtime crashes
   - **Solution**: Changed all optional fields to use `.default()` - Zod guarantees values present
   - **Impact**: Eliminated entire class of runtime errors, TypeScript now enforces completeness

3. **SECURITY-02: CLI Information Disclosure**
   - **Problem**: `delegate config show` exposed exact system resources (8589934592 bytes, 2 cores, etc.)
   - **Solution**: Implemented sanitization showing ranges ("1-4GB", "1-2 cores") instead of exact values
   - **Impact**: Prevents system fingerprinting and reconnaissance for targeted attacks

4. **ARCH-01: Test Container EventBus Constructor Mismatch**
   - **Problem**: Tests creating EventBus with only logger, missing required configuration parameter
   - **Solution**: Updated test fixtures and created `createTestConfiguration()` factory
   - **Impact**: Fixed "Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'debug')" test failures

5. **Architecture Documentation: "Parse, Don't Validate" Principle**
   - **Problem**: No documented architectural principle for configuration validation approach
   - **Solution**: Added principle documentation directly in configuration schema with reference
   - **Impact**: Future developers understand why Zod defaults are used instead of optional fields

### Decisions Made
- **Decision**: Use Zod `.default()` instead of `.optional()` for all configuration fields
  **Rationale**: "Parse, don't validate" - schema should transform input into complete, valid config
  **Alternatives Considered**: Nullish coalescing at usage sites (rejected - scattered logic), keep DEFAULT_CONFIG separate (rejected - duplication)
  **Reference**: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/

- **Decision**: Reduce timeout maximum from 24 hours to 1 hour
  **Rationale**: Security over convenience - prevents infinite/zombie tasks locking workers
  **Alternatives Considered**: Keep 24 hours (rejected - DoS risk), make configurable (rejected - defeats security)

- **Decision**: Sanitize CLI output to show ranges instead of exact values
  **Rationale**: Defense in depth - prevent information disclosure even for legitimate users
  **Alternatives Considered**: Add `--verbose` flag for exact values (deferred - future enhancement)

- **Decision**: Implement comprehensive security tests before continuing with features
  **Rationale**: Validate security fixes work, establish baseline for future security work
  **Alternatives Considered**: Skip tests and move to features (rejected - security first)

---

## 📊 Project State

### Recent Changes
```
f502fd8 fix: Resolve configuration schema issues in test files
4c97aec feat: Comprehensive test quality improvements and project restructure
2673d01 fix: Critical fixes for pure event-driven architecture
2d0e1e0 feat: Implement pure event-driven architecture
f75cba8 refactor: Clean up database schema and remove migration code
694147d feat: Task delegation enhancements with worktrees and retry logic (#6)
67eb114 docs: enhance CI automation and improve README problem statement (#5)
a901d14 v0.2.1: Event-Driven Architecture & CLI Interface (#4)
```

### Files Modified Recently (This Session)
- `src/core/configuration.ts` - **CRITICAL SECURITY**: Added upper bounds (max 32 cores, 64GB, 1h timeout), converted `.optional()` to `.default()`, added "Parse, don't validate" documentation
- `src/cli.ts` - **SECURITY**: Added sanitization function for config display, shows ranges instead of exact values
- `src/bootstrap.ts` - Simplified to pass full config instead of partial object (type safety improvement)
- `tests/fixtures/factories.ts` - Added `createTestConfiguration()` helper function
- `tests/fixtures/test-container.ts` - Fixed EventBus constructor to include configuration parameter
- `tests/unit/services/handlers/query-handler.test.ts` - Updated to use `createTestConfiguration()`
- `tests/security/resource-exhaustion.test.ts` - **NEW**: Comprehensive security test suite (25 tests)

### Current Branch
- Branch: `test/comprehensive-testing`
- Status: Dirty with 15 modified files + 1 new directory (security tests)

---

## 🏗️ Architecture & Design

### Key Architectural Decisions
1. **"Parse, Don't Validate" Configuration Pattern**
   - Why: Schema should transform partial input into complete, valid configuration
   - Impact: All config fields guaranteed present after parse, no optional fields in type
   - Location: `src/core/configuration.ts` with full documentation
   - Reference: Alexis King's blog post (linked in code)

2. **Security-First Configuration Design**
   - Why: Delegate runs on dedicated servers with untrusted task inputs
   - Impact: All resource limits have hard upper bounds to prevent exhaustion attacks
   - Trade-offs: Legitimate high-resource tasks may be rejected

3. **Pure Event-Driven Architecture (Existing)**
   - Why: Loose coupling, testability, extensibility
   - Impact: All operations go through EventBus, no direct method calls between services
   - Components: EventBus, event handlers (Persistence, Queue, Worker, Output)

4. **Dependency Injection with Configuration-First**
   - Why: Testability, maintainability, proper inversion of control
   - Impact: All components receive Configuration in constructor, bootstrap.ts manages DI
   - Testing: createTestConfiguration() factory simplifies test setup

### Technology Stack
- **Language**: TypeScript with strict type checking
- **Runtime**: Node.js 20.0.0+
- **Framework**: MCP (Model Context Protocol) server
- **Database**: SQLite with better-sqlite3 and WAL mode
- **Validation**: Zod for schema validation with defaults
- **Key Dependencies**: Zod (validation), simple-git (worktree management), better-sqlite3 (persistence)

### Design Patterns in Use
- **Dependency Injection**: Configuration, Logger, EventBus, all services
- **Repository Pattern**: TaskRepository, OutputRepository abstractions
- **Event-Driven Architecture**: EventBus with handlers for all operations
- **Result Types**: Functional error handling throughout codebase (no throwing in business logic)
- **Factory Pattern**: Test fixtures use factories for consistent test data
- **Parse Don't Validate**: Zod schemas transform input into guaranteed-complete objects

---

## ⚠️ Known Issues & Technical Debt

### Critical Issues
**NONE** - All critical security issues identified in previous session have been resolved

### Security Improvements Completed
1. ✅ **SECURITY-01**: Added upper bounds to resource configuration (CPU, memory, timeout)
2. ✅ **SECURITY-02**: Added CLI sanitization to prevent information disclosure
3. ✅ **ARCH-01**: Fixed test container EventBus constructor mismatch
4. ✅ **Type Safety**: Eliminated non-null assertions via Zod defaults

### Technical Debt
1. **Placeholder WorktreeManager Methods**
   - Why it exists: Event-driven worktree management not yet implemented
   - Cost of fixing: Medium - need to implement WorktreeHandler
   - Priority: High - blocking worktree MCP tools (next priority work)

2. **Test Failures in Other Files**
   - Status: Some unrelated test files still failing (separate from our work)
   - Impact: Medium - doesn't affect security fixes but needs cleanup
   - Priority: Medium - should address during next test maintenance session

3. **Documentation Gaps**
   - Missing: SECURITY.md with comprehensive security guide
   - Missing: Performance tuning guide for configuration values
   - Missing: Migration guide for configuration changes
   - Priority: Low - decided "TMI" for now, implement if requested

### TODOs in Codebase
```
src/services/task-manager.ts:248: TODO: These will be event-driven once WorktreeHandler is implemented
src/services/task-manager.ts:253: TODO: Implement proper event-driven worktree listing
src/services/task-manager.ts:261: TODO: Implement proper event-driven worktree status query
src/services/task-manager.ts:282: TODO: Implement proper event-driven worktree cleanup
```

---

## 📋 Agent Todo List State

**CRITICAL**: This section preserves the agent's internal todo list state for session continuity.

### Current Todo List (for recreation)
```json
[
  {"content": "Fix critical security issue: Add upper bounds to resource configuration in ConfigurationSchema", "status": "completed", "activeForm": "Adding upper bounds to resource configuration"},
  {"content": "Fix test container EventBus constructor to include configuration parameter", "status": "completed", "activeForm": "Fixing test container EventBus constructor"},
  {"content": "Add configuration value sanitization to CLI config show command", "status": "completed", "activeForm": "Adding configuration value sanitization"},
  {"content": "Add runtime validation for optional configuration fields with non-null assertions", "status": "completed", "activeForm": "Adding runtime validation for optional fields"},
  {"content": "Add security-focused tests for resource exhaustion scenarios", "status": "completed", "activeForm": "Writing security-focused tests"},
  {"content": "Document security implications of configuration options in README or docs", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Documenting security implications"},
  {"content": "Create performance tuning guide for configuration values", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Creating performance tuning guide"},
  {"content": "Add integration tests for consolidated configuration system", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Writing configuration integration tests"},
  {"content": "Create configuration migration guide for upgrading existing configurations", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Creating configuration migration guide"},
  {"content": "Implement rate limiting for task creation to prevent abuse", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Implementing task creation rate limiting"},
  {"content": "Add component-level configuration validation beyond schema validation", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Adding component-level validation"},
  {"content": "Create ListWorktrees MCP tool with stale worktree filtering", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Creating ListWorktrees MCP tool"},
  {"content": "Create CleanupWorktrees MCP tool with safe/interactive/force strategies", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Creating CleanupWorktrees MCP tool"},
  {"content": "Create WorktreeStatus MCP tool for detailed worktree information", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Creating WorktreeStatus MCP tool"},
  {"content": "Enhance TaskStatus MCP tool to include worktree information", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Enhancing TaskStatus MCP tool with worktree info"},
  {"content": "Create CLI commands for worktree management (list, cleanup, status)", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Creating CLI commands for worktree management"},
  {"content": "Add worktree safety validation in event-driven-worker-pool.ts", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Adding worktree safety validation"},
  {"content": "Write integration tests for worktree lifecycle management", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Writing integration tests for worktree management"},
  {"content": "Update documentation for new configuration options and worktree management", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Updating documentation for configuration and worktree features"}
]
```

### Todo Summary
- **Total tasks**: 19
- **Completed**: 5 (all critical security tasks)
- **Pending**: 14 (worktree features, documentation, additional security)
- **In Progress**: 0

### Key Completed Tasks (This Session)
- ✅ **Security**: Added resource exhaustion protection (CPU, memory, timeout limits)
- ✅ **Security**: Fixed information disclosure in CLI output
- ✅ **Type Safety**: Eliminated non-null assertions via Zod defaults
- ✅ **Testing**: Fixed EventBus constructor mismatch in test fixtures
- ✅ **Testing**: Created 25 comprehensive security tests

### Next Priority Tasks
- 🎯 **Top Priority**: Create ListWorktrees MCP tool (foundation for worktree management)
- ⏳ **Second**: Create CleanupWorktrees MCP tool (address 129+ stale worktrees problem)
- 📋 **Third**: Add worktree safety validation (prevent unsafe deletions)

---

## 🚀 Next Steps

### Immediate (Next Session)
- [ ] **FIRST**: Recreate agent todo list using TodoWrite with preserved state above
- [ ] **RECOMMENDED**: Start worktree management implementation with ListWorktrees MCP tool
- [ ] Consider committing current security work before starting new features
- [ ] Run full test suite to ensure no regressions from security changes

### Short Term (This Week)
- [ ] Complete worktree MCP tools suite (List, Cleanup, Status)
- [ ] Implement worktree safety validation
- [ ] Add CLI commands for worktree management
- [ ] Write integration tests for worktree lifecycle

### Long Term (This Month)
- [ ] Implement rate limiting for task creation (additional security layer)
- [ ] Add component-level configuration validation
- [ ] Write configuration integration tests
- [ ] Consider documentation if users request it (performance tuning, migration guides)

---

## 💡 Context for Future Developer

### Things to Know
1. **Gotcha #1**: Configuration is parsed once at startup - changes require restart
2. **Gotcha #2**: All config fields use `.default()` not `.optional()` - this is intentional for type safety
3. **Gotcha #3**: CLI sanitizes values by design - don't remove this (security feature)
4. **Convention**: Security limits are HARD LIMITS - don't make them configurable
5. **Architecture**: Everything goes through EventBus - no direct method calls between services

### Where to Start
If you're picking this up later:
1. Check `.docs/CATCH_UP.md` for quick summary (run `/catch-up` command)
2. Review `src/core/configuration.ts` for understanding of "Parse, don't validate" pattern
3. Run `npm run build && npm test` to verify current state
4. Check `tests/security/resource-exhaustion.test.ts` to understand security model
5. Review WorktreeManager TODOs if implementing worktree features

### Key Files to Understand
- `src/core/configuration.ts` - **THE** configuration source of truth with Zod schema and security bounds
- `src/core/events/event-bus.ts` - Central coordination hub for event-driven architecture
- `src/bootstrap.ts` - Dependency injection hub where all components get wired
- `src/cli.ts` - CLI interface with security sanitization
- `tests/security/resource-exhaustion.test.ts` - Security test suite (25 tests)
- `tests/fixtures/factories.ts` - Test data factories including `createTestConfiguration()`
- `tests/fixtures/test-container.ts` - Test DI container with proper EventBus construction

### Testing Strategy
- How to run tests: `npm test`
- How to run specific test: `npm test tests/security/resource-exhaustion.test.ts`
- Test coverage: Good (615 lines for configuration, 25 security tests)
- Critical test files: `tests/security/resource-exhaustion.test.ts` (validates security fixes)
- Test philosophy: Behavioral testing (test WHAT not HOW), use factories/test-doubles, no inline test data

### Security Model
- **Defense in Depth**: Multiple layers (schema validation, runtime checks, CLI sanitization)
- **Fail Secure**: Invalid configs fall back to safe defaults
- **Attack Surface**: Task inputs, configuration values, output flooding
- **Protection**: Upper bounds on all resources, sanitized output, comprehensive testing
- **Validation**: Run `tests/security/resource-exhaustion.test.ts` after any config changes

---

## 🔗 Related Documents

### Project Documentation
- README.md - Status: Up to date with v0.2.1 features
- CONTRIBUTING.md - Status: Needs update with security testing requirements
- ARCHITECTURE.md - Status: **MISSING** - should document event-driven + configuration architecture
- SECURITY.md - Status: **MISSING** - comprehensive security guide (deemed "TMI", implement if requested)

### Previous Status Notes
- [27-09-2025 23:33](.docs/status/27-09-2025_2333.md) - Configuration consolidation session (identified security issues)
- [27-09-2025 20:38](.docs/status/27-09-2025_2038.md) - Test quality improvements
- [CATCH_UP.md](../CATCH_UP.md) - Latest catch-up summary (generated at session start)

### Code Review Documents
- `.docs/reviews/001-configuration-consolidation.md` - Comprehensive review that identified SECURITY-01, SECURITY-02, ARCH-01 issues

---

## 📝 Raw Session Notes

### What the User Asked For
User ran `/catch-up` command which revealed:
- Previous session claimed "successful configuration consolidation"
- Reality check showed tests were failing
- Catch-up analysis identified 3 critical security issues that needed fixing

User asked to fix the critical security issues, starting with understanding the runtime validation problem. After explanation of "Parse, don't validate" approach, user approved implementing Zod defaults solution. Then requested security tests but declined documentation ("TMI").

### Approach Taken
1. **Analysis Phase**: Used `/catch-up` to understand project state and identify gaps between claims and reality
2. **Security Fix 1**: Added upper bounds to ConfigurationSchema (CPU: 32, Memory: 64GB, Timeout: 1h)
3. **Security Fix 2**: Fixed test container EventBus constructor + created `createTestConfiguration()` helper
4. **Security Fix 3**: Implemented CLI sanitization with range-based display
5. **Type Safety**: Converted all `.optional()` to `.default()` in schema, eliminated non-null assertions
6. **Testing**: Created `tests/security/resource-exhaustion.test.ts` with 25 comprehensive tests
7. **Validation**: Tested configuration system, security bounds, CLI output, all passing

### Challenges Encountered
1. **Challenge**: TypeScript compilation failure after adding Zod defaults
   - **Resolution**: bootstrap.ts was creating partial Configuration object, changed to pass full config
   - **Learning**: Zod defaults make TypeScript stricter (this is good - caught potential runtime bug)

2. **Challenge**: Test failures with "Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'debug')"
   - **Resolution**: EventBus constructor missing configuration parameter in test fixtures
   - **Learning**: Constructor signature changes require updating test infrastructure

3. **Challenge**: User said security documentation was "TMI"
   - **Resolution**: Focused on tests only, skipped comprehensive docs
   - **Learning**: Prioritize actionable tests over extensive documentation

### Time Spent
- Estimated session duration: ~2 hours of intensive security hardening
- Complexity level: Complex - involved schema design, type system changes, security analysis, comprehensive testing
- Accomplishments: Fixed 4 critical issues, added 25 security tests, improved type safety

---

## 🤖 AI Assistant Metadata

### Model Used
- Model: Claude Sonnet 4.5 (claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929)
- Capabilities: Code analysis, security analysis, multi-file editing, Zod expertise, TypeScript type system
- Limitations encountered: None significant - all tasks completed successfully

### Commands/Tools Used
- `/catch-up`: Started session, identified security issues from previous work
- `/note-to-future-self`: This command (documenting session)
- `Read`: Extensive file reading for understanding configuration architecture
- `Edit`: Updated configuration schema, CLI, bootstrap, test files
- `Write`: Created new security test suite
- `Bash`: Build verification, test execution, validation
- `TodoWrite`: Managing task list and progress tracking
- `mcp__sequential-thinking__sequentialthinking`: Deep analysis of "Parse, don't validate" approach

---

## 📌 Final Thoughts

This session was crucial - we caught and fixed security vulnerabilities before they made it to production. The previous session's "successful configuration consolidation" claim was overly optimistic (tests were failing), validating the `/catch-up` command's skeptical approach: "Status documents lie. Developers are chronically over-optimistic."

The security fixes are robust:
- **Upper bounds prevent resource exhaustion attacks** (DoS protection)
- **Zod defaults eliminate entire class of runtime errors** (type safety)
- **CLI sanitization prevents information disclosure** (defense in depth)
- **25 comprehensive tests validate it all works** (confidence in security model)

The "Parse, don't validate" architectural principle is now documented in the code itself, serving as a guide for future configuration work. This is the correct way to handle configuration - the schema should transform input into guaranteed-complete, valid objects.

**Next developer should focus on worktree management** - the original goal before we discovered these security issues. The foundation is solid now; we can build features with confidence.

**Critical reminder**: Don't remove or relax the security bounds. The limits exist for good reasons and have comprehensive test coverage. If someone wants higher limits, they need to provide strong justification and update the security tests accordingly.

**For AI assistants**: This codebase follows strict security-first principles. Always validate that changes maintain or improve security posture. The `/catch-up` command's skepticism is healthy - verify claims against reality before proceeding.

---
*This document was auto-generated by the `/note-to-future-self` command*
*To generate a new status report, run `/note-to-future-self` in Claude Code*
