Privileged applier that LANDS meta-optimize / corpus-audit patches the user approved, with a fresh landing review and human approval. Base Codex review is same-family provisional. Use when the user says \"meta apply\", \"/meta-apply\", \"land the staged patches\", \"应用优化\", after a /meta-optimize run.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill meta-apply --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Meta Apply?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/wanshuiyin-meta-apply-auto-claude-code-research-in-s)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: meta-apply
description: "Privileged applier that LANDS meta-optimize / corpus-audit patches the user approved, with a fresh landing review and human approval. Base Codex review is same-family provisional. Use when the user says \"meta apply\", \"/meta-apply\", \"land the staged patches\", \"应用优化\", after a /meta-optimize run."
argument-hint: "[patch-number-or-all]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob
---
# Meta-Apply: the privileged landing gate for self-modification patches
> **Codex assurance:** a base landing review records
> `review_independence: same-family` and `acceptance_status: provisional` via
> `stamp-provisional`; the artifact is not auto-curatable. Only an overlay or
> deterministic verifier may produce accepted authorization.
This skill exists to enforce a **privilege boundary**. Producers like
[`/meta-optimize`](../meta-optimize/SKILL.md) (and, later, `corpus-audit`) are
**read-only** — no `Write`/`Edit`, no apply step; they can only *stage* candidate patches
under `.aris/meta/pending/`. **This skill is the only place a staged patch becomes a real
change to the corpus.** Splitting "propose" from "land" across two skills with different
tool grants is what makes "a loop cannot apply its own patch" structural rather than a
sentence the producer is asked to obey.
It is **human-invoked only.** It runs when the user explicitly types `/meta-apply` after
reading the producer's REPORT. That invocation IS the landing authorization (the locked
2026-05-30 decision: the human stays at the landing gate).
## The acquittal is generated HERE, not relayed
The earlier design trusted a `jury_verdict: pass` field in the producer's manifest. That
is **forgeable** — the producer writes that field, so a buggy/misaligned producer could
stage a killed patch labelled "pass." **So this skill does not trust any producer-written
verdict.** It runs the fresh landing reviewer **itself, at landing time, on the actual staged
diff** (fresh reviewer, paths-only). The verdict is produced where it is consumed, by the
privileged human-invoked skill — nothing to forge.
## The non-negotiable rules (jury-at-landing, reject-default)
For each staged patch the user asks to land, in order — any failure ⇒ skip & report,
never silently apply:
1. **The human named THIS patch.** Apply only patches the user listed (`/meta-apply 1,3`
or `all`); default to applying nothing.
2. **Fresh landing review PASS, obtained now.** Spawn a fresh `gpt-5.6-sol`
reviewer via `spawn_agent` (`reasoning_effort: ultra`, read-only, paths-only per
[`reviewer-independence.md`](../shared-references/reviewer-independence.md)) on the
staged `.diff` + its target. Ask: *does this change improve the harness without
regressions; PASS or KILL + one-line reason.* Include the scope-limits block from
[`review-scope-limits.md`](../shared-references/review-scope-limits.md): this jury
judges ARIS's own mechanism, so an over-defensive KILL permanently blocks a good
patch. The block bans *proposing new* hash binding — it is not a reason to KILL a
patch that touches the existing provenance stamp. **KILL ⇒ refuse.** The human cannot
override a KILL — they may only pick among reviewer-PASSED survivors.
3. **Record the review class honestly.** Base Codex review is same-family and
lands only with `stamp-provisional`; it can complete this explicit
human-invoked operation but does not authorize future auto-curation. A
Claude/Gemini overlay or deterministic verifier uses strict `stamp` and may
record accepted. See
[`skill-governance.md`](../shared-references/skill-governance.md).
## Workflow
### Step 0: Load staging + resolve the helper
```bash
PENDING=".aris/meta/pending"
[ -d "$PENDING" ] || { echo "Nothing staged. Run /meta-optimize first."; exit 0; }
echo "Staged:"; cat "$PENDING/manifest.jsonl"
```
Resolve `provenance.py` through the Codex manifest:
```bash
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f .aris/installed-skills-codex.txt ]; then
ARIS_REPO=$(awk -F'\t' '$1=="repo_root"{print $2; exit}' .aris/installed-skills-codex.txt 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
PROVENANCE=""
[ -n "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f "$ARIS_REPO/tools/provenance.py" ] && PROVENANCE="$ARIS_REPO/tools/provenance.py"
[ -z "$PROVENANCE" ] && [ -f tools/provenance.py ] && PROVENANCE="tools/provenance.py"
[ -n "$PROVENANCE" ] || { echo "ERROR: provenance.py unresolved" >&2; exit 1; }
```
### Step 1: Jury-at-landing for each requested patch
For every patch the user asked to land, read its staged `.diff` and target, then spawn the
fresh reviewer jury (Rule 2) — paths-only, no producer reasoning, no prior-round context.
Record `{patch, jury_verdict, jury_review_id, one_line_reason}`. Print a one-line result
per patch (`PASS → eligible` / `KILL → refused: <reason>`).
> The producer may have written an *advisory* pre-screen into the manifest to help the
> human read the REPORT — **ignore it for the landing decision.** Only this fresh verdict
> counts.
### Step 2: Land the survivors (Write/Edit only — never Bash)
For each patch that PASSED Step 1 **and** was named by the user:
1. **Back up** the target to `.aris/meta/backups/<date>/<target>` (use the **Write** tool
to copy contents; corpus paths are not Bash-writable when `corpus_write_guard` is
active — and the applier should use Write/Edit for corpus mutation anyway).
2. **Apply** the diff by **Edit/Write** on the target corpus file.
3. **Stamp provenance** on the changed file. Base Codex uses:
```bash
python3 "$PROVENANCE" stamp-provisional "$TARGET" --author "$AUTHOR" \
--reviewer "$JURY_MODEL" --verdict-id "$JURY_REVIEW_ID"
```
This records `review_independence: same-family` and
`acceptance_status: provisional`; `is_auto_curatable` remains false. If the
active overlay produced a cross-family result, use strict `stamp` instead.
4. **Log** to `.aris/meta/optimizations.jsonl`:
`{ts, patch, target, author_model, reviewer_model, jury_review_id, applied: true}`.
### Step 3: Report
Per patch: `LANDED <target>` (+ backup path + provenance sidecar) or
`REFUSED <patch>: <reason>`. Remove landed patches from `.aris/meta/pending/`. Remind the
user a landed patch is revertable from its backup, and to test the changed skill next run.
## Provenance is a receipt, not an acquittal of correctness
A stamp records that a change passed *a process* (fresh landing review + human
landing), not that it is *correct*. To prevent "approved-but-wrong with a stamp that
vouches for it" (false-authority laundering — worse than no stamp, because a later
auto-curator reads it as evidence):
- The stamp carries `verdict_id` (auditable review) + `content_hash` (a later hand-edit
invalidates it).
- **Recommended (not yet built):** a TTL forcing re-review of long-lived auto-authored
artifacts, and a behavioral auditor that REVOKES a stamp when a landed skill misbehaves.
Track as follow-up; never treat a stamp as permanent truth.
## Key Rules
- **Human-invoked only.** Never run as a side-effect of another skill or a hook.
- **Jury-at-landing, reject-default, no override.** The binding verdict is produced HERE
on the staged diff; never trust a producer-written verdict; the human picks among
survivors, never resurrects a KILL.
- **Never promote provisional to accepted.** Base Codex always uses
`stamp-provisional`; only an overlay or deterministic verifier may use strict
`stamp`.
- **Corpus mutation goes through Write/Edit** (reviewable, attributable), not Bash. The
`corpus_write_guard` hook (if installed) additionally denies Bash corpus writes — it
does NOT gate Write/Edit, so it does not by itself stop this skill from editing the
corpus; the jury-at-landing + stamp discipline above is what governs Write/Edit
mutations (that discipline is procedure, not a hook-enforced mechanism).
- **Back up before every mutation.** Reversible by construction.
- **Only land staged patches.** Applies what producers staged in `.aris/meta/pending/`;
invents nothing of its own.
## Review Tracing
Save each landing-jury reviewer call's trace per
[`review-tracing.md`](../shared-references/review-tracing.md) to
`.aris/traces/meta-apply/<date>_run<NN>/` — the acquittal that landed a corpus change must
be forensically recoverable.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!