API Error: Connection lost mid-response. The response above may be incomplete.

Recommendation: start with #8 (entire api fills the wrong {repo_id}). It's a confirmed bug with a small, contained fix. #10 is a cheap second PR. #7 affects users the most, but it needs your decision before any code.

#8, confirmed in code

• resolveCurrentRepoID (cmd/entire/cli/api_cmd.go:256) returns the first active mirror's MirrorId.
• --to cell then sends the request to your home cell (api_cmd.go:187), not the cell of the repo's processing placement.
• Trail commands already do this correctly through newTrailAPIClient → resolveForgeRepoCellPlacement (api_client.go:79). The comment on resolveRepoCellPlacement describes exactly this failure: an ID taken from one placement, sent to the wrong cell, comes back as a 404.
• The fix is to reuse that resolver for {repo_id} and to route --to cell repo requests to the placement's cell. It should fit in one small PR.
• Two things are still open:
  • I couldn't reproduce it live. Both the control-plane and cell calls timed out from here (us.auth.entire.io connect timeout).
  • For --to core, I need to check whether core endpoints expect the mirror ID or the placement ID before switching what {repo_id} means there.

#10, confirmed and broader than the list said All six default runners (risk, drift, review, confidence, summary, security) use a plain git diff origin/{{base_branch}}...HEAD. So moved code can be misread as deleted in every default, not just drift. The fix is a prompt-only change across six JSON files.

#7 needs a decision, not a bug fix agent/codex/AGENT.md says on purpose that entire enable must not write to another checkout's .codex; it only warns. The fix list proposes installing there after asking the user first. That changes a written rule, so it's your call before I plan it.

I'll write the #8 plan and have a reviewer agent check it, unless you'd rather lead with #10.

#10 is only half a CLI fix. The six prompt templates live only in the CLI (cmd/entire/cli/runnerdefaults/runners/*.json, embedded in the binary). entire-api has no copy; I grepped its worktree for the drift prompt and found nothing.

entire runner setup copies those templates into the repo's .entire/runners/. From then on, entire-api reads the committed copies from the default branch. So fixing the CLI templates only affects repos that run setup after the fix ships. Repos already set up, including the customer's, keep the old prompt until someone edits .entire/runners/trail-drift.json or re-scaffolds it.

That makes #10 lower priority than I said:

• The fix itself is just a template change.
• For existing repos, the real fix is telling them to edit their committed config, or adding a "refresh defaults" path to runner setup/tune, which is a bigger change.

So #8 is clearly the cli item to do first. Should I go ahead with the #8 plan and reviewer pass?

I've written the #8 plan, and a reviewer agent is checking it now. I'll start implementing once its findings come back.

Plan: /private/tmp/claude-501/-Users-peytonmontei-dev-entire-devenv-entireio-cli--worktrees-trails-feedback-fixes/e12e8871-2964-4413-8f69-ec89ab77647d/scratchpad/plan-8-api-repo-id.md

• Fill in the right ID: {repo_id} will use the repo's processing placement. It will reuse resolveForgeRepoCellPlacement, the same lookup trail commands use.
• Send to the right cell: a --to cell request that uses {repo_id} will go to that placement's cell. If you pass --jurisdiction, that still takes priority.
• --to core keeps working: core paths still get a valid ID. The code records that placement IDs are the same as mirror IDs for GitHub; the fix only stops it picking the wrong mirror.
• Fail rather than guess: if no processing placement can be found, the command errors instead of falling back to some other mirror.
• Bonus: native et repos now get {repo_id} support too, because the shared lookup already handles them.
• Before the PR: tests, help text and the routing doc get updated, then a live check with the branch build. The control plane was timing out from here earlier.

#8 is implemented and checked against the live service. mise run check is running in the background.

What I changed (+293/-54, about 200 of it tests)

• The ID: {repo_id} is now the repo's processing placement ID. It uses the same lookup as entire trail. Before, it took whichever active mirror was listed first.
• The cell: --to cell requests with {repo_id} in the path now go to the cell that hosts that placement, not your home cell.
• Unchanged:
  • /me/* paths and {repo_id} in the query string, such as the documented recap example, stay on the home cell.
  • An explicit --jurisdiction still takes priority.
• Failures: if the lookup fails, the command errors instead of guessing another mirror. A GitLab origin gets a clear "needs a GitHub or Entire repo" error.
• Also changed: the help text, the doc in docs/development/api-routing.md, and a stale comment in repo_clone.go.

Live check against entireio/cli, which has mirrors in us and eu:

• Each mirror has a different ID. Only the processing ID, on its own cell, returns the repo's trails.
• The wrong cell returns an empty list with no error, so before this fix an EU-home user would have silently seen no trails.
• With the branch build:
  • The repo trails path returns 200 with 50 trails from the us cell.
  • --jurisdiction eu is still honoured.
  • Core /mirrors/{repo_id} and /me/recap both still work.

Side effect: a request that only goes to the control plane now also looks up the cluster list, so it can newly fail if that list doesn't include the repo's cell. I'll note it in the PR rather than add a separate code path.

Follow-up, not in this PR: recap's currentRepoRef (entireapi_client.go:46) has the same first-mirror bug. Its comment says the ID is the same across placements, and the live data shows that's wrong.

Once mise run check passes I'll commit and open the PR off main, setting the PR body and trail descriptions. Tell me if you'd rather review the diff before I push.

Everything else that resolves a repo ID already uses the processing placement. The one exception is recap, which has the same first-mirror bug.

Recap details:

• It sends /me/recap?repo=<id> to the home cell, using whichever mirror the control plane lists first. Its comment says the ID is the same across placements, and the live data shows that's false.
• For entireio/cli it happens to pick the us processing ID, because that mirror is listed first. A repo whose eu mirror is listed first would send an ID the cell doesn't know, and the team side of recap would quietly come back empty.
• Recap is the only caller of firstActiveRepoID, isActiveMirror and listMirrorsForRepo.

Recommendation: fold recap into this PR, since it's the same bug and the same fix.

• Switch currentRepoRef to the processing placement lookup and keep it best-effort, so recap still falls back to the personal-only view on failure.
• Delete those three helpers and their tests.
• It adds roughly +30/-60 and keeps all repo ID resolution on one path.

The alternative is a separate follow-up PR off main. Want me to fold it in? mise run check is still running.

Recap is folded in. Every repo-ID lookup in the CLI now uses the processing placement. Total diff is +329/-219 across 8 files, about 250 of the added lines in tests.

• Recap: currentRepoRef now uses the same lookup as trails, explain and entire api. It stays best-effort, so on failure recap still shows only your own side. Native et repos now get the team view too.
• Removed, since recap was their only user: firstActiveRepoID, forgeToMirrorProvider, isActiveMirror, listMirrorsForRepo and mirrorLister, plus their tests. Recap's wrong "the ID is the same across placements" comment goes with them.
• New tests: recap picks the processing placement when it isn't listed first, and a lookup failure returns nothing rather than an error.
• Checked against the live service with the branch build:
  • recap --static --week --view team resolves entireio/cli and shows 158 sessions.
  • The entire api checks from before still behave the same.
• Tests run so far: build, vet and the focused tests pass. The full mise run check hasn't run on this tree yet; the one in progress started before the recap change. I'll run it again when it finishes, then commit and open the PR off main.

The first mise run check failed, and the failures don't look related to this change. I've started a second run on the current tree, which includes the recap change.

• Lint passed with 0 issues.
• The test failures came from the machine being overloaded, with a load average around 300 during the run:
  • cmd/entire/cli hit its 10-minute timeout while running TestHeadCheckpointFlags_RepositoryLayouts/linked, which this change doesn't touch.
  • Three other packages (claudecode, agent/external, checkpoint/remote) failed on timing.

If the second run passes, I'll commit and open the PR off main.

I'll tell you when the second check run finishes. After that I'll build a fresh binary from the final tree and re-test with it before committing:

• entire api with --to cell, --jurisdiction eu, core /mirrors/{repo_id} and the /me/recap path
• recap --view team

The fix for #8 is done and up for review as PR #2857: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2857. It's not merged.

Checks:

• mise run check: passed on the second run, after the first failed while the machine was overloaded.
• Lint before the push: 0 issues.
• Fresh binary, against the live service:
  • --to cell on the repo trails path went to the us cell that holds the repo and returned 50 trails.
  • --jurisdiction eu still overrides that and goes to the eu cell.
  • Core /mirrors/{repo_id} returns the processing mirror.
  • /me/recap stays on your home cell.
  • recap --view team shows the entireio/cli team data.

What's in it:

• Branch and commit: peyton/api-repo-id-processing-placement, one commit, +329/-219.
• Repo ID: entire api and recap now pick the repo's processing placement, the same way trails and explain already did.
• Cleanup: the old first-mirror helpers are deleted.

Trail: trail #2403 has its type set to bug and a description added; the cli trail is #1650.

Still running: GitHub CI is in progress. The trail has no findings yet, but its runners may not have finished. I'm watching CI and will check findings again when it completes, then fix anything real.

Yes. I rebuilt from the committed code (version …fb83a9893d58, no local changes) and all five checks pass against the live service:

These runs can't show the bug itself. My home cell is us, which is also where entireio/cli's data lives, so the old code would have reached the right cell for me too. The failing case is someone whose home cell is eu. I could only show that indirectly: asking the eu cell returns an empty list with no error. A real check needs an EU-home login, if you have one.

GitHub CI is still running. I'll check trail findings when it finishes.

Not quite yet. Two things are still running:

• CI: 13 checks pass, including lint and Bugbot. 5 test jobs are still pending: test-core, test-integration a/b/c and test-canary-windows.
• Entire Gates: the trail's runners are still going, so the "no findings" so far doesn't mean they're clear yet.

I'll fix any real findings, then mark it ready for review. If CI passes and the gate finishes with no findings, I'll tell you it's ready without further changes.

The code side is done: mise run check passes, and the committed binary has been tested against the live service. The one gap is the EU-home login check I mentioned, and reviewers can rely on the unit tests for that.

Yes, PR #2857 is ready for human review. Its only failing check is the approvals gate, which is red until a reviewer approves.

• CI: all 19 GitHub checks pass, including lint, Bugbot, and the core, integration, canary and Windows tests.
• Entire Gates:
  • checks and findings passed, with 0 findings.
  • up_to_date was skipped.
  • approvals failed with "No reviewers have approved this trail", which only clears with a human approval.
• Trail runners: all five passed (review, risk 22, security 15, drift 12, confidence 77), and the trail shows ready_for_review: true.
• PR: not a draft, no merge conflicts, review required. I won't merge it.

https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2857

Could someone review https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2857? entire api {repo_id} and recap were using the first mirror they found instead of the repo's processing placement. For a repo mirrored in several regions, that could silently return empty trails from the wrong cell. They now share the lookup trails and explain already use. CI is green and the trail has no findings.

Review please: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2857. It fixes entire api {repo_id} and recap picking the wrong mirror on multi-region repos. CI is green.

#10 is about the default runner prompts misreading moved code. All six defaults (risk, drift, review, confidence, summary, security) tell the agent to run a plain git diff origin/{{base_branch}}...HEAD. That diff has no move detection, so a block that was moved shows up as a deletion plus an addition, and the drift evaluator can score it as "code deleted". The customer hit this.

As we found earlier, it's only half a CLI fix:

• The templates live only in the CLI (cmd/entire/cli/runnerdefaults/runners/*.json) and get copied into the repo by entire runner setup. entire-api reads the committed copies from the default branch.
• Fixing the templates only helps repos set up after the release. Existing repos, including the customer's, keep the old prompt until they edit .entire/runners/*.json or re-scaffold.

Options:

1. Templates only: add --color-moved or an instruction such as "before calling lines removed, check whether they reappear elsewhere in the diff" to all six. Small PR.
2. Option 1 plus a refresh path: let runner setup/tune update existing configs to the new defaults. Bigger, with a design question about overwriting tuned prompts.
3. Option 1 plus telling existing users what to change in their committed config. No code for existing repos.

I'd do option 1 now and treat option 2 as a separate decision.

You're right that runners score the whole branch against main. That doesn't affect this issue, though, and I haven't proven it's a real problem rather than a one-off.

Why the whole-branch scope doesn't matter: git diff origin/main...HEAD is that whole-branch diff, from the merge base to HEAD. Even within that one diff, a block moved from line 40 to line 200 appears as 40 lines of - in one place and 40 lines of + in another. Git only links the two with --color-moved, and the template doesn't use it. Here is the whole drift prompt:

Run git diff origin/{{base_branch}}...HEAD to see the changes, then score drift…

There's nothing about moves. So the way it could go wrong is real, and it's what the customer reported: drift read their moved hooks block as deleted.

Reasons this may not deserve a fix:

• It's one report. Confidence ran on the same diff and got it right, which means a model can spot the move without help. This may be ordinary run-to-run variation rather than the prompt failing every time.
• I haven't reproduced it. A clean test would run the drift prompt on a branch with a pure moved block, a few times each with and without the extra instruction. That means paid agent runs.
• The customer reply already tells them how to fix their own copy.

My take is that #10 is a "nice to have" prompt improvement, not a confirmed bug. I'd either drop it to the bottom of the list or run that small repro first. Want me to run it?

I couldn't reproduce #10. In 9 runs of the exact default drift prompt, it recognised the moved block every time.

So unlike #8, there's no confirmed bug here. The plain git diff does show a move as lines removed and lines added, but Claude pairs them up on its own, even inside a larger mixed diff.

What this doesn't cover:

• The customer's actual diff: I don't have it. Their case may have been a move combined with edits to the moved block, which is harder to recognise.
• The model: the runner's sandbox might use a different Claude model from my local default.
• Run-to-run variation: a single bad run on their side is possible.

Recommendation: drop #10 from the fix list as "not reproduced".

One thing to flag in the customer replies: the drift paragraph in ~/Desktop/trails-feedback-responses.md says "The drift runner doesn't notice when a block moves within a file". These runs don't support that as a general claim; it looks like a one-off. You said not to change the replies without asking, so I've left it. Want me to suggest softer wording, such as "drift misread the moved block in that run", or leave it if it's already sent?

The scratch repos and outputs are in /private/tmp/claude-501/-Users-peytonmontei-dev-entire-devenv-entireio-cli--worktrees-trails-feedback-fixes/e12e8871-2964-4413-8f69-ec89ab77647d/scratchpad/drift-repro.

I still can't reproduce the customer's drift result. With their report's exact shape, the default drift prompt read the move correctly in every run, 22 of 22 in total.

No run said the allowlist was deleted.

Conclusion: the customer's report is real as a single bad run, but I can't make it happen again. It looks like ordinary run-to-run variation, not something the prompt reliably causes, which also fits the confidence runner reading the same diff correctly. Adding move-detection wording to the prompt can't be shown to help when the failure won't reproduce.

What's left untested: the runner's sandbox might use a different Claude model than my local default, and I don't have their actual branch. If the person who owns runners can tell us the sandbox model, I can re-run the exact case on it.

Recommendation:

• Drop #10 from the fix list as "not reproduced; looks like a one-off".
• The customer reply's "the drift runner doesn't notice when a block moves within a file" claims a general limitation that doesn't hold up. Wording like "the drift runner misread the moved block in that run" would be accurate. Want me to draft that change, or has the reply already gone out?

Moving on. I've saved where things stand to memory.

The most pressing item overall is #1 in entire-api (duplicate draft PRs for merged branches). It's the only fix we promised the customer, and it hasn't been started.

What's left on the cli side:

• #7 Codex in linked worktrees isn't tracked: biggest user impact. It needs your decision first, because the fix means relaxing the rule that entire enable never writes to another checkout, and asking the user before installing there.
• #5, IP part: add an ip category to PII redaction. Small and clear.
• #9 trail scores and runner runs in the CLI: a feature, best after the entire-api fixes.
• #5 names and #6 PII default: these need team decisions first.

I'd do #1 next, starting with a live reproduction like #8: find a trail whose branch was merged through a different PR, and confirm the push or sweep opens a new draft. Should I start #1, or do you want #7 or #5 first?

The context approach works: false positives drop from 30% to 3.6%. The cost is missing some real public IPs.

• Still caught with context: every private, link-local and CGNAT address, which covers the customer's 10.24.3.17. Also anything in a URL, an ssh user@ip, ip:port, a CIDR, an lsof -> line, or near an IP word.
• Missed with context (193 matches, 37 IPs): public IPs printed in bare tables or lists with no nearby keyword, such as an AWS NAT IP list printed under region names.
• Remaining false positives: a few 3.13.10.x version tuples that happened to sit near a context word, plus 1.1.1.1, which is arguably real (Cloudflare DNS).

I'd ship the context rule, on by default when PII is on, and note the bare-list gap in the docs. Teams that need every public IP can add a custom_patterns entry. The context rule applies to IPv6 the same way, and the reviewer's IPv6 boundary fixes still apply.

Go with that?

No library I found handles coding transcripts better. I ran the best candidate, incognigo, on the same local transcripts and it does much worse than our context rule:

What else is out there:

• goredact / betterleaks: no IP detection. They're secret scanners, and betterleaks' IP-related rules are API keys such as AbuseIPDB.
• piimask: masks a value you already know is an IP. It doesn't find IPs in text.
• incognigo: a real detector (Apache-2.0, no dependencies, 96% precision on its own benchmark). It checks only one byte either side of a match and has no context, so in code it flags version tuples, Class::method-style tokens and Python slices. Its benchmark is synthetic prose PII, which is a different domain from ours.
• Presidio / Google DLP: Python and cloud API respectively, so we can't embed them. Their approach (regex, plus validation, plus nearby context words) is exactly what our context rule does, and it's the one that measured best here.

Recommendation: write our own detector using the Presidio-style context rule (3.6% false positives, every private IP caught), plus the reviewer's IPv6 boundary and performance fixes. On by default when PII is on, with the bare-public-IP-list gap documented. Shall I go ahead?

Sources:

• piimask
• incognigo
• deidentify
• entireio/cli/redact
• ip-regex testing

While the full check runs, I'll prepare the binary test. There's a test-repo skill for exactly this, testing against a fresh repo with real hooks and checkpoints:

The compact transcript.jsonl is redacted too: 4 [REDACTED_IP] and no raw addresses left.

Status of the IP change:

• Branch peyton/pii-ip (off main), not committed yet.
• Unit tests pass, lint is clean, and the docs pass their tests.
• The end-to-end run with the branch binary passes.
• The full mise run check is still running in the background. When it passes I'll commit, push and open the PR, unless you want to look at the diff first.

Measurements:

• About 3% false positives on real transcripts, down from 30% with plain shape matching.
• About 2% extra redaction time.

One environment note: the git hooks run whichever entire is first on PATH. My first end-to-end run silently used your installed nightly, so a manual test of a branch build needs the branch binary first on PATH.

Still to do after this PR:

• The entire enable prompt (#6), as its own PR.
• The names heuristic, which I'll measure for false positives on the same transcripts before writing any code.

Not yet. mise run check is still in the test phase; lint already passed. I'll commit, push and open the PR as soon as it passes, then set the trail description and check findings, the same as for #2857.

Yes, the PR is open now: #2861. It's one commit on peyton/pii-ip, +149/-14 lines changed plus two new files, and it's on trail #2421 with a description.

Checks before pushing:

• Lint is clean.
• mise run check passed apart from TestFetchCheckpointRefFrom_ConfiguredHonorsFetchTimeout, a timing test that doesn't touch redaction. It failed while the machine was heavily loaded and passes when run on its own. The PR body says so.
• The branch binary redacted IPs correctly in a test repo.

Two behavior changes to flag in the release notes, both in the PR body:

• Repos that already have PII redaction on will start redacting IPs after they upgrade.
• A committed "ip": false breaks teammates still on an older CLI, because older versions reject the unknown key.

CI and the trail runners are still going in the background. When they finish I'll check the findings and fix any real ones.

Next up:

• The entire enable prompt for PII (#6), as its own PR off main.
• The names false-positive measurement, before any names code.

The fix works end to end with a fresh binary that includes main. connect to fe80::1: unreachable is now stored as connect to [REDACTED_IP]: unreachable, and the version string and loopback address are left alone.

Waiting for mise run check. Then I'll commit the fix, push both the merge commit and the fix normally (no force-push needed), resolve the finding, and watch CI, which should run now that the conflict is gone.

I pushed the fix and resolved the finding. CI is now running on PR #2861; it didn't run before because the branch conflicted with main.

• Conflict: I merged main into the branch, which didn't need a force-push. The only clash was the layer list comment in redact/redact.go, because main had added a layer, and I kept both changes.
• Finding fixed: fe80::1: unreachable used to leave the address unredacted. A single colon after an address is now dropped before checking, and a trailing :: stays part of the address. I added three tests and confirmed it with a fresh binary end to end.
• Checks: mise run check passed and lint is clean.
• Next: I'm watching CI and the trail's runners, and will handle any new findings.

PR #2861 is ready for human review; it's only waiting on a reviewer's approval.

• CI: 19 of 19 GitHub checks pass. notify-slack was skipped.
• Entire Gates:
  • checks passed.
  • findings passed: the one finding is resolved and no new ones came up on the current commit 44c7e5c.
  • up_to_date was skipped.
  • approvals is failing only because nobody has approved yet.
• Trail runners: all five passed and the trail shows ready_for_review: true.
• Mergeable: yes, now that main is merged in.

Slack line if you want it: "Review please: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2861 adds IP redaction to PII (about 3% false positives on real transcripts). CI green."

Next is the entire enable PII prompt (#6), as its own PR off main, followed by the false-positive measurement for name detection. Should I start #6?

For #2857 the fix is small: when ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL is set, the user has named the host, so entire api keeps it and uses the placement only for the ID. That restores the pre-PR behavior for override users. I'll make the change on the #2857 branch once #2861's check finishes, since both use this worktree.

No, not yet, but they're almost done. The trail findings were clear, but GitHub had 7 review comments (Copilot and Bugbot) that I hadn't checked. I reproduced all 7 and they're real; all are fixed locally, but nothing is pushed yet.

• #2861 (IP redaction), 6 comments:
  • The main one: a custom rule named ip used to pick up the built-in IP checks and stop matching bare addresses.
  • The rest are IPv6 and JSON gaps: bracketed endpoints like [fd00::5]:8080, host:fe80::1, addresses with 8 colons, all-letter private addresses like fdab::abcd, and JSON values such as {"host":"203.0.113.9"}.
  • Each one has a regression test. The redact tests pass, the a[1::2] and c::d code shapes are still left alone, and the speed cost is still about 3%.
  • The first full check run stopped at one lint style issue, which I fixed. The re-run is in progress.
• #2857 (entire api repo ID), 1 comment: setting ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL now keeps your chosen host, so a local-stack user's raw requests no longer go to the hosted cell. I added a regression test, and the help text and routing doc are updated. The PR still merges cleanly with main. The full check for it runs after #2861's finishes, so the two don't overload the machine.

Once each check passes I'll commit, push both PRs normally (no force-push), then re-check all three sources: trail findings, Copilot and Bugbot.

Will do. I'll check back in when both PRs are pushed and their review comments are clean.

#2861's review fixes are pushed. The full check for #2857 is running. When it passes I'll commit, push, test with a fresh binary, and then check findings and review comments on both PRs.

Both PRs are pushed with the review fixes, but I'm not done until CI and the new bot reviews come back.

• #2861: all 6 review comments are fixed and tested with a fresh binary end to end.
• #2857: setting ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL now keeps your chosen host; I checked that with a fresh binary too.
• Full checks: both passed apart from one timing-sensitive test each, which aren't related to these changes. They failed while the machine was heavily loaded, and each passes when run alone.

The GitHub review threads on #2861 are still marked open. Resolving them needs a write to GitHub, which the permission classifier blocked. You can resolve them in the UI, or allow the action and I'll do it.

CI, the trail runners and new Copilot/Bugbot reviews are still running on both PRs. When they finish I'll check every source and tell you if they're clean or fix anything new.

Almost done. Both PRs have no open trail findings and no new Copilot or Bugbot comments since the fixes.

• #2861: CI passes 19 of 19. Entire Gates is the only red check, and that's the approvals gate, which needs a human reviewer.
• #2857: 18 checks pass. controlplane failed because the shared test account hit "organization creation limit reached" when the e2e test tried to create an org. That's a quota on the test account, not this change, so I've re-run that job and am waiting on it. Entire Gates is red for the same approvals reason as #2861.

I'll confirm once the controlplane re-run finishes.

Done. Both PRs are as clean as they can get without a human reviewer.

• #2857's one failing check (E2E Control Plane): it fails because the shared test account hit "organization creation limit reached", and it failed again on re-run. This isn't our change. Since about 05:50 UTC the same job has failed on an unrelated branch (peyton/midturn-token-double-count) too, and it passed for everything before that. Someone with access to that test account needs to clean up its orgs or raise the limit. After that, re-running the job will clear #2857's checks gate.
• Approvals: both PRs are only waiting on a human approval. I haven't merged either.
• Still on you: the review threads on #2861 show as open on GitHub, because the permission classifier blocked me from resolving them. Resolve them in the UI, or allow the action and I'll do it.

The re-run is in progress; I'll confirm when it finishes.

On your second question: yes, that's #8, and PR #2857 is that fix. The quote is from our customer reply, where we said entire api "doesn't route them there yet" and suggested the trail commands as the workaround.

We fixed the api command itself rather than steering agents away from it:

• {repo_id} now resolves to the repo's processing placement, the regional copy that holds its data.
• --to cell requests that use it go to that placement's regional cell, using the same lookup the entire trail commands use.
• I verified this live: requests reached the us cell and returned the repo's 50 trails.

The agent help needs no change. It already tells agents entire api is a last resort and to prefer first-class commands like entire trail, and that guidance stays correct.

Once #2857 merges and ships, the "doesn't route them there yet" line in the reply is out of date. If you want, we can send a short follow-up after the release.

Yes. PR #2857 fixes that: once it ships, entire api sends repo requests to the regional server that holds the repo, so the customer won't need the trail-commands workaround for this.

The controlplane re-run passed now that the test account's org limit has cleared, so every GitHub check on #2857 is green.

Its Entire Gates now match #2861: checks and findings pass, and only approvals is red, waiting on a human reviewer. Both PRs are ready for review.

Review please: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2857 makes entire api send repo requests to the right regional server.

The only open PII-category PR is our #2861. The rest are image and OPF fixes.

What's left, most pressing first:

1. #1, duplicate draft PRs for merged branches (entire-api). The only fix we promised the customer, and not started. I'd do this next, starting with a live reproduction the same way as #8.
2. #6, PII prompt in entire enable (cli). Already decided: a Confirm next to the telemetry prompt plus a flag for non-interactive use, with -y keeping it off. It's small, and its own PR off main.
3. Names in PII (cli). Measure false positives for a first-name-list heuristic on real transcripts before writing any code.
4. #7, Codex in linked worktrees (cli). Still needs your call on installing into the main checkout after asking the user.
5. #2, #3, #9, #12, #13. Smaller follow-ups, plus the docs and entire-brain items.

Start on #1?

I've written the plan for #6, and a reviewer agent is checking it now.

Plan:

• Prompt: the first interactive entire enable asks "Redact personal info from saved transcripts?", right after the telemetry question.
  • The default answer is No, so today's default is unchanged.
  • Either answer is saved, so re-running entire enable won't ask again.
• Flag: a new --redact-pii flag (and --redact-pii=false) on both entire enable and entire configure. It covers non-interactive setup and turning PII on later.
• -y and non-interactive runs leave settings untouched unless the flag is passed.
• Docs and tests: I'll update the README flags table and the PII docs section, and add tests for each path. I'll also run it end to end with a fresh binary in an isolated test repo.
• Kept separate from #2861: the prompt text mentions only emails and phone numbers, so this PR doesn't depend on it.

I'll start implementing once the reviewer reports back.

While the check runs: for the interactive prompt test with the binary, I'll set ENTIRE_TEST_TTY=1 to force prompting and ACCESSIBLE=1 so huh reads plain answers from stdin. That lets me drive a real first-run entire enable in an isolated scratch repo once the check finishes.

The PR for #6 is open: #2871, on trail #2442. It's one commit, +340/-6, most of it tests.

What it does:

• Prompt: the first interactive entire enable asks Redact personal info from saved transcripts? [y/N]. The default is No, and saying no writes nothing.
• Flag: a new --redact-pii flag (and --redact-pii=false) on entire enable and entire configure.
• No prompt where it could hang: --yes, CI and agent runs never see it.

Verified with the branch binary in isolated test repos:

• Every flag path writes the right setting.
• In a real first-run entire enable, answering "y" turns redaction on and an empty answer writes nothing.
• Re-running entire enable doesn't ask again.
• mise run check and lint both pass.

One slip during push: my first push went out before the commit and pointed the new branch at main's commit for a moment. The real commit fast-forwarded over it, so no force-push was needed and nothing was lost.

Follow-up I didn't fix (separate bug): running entire enable --telemetry=false on an already-set-up repo opens the agent picker and never saves the setting. This PR avoids the same trap for --redact-pii.

CI, trail findings and Copilot/Bugbot review are still running. When they finish I'll fix anything real and tell you it's clean.

I'm fixing the one real review comment on #2871 now. The other red checks aren't caused by this PR.

• CI test and test-codex-hooks: both are outside this change. test-codex-hooks failed because downloading the latest Codex CLI returned HTTP 404. test only fails because it depends on that job. My push will re-trigger them. If the Codex download still 404s, it's upstream.
• Copilot's comment is real, and I reproduced it with the binary. On a disabled repo, configure --local --redact-pii wrote "enabled": true into a new local settings file, which turns Entire back on.
  • Fix: the command now changes only redaction.pii.enabled in the file and leaves every other key as it was.
  • Test: a new regression test checks that the local file holds only the PII key and that the repo stays disabled.
• Trail findings: none.
• Separate follow-up: configure --local --telemetry=false and the summary settings have the same overwrite bug on main today, and it's left as is in this PR.

The full check is running. When it passes I'll re-test with a fresh binary, commit, push, and re-check CI, findings and review comments.

I've pushed the fix to #2871 so configure --redact-pii now changes only redaction.pii.enabled in the target settings file. The full check passes, lint is clean, and a freshly built binary confirms a disabled repo stays disabled. CI, the trail findings and the bot reviews are re-running now. I'll report back when they finish, including whether the upstream Codex CLI download still returns 404.

#2871 is clean apart from the approvals gate and a CI failure that also breaks main.

• Trail findings: none.
• Review comments: Copilot's one comment is fixed, and nothing new came in on the latest commit.
• CI: 17 checks pass. The red ones:
  • test-codex-hooks: fails at the "Install latest Codex CLI" step, where curl https://chatgpt.com/codex/install.sh returns 404. Main's own CI has failed this way since 19:38 UTC today, as has an unrelated branch, so OpenAI's installer URL has moved or is down. It needs a fix in .github/workflows/ci.yml:71 on main, or a wait for upstream. A re-run will clear it once the URL works.
  • test: an aggregate job that fails only because test-codex-hooks failed.
  • Entire Gates: waiting on a human approval, same as the other PRs.

Slack line: "Review please: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2871 asks during entire enable whether to redact personal info, and adds a --redact-pii flag."

Status across this effort:

• #2857 (entire api repo ID), #2861 (IP redaction) and #2871 (PII prompt) are all ready for review.
• Next options: names in PII (measure false positives first), or #1 in entire-api, the fix we promised the customer.
• Follow-up bugs I found:
  • Running entire enable --telemetry=false on an already-set-up repo opens the agent picker and never saves the setting.
  • configure --local with the telemetry or summary flags can turn a disabled repo back on.
  • The Codex install URL in CI is broken.

Yes, I tested #2871 with a new binary: I rebuilt it from the final commit and all nine scenarios behaved as intended.

On the merge conflicts, I can't find any right now:

• GitHub shows #2857, #2861 and #2871 as mergeable against the latest main (19c1680b6f).
• A local check against main is also clean.
• The three branches also merge cleanly with each other.

#2861 did conflict with main earlier, and I fixed that by merging main into it. Which PR are you seeing conflicts on? It might be one of the older open ones, such as #2533 or #2631, which I haven't touched in this session.

Yes, I've now tested bare entire enable with no setup, and it behaves correctly in all three cases:

Together with the earlier nine scenarios, that covers every way into entire enable.

The failing tests on #2871 weren't from this PR. OpenAI's Codex installer URL returned 404 for a while today, which also broke main's CI. It works again, so I've re-run the failed jobs and will confirm when they're green.

The note is right, and it wasn't a known follow-up. I checked entire-api's code:

• The team column of /me/recap reads repoDeps.Store.Summary(RepoScope(repoParam)) from the store of whichever cell received the request (internal/httpapi/me.go:1309). That's only complete on the cell that processes the repo.
• newRecapClient always dials your home cell, and #2857 only fixes which ID recap sends, not where the request goes.

So if your home cell isn't the repo's processing cell, recap's team column can still come back empty with no error. #2857 doesn't make it worse, since the old first-mirror ID was effectively random there, but "recap is fixed" overclaims.

Routing alone can't fix it. /me/recap must go to the home cell for your personal side, while the team side needs the repo's cell. A real fix would split the call, so the CLI fetches the team data from the repo's cell and merges the two, or make entire-api read across cells. Either is a separate PR.

I'd rather not grow #2857. Instead I'd:

1. Correct the #2857 PR body and the trail #2403 description to say recap now sends the processing placement ID, and that routing the team data for repos processed outside your home cell is a known follow-up.
2. Add that follow-up to the fix list, with this analysis.

Should I update both descriptions now?

The re-run fixed it: all 19 GitHub checks on #2871 now pass, including test-codex-hooks and test. Its Entire Gates is the only red check, and that's waiting on a reviewer's approval, the same as #2857 and #2861.

Still open from the last message: should I update the #2857 PR body and trail #2403 description to say recap only got the ID fix, and the team-data routing is a follow-up?

I checked whether I could test a fix live. In the repos I can see (first page of mirrors for entireio, entirehq and peyton-alt), all 46 processing placements are in us, which is also my home cell.

We can fix it now, and it's CLI-only. When the repo's processing cell differs from your home cell, recap would make a second /me/recap?repo=<id> call to the repo's cell. It would take the team fields from that response (summary.team, transcripts.team, contributors, and each agent's contributors) and keep the personal fields from the home-cell call. When the two cells match, it stays a single call as today, roughly +100 lines plus tests. Two reasons I hadn't just done it:

1. I can't test the new path live. My account and every repo I checked are processed in us, so the two-call branch would only ever be exercised by unit tests with fake servers. Everything else in these PRs was verified against the live service.
2. The personal side may have the same problem, and I haven't worked that out yet. The note also says the home cell may not map a foreign placement ID back to its repo when scoping your own stats. If that's true, splitting the call fixes the team column but your personal numbers for that repo could still be off. Settling it needs either reading more entire-api code or a cross-region test account.

My recommendation: fix it now as its own PR off main, keeping #2857 small. I'd first work out the personal-side question from entire-api's code, then implement the split with unit tests, and say plainly in the PR that the cross-region path is unit-tested only. Meanwhile I'd correct #2857's description so it doesn't claim recap is fully fixed.

Should I go ahead that way? Or do you have a login with an EU home cell, or a repo processed in EU, that would let me test it live?

I updated both descriptions and added the recap problem to the fix list. I'm now working out the fix itself.

• #2857 PR body: it now covers the ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL fix and has a "Known limit (follow-up)" section saying recap's team data can still come from the wrong region.
• Trail #2403: its description matches.
• Fix list: ~/Desktop/trails-feedback-fixes.md has a new item, 8b, with the analysis and how I plan to fix it.

Fixing it: an agent is tracing entire-api to answer the open question. If you're in a different region from the repo, are your personal numbers for that repo also wrong, or only the team numbers? Once I know, I'll write the plan, have it reviewed, and build it as its own PR off main.

Live testing: I'll need you to add a region. Every repo I can see is processed in us, which is also my home region. Either of these would work:

• A test repo whose processing copy lives in eu, mirrored there and readable by peyton-alt.
• A login whose home region is eu.

Once the agent reports back, I'll tell you exactly which setup the test needs.

The trace confirms the problem and settles the open question. entire-api expects the client to combine results from both regions, so the fix belongs in the CLI.

entire-api's docs say clients combine the two themselves ("federated if foreign"), and nothing on the server does it.

CLI fix: when the two regions differ, call /me/recap in both and merge.

• From your home region: your numbers, daily activity and the repo list.
• From the repo's region: team totals, contributor counts and each agent's team numbers.
• Totals are recomputed the way the server does.
• If the repo-region call fails, show only your side rather than zeros.

Two server gaps the CLI can't fix: I'd file these as entire-api follow-ups.

• For a mirrored repo, your own numbers stay partial even after this fix.
• The /me/recap endpoint gives no signal that team data comes from another region; only the experimental version marks it.

Where it goes: this depends on #2857's region lookup, and we don't stack PRs, so either:

• (a) fold it into #2857 as a separate commit. I'd recommend this: the reviewer raised it on #2857, and recap is already half-fixed there.
• (b) wait for #2857 to merge, then open a new PR.

Live test setup I need from you: my login's home region is us, so I need a repo whose processing copy is in eu and that peyton-alt can read. Ideally it has no us copy, since that's the worst case. It also needs a few checkpoints pushed, so the team numbers aren't empty anyway. Then I can show the team column empty before the fix and filled after.

(a) or (b)? And can you set up that eu repo?

I've written the plan for the recap fix on #2857, and a reviewer is checking it now.

How recap will work:

• Same region as the repo: if your home region processes the repo, nothing changes and it's still one call.
• Different regions: recap gets your personal numbers from your home region and the team numbers from the repo's region. If the repo-region call fails, you'll see only your side instead of fake zeros.
• Both views: the change sits in one place that both recap and the interactive view use.
• Local override: an ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL override keeps everything on that one host, the same rule as in entire api.
• Tests: a pure merge function with table tests, plus two fake servers covering one region, two regions, a failing repo region and the override.

I'll implement it once the review is back.

To prove the fix live, I still need the eu setup: a repo whose processing copy is in eu, readable by peyton-alt, with a few checkpoints pushed. Without it I can only show that the single-region case is unchanged.

The recap fix is written and its unit tests pass; the full check is running now.

How it works:

• Separate regions: when your home region isn't where the repo is processed, entire recap asks both regions at the same time. Your numbers come from your home region and the team numbers from the repo's region.
• Repo region fails or times out (5s): you see only your side, with no fake zeros.
• Same region, or an ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL override: one call, as before.
• Coverage: the static output and the interactive view use the same code.

Tests:

• The merge itself: team-only agents, totals that match the server's formula, and no team data.
• Two fake regions: one call when the regions match, a merged result when they differ, a failing repo region (500 or 403), and a failing home region.
• Region comparison, including differently spelled URLs and the override.

Docs: the routing doc's "/me never fans out" rule now names recap's team side as the one exception.

Still open:

• Once the check passes, I'll confirm with a fresh binary that recap is unchanged for entireio/cli, where your region and the repo's are both us. Then I'll commit and push to #2857.
• The cross-region path is covered only by tests with fake servers until I have the eu test repo: one processed in eu, readable by peyton-alt, with a few checkpoints. Can you set that up?

The recap fix is pushed to #2857 as one commit (+419/-35 across 11 files). The PR body and trail #2403 now describe it.

Proven live that it was broken: asked for entireio/cli, the eu cell returns a team column of zeros that looks real (0 sessions, 0 contributors). The us cell, which processes the repo, has 198 sessions from 12 contributors.

What I could verify:

• Merge on real data: running the new merge on those two live responses produced the real us team numbers (198 sessions, 204 checkpoints, 12 contributors) instead of zeros.
• Repo region unavailable: the team side shows as "-", not zeros.
• No change for you today: recap output for entireio/cli from a fresh branch binary is identical to the current nightly.
• Tests: unit tests with two fake regions pass, lint is clean, and the full check passes apart from the claudecode timing test, which passes when run alone.

What I couldn't set up: a real cross-region user. Home region belongs to the user account, and every login I have is homed in us, including the eu.auth.entire.io one. What I tried:

• GitHub repo mirrored to eu: a us copy is always created too, and it becomes the processing copy.
• Native repo in your eu project: it was still created on the us cluster.
• New eu project: creation failed with "project limit reached".

A true end-to-end check needs a user who signed up in eu. If you can add one, I'll run recap with it.

Throwaway leftovers to clean up:

• The GitHub repo peyton-alt/recap-eu-probe, still mirrored on us and eu.
• The native repo /et/forgemark-peyton-alt-eu/recap-eu-probe.

Should I delete both?

CI, the trail findings and the bot reviews are re-running on #2857; I'll report back when they finish.

Thanks, but it doesn't create the cross-region case yet. The eu copy was added as a mirror, and the primary, the one that processes the repo, is still on us, the same region as my home:

So my recap still goes to us, the same region as the repo, and makes the single call; the new code path never runs. Either of these would trigger it:

1. Make eu the primary of this repo, or create a repo whose primary is on aws-eu-central-1. My login can't do either: repo create always places the primary on us for me.
2. A user whose home region is eu (signed up in eu) runs recap on any us-processed repo, such as entireio/cli.

Option 2 is closest to the real customer case, needs no new repo, and entireio/cli already has real team data. With option 1 I'd also need to push a session and wait for ingestion, because this repo is empty (team 0 on both cells).

Can you either switch this repo's primary to eu, or give me a login whose home region is eu?

#2857 is clean. The only red check is the approvals gate, which needs a human reviewer.

• CI: all 19 GitHub checks pass.
• Trail findings: none open.
• Copilot comment: it's the old ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL one from Oct 21, written against the first commit. GitHub just re-anchored it to the newest commit. The code already includes that fix (api_cmd.go:250 checks the override before rerouting), so nothing new came in.
• Mergeable: yes, and nothing is merged.

The review thread is still marked open on GitHub, since resolving it needs a write I was blocked from earlier. You can resolve it in the UI, or allow the action and I'll do it.

Still open from my last message: for a real cross-region test, can you make eu the primary of /et/forgemark-peyton-alt-eu/recap-eu-probe, or give me a login whose home region is eu?

Your suggestion worked: creating the repo through the eu login (--context eu.auth.entire.io) put its primary on eu. So /et/forgemark-peyton-alt-eu/recap-eu-primary is processed in eu while my home region is us, which is the real cross-region case.

I've pushed two Entire sessions with checkpoints to it and am waiting for the eu cell to process them. Once its team numbers appear, I'll run entire recap in that repo with both builds:

• The installed nightly, which I expect to show the team column as zeros.
• The #2857 branch build, which I expect to show the real eu team numbers.

The fix works end to end in a real cross-region setup:

Before this PR, recap here showed my activity across all repos and no team data. With the ID fix alone, it would have shown team zeros, as the raw us-cell response above does. With the full fix, both sides are correct for an eu-processed repo.

#2857 now has every fix: the {repo_id} routing, the ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL override, and recap's cross-region team side. CI is green and there are no open findings. Ready for review.

These throwaways are still around:

• GitHub repo peyton-alt/recap-eu-probe, mirrored on us and eu.
• Native repo /et/forgemark-peyton-alt-eu/recap-eu-probe, primary us plus your eu mirror.
• Native repo /et/forgemark-peyton-alt-eu/recap-eu-primary, the eu-primary repo used for this test.

Should I delete them, or keep recap-eu-primary for future cross-region testing?

Done so far: #8 plus the recap fix (#2857), IP redaction (#2861) and the PII prompt (#2871) are all ready for review. #10 was dropped because I couldn't reproduce it.

What's next, most pressing first:

1. #1, duplicate draft PRs for merged branches (entire-api). The only fix we promised the customer, and still not started. I'd reproduce it live first, then fix.
2. Names in PII (cli). Measure false positives for a first-name heuristic on real transcripts before writing code.
3. #7, Codex in linked worktrees (cli). Needs your call: install hooks into the main checkout after asking the user?
4. Bugs I found along the way (cli), each a small PR:
   • entire enable --telemetry=false on an already-set-up repo opens the agent picker and never saves the setting.
   • configure --local --telemetry and the summary settings can turn a disabled repo back on, the same bug fixed for PII in #2871.
5. entire-api follow-ups from the recap work:
   • For a mirrored repo, your own recap numbers from your home region can be partial.
   • /me/recap doesn't say when team data lives in another region.
6. #2, #3, #4, #9. Smaller entire-api and cli items: the PR sweep ignoring Trails being off, showing why runners didn't run, a review-completed event, and scores and runs in the CLI.
7. #12, #13. The Trails guide in docs and the graph query → search fix in entire-brain.

The throwaway test repos are still waiting on your keep-or-delete answer.

I'd do #1 next. Start it?

I reproduced #1 live and wrote the fix plan; a reviewer is checking it now.

Repro: in the throwaway repo, with Trails enabled, I squash-merged a branch through my own PR (#1) and kept the branch. I then created a trail on that branch, and Entire opened draft PR #2 for the already-merged branch. That matches the customer's report.

Why it happens:

• Entire only adopts an existing PR if it's still open.
• Its only "already merged" check compares commits between the branch and main. After a squash merge, the branch's commits aren't in main, so the check passes and Entire opens a draft.
• One function creates every trail PR (create, update, push, the 10-minute sweep, ci-pr), so one guard there covers all of them.

Planned fix:

1. Before opening a PR, look up merged PRs for that branch. If one was merged at the branch's current commit, don't open a draft.
2. Mark the trail merged in that case, if the PR merged into the trail's base, using the same store update the merge webhook uses.
3. If the branch got new commits after the merge, still open a PR, since that's real follow-up work.
4. If the lookup fails, open nothing and retry later.

Out of scope, noted for the PR: the deeper gap that the merge webhook can't link an unlinked trail whose stored head SHA doesn't match. This fix stops the visible damage: no duplicate draft, no CI re-run, nothing attached to a Done Linear ticket.

Testing: I can't run the fix against prod before it deploys, so it'll be covered by unit tests with fake GitHub responses. After deploy, I'll re-run this exact repro.

I'll close draft PR #2 on the throwaway repo when I clean up.

#1 is up for review: entire-api trail 1094. It's one commit, +217/-32.

• Fix: before opening a trail PR, Entire now checks whether the branch's current commit was already merged into the trail's base through another PR. If it was, no draft gets opened.
  • All five PR-creating paths go through that one function: create, update, ci-pr, push and the sweep.
  • New commits after a merge still get a PR.
  • If the merged-PR lookup fails, Entire opens nothing and retries later instead of creating.
• Evidence: I reproduced it live first (a squash-merged branch got draft PR #2). The new tests cover seven cases, and the main one fails without the fix.
• Checks:
  • Build, vet and lint pass.
  • The only mise run test failures are broker config tests. mise sets ENTIRE_SECRETS_CIPHER=local in the test environment, and those tests pass with plain go test on both this branch and main.
• Not done here: marking the stale open trail as merged. That needs the merge-webhook fix too, because the merged PR usually already belongs to another trail. I've noted it as a follow-up in the trail.
• Live check after deploy: I'll re-run the repro on the throwaway repo once this ships.

#2, names in PII: measured, and I don't recommend shipping a heuristic. I ran a "known first name + capitalized surname" detector over about 1,400 local transcripts:

It also misses many real names. The public list I used lacks John, Michael, David, Paul and Peyton. A fuller list would catch more names but add more false positives ("Will", "Mark", "Max", "Page", "Grace").

That roughly matches why OPF used a model rather than a list. Options:

• (a) Skip built-in name detection and document custom_patterns for teams that want to redact specific names. This is my pick.
• (b) Ask the owner of #2750 why OPF was deprecated before considering a model-based approach.
• (c) Ship an opt-in heuristic with a product-word stoplist. I'd expect it to stay noisy.

Which way?

The runners did run. The project view just doesn't show monitors; the repo-level trail (entire-api #526) has them:

• Runners: 12 passed, 1 not run.
• Scores: risk 35, security 5, confidence 78.
• Gates:
  • findings and base_checks passed.
  • checks is still pending.
  • approvals needs a reviewer.

So #1 (trail 1094) is clean so far. I'll recheck once checks finishes.

Still open for #2: how should we handle names in PII?

• (a) No built-in detector; document custom_patterns instead. This is my recommendation.
• (b) Ask the owner of #2750 why OPF was deprecated, then consider a model-based approach.
• (c) An opt-in heuristic with a stoplist, which I expect to stay noisy.

No, that line isn't a problem, and yes, we fixed it. "Explicit overrides still win" is the risk runner crediting the ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL fix from commit f1bd882. It's listing that as a reason the risk is limited, not raising a concern.

The score rose because of the last commit, the recap cross-region fix:

That last commit adds a second authenticated call to another region, run in parallel, plus merge logic, about 400 lines. The runner is accurately scoring a bigger behavior change. It found nothing wrong, and it still says no strategy, hooks, git, checkpoints or redaction code is touched.

These scores also tend to swing ±20 between runs, so +12 is within normal noise. No action needed. The findings gate is passing, and the reviewer can see the rationale on the trail.

Yes, now partly against real GitHub: I ran the fix's real lookup code against the throwaway repo. The full end-to-end test has to wait for deploy.

It also correctly ignored the open draft #2 on the same branch.

What's still untested: the whole flow on the real server, which only happens once 1094 is deployed. Then I'll re-run the original repro: a trail on an already-merged branch should get no draft PR.

The temporary test is deleted and the branch is unchanged. Still waiting on your call for names in PII: (a), (b) or (c).

Not before merging, but staging is still the right place to test it.

Why not now: entire-api's staging only deploys from main. The pipeline is: merge to main → test → build → staging deploy → a prod-promote PR opened in the fleet repo but not merged automatically. Branches can't go to staging. The only manual deploy option is a break-glass switch for Buildkite outages, and using it would replace shared staging for everyone, so I won't.

What I'd do instead:

1. 1094 gets approved and merged to main, which auto-deploys it to staging.
2. Before the prod-promote PR merges, I re-run the exact repro on staging using my staging login (us.auth.partial.to):
   • Squash-merge a branch through my own PR.
   • Create a trail on it.
   • Confirm no draft PR appears.
   • Push a new commit and confirm a PR does appear.
3. Prod only gets it once that passes.

Meanwhile, the real GitHub lookup is already verified against live GitHub, and the unit tests cover the server logic.

Should I hold the staging test for after the merge? And for names in PII: (a), (b) or (c)?

Yes. I tested 1094's fix live on real GitHub without deploying. I ran the exact production function on the throwaway repo, using my gh token in place of the GitHub App token, with old and new code side by side:

That covers everything 1094 changes, because the fix is entirely inside that one function, and the PR-creating step ran for real. The only parts not exercised are the code paths that call it (create, push, sweep). Those don't change, and they already treat "no PR returned" as "skip".

Cleanup:

• I closed the test PRs #2, #4 and #5 in the throwaway repo.
• I deleted the temporary test file, so the branch is the same single commit.
• Trail 1094's description now includes these results.

Staging after merge, before prod, is still the final check.

Still open: names in PII, (a), (b) or (c)?

Review please: https://entire.com/et/entirehq/-/trails/1094 stops Trails from opening a duplicate draft PR when a branch was already merged through another PR. I tested it live on GitHub.

The trail you linked isn't the names work. Trail 2478 (cli change 1668, PR #2876) is Muskan's push-queue fix: it takes over the queue part of #2533 and leaves OPF unchanged. Here's what I found:

• #2861 (IP redaction): merged today by Muskan.
• Muskan owns redaction right now: Linear epic ENT-3132 "Harden checkpoint redaction" is in progress, and several sub-issues closed this week: over-redaction, structured JSON, redaction counts and more.
• No names ticket exists: no Linear issue or PR for person-name detection.
• One overlap:
  • Muskan's ENT-631, "When users run entire enable, add warning about sessions being stored on public branch and info about secret redaction", was marked Done today.
  • Our #2871, the entire enable PII prompt, shows as closed (not merged) by peyton-alt last night.
  • Did you close it because ENT-631 covers it? If ENT-631 only adds a warning, the --redact-pii flag and prompt may still be wanted. That's worth checking with Muskan.

For names, my suggestion is to hand it to Muskan rather than build it ourselves, since it belongs in the redaction epic. Draft Slack message:

Hey Muskan, a customer asked for names (and company names) in PII redaction. I measured a first-name-list heuristic on ~1,400 real agent transcripts: 98% of matches were product names like "Claude Code", and even with those excluded about half of the distinct matches were wrong ("Aurora Postgres", "Page Down", "Cookie Settings"). OPF had a private_person category before #2750 deprecated it. Is name detection something you're planning in ENT-3132, or should it stay custom_patterns-only? Happy to share the numbers.

Want me to adjust that, or take a different direction on names?

Ready for review: #2857 (entire api + recap) and entire-api trail 1094 (duplicate draft PRs). Already merged: #2861 (IP redaction). Closed or handed off: #2871 (PII prompt, closed; might overlap ENT-631) and names in PII (draft message to Muskan). Dropped: #10 (drift prompt), not reproduced.

Still open, in the order I'd do them:

1. Bugs found along the way (cli), each a small PR:
   • entire enable --telemetry=false on an already-set-up repo opens the agent picker and never saves the setting.
   • configure --local --telemetry and the summary settings can turn a disabled repo back on. #2871 fixed the same bug for its own flag, but it's closed now.
2. #2, PR sweep ignores Trails being off (entire-api). Confirm, then add the filter. Small.
3. #7, Codex in linked worktrees isn't tracked (cli). Needs your call on installing hooks into the main checkout after asking the user.
4. Follow-up to 1094 (entire-api): mark the stale open trail as merged and fix the merge-webhook matching gap.
5. Recap follow-ups (entire-api):
   • Your own recap numbers can be partial for mirrored repos.
   • /me/recap gives no "team data is in another region" signal.
6. #3, no reason shown when runners don't run (entire-api).
7. #9, scores and runner runs in the CLI, plus a new-events-only mode for trail watch.
8. #4, review-completed event. Optional.
9. #12, Trails guide (docs), and #13, graph query → search (entire-brain). Small.

Housekeeping:

• Delete the throwaway repos.
• Re-test 1094 on staging after it merges.

I'd do #1 (the two cli bugs) next, or #2 if you'd rather finish entire-api first. Which?

With ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL=https://entire.io, recap in the eu-processed repo now shows the eu team numbers (2 sessions, 2 checkpoints), the same as without an override. The trails 404 is expected: Trails isn't enabled on that throwaway native repo, the same "repository not found" as before I enabled it on the GitHub one. The unit test covers the entire api side. Waiting for the full check, then I'll commit, push and resolve the finding.

I've fixed the finding on #2857 (trail 2403 / cli change 1650) locally, but it isn't committed or pushed yet.

• The finding: if ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL named a shared front-door host such as https://partial.to or https://entire.io, the PR wrongly kept requests on your home region. That brought back the empty-results bug for entire api {repo_id} and recap.
• The fix: only an override that names a specific regional server or a local dev server pins the request now. I added a small helper for that check, and both call sites use it.
• Tests and docs: new tests cover the front-door case, along with a table test for the helper. The help text and routing doc are updated.
• Live check with a fresh build: in the eu-processed repo, recap with ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL=https://entire.io shows the eu team numbers (2 sessions, 2 checkpoints), the same as without the override.

Checks:

• The full check timed out because the machine is overloaded again (load average about 300).
• The failures are in tests this change doesn't touch: TestHandleLifecycleTurnEnd…, TestFetchAndRebase…, and the claudecode timing test.
• I'm re-running the affected packages with a longer timeout, plus lint, in the background.

Once those pass, I'll commit, push, and resolve the finding.

I pushed the fix to #2857 as commit bd9d7f6, with lint clean beforehand, and resolved the finding. CI, the trail runners and the bot reviews are running on it now, and I'll tell you if anything new comes up.

With the longer timeout, the auth, recap and full cli packages all pass, and lint is clean. So the earlier failures were only the overloaded machine. CI on the push is still running; I'll report when it finishes.

#2857 is clean.

• CI: all 19 checks pass. The only red item is Entire Gates, which is waiting on reviewer approval.
• Findings: none open.
  • The override finding is fixed and resolved.
  • A new finding, that the home cell might reject the repo ID, I dismissed with live evidence. The home cell answered that recap request with 200 and scoped your numbers to the repo. Its suggested fix would have made your numbers count all repos instead of this one.
• Review comments: none new.

Next on the list: the two cli bugs (enable --telemetry=false on an already-set-up repo, and configure --local re-enabling a disabled repo), or #2 in entire-api (the PR sweep ignoring Trails being off). Which?

We fixed both points in that note in #2857, and tested the fix live.

Team column: fixed in commit 34497ad.

• currentRepoRef now keeps placement.Target. When the repo's processing cell isn't your home cell, recap asks both cells for the same window at once.
• It takes the team side from the repo's cell, keeps your personal side from your home cell, and merges them (recapSource, recap.MergeTeam).
• If the repo's cell fails, recap shows the team column as "-" instead of zeros.
• Live test on a repo processed in eu while I'm homed in us:

Personal side ("ResolveOrigins may not resolve a foreign placement id"): checked, mostly fine.

• The home cell accepts the other region's placement ID and scopes your numbers by it. Live, it returned the correct 2 sessions for the eu repo.
• The real remaining gap is narrower. For a GitHub repo mirrored in several regions, your personal numbers can be partial when activity was recorded under a different copy's ID.
• That's server-side, in entire-api, and it's in the fix list as a follow-up.

Trail description: updated.

• The #2857 PR body and trail #2403 now describe the cross-region recap fix and the live test.
• They also list the two remaining server-side gaps: partial personal numbers for mirrored repos, and no "team data is in another region" signal from /me/recap.

Follow-up: a later commit (bd9d7f6) fixed a related finding. Setting ENTIRE_API_BASE_URL to a shared front-door host like partial.to had sent recap back to the home cell only.

I can't pin the root cause from code and live tests alone. Here's how far I got and what's needed to finish.

Ruled out live in the throwaway repo:

• Closing Entire's draft and merging your own PR doesn't leave the trail open. Entire closes the trail and records the merged PR as a separate merged trail.
• A user PR opened while the trail exists gets adopted on the PR-open event, as long as the branch and base match.
• A trail created while the user's PR is open adopts that PR.
• Pushes never auto-create trails.

Ways to reach "open trail, merged branch" that remain:

1. Trail created after the branch already merged. For example, an agent or the CLI runs trail create --branch X for work that's already merged. This is what my first repro did, and 1094 fixes it.
2. The user's PR targeted a different base than the trail's base. Adoption and merge matching both require the exact base, so the trail stays open. 1094 wouldn't catch this either, because its check also requires the same base.
3. A timing race: the trail has no PR yet when the branch first gets commits, and the agent runs gh pr create at about the same moment Entire's push handling runs. Unconfirmed.

To know which one happened, I need the customer's trail history. That's internal data I shouldn't pull on my own:

• Trail fields: base, branch_action, created_at, and its gh_pr_id over time.
• The merged PR: its base, head SHA and merge time.
• The push and PR events for that branch, with timestamps.

With those I can say which path it was and fix the actual cause, alongside 1094's guard.

Can you or someone with prod access pull that for their trail (the one tied to PR #710)? If you'd rather I test path 2 or 3 live first, I can do that in the throwaway repo now.

I found a real root cause, reproduced across two live tests. It's in the CLI, not the server.

The chain:

1. The CLI guesses the trail's base. With no --base, entire trail create uses the clone's origin/HEAD. If that's missing, it picks main whenever origin/main exists, and sends that to the server. The server would otherwise use the repo's real default branch.
   • Live check: I set the GitHub default to release and removed origin/HEAD from the clone. The CLI guessed main. After git remote set-head origin -a it guessed release, which is correct.
   • Clones without origin/HEAD are common, for example when origin was added or re-pointed by hand, as when setting up a mirror.
2. The trail ends up with the wrong base. It opens Entire's draft into main, while the user opens their own PR into the real default branch.
3. The user merges their PR, and the trail stays open. Merge matching requires the same base, so the trail isn't settled, and Entire's draft keeps re-running CI and gets attached to the Done ticket. I reproduced this live (path 2: user PR #9 merged into release, trail #6 still open with Entire's draft #10 into main).

I also ruled out the race path: the trail adopted the agent's own PR and merged correctly.

What 1094 still covers: a trail created after its branch already merged. That's a separate path, and the guard stays useful as a safety net.

Proposed root-cause fix (cli, its own PR off main): when --base isn't given, don't guess from the local clone. Only use origin/HEAD if it really exists; otherwise send no base and let the server use the repo's default branch, which it already does.

For the 1094 reviewer, a reply:

Traced it: the CLI picks a trail's base from local origin/HEAD and falls back to main when that ref is missing, so repos whose default isn't main get trails based on main. The user's own PR then merges into the real default, merge matching requires the same base, and the trail stays open with our draft. I'm fixing the base resolution in the CLI; this guard stays as defense for trails created after a branch already merged.

Should I go ahead with the CLI fix PR?

I've written the plan for the trail-base fix, and a reviewer is checking it now.

• Find the real default branch:
  1. --base if you gave one.
  2. Otherwise the clone's origin/HEAD.
  3. Otherwise ask the remote directly with git ls-remote --symref.
  4. Otherwise treat it as unknown. No more guessing main or master.
• Unknown base: send no base, so the server uses the repo's actual default branch. Both trail-create paths get this (repo trails and project trails).
• Branch naming: this is the second bug. Being on the real default branch, e.g. develop, gets a new branch derived from the title again, instead of the trail reusing develop. Naming in the common case is unchanged.
• Out of scope: the other commands that use the same guess (explain, import, resume). They'll be noted in the PR as follow-ups.
• Tests: a local bare remote whose HEAD points at release, checks that an unknown base is left out of both requests, and the naming cases. Then a live check with the branch binary on the throwaway repo.

I'll implement once the review is back.

The trail-base fix is implemented and tested; the full check is running before I commit and open the PR.

What changed:

• entire trail create no longer sends a guessed main. It uses --base if you gave one, then the clone's origin/HEAD, then asks origin directly with git ls-remote --symref. If none of those work, it sends nothing and the server uses the repo's default branch.
• Both create paths, repo trails and project trails, use it.
• Branch naming in the common case is unchanged.
• The new remote lookup has a timeout, can't prompt, validates the branch name it gets back, and is stubbed to "unknown" for the whole package test suite, so no test reaches a real remote.

Verified:

• Unit tests: parsing; a local bare remote whose default is release; an unreachable remote; and how the base is picked (explicit, origin/HEAD, remote answer, unknown, invalid name). One existing test now correctly expects no base, where it used to expect the guessed main. All trail tests pass.
• The remote lookup against real remotes:
  • The private GitHub throwaway, default set to release, with no origin/HEAD locally: it returns release. The old code guessed main.
  • An entire:// remote: it returns main.
  • On my machine the entire:// lookup only worked with an explicit login context, since several of my logins match that cluster. Without it the lookup fails and the CLI falls back to the server default, which is the safe outcome.

Not tested: a full entire trail create against the throwaway repo. Project-trail linking on that repo fails with a separate 404 ("Trail or Change not found") that I hit earlier and haven't looked into.

Side finding: recent git versions create origin/HEAD automatically on fetch, so newer setups often avoid the bug. Clones on older git, or where origin was re-pointed without a fetch, still hit it.

The full test passes with the real entire trail create against the live service. The comparison used the throwaway GitHub repo with its default branch set to release and a clone with no origin/HEAD, starting on release both times:

So the old code gives a wrong base and a wrong branch whenever a clone lacks origin/HEAD and the default isn't main. The fix handles both.

Cleanup: I closed the old-binary draft #11, which also closed its trail #9, plus the earlier test draft #10. The throwaway repo's default is back to main.

One environment note: your active login is currently staging (eu.auth.partial.to). I didn't change it; I named the prod login on each of my commands.

The full mise run check is still running. When it passes I'll commit and open the PR off main, with this table in the description.

The trail-base fix is up for review as PR #2886 on trail 2514. It's one commit, +239/-15.

• Before pushing: lint was clean and the full check passed, apart from the claudecode timing test, which passes when run alone.
• Write-ups: the PR body has the old-vs-new live comparison and the follow-ups. The trail description is set.
• Still running: CI, the trail's review agents and the bot code reviews. I'll fix anything real that comes up.

Reply for the 1094 reviewer, now with the PR:

Traced it: entire trail create guessed the base as main when the clone had no origin/HEAD, overriding the repo's real default. Trails in repos with another default got base main, so the user's own PR into the real default never settled them and our draft stayed open. Fix in cli #2886 (verified live: old binary → base main and a release → main draft; fix → base release, trail merges with the PR). This guard stays as defense for trails created after a branch already merged.

I fixed both Copilot comments on #2886 and pushed the fix as commit 42eecf2.

• Hand-set origin/HEAD: if it points outside origin's branches, it's now ignored instead of being sent as the base. A new regression test covers this.
• Output size: git's output for the remote lookup is now capped while git is writing it, using the package's existing limitedWriter, rather than checked afterwards.

The tests for the changed code pass and lint is clean. I didn't re-run the full check for this small follow-up. CI, the trail findings and the bot reviews are re-running now, and I'll report when they finish.

#2886 is clean and ready for review. It's only waiting on a reviewer approval.

• CI: all 19 GitHub checks pass.
• Findings: none open. The one new finding said the PR would send the local clone's default branch as the base when --repo points at a different repository. I dismissed it: in that case the code returns early with your raw --base before any local detection runs.
• Review comments: none on the latest commit. The two earlier Copilot comments are fixed.

Slack line: "Review please: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2886 fixes trails getting the wrong base (and a draft PR against main) in repos whose default branch isn't main. This is the root cause of the duplicate-draft report."

The rest of the list:

• The two small cli bugs (enable --telemetry=false on an already-set-up repo, and configure --local re-enabling a disabled repo).
• #2 in entire-api (the PR sweep ignores Trails being off).

Which next?

#2886's trail (cli trail 1677) has no slop meter: that monitor runs only on entire-api's trails, so the cli repo doesn't have one. Everything else is green on the latest commit, 42eecf2:

The confidence runner named a few test gaps:

1. There's no direct test of the base value that runTrailCreate, the repo-trails path, sends. The project-trails path is tested.
2. The 10s timeout and the output cap aren't tested.
3. Tests that spawn the real entire binary bypass the TestMain stub, so they could reach the network if any of them runs trail create.