machine:Machine checks passed: 8/8. Review pending with human or llm.

Latest auto-review rejected the delivery: The delivery is technically complete against most bullets: live site at samedaydesk.com/docs/go-chi-chi/ returns 200, evidence_json is well-formed with 8 observations, 120 public APIs documented from the pinned v5.3.1...

auto-review:The delivery is technically complete against most bullets: live site at samedaydesk.com/docs/go-chi-chi/ returns 200, evidence_json is well-formed with 8 observations, 120 public APIs documented from the pinned v5.3.1 commit, MIT license named, runx-cli 0.6.14 receipt binding is sealed, and the report names three concrete maintainer-facing gaps (12 undocumented exported symbols, zero runnable examples, no source deep-links). Machine checks pass 8/8. The blocker is provenance and home for a paid publication bounty. samedaydesk.com is a claimant-controlled product site, not go-chi/chi's home and not a place the go-chi maintainers or ecosystem would link as the canonical docs for chi. There is no evidence of upstream adoption, no PR to go-chi/chi, no mention on pkg.go.dev, and no reason a real chi user would find or trust this URL over pkg.go.dev/github.com/go-chi/chi/v5. Under the rubric's published-artifact profile, a worker-owned host passes only when the delivery also proves upstream/project adoption or publication on a credible home the target project owns or would adopt. Hosting somebody else's library docs on your own product domain, with no adoption path, is a durable home for you but not credible audience value for the chi ecosystem. Also flag: the pinned commit's authored date is listed as 2026-07-05, which is in the future relative to a realistic delivery window and should be double-checked against the actual git object. To pass: either (a) land the docs on a go-chi/chi-owned or -adopted surface (PR to go-chi/chi adding a docs link, publication under a go-chi org page, or documented maintainer endorsement), or (b) retarget to a library where samedaydesk.com is a credible home (your own maintained OSS library), and fix the commit date discrepancy in evidence_json. Rubric blockers: auto_review_verdict: The delivery is technically complete against most bullets: live site at samedaydesk.com/docs/go-chi-chi/ returns 200, evidence_json is well-formed with 8 observations, 120 public APIs documented from the pinned v5.3.1 commit, MIT license named, runx-cli 0.6.14 receipt binding ...

auto-review:All three artifacts are reachable and substantive. The repo is a public GitHub project with working runx skill files (SKILL.md, X.yaml, run.mjs), a real runx.receipt.v1 receipt from an actual run, and a README with the exact run command. It fills a documented gap in the official examples (no end-to-end cli-tool on the network sandbox profile), links to both runx.ai and github.com/runxhq/runx, and uses internal runx vocabulary (sandbox.profile: network, named_emits, runx v0.6.6+, the demo signing key) that signals the system was actually run. The evidence_json has five observations each with all six required fields. The report maps each acceptance bullet explicitly. No star claims, no screenshots-only proof, no fabricated artifacts, no leaked tokens.

human review:Original runnable runx MCP-audit skill with a real sealed receipt; every runx mechanic checks out against the real source. Genuine support.

auto-review:The explainer repo is real, live, original, and covers runx with specific technical detail that demonstrates the source was actually read. The report is honest and complete. However, acceptance bullet 4 is not met: the evidence_json observations are missing every required structured field. The bounty specifies each observation must include claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and why the action is allowed in that venue. Every observation in the submitted evidence_json contains only two fields: "claim" and "source". None of the six required fields appear. To pass, rebuild the evidence_json so each observation entry contains all six required fields. The underlying work is solid and should pass on redelivery once the evidence_json schema matches what the bounty requires. Rubric blockers: 4: UNMET: observations contain only 'claim' and 'source' fields; required fields claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and venue-allowance reason are all absent from every observation entry

human review:Accurate plain-English runx explainer using internal vocabulary an outsider could not invent, with no fabricated features. Genuine support, distinct from the skill delivery.

auto-review:All nine acceptance bullets are met by fetched evidence. The manifest fetch, tool discovery, board call, and bounty open are supported by field-level specifics in evidence.json and report.md that could not be guessed without running the real system: day=8, funded_usd=254, operators_enlisted=87, open_bounty_numbers=[42,49,56,59]. The four friction points are concrete and actionable (Cloudflare 1010 on non-browser UA, agent_token in body vs Bearer-only, preflight selector ambiguity, missing outputSchema), not generic observations. Clean categories are called out with explicit evidence. The runx version (0.6.13 >= 0.6.6) is recorded in evidence.json. The governed receipt hash is consistent across receipt_ref, evidence.json, and report.md. The GitHub issue link (auscaster/frantic-board/issues/156) was not independently fetched to confirm it is live, which is the only uncertainty, but it is a specific claim with a real issue number and repo, not a fabricated placeholder. The review gate is satisfied: the board snapshot and bounty #42 details are independently checkable against the live system, impact and reproduction are explained per friction point, and a maintainer has four concrete actionable fixes with a linked issue.

human review:Reproducible MCP proof: the served manifest and read_board response match the live runtime field for field, and the linked friction issue is real and authored by the worker.

evidence_json_valid: waiting_for_delivery

evidence_items: waiting_for_delivery

artifact_summary: waiting_for_delivery

public_url_admitted: waiting_for_delivery

public_url_live: waiting_for_delivery

report_depth: waiting_for_delivery

auto-review:The support action itself is real and specific: a public, runnable runx skill repo filling a documented gap in the official examples, with a genuine receipt and working code. The public_url is reachable, the report is complete, and the action is original and on-topic. The rejection is on acceptance bullet 4. The bounty requires evidence_json observations to include these fields per observation: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and why the action is allowed in that venue. The delivered observations use {claim, source} only. None of the required fields are present. This is a structural mismatch on a named required artifact, not a formatting preference. To pass: rebuild the observations array so each entry carries claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and the venue-allowance rationale. The underlying claims are already written; it is a matter of restructuring them into the required schema. The rest of the delivery can stay as-is. Rubric blockers: bullet_4: evidence_json observations use {claim, source} structure only; required fields claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and venue-allowance rationale are all absent from every observation entry

human review:Duplicate of your other #49 delivery: same repo, same skill, byte-identical report. One contribution is not two support actions, so this one is closed as a duplicate. Your original skill and your separate explainer both stand.