legal: reject stale standalone artifact inspection

[eXPerience83]

Scope

Close the Codex P2 follow-up from #51 without restoring the temporary artifact-inspection workflow.

Changes

• add a bounded validator for the five components covered by third_party/standalone-artifact-inspection.json;
• compare component versions with versions.env;
• compare GitHub CLI, Codex, ttyd and mise AMD64/ARM64 URLs and SHA-256 values with their repository pins;
• compare uv URLs and SHA-256 values with the exact mise.lock records;
• reject missing/duplicate components, incomplete architectures and non-positive asset sizes;
• run six deterministic unit tests and the real report validation in Build AMD64;
• document that automated upstream-update PRs may be opened but cannot pass or merge until stale inspection evidence is repeated and updated;
• link the standing six-month legal review tracker maintenance: recurring third-party license and distribution review #53.

Boundary

This is a mismatch gate only. It performs no network access and does not reintroduce a generic binary or dependency-license scanner.

Fixes the unresolved review thread on #51.
Refs #26 and #53.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@eXPerience83, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 31 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 242bef10-344d-4d2e-be82-64de209d9429

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 59d3e3a and b912bc1.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• .github/workflows/build-amd64.yml
• scripts/test_validate_standalone_artifact_inspection.py
• scripts/validate-standalone-artifact-inspection.py
• third_party/README.md

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[eXPerience83]

@codex review

Please verify that this bounded mismatch gate fully addresses the unresolved P2 thread from #51: version, URL and SHA-256 drift for GitHub CLI, Codex, ttyd, mise and uv must block the PR CI, without reintroducing the removed network inspector.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b912bc14d3

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Derive expected URLs from the build source

When a PR changes a download URL or asset-name template in images/base/Dockerfile or images/codex/Dockerfile while retaining the same version and bytes, the Build AMD64 gate still passes because these GitHub CLI, Codex, ttyd, and mise URLs are independently reconstructed here rather than checked against the URLs used by the Dockerfiles. The existing pin validator synchronizes Dockerfile versions and SHA-256 values but not these URL templates, so URL drift for four of the five required components remains undetected; make the build and inspection validator consume one URL source of truth or explicitly validate the Dockerfile download expressions.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.