cw-land

Verified work still has to land without stepping on other writers, losing contributor credit, or merging past a gate that has not actually passed. This stage is about the boundary between "it works" and "it is in main" — and about which of those steps you are allowed to take.

Stage 5 of the loop: cw-orient → cw-slice → cw-gates → cw-dogfood → land → cw-handoff.

When to use

• The change is verified and needs to become a commit, branch, or PR.
• You are landing someone else's PR, harvesting a contributor's work, or resolving a conflict caused by main moving.
• You are about to merge something behind a required gate.

Workflow

1. Choose the landing shape.

   • Direct to main is permitted for a small coherent change when this checkout is current, clean, and owns the affected files. Local commit permission never implies push, merge, tag, release, or deploy permission.
   • A worktree is the right safety boundary for conflicting, dirty, stale, or independent work — and for anything that would otherwise fight the dirt you found in cw-orient.
   • An integration branch — integration/<topic>-<pr>-<date> — is the normal path for anything with conflicts or several moving PRs. It is cheaper than rebasing onto a main that keeps moving, and it leaves the contributor's branch untouched.

2. Commit narrow and build-green. One coherent change per commit; the tree builds at every commit. Put the real verification in the message — actual pass/fail counts, not "tests pass".

3. Preserve credit mechanically, not just politely. Commit authorship and Co-authored-by: trailers must use the contributor's own GitHub-linked address — GitHub reads neither .github/AUTHOR_MAP nor .mailmap for the contribution graph; those are project conventions on top. When a contributor's work lands as our commit, it carries both:

   Harvested from PR #N by @handle
   
   Co-authored-by: Name <github-linked-email>
   

   That trailer is what lets auto-close-harvested.yml close their PR with credit. Canonical human identities live in .github/AUTHOR_MAP.

   Whether a bot or agent also appears in a trailer no longer matters — the CI check that policed trailer identities was removed because it rejected ordinary agent commits. Give humans their credit; don't spend time scrubbing tool trailers.

4. Landing someone else's work: their time is more expensive than ours.

   • Never make a contributor rebase around our churn. If their PR conflicts only because main moved, a maintainer resolves it.
   • Read their diff against the merge base first, so you know exactly what they added, then re-apply that — rather than hand-merging two large sides and hoping:

     git diff $(git merge-base main <pr-head>)..<pr-head>
     

   • Conflicts that split mid-function do not resolve by keeping both sides. Git's markers can land inside a body, so a both-sides resolution produces unbalanced braces that look plausible and do not compile. Take one side whole, then re-insert the other side's additions at their original anchor.
   • maintainerCanModify does not guarantee push access to the fork. When the push is refused, land the resolved merge on an integration branch here.
   • Check the contribution gate before assuming a PR is stalled. An unlisted author's workflow runs sit at action_required and never start, so the PR looks abandoned when nobody has actually looked at it. Approve the runs, then fix the cause: add them to .github/APPROVED_CONTRIBUTORS (all:username), or comment /lgtm (PR scope) or /lgtmi (issue scope).

5. Verify mergeability against the real head. A PR that is clean against main can still conflict with a release branch:

   git merge-tree $(git merge-base <base> <pr-head>) <base> <pr-head>
   

6. Merging under a gate.

   • A gate is its artifact. When a rail says a PR merges only on a passing acceptance record, the record must literally say PASS at merge time. "I re-ran it and the failures are rows this PR does not own" is a judgement to write into the artifact first, not a reason to merge past it.
   • Read the review thread, not the check rollup. Green checks plus an unread review with confirmed findings is a merge that ships known bugs.
   • When the artifact is ambiguous, resolve the ambiguity — never the merge.

7. Clean up your own lane. When a worktree's branch lands on main, remove the worktree (git worktree remove <path>). Worktree sprawl was a 560 GB problem here once.

Red flags / don't

• Don't push, merge, tag, create a release, or deploy without explicit authorization. A local commit is not permission for any of those.
• Don't rewrite published history, retag a release, or force-push a shared ref.
• Don't commit AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md operator controls that live outside the product repository into a public repo.
• Don't stage another writer's dirty files to get a clean commit.
• Don't merge on a green rollup alone when a review thread has open findings.
• Don't harvest or close from a PR title or label — review the code, tests, comments, and checks.
• Don't add another legacy call site for convenience once a replacement architecture is adopted. Declared migrations are one-way.
• Don't leave new enforcement live: keep it dry-run/advisory unless approved.

Output

• The landing shape you chose and why (direct main / worktree / integration).
• Commit SHAs, branch name, and whether the branch is local-only or pushed.
• The credit trailers applied and to whom.
• The gate artifact's literal verdict at merge time, if a gate applies.
• Exactly which public actions you took, and which you deliberately did not.