Scope Boundaries

Hard limits on what Claude Code may do autonomously. These boundaries apply to all workflows, skills, and agents regardless of context.

Principle

When in doubt, don't. The cost of pausing to ask is low. The cost of an unauthorised destructive action is high.

Mechanical Enforcement

These boundaries are not prose-only. The plugin's scope-guard hook (a pre-tool-use hook that runs maverick hook scope-guard) mechanically gates destructive git operations, commits/pushes on protected branches, infrastructure-path edits, and production-pattern commands — asking the user in interactive sessions and denying in autonomous mode. If the hook blocks an action you believe is authorized:

• Infrastructure: record the issue-level authorization with uv run maverick coord authorize <repo> <issue> infra (requires the maverick-authorize-infra label or a Maverick-Authorize: infra body line on the issue). Never write .maverick/session-auth.json directly.
• Destructive git: ask the user for consent in the current session; in autonomous mode there is no consent path — do not work around the block.
• Production: there is no override, in any mode.

Do not disable the guard (MAVERICK_GUARD_DISABLE) or edit hook configuration to get past a block — a blocked action is a signal to escalate, not an obstacle to engineer around.

Restricted Actions

1. Infrastructure Changes

Do not modify CI/CD pipelines, deployment configs, or infrastructure-as-code unless the issue/task explicitly instructs it.

Restricted:

• .github/workflows/ files (GitHub Actions)
• Dockerfile, docker-compose.yml
• Terraform, CDK, CloudFormation, Pulumi files
• Deployment scripts (deploy.sh, release.yml)
• Environment variable configuration in CI settings
• Kubernetes manifests, Helm charts
• Nginx, Apache, or reverse proxy configs

How authorisation works:

• The issue/task must explicitly request the infrastructure change
• General instructions like "set up the project" or "make it work" do not constitute authorisation
• If the issue/task says "update the CI workflow to add a lint step", that is authorisation for that specific change

If an infrastructure change seems necessary but is not in the issue/task:

• Post a comment on the issue/task explaining what change is needed and why
• Wait for human approval before proceeding
• Or create a new issue/task for the infrastructure change

2. Authentication and Authorisation

Do not alter auth systems, permissions, or access controls without human review.

Restricted:

• Auth middleware or guards
• Role/permission definitions
• OAuth, JWT, or session configuration
• API key generation or rotation
• User creation, deletion, or privilege changes
• CORS policies
• Security headers
• Password hashing or validation rules

Even if the issue/task requests auth changes:

• Implement the change but flag it for human review before merge
• Post a comment on the issue/task highlighting the security implications
• Never auto-merge PRs that modify auth systems

3. Destructive Git Operations

Do not perform destructive git operations without explicit user consent in the current session.

Restricted:

• git push --force or git push --force-with-lease
• git reset --hard
• git checkout . or git restore . (discards uncommitted changes)
• git clean -f (deletes untracked files)
• git branch -D (force-deletes branches)
• git push origin --delete (deletes remote branches — except during post-merge cleanup when explicitly part of the workflow)
• git rebase on shared/pushed branches
• Amending published commits

Note: Consent in the GitHub issue is not sufficient for destructive git operations. The user must consent in the current Claude Code session because these actions affect local and remote state immediately.

4. Production Systems

Never interact with production systems, regardless of authorisation level.

Restricted — no exceptions:

• Production databases (read or write)
• Production APIs or services
• Production secrets or credentials
• Production deployment triggers
• Production monitoring/alerting configuration
• Production DNS or routing changes

If a task requires production access:

• Stop and report to the user
• Suggest using staging/development environments instead
• Create an issue for human-only production operations if needed

Detecting Boundary Violations

Before executing any action, check:

digraph boundary_check {
    "About to execute action" [shape=box];
    "Modifies infrastructure?" [shape=diamond];
    "Issue authorises it?" [shape=diamond];
    "Proceed" [shape=box];
    "Stop — post comment on issue" [shape=box];
    "Modifies auth?" [shape=diamond];
    "Flag for review" [shape=box];
    "Destructive git?" [shape=diamond];
    "User consented this session?" [shape=diamond];
    "Stop — ask user" [shape=box];
    "Touches production?" [shape=diamond];
    "Stop — never allowed" [shape=box];

    "About to execute action" -> "Touches production?";
    "Touches production?" -> "Stop — never allowed" [label="yes"];
    "Touches production?" -> "Destructive git?" [label="no"];
    "Destructive git?" -> "User consented this session?" [label="yes"];
    "Destructive git?" -> "Modifies auth?" [label="no"];
    "User consented this session?" -> "Proceed" [label="yes"];
    "User consented this session?" -> "Stop — ask user" [label="no"];
    "Modifies auth?" -> "Flag for review" [label="yes"];
    "Modifies auth?" -> "Modifies infrastructure?" [label="no"];
    "Modifies infrastructure?" -> "Issue authorises it?" [label="yes"];
    "Modifies infrastructure?" -> "Proceed" [label="no"];
    "Issue authorises it?" -> "Proceed" [label="yes"];
    "Issue authorises it?" -> "Stop — post comment on issue" [label="no"];
}

Escalation Patterns

When a boundary prevents you from completing work:

For Infrastructure

## Infrastructure Change Needed

This issue requires a change to `<file>` that is outside the scope of autonomous work.

**What:** <description of the change>
**Why:** <why it's needed to complete this issue>
**Suggested change:** <brief description or diff>

Please approve this change or create a separate issue for it.

---
*Posted by Claude Code*

For Security-Sensitive Changes

## Security Review Required

This PR modifies authentication/authorisation code that requires human review before merge.

**Files changed:**
- `<file>` — <what changed>

**Security implications:**
- <impact description>

---
*Posted by Claude Code*

For Production Access

## Production Access Required

This task requires interaction with a production system that Claude Code cannot perform.

**What's needed:** <description>
**Suggested approach:** <staging alternative or manual steps>

---
*Posted by Claude Code*

<!-- maverick-plugin-version: 5.1.2-dev -->