With the prompt-injection guard now recreated for Grok (prior commit), the
"Grok lacks the injection guard / prefer Claude for delivery roles" warning is
no longer true, so remove it:
- Panel routing card: replace the amber "prefer Claude / not safe" caveat with
a neutral one-liner — Grok agents run on opencode; the command/secret-exfil
guard, the prompt-injection guard, and the cost cap all apply.
- docs/self/architecture/llm-provider-security.md: prompt-injection row flips to
"yes" for Grok; intro + routing recommendation updated to "effective security
parity, any agent (incl. delivery roles) can run on Grok"; the only remaining
unported hook is the non-security stop-guard.
- opencode_config docstring: the remaining gap is now just the stop-guard
(budget + injection are covered).
Panel tsc + eslint clean.
Grok agents run on opencode, not Claude Code, so they do NOT have full
guardrail parity — claiming otherwise would be false. Document it truthfully
and keep them usable rather than blocking them.
- Panel routing card: an amber caveat shown in Grok/Mix mode — command/
secret-exfil guard + cost cap apply to Grok, but the prompt-injection guard
does NOT (opencode cannot block a turn); Anthropic/Ollama/Self-Hosted run
through Claude Code with the full guard set; prefer those for agents that
ingest untrusted or cross-agent content; Grok is safe for trusted work.
- docs/self/architecture/llm-provider-security.md: the reference — the two
runtimes, which provider uses which, the per-guardrail parity matrix, why
the injection/stop gaps exist (opencode hooks are observe-only), and the
routing recommendation (delivery roles handling untrusted content → a
Claude-Code-runtime provider).
Panel tsc + eslint clean.
Renn F