#The deleted-file resurrection guard

lazy accept refuses a merge that would silently put back a file the target branch deliberately deleted, and names every such file. This document explains the defect it prevents, how the detection works, and what to do when it fires.

#The defect

Git's 3-way merge decides what happened to a path by comparing both branches against their merge base. If a file is:

• present on the source branch, and
• absent on the target branch, and
• absent at the merge base

then git sees "one side added a file, the other side did nothing" and adds it. No conflict, no prompt, nothing in the merge output. If the target branch had deleted that file on purpose, the deletion is quietly undone.

The third condition is the surprising one. A branch that merely predates a deletion is safe: the file exists at its merge base, so git sees "the target deleted it, the source did nothing" and correctly keeps it deleted. The defect needs the file to be missing at the base entirely.

#How a base gets that stale

The shape that produces it in lazy is a squash-accepted parent with a stacked child — which is exactly how release hubs work:

main ── … ── "Release v0.11" (squash of the v0.11 hub) ── "delete src/sse.ts"
        \
         v0.11 hub ── (adds src/sse.ts) ── v0.12 hub ── … ── Merge origin/main

Accepting the v0.11 hub squashes its work into a single commit on main. That commit is not a descendant of the hub's own commits, so the v0.12 hub — which was branched off v0.11 before the squash — still has a merge base with main that predates the entire v0.11 window. Every file born in that window has no version at the base. When main later deletes one of them, the v0.12 hub's routine Merge origin/main brings it straight back.

This is not hypothetical. In the v0.12 release it resurrected a dead SSE module and five other changes, one of them a live behavioral regression, and none of it was noticed for eight releases.

#What the guard checks

Before any accept merges, lazy computes:

1. git diff --diff-filter=A --name-only <target>...<source> — files added relative to the merge base (three-dot);
2. git diff --diff-filter=A --name-only <target> <source> — files present on the source but not on the target tip (two-dot);
3. the intersection of the two — these are exactly the paths the merge would add one-sidedly;
4. for each, git log --diff-filter=D <target> -- <path> — did the target branch ever delete it? The newest such commit is reported.

Anything that survives step 4 is a resurrection. Paths the target never had, or that it deleted and later re-added itself, are not flagged.

#Why not git diff --diff-filter=D main...hub

That command is the intuitive one and it does not work. A three-dot diff is taken from the merge base, and in this topology the resurrected file has no version at the merge base — so it appears in neither side of that diff. Run against a reproduction of the v0.12 topology it returns nothing at all.

The related idea of checking that merge-base(hub, main) is recent enough also fails, for a different reason: by accept time the hub has already merged main, so its merge base is main's tip. The staleness signal is gone precisely when you would want to read it. The guard therefore asks the direct question — "would this merge un-delete anything?" — instead of a proxy for it.

#When it fires

The accept is refused, nothing is merged, and the message names each file, the commit that deleted it, and the command that resolves it:

Accepting task t1 would merge `lazy/release-v012` into `main` and RE-ADD 1 file
that `main` deliberately deleted:

  src/sse.ts
      deleted by 4f2a1c9e "Remove dead SSE module" (2026-04-12)

`lazy/release-v012` has no version of this file at its merge base with `main`, so
git sees the deletion as nothing to merge and takes the branch's copy wholesale —
no conflict, nothing to review. …

If it is dead on `main`, delete it on `lazy/release-v012` and re-run the accept.

If bringing it back is intentional, approve it explicitly:

  lazy accept t1 --approve-file src/sse.ts

Two ways forward:

• The deletion was right (the usual case): delete the files on the task branch too, commit, and accept again.
• The re-addition is deliberate: pass --approve-file <path> for each one (or approved_files over MCP). The accept proceeds and records a warning naming what was approved, so the audit trail shows a human made the call.

Every file must be approved individually — a partial approval still refuses, and lists only what is still unapproved.

#Stacked children after an accept

When an accept squash-lands a task that has active children, lazy re-parents those children automatically, but re-parenting only moves a pointer — it does not touch their worktrees. Until each child runs lazy sync, its merge base is behind the work that just landed, which is the stale-base condition above. Accept says so, and both lazy accept's pre-flight note and the post-accept warning point at lazy sync.

Lazy does not sync those children for you. Merging into somebody else's worktree as a side effect of an accept the human asked for on a different task is exactly the hidden side effect CLAUDE.md forbids, and a conflict raised there would strand a task nobody is watching. Upstream merge is lazy sync's job. The resurrection guard is the backstop for when the advice is ignored.

#Scope and limits

• The guard is always on and applies to every accept, not just release hubs. The hazard is a property of merge topology, not of release semantics — any squash-accepted parent with a stacked child can produce it. It adds no config.
• File granularity only. A file that survives on the target but has hunks reverted inside it by the same mechanism is not detected. That defect class is real — the v0.12 audit found instances — but hunk-level detection has no clean signal to key off and would fire constantly on ordinary merges.
• Deletions made only inside a merge commit are not attributed to a deleting commit; git log --diff-filter=D does not report them by default. No such case appeared in the v0.12 audit, and the file-level check itself still catches the re-add — only the "deleted by" attribution would be missing.
• A very wide branch is capped. If a merge adds more than 2000 files the guard checks the first 2000 and warns that it truncated, rather than silently reporting a clean result.

Implementation: src/protection/resurrection-guard.ts; enforcement point in the daemon accept path, alongside the branch-protection edge gate, so every driver and every caller (CLI, MCP, automation) is covered.