Commit Graph
12 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
jschoubben a5d1e0fbf6 ADR 0290 rewritten on the operator's word: a decision record lives whole in the knowledge base, reviewed and accepted there; and cycle.py sees issues that live only in the tracker (issue 436)
mesh/merge-gate pass: the change touches no module of the mesh's graph
mesh/repo-check pass: its merge-check.sh passed
mesh/delivery superseded: a newer head of the same pull request
2026-10-11 02:05:02 +02:00
jochen daa9f171ae Issue reports carry only opened: the tracker holds every status, so no copy can drift
mesh/merge-gate pass: the change touches no module of the mesh's graph
mesh/repo-check pass: its merge-check.sh passed
mesh/delivery delivered
The import of slice 3 (ADR 0275) was checked against every folder: no report changed since the
commit it read, and the tracker holds each report's status, owner, fix, design amendment, replay
and closing day. The keys are removed from all 361 reports, cycle.py refuses them in any report,
and the playbooks, skills and READMEs that still pointed at them name the tracker instead.
2026-10-10 17:44:18 +02:00
jochen 6d1310f1ea An issue's status lives in the issue tracker: playbook 03, cycle.py and the notes slice 3 of ADR 0275 asked for
mesh/merge-gate pass: the change touches no module of the mesh's graph
mesh/repo-check pass: its merge-check.sh passed
mesh/delivery delivered
2026-10-10 15:54:32 +02:00
jochen 189dbcef7a Skip a rejected option by its chapter, so one under a ### subheading is skipped too
mesh/merge-gate pass: the change touches no module of the mesh's graph
mesh/repo-check pass: its merge-check.sh passed
mesh/delivery delivered
cycle.py skipped a rejected option only when "Options rejected" was its nearest heading; a record that
lists its options under ### subheadings of "## Considered Options" had them held as deferrals.
2026-10-09 19:32:16 +02:00
jochen 2349f4bb63 Hold an insight to the deferrals it speaks about, and name what ADR 0273 left undecided
mesh/merge-gate pass: the change touches no module of the mesh's graph
mesh/repo-check pass: its merge-check.sh passed
mesh/delivery delivered
A review found the check too lenient: an issue cited as context beside a deferral passed it, and one
insight excused every deferral in a record. The tracking issue is now named as tracking it, an insight
covers only its section or what it quotes, and the phrases include "not decided here", "postponed" and
"future work". ADR 0273's four undecided items get issue 357.
2026-10-09 19:29:18 +02:00
jochen 85da2fb93f Issue 354: a decided rename was never scheduled, and a record that defers work names its issue
ADR 0244 left the code renames of the node-engine and the tool runner for later with no issue, owner or
date, and two days on the operator believed them live. Open the issue with the inventory, the risk and a
staged plan; add the rule to playbooks 02 and 04, as a dated insight on ADR 0244, and as a cycle.py check
that found the same gap in ADR 0270 (issue 355).
2026-10-09 19:27:05 +02:00
jochen d245df7dea ADR 0237, to-be 45 Phase 5: a change is judged against the mesh that runs before it merges
The operator approved Phase 5. Decides what the design left open: the build seat runs the
merge check, the facts live in the artifact store, the merge gate composes the mesh as it is
and with the change and judges only what the change adds, a replay lives where its incident
is, and the controller's tests run a bus of their own at the mesh's release. A core issue now
resolves only with a replay or a stated reason, checked by cycle.py.
2026-10-06 21:10:54 +02:00
jschoubben 98eb3aa76f ADR 0169 → 0170: the firewall seat's record renumbered after a collision on main; its built note; cycle.py refuses two records sharing a number
Another session's 0169 landed first. The collision check from issue 155
covered issue folders only; it covers decision records now, and would have
refused this.
2026-10-02 14:51:22 +02:00
jschoubben b967ef7be3 Two records shared a number, twice, and every check passed
Two machines filing issues in the same hour both read main correctly and
both took "the next free number". main lags every open pull request —
seven that evening — so they collided twice. The second collision
reached main with records, cycle and index all reporting success.

cycle.py now refuses a tree where two issue folders share a leading
number, and names both. Proven by adding a duplicate and watching it
fail. The colliding records become 153 and 154, renumbered in the branch
that lands last, because renumbering a branch whose author is still
pushing only moves the race.

The check catches a collision; it does not prevent one. Taking a number
still means reading the open pull requests as well as main — issue 155
says so.
2026-09-29 23:38:48 +02:00
jschoubben 36d9b38a0d An issue is open, diagnosing, located, resolved or wontfix — nothing else
The playbook, the README and the status skill knew five statuses; the cycle check
knew a sixth, 'fixed', and not 'wontfix'. Eleven issues sat in the sixth for weeks
with their fixes shipped, one step short of closed. They are resolved; the check
refuses the word from now on and accepts the one the playbook allows.
2026-09-21 17:38:17 +02:00
jschoubben 90e4a368dc ADR 0081: a decision nothing cites is not yet in the chain
Decisions were the one link the cycle checks skipped, and measuring found 19 of 70 records
orphaned — the credential flow and the module-runtime cluster among them, which is how a
stale premise about a settled decision survived in working memory. cycle.py now refuses an
accepted record nothing cites; the 19 got true homes (design frontmatter, the playbook that
implements 0021, META for the process records). The overview names the practice: spec-driven
development with provenance.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
2026-09-17 22:36:33 +02:00
jschoubben becae7ba51 ADR 0080: the development cycle is checked, not trusted
The flow the process overview draws — idea/symptom -> decision -> to-be design -> code ->
as-is — was enforced by nothing. cycle.py now refuses a to-be design naming no decision, an
in-progress/implemented design naming no owning code, a located/fixed issue with no owner,
a fixed/resolved issue with no fix, and a graduated research overview that does not say what
it became. AGENTS.md carries the cycle and a where-to-look table so a fresh session (or a
cleared context) finds the chain in frontmatter instead of assuming it. Grounding the check
surfaced two real gaps, fixed here: the work-ahead design named no owning code, and research
003 listed one became target twice.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
2026-09-17 22:28:03 +02:00