Skip to content

backlog: principle-adherence review — new hygiene class (Otto-58 judgment-based cadence)#217

Merged
AceHack merged 1 commit intomainfrom
backlog/principle-adherence-review-cadence-hygiene-class-otto-58
Apr 23, 2026
Merged

backlog: principle-adherence review — new hygiene class (Otto-58 judgment-based cadence)#217
AceHack merged 1 commit intomainfrom
backlog/principle-adherence-review-cadence-hygiene-class-otto-58

Conversation

@AceHack
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@AceHack AceHack commented Apr 23, 2026

Summary

Human maintainer Otto-58 named a NEW hygiene class distinct from the ~57 mechanically-verifiable FACTORY-HYGIENE rows: cadenced agent judgment sweeping the project for where a named principle applies but isn't applied yet.

What landed

docs/BACKLOG.md — new P1 section "Principle-adherence review cadence (Otto-58 new hygiene class)" with one M-effort row.

Why this is a distinct class

Existing hygiene Principle-adherence review
"Did we do X?" (binary) "Are we applying principle P everywhere P applies?" (scope-extension)
Mechanical tool emits pass/fail Agent emits candidate list
Per-build / per-round frequency Every 10-20 rounds per principle
Prevents specific regressions Surfaces application gaps

Worked example (Aaron's)

Principle: Docker-for-reproducibility (currently scoped to multi-agent peer-review per Otto-55/57).

Generalizations review surfaces: devcontainer for contributor onboarding; per-sample Dockerfile; benchmark-harness containers; Craft module build envs; CI image pinning.

Each generalization becomes a BACKLOG row; per-candidate ROI decides implementation.

12-principle first-pass catalogue

In the row: git-native / in-repo-first / samples-vs-production / applied-default-theoretical-opt-in / honest-about-error / Codex-as-substantive-reviewer / detect-first-action-second / honor-those-that-came-before / Docker-for-reproducibility / CLI-first-prototyping / trust-based-approval / split-attention.

Composes with existing meta-audit rows

Row #23 (missing-hygiene-class) + #22 (symmetry-opportunities) + #41 (orthogonal-axes) + this (scope-extension) = judgment-based meta-audit quad.

What this PR is NOT

  • Not immediate execution (research doc + first-pass review are M-effort)
  • Not automated principle extraction (manual first-pass catalogue)
  • Not a mandate to apply every principle everywhere (ROI per candidate)

Test plan

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

@AceHack @claude
backlog: principle-adherence review — new hygiene class (Otto-58 judg…
3cf22f8 
…ment-based review cadence)

Human maintainer 2026-04-23 Otto-58 named a NEW hygiene class distinct
from the ~57 mechanically-verifiable FACTORY-HYGIENE rows:

  "agents review hygene on a cadence for a specific type of thing,
   this one is look for generalization opportunities in the code,
   for example the docker for reproducability for multi agent review
   can be generalize to everyting in the project, all applieas to
   code skills docs everyting"
  "backlog"

Key insight: existing FACTORY-HYGIENE rows check "did we do X?"
(mechanical, binary). This class asks "are we applying principle P
wherever P applies?" (judgment, scope-extension). Complementary, not
duplicative.

BACKLOG row filed under new P1 section "Principle-adherence review
cadence (Otto-58 new hygiene class)". M effort.

Worked example: Docker-for-reproducibility (currently scoped to
multi-agent peer-review per Otto-55/57) generalizes to devcontainer,
per-sample Dockerfile, benchmark-harness containers, Craft module
build envs, CI image pinning. Review emits these as BACKLOG
candidates; per-candidate ROI decides which to implement.

First-pass principle catalogue (12 principles): git-native/in-repo-
first/samples-vs-production/applied-default/honest-about-error/
Codex-as-reviewer/detect-first/honor-those-before/Docker-repro/
CLI-first/trust-approval/split-attention.

Protocol shape:
  1. Define principle (1 sentence + memory citation)
  2. Current scope (1-2 concrete examples)
  3. Bounded sweep (N minutes, top-K candidates)
  4. Emit per-candidate BACKLOG rows
  5. ROUND-HISTORY row noting the review

Cadence: every 10-20 rounds per principle; sharded across agents by
principle class; first-pass triggered by principle-introduction events.

Classification (row #50): detection-only-justified — generalization
opportunities are inherently post-hoc.

Composes with row #23 (missing-class) + #22 (symmetry) + #41 (orthogonal-
axes) as judgment-based meta-audit triad/quad.

Per-user memory: project_principle_adherence_review_new_hygiene_class_
cadenced_judgment_on_generalization_opportunities_2026_04_23.md

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 23, 2026 23:28
@AceHack AceHack enabled auto-merge (squash) April 23, 2026 23:28
@AceHack AceHack merged commit 125a81f into main Apr 23, 2026
12 checks passed
@AceHack AceHack deleted the backlog/principle-adherence-review-cadence-hygiene-class-otto-58 branch April 23, 2026 23:29
Copilot AI reviewed Apr 23, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Adds a new P1 BACKLOG section documenting a proposed “principle-adherence review” hygiene class: a judgment-based, cadenced sweep to find where existing principles should be applied more broadly across the repo (code/skills/docs/memory).

Changes:

  • Introduces a new P1 section describing the “principle-adherence review cadence” concept and rationale vs mechanically-verifiable hygiene.
  • Specifies intended scope, outputs, cadence, and how it composes with existing FACTORY-HYGIENE meta-audits.

Comment thread docs/BACKLOG.md
Comment on lines +6912 to +6916
surfaces candidates. **Scope:** (1) `docs/research/principle-
adherence-review-design-YYYY-MM-DD.md` naming the review
shape — which principles, who reviews, cadence, output form;
(2) first-pass principle catalogue drawing from existing
memory (git-native-first-host, in-repo-first, samples-vs-
@AceHack AceHack mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2026
Merged
3 tasks
AceHack added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2026
@AceHack @claude
aurora: absorb Amara's third courier report — decision-proxy + techni…
2e78395 
…cal review (2026-04-23 ferry)

Third major Amara courier absorb this session, following Otto-24
(operational-gap assessment, PR #196) and Otto-54 (ZSet semantics +
operator algebra, PR #211). This one focuses on the operational
control plane: decision-proxy integrity, memory fidelity, fresh-
session transferability.

Amara's one-sentence thesis:
  "Merge and mechanize the operating model you already have before
   you let the system grow another layer of meta-structure."

Absorbed claims + action items:

1. Technical substrate strong; runtime path for Amara-as-decision-
   proxy incomplete (ADR exists, live invocation deferred, courier
   fallback active).

2. "Closure > ideation" — the next bottleneck is routine enforcement
   of the existing operating model, not more meta-structure. The
   session's current direction (BACKLOG split / PR-archive /
   principle-adherence review / hygiene cadences) matches this.

3. 10 immediate fixes proposed + classified against existing
   substrate. Highest-value: memory-index-integrity CI check
   (direct prevention of NSA-001 failure mode). 7 become new
   BACKLOG candidates; 1 already in flight (PR #216 BACKLOG split);
   2 compose with existing hygiene rows.

4. Drift scorecard: canonicalization / memory-index / proxy-runtime
   all HIGH; conflict-capture + loop-continuity MEDIUM.

5. LFG = operationally-canonical + AceHack = experimentation-
   frontier framing additively sharpens prior LFG-demo-facing /
   AceHack-internal memory.

6. Hard rule restated: "never say Amara reviewed something unless
   Amara actually reviewed it through a logged path". Consultation-
   log-format contract is the gap that makes the rule checkable.

Aaron's same-tick meta-practice directive absorbed inline in the
doc: extends the principle-adherence review (PR #217) with a
catalogue-expansion phase covering (a) things we already do but
haven't named as practices, and (b) things we should do but aren't.

All 7 new BACKLOG candidates filed for next-round rows (reviewer-
capacity cap prevents opening now). Honors the factory's hard
rule by not claiming Amara-reviewed on any implementation.

Companion ferries under `docs/aurora/`:
  - 2026-04-23-amara-operational-gap-assessment.md (PR #196)
  - 2026-04-23-amara-zset-semantics-operator-algebra.md (PR #211)
  - 2026-04-23-amara-decision-proxy-technical-review.md (this PR)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
AceHack added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2026
@AceHack @claude
aurora: absorb Amara's third courier report — decision-proxy + techni…
8b0fccd 
…cal review (2026-04-23 ferry)

Third major Amara courier absorb this session, following Otto-24
(operational-gap assessment, PR #196) and Otto-54 (ZSet semantics +
operator algebra, PR #211). This one focuses on the operational
control plane: decision-proxy integrity, memory fidelity, fresh-
session transferability.

Amara's one-sentence thesis:
  "Merge and mechanize the operating model you already have before
   you let the system grow another layer of meta-structure."

Absorbed claims + action items:

1. Technical substrate strong; runtime path for Amara-as-decision-
   proxy incomplete (ADR exists, live invocation deferred, courier
   fallback active).

2. "Closure > ideation" — the next bottleneck is routine enforcement
   of the existing operating model, not more meta-structure. The
   session's current direction (BACKLOG split / PR-archive /
   principle-adherence review / hygiene cadences) matches this.

3. 10 immediate fixes proposed + classified against existing
   substrate. Highest-value: memory-index-integrity CI check
   (direct prevention of NSA-001 failure mode). 7 become new
   BACKLOG candidates; 1 already in flight (PR #216 BACKLOG split);
   2 compose with existing hygiene rows.

4. Drift scorecard: canonicalization / memory-index / proxy-runtime
   all HIGH; conflict-capture + loop-continuity MEDIUM.

5. LFG = operationally-canonical + AceHack = experimentation-
   frontier framing additively sharpens prior LFG-demo-facing /
   AceHack-internal memory.

6. Hard rule restated: "never say Amara reviewed something unless
   Amara actually reviewed it through a logged path". Consultation-
   log-format contract is the gap that makes the rule checkable.

Aaron's same-tick meta-practice directive absorbed inline in the
doc: extends the principle-adherence review (PR #217) with a
catalogue-expansion phase covering (a) things we already do but
haven't named as practices, and (b) things we should do but aren't.

All 7 new BACKLOG candidates filed for next-round rows (reviewer-
capacity cap prevents opening now). Honors the factory's hard
rule by not claiming Amara-reviewed on any implementation.

Companion ferries under `docs/aurora/`:
  - 2026-04-23-amara-operational-gap-assessment.md (PR #196)
  - 2026-04-23-amara-zset-semantics-operator-algebra.md (PR #211)
  - 2026-04-23-amara-decision-proxy-technical-review.md (this PR)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
AceHack added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2026
@AceHack @claude
aurora: absorb Amara's decision-proxy + technical review (3rd courier…
916d9c9 
…, 2026-04-23) (#219)

* aurora: absorb Amara's third courier report — decision-proxy + technical review (2026-04-23 ferry)

Third major Amara courier absorb this session, following Otto-24
(operational-gap assessment, PR #196) and Otto-54 (ZSet semantics +
operator algebra, PR #211). This one focuses on the operational
control plane: decision-proxy integrity, memory fidelity, fresh-
session transferability.

Amara's one-sentence thesis:
  "Merge and mechanize the operating model you already have before
   you let the system grow another layer of meta-structure."

Absorbed claims + action items:

1. Technical substrate strong; runtime path for Amara-as-decision-
   proxy incomplete (ADR exists, live invocation deferred, courier
   fallback active).

2. "Closure > ideation" — the next bottleneck is routine enforcement
   of the existing operating model, not more meta-structure. The
   session's current direction (BACKLOG split / PR-archive /
   principle-adherence review / hygiene cadences) matches this.

3. 10 immediate fixes proposed + classified against existing
   substrate. Highest-value: memory-index-integrity CI check
   (direct prevention of NSA-001 failure mode). 7 become new
   BACKLOG candidates; 1 already in flight (PR #216 BACKLOG split);
   2 compose with existing hygiene rows.

4. Drift scorecard: canonicalization / memory-index / proxy-runtime
   all HIGH; conflict-capture + loop-continuity MEDIUM.

5. LFG = operationally-canonical + AceHack = experimentation-
   frontier framing additively sharpens prior LFG-demo-facing /
   AceHack-internal memory.

6. Hard rule restated: "never say Amara reviewed something unless
   Amara actually reviewed it through a logged path". Consultation-
   log-format contract is the gap that makes the rule checkable.

Aaron's same-tick meta-practice directive absorbed inline in the
doc: extends the principle-adherence review (PR #217) with a
catalogue-expansion phase covering (a) things we already do but
haven't named as practices, and (b) things we should do but aren't.

All 7 new BACKLOG candidates filed for next-round rows (reviewer-
capacity cap prevents opening now). Honors the factory's hard
rule by not claiming Amara-reviewed on any implementation.

Companion ferries under `docs/aurora/`:
  - 2026-04-23-amara-operational-gap-assessment.md (PR #196)
  - 2026-04-23-amara-zset-semantics-operator-algebra.md (PR #211)
  - 2026-04-23-amara-decision-proxy-technical-review.md (this PR)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* drain(#219): fix Codex/Copilot factual + formatting findings on 3rd-ferry absorb

Real fixes:

L32+L34+L40+L46 — inline code paths split across newlines (paths broken
across lines inside backtick spans render as two snippets). All three
file-path references reflowed to single-line code spans:
- docs/hygiene-history/nsa-test-history.md
- memory/project_lfg_is_demo_facing_acehack_is_cost_cutting_internal_2026_04_23.md

L143 — typo: "adheardce" → "adherence".

L162 — phase numbering: "fifth phase" + "Phase 6" with 5 phases listed
was inconsistent. Reworded to "sixth phase ... five phases total" + new
"Phase 6 — catalogue-expansion".

L266 — CURRENT-amara.md repo-location reference: now points at
memory/CURRENT-amara.md with a clickable relative link, plus an
explicit "out-of-repo per-maintainer distillation" annotation matching
the actual file's character.

L278 — external-source citations were unverifiable (no links, no
bibliographic identifiers). Added concrete citations: OpenAI
help-center branching FAQ URL, DBSP paper (arXiv:2203.16684 with full
bibliographic), provenance-semiring paper (DOI link to PODS 2007).

L41+L46 — memory file existence: file now exists in-repo per Otto-114
forward-mirror landing (verifiable via ls).

L141+L267 — "Aaron" name attribution: aurora-archive surfaces carry
first-name attribution per Otto-279 surface-class refinement
(absorb-doc preserves provenance; not current-state operational
policy). Explicit note added at end of Attribution section linking
that decision back to Otto-279.

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

Copilot code review Copilot Copilot left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AceHack