fix(rules): reconcile sub-case 4 retry policy (addresses #4709 P2)#4710
Closed
AceHack wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
fix(rules): reconcile sub-case 4 retry policy (addresses #4709 P2)#4710AceHack wants to merge 1 commit into
AceHack wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…row forced-#6 exception (addresses PR #4709 P2 thread) Codex P2 review on PR #4709 flagged a contradiction between three statements in .claude/rules/claim-acquire-before-worktree-work.md: 1. The new 2026-05-23 "Non-deterministic under same conditions" paragraph authorizes single-retry-after-orphan-cleanup 2. The existing "no working mitigation today" line said no mitigation exists at all 3. The composite operational discipline step 7 said ABANDON when sub-case 4 is hit Operational ambiguity: some agents would retry, others would abort. Reconciliation makes the policy unambiguous: - Default = ABANDON when sub-case 4 fires (preserved as authoritative in the composite discipline; preserved in the sub-case 4 mitigation block reframed as "no STRUCTURAL mitigation today") - Narrow exception = single-retry-after-orphan-cleanup, AUTHORIZED ONLY at forced-#6 decomposition per holding-without-named-dependency counter, for sub-case 4 specifically (not sub-case 3), one retry only, and ABANDON applies absolutely if retry also fails - The exception does NOT generalize to brief-ack #1-#5 (other pre-empt artifact shapes are available there; default ABANDON is correct) - The exception does NOT generalize to sub-case 3 (pack-dir contention has no analogous timing-dependence evidence) Both edits cross-reference each other so future-Otto reading either location sees the full policy. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Reconciles the documented retry policy for “sub-case 4” in the worktree-claim acquisition rule, clarifying that the default response remains ABANDON while introducing a narrowly scoped single-retry exception at forced-#6 decomposition.
Changes:
- Reframes sub-case 4 mitigation to state “default = ABANDON” and clarifies there is no structural mitigation yet.
- Documents a narrow, forced-#6-only exception: one retry after orphan cleanup for sub-case 4 only, then ABANDON if it fails.
Comment on lines
+401
to
+402
| counter, a **single** retry after orphan cleanup (`rm -rf <wt-path>` | ||
| + `git branch -D <branch>`) is authorized for sub-case 4 specifically |
5 tasks
Member
Author
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2026
* fix(rules): reconcile sub-case 4 retry policy — default ABANDON + narrow forced-#6 exception (addresses PR #4709 P2 thread) Codex P2 review on PR #4709 flagged a contradiction between three statements in .claude/rules/claim-acquire-before-worktree-work.md: 1. The new 2026-05-23 "Non-deterministic under same conditions" paragraph authorizes single-retry-after-orphan-cleanup 2. The existing "no working mitigation today" line said no mitigation exists at all 3. The composite operational discipline step 7 said ABANDON when sub-case 4 is hit Operational ambiguity: some agents would retry, others would abort. Reconciliation makes the policy unambiguous: - Default = ABANDON when sub-case 4 fires (preserved as authoritative in the composite discipline; preserved in the sub-case 4 mitigation block reframed as "no STRUCTURAL mitigation today") - Narrow exception = single-retry-after-orphan-cleanup, AUTHORIZED ONLY at forced-#6 decomposition per holding-without-named-dependency counter, for sub-case 4 specifically (not sub-case 3), one retry only, and ABANDON applies absolutely if retry also fails - The exception does NOT generalize to brief-ack #1-#5 (other pre-empt artifact shapes are available there; default ABANDON is correct) - The exception does NOT generalize to sub-case 3 (pack-dir contention has no analogous timing-dependence evidence) Both edits cross-reference each other so future-Otto reading either location sees the full policy. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix(rules): address Copilot P0 — continuation line starting with + parses as nested list (MD004/ul-style) Copilot P0 review on PR #4710 flagged line 402 of .claude/rules/claim-acquire-before-worktree-work.md where the continuation of the parenthetical "(rm -rf <wt-path>" began with "+ git branch -D <branch>)". Per markdownlint MD004/ul-style guidance in .github/copilot-instructions.md, a continuation line starting with "+ " inside an indented paragraph parses as a nested unordered list item and can fail CI. Fix: reword the two-command sequence to use prose connectives ("run X then Y") instead of the "+" infix operator. Preserves semantics: still a sequenced two-command cleanup. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Member
Author
auto-merge was automatically disabled
May 23, 2026 02:38
Pull request was closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Addresses #4709 Codex P2 review thread — "Align sub-case 4 retry policy in this rule".
Summary
holding-without-named-dependency-is-standing-by-failure.md, for sub-case 4 specifically (not sub-case 3), one retry only, ABANDON applies absolutely if retry also failsTest plan
8514d3d6d)🤖 Generated with Claude Code