Skip to content

Round 44 tick-history: batch-6d landings row#91

Merged
AceHack merged 2 commits intomainfrom
land-tick-history-batch6d-append
Apr 22, 2026
Merged

Round 44 tick-history: batch-6d landings row#91
AceHack merged 2 commits intomainfrom
land-tick-history-batch6d-append

Conversation

@AceHack
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@AceHack AceHack commented Apr 22, 2026

Summary

Append-only tick-history row narrating this tick's work:

Landed on a separate branch off `origin/main` (not on any open-PR
branch) per the "tick-commits-on-PR-branch = live-loop class"
discipline (tick-history row 112).

Test plan

  • Pre-check: zero new maintainer-name mentions, zero new memory/* refs in new line
  • Append-only: no prior rows edited
  • Single-line diff

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…+ PR #90)

Post-compaction resumption of the end-of-tick sequence blocked
pre-compaction on a Read-first-before-Edit failure. Honors the
"tick-commits-on-PR-branch = live-loop class" discipline (row 112)
by landing this append on a separate branch off origin/main, not
on any open-PR branch.

Row narrates:

- PR #89 (AUTONOMOUS-LOOP.md) landed on main as a38b70b before this
  session resumed — post-hoc citation only, no retroactive row
  written in place.
- PR #90 (CLAUDE.md + AGENTS.md pointers) filed this tick as the
  final batch-6 additive surface; auto-merge armed.

Cross-compaction durability validation: the tick-history discipline
carried across a context summarisation boundary cleanly — the
pre-compaction blocked state was preserved in the session summary,
memory, and conversation transcript.
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 22, 2026 04:17
@AceHack AceHack enabled auto-merge (squash) April 22, 2026 04:17
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

This PR appends a new entry to the autonomous loop tick-history log, recording the Round 44 “batch 6d” landing work and linking to the related PR.

Changes:

  • Add tick-history row 113 documenting the post-compaction continuation and PR #90 filing.
  • Record branch/commit identifiers and the “no open-PR branch pushes” discipline for this tick.

Comment thread docs/hygiene-history/loop-tick-history.md
@AceHack AceHack merged commit 37bd8c8 into main Apr 22, 2026
11 checks passed
@AceHack AceHack deleted the land-tick-history-batch6d-append branch April 22, 2026 04:24
@AceHack
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

AceHack commented Apr 22, 2026

Resolving Copilot's thread — Copilot has the org direction swapped. This repo's authoritative canonical location IS Lucent-Financial-Group/Zeta (where main lives and branch protection applies). The AceHack/Zeta links in older rows (e.g. row for PR #33) are historical artifacts from when the fork briefly carried an in-flight PR; they are not the convention. PR #90 correctly links to Lucent-Financial-Group/Zeta.

AceHack added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2026
* Round 44 tick-history: auto-loop-2 PR refresh row

Second post-compaction tick. PR #91 refresh after PR #90 merged
4ac3ec3 on main mid-tick; PR #46 refresh after stale-local
reset (bc93188..63720e5). Fork PRs #88/#85/#52/#54 noted as
un-refreshable from current agent harness.

Tick-commits-on-PR-branch = live-loop class (row 112) preserved
via separate branch land-tick-history-autoloop-2-append off
origin/main.

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

* tick-history row fixes — Copilot findings on PR #92

Three fixes to the auto-loop-2 row:
1. Drop "AceHack" handle → "fork ownership outside the canonical
   repo" (BP-L284-L290 compliance)
2. Full ISO8601 timestamp (2026-04-22T04:20:00Z) per file schema
3. Drop self-referential "(row 112 of this file)"

Pre-check grep expanded to include "acehack" handle — prior
grep only caught "aaron" + memory/* refs.

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

---------

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants