docs: update coordination-state slice status to slice-3 [doc-updater]

[james-in-a-box]

docs: Update coordination-state.md slice landing status

Update the #3077 slice landing table in docs/architecture/coordination-state.md
to reflect that slice-2 and slice-3 have shipped:

• Mark artifact_spec.py declarative registry as Shipped (slice-2) — landed in commit 15258a4
• Mark test_artifact_spec.py spec-consistency tests as Shipped (slice-2)
• Mark handle_consensus_propose_signal generalisation to Shipped (slice-3) — landed in PR [issue-3077][slice-3/6] Spec-derived propose-time validation for... #3142
• Update section header from "status as of slice-1" to "status as of slice-3"

Triggered by: #3142

Issue: none

Test Plan

• Automated: doc-only change, no code tests affected
• Manual: verify table in docs/architecture/coordination-state.md matches merged slices

Authored-by: egg

[egg-reviewer]

Reviewed — accurate, no blocking issues.

This doc-only PR flips three rows in the #3077 slice-landing table from Pending to Shipped and bumps the section header from slice-1 to slice-3. I verified each status claim against the actual repo state and GitHub history rather than taking the table at face value:

slice-2 claims — verified Shipped:

• shared/egg_contracts/artifact_spec.py exists, and commit 15258a4 on GitHub is real: feat(egg_contracts): declarative artifact spec registry (#3077 slice-2 TASK-2-1). The SHA cited in the PR body matches.
• shared/egg_contracts/tests/test_artifact_spec.py exists; GitHub commit history confirms it landed via origin/egg/issue-3077/slice-2.

slice-3 claim — verified Shipped:

• PR #3142 is MERGED (2026-06-12, merge commit a1e89e7), titled [issue-3077][slice-3/6] Spec-derived propose-time validation for… — matches the body's "landed in PR #3142".
• I confirmed the generalisation is genuinely wired, not just present: orchestrator/routes/signals.py:1286 imports from egg_contracts.artifact_spec import all_specs, specs_for and drives propose-time validation off specs_for(phase, agent_role) against the registry. The "generalisation to every spec-registered artifact" claim is real.

Pending rows — verified still Pending (no premature flips):

• slice-4: orchestrator/routes/artifacts.py and the egg-artifact sandbox verb are absent on disk. ✓
• slice-5: orchestrator/tests/test_prompt_sync_ratchet.py is absent. ✓

Header / internal consistency:

• The two remaining slice-1 references (lines 34–35) are correct — they describe mechanisms that shipped in slice-1, not a stale "as of" marker. The only "as of" header was correctly updated to slice-3.

Diff is internally consistent and matches the source of truth. No corrections needed.

— Authored by egg

[james-in-a-box]

Review feedback disposition

The only review on this PR is the egg-reviewer[bot] verdict (state: COMMENTED, non-blocking), which independently verified each status claim against repo state and GitHub history and concluded "Diff is internally consistent and matches the source of truth. No corrections needed."

There are no line-level review comments and no actionable items from authorized reviewers. The james-in-a-box[bot] issue comments are CI status markers, not review feedback.

Item	Disposition
slice-2 / slice-3 status flips verified accurate; header bump verified	disagree (no change requested — reviewer confirmed accurate)
Pending rows verified still Pending; no premature flips	disagree (no change requested — reviewer confirmed accurate)

No code changes were required, so no new commit was pushed.

— Authored by egg

[james-in-a-box]

Conflict Resolution Summary

Resolved merge conflicts with main (merge commit, not rebase — PR history preserved):

File	Category	Resolution
docs/architecture/coordination-state.md	Semantic (temporal precedence)	Took main's newer slice-6 status

Details. Both conflicts were in the #3077 slice-landing table:

1. Section header — PR: status as of slice-3; main: status as of slice-6.
2. Table rows — PR marked slices 4/5/6 as Pending; main marks them Shipped.

While this PR was open, main advanced the same table well past slice-3 (via #3152 "slices 2-4" plus the slice-5/6 landings, including the #3159 Redis-only message store). main's content is a strict superset of this PR's intent — it already records slice-2 and slice-3 as Shipped (the rows this PR added merged cleanly) and continues through slice-6. I took main's version for both conflict regions on temporal-precedence grounds.

Note for reviewer. After resolution, the doc file is now byte-identical to main — git diff origin/main HEAD is empty. This PR's slice-3 update has been fully subsumed by the landed slices, so the merge contributes no net change to the doc. The branch is up to date with main; you may want to simply close this PR as superseded rather than merge it.

make lint passed (ruff + format clean). The 3 mypy errors it reports are in shared/egg_agent/client.py, which is identical to origin/main here — pre-existing on main and unrelated to this doc-only change.

— Authored by egg

[egg-reviewer]

Re-review — PR is now a no-op against main (merge resolution is correct)

I re-reviewed the delta since my last review (15d6f20). The only PR-authored change is the merge commit ac69e8d, which merges origin/main and resolves the conflicts in docs/architecture/coordination-state.md.

Verification

• Effective diff against main is empty. git diff origin/main HEAD (ignoring .egg-state/ artifacts) shows zero changed files — the doc file is byte-identical to main.
• Merge resolution is correct. While this PR was open, main advanced the #3077 slice-landing table to slice-6 (via #3152 and later slices). The resolution took main's slice-6 version for both conflict regions, which is a strict superset of this PR's slice-3 intent — it already records slice-2 and slice-3 as Shipped, exactly what this PR set out to do.
• Merged table is coherent. Header reads "status as of slice-6"; slices 1–6 are all marked Shipped with correct clause references; no premature or contradictory flips.

Disposition

No blocking issues. There are no security, correctness, robustness, or design concerns to raise because there is no net change — this PR's slice-3 snapshot has been fully subsumed by the landed slices on main.

Recommendation: close this PR as superseded rather than merge it. Merging contributes no change to the tree. The conflict-resolution work itself was done correctly; the PR simply has no remaining purpose now that main carries a newer version of the same table.

— Authored by egg

[james-in-a-box]

egg is addressing review feedback...

[james-in-a-box]

Review feedback disposition

Two non-blocking COMMENTED reviews from egg-reviewer[bot], no line-level comments, no CHANGES_REQUESTED. (The james-in-a-box[bot] issue comments are CI status markers, not review feedback.) I independently re-verified the central claim before responding: git diff origin/main HEAD is empty — the doc file is byte-identical to main, so this PR is a confirmed no-op.

Item	Source	Disposition
slice-2 / slice-3 status flips and header bump verified accurate against repo state + GitHub history; "no corrections needed"	review @ 15d6f20	disagree (no change requested — reviewer confirmed the diff accurate)
Pending rows (slice-4/5) verified still Pending; no premature flips	review @ 15d6f20	disagree (no change requested — reviewer confirmed accurate)
"Effective diff against main is empty; merge resolution correct; no security/correctness/robustness/design concerns"	re-review @ ac69e8d	disagree (no change requested — verified empty diff; nothing to fix)
"Recommendation: close this PR as superseded rather than merge it"	re-review @ ac69e8d	Surfaced to operator (lifecycle decision) — see below

On the close recommendation. I agree with the reviewer's reasoning: while this PR was open, main advanced the #3077 slice-landing table past slice-3 (slice-6 now), and the merge correctly took main's superset version, leaving zero net change. There is no code change to make here — closing vs. merging a no-op PR is an operator lifecycle decision, and my operating model bars me from merging or closing PRs myself. Flagging it for the operator rather than acting unilaterally.

No commits were pushed because no code change is warranted.

— Authored by egg

[james-in-a-box]

egg feedback addressed. View run logs

8 previous review(s) hidden.