Skip to content

Align WORKFLOW.md's Verdict Clause With Section 5's Assessment #1390

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
ptr727 merged 1 commit into from
Sep 6, 2026
Merged

Align WORKFLOW.md's Verdict Clause With Section 5's Assessment #1390

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion WORKFLOW.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Given this document and the `GOVERNANCE.md` sections it points at, an agent must

1. **Audit** - statically check the workflows against the style conventions that section 2 points at and the structural facts each guarantee implies (section 5A).
2. **Test** - trace the expected inputs/outputs (section 5B) and, where warranted, drive a live probe (section 5C).
3. **Assess** - render a verdict: **operational** (every *applicable* guarantee holds and every *applicable* scenario's observed output equals the expected) or **not operational** (any mismatch, which is a *defect*, not a style nit).
3. **Assess** - render a verdict: **operational** (every *applicable* guarantee holds, every *applicable* scenario's predicted output equals the expected, and no 5C probe that was run contradicts either) or **not operational** (any *applicable* mismatch, which is a *defect*).

> **Canonical scope.** This document is authoritative for the workflow contract and test methodology (sections 3 to 6). The style conventions live in `GOVERNANCE.md` "Workflow YAML Conventions", which section 2 points at rather than restating, and the release policy in `GOVERNANCE.md` "Release Model". `GOVERNANCE.md` is authoritative wherever this document overlaps it, so on any such conflict it wins.

Expand Down
8 changes: 4 additions & 4 deletions reports/canonical-review.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -707,11 +707,11 @@
},
{
"unit": "WORKFLOW.md > (preamble)",
"digest": "sha256:9b74cedfe75e4bf4f8c8dfd435528599a5b96a261e353ce6e30933005c50e2e1",
"digest": "sha256:589cca940d663b7c69d821d82608c585b24e29636d9e893ba80c8fa0f6e92a05",
"reviewer": "agent-skill",
"findings": 1,
"hubCommit": "66d79460335379301db83fe6870303f8f701d92b",
"stamp": "2026-09-06T04:40:34Z"
"findings": 7,
"hubCommit": "7fcf612364d323ebab05fcdb319356c2b84864c3",
"stamp": "2026-09-06T16:26:38Z"
},
{
"unit": "WORKFLOW.md > 1. Purpose and How to Use This Document",
Expand Down