Skip to content
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
16 changes: 16 additions & 0 deletions TODO.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -367,6 +367,22 @@ One pull request adding the observer the fleet has no equivalent of, reading mer
- **Settled** - Two floors are not optional. A run reading zero pull requests reports that rather than a clean zero, and a repo the search surfaces with no registry entry is reported separately, which feeds "Registry Membership Coverage" above.
- **Settled** - This is not the deferred audit automation recorded under "Standalone Chores". That entry rejected three scheduled and hook-driven shapes on three blockers, and this is owner-run and on demand like [`spec/fidelity_honesty.py`][fidelity-honesty], so it lands on none of them.

### A Disproof About Carried Text Has Nowhere Fleet-Wide to Live

One pull request deciding whether the review record admits a second class of entry, for a finding raised against text the whole fleet carries rather than against one repository's own file. The record's shape and its per-repository rule are both right and neither covers this case, so the deliverable is a decision about the category rather than a rewrite of what exists.

**State** `decision`. **Touches** [`.github/copilot-instructions.md`][copilot-instructions], and possibly [`spec/section-model.md`][section-model] if the answer is a new carried section. **Cost** one hub edit, plus a fleet-wide re-vendor only if the entries themselves become carried.

- **Decide where a disproof about carried text lives, given that every repository carrying the text will meet the same finding.** The record's preamble says the entries are the hub's own, that a repository carrying the file keeps the shape and the rules rather than the findings, and that it records what it has proved itself. That is correct for a finding about one repository's tree and wrong for one about a canonical every repository holds a copy of.
- **Blocked by** - Nothing.
- **Issue** - None filed.
- **Checked** - `develop` at `7bc6978` on 2026-08-10, against the `keys_unsorted` entry at `.github/copilot-instructions.md` and the preamble sentence beginning "The entries are this repository's own".
- **Open** - Whether the answer is a second entry class in the record marked as carried, a fleet-level record somewhere else, or nothing at all on the grounds that independent re-derivation is worth its cost because it catches an entry that has gone stale.
- **Settled** - The case is real rather than predicted. A reviewer raised the `keys_unsorted` claim against the section 6 snippet at the hub, it was disproved by running both builtins on `jq-1.5-1-a5b5cbe`, and the same claim was then raised against a downstream repository's carried copy of the same snippet, where it was disproved a second time from the jq 1.5 manual. Two disproofs of one claim about one canonical, and the second could not cite the first.
- **Settled** - The independent re-derivation was not wasted, which is what makes this a decision rather than a defect. The second disproof came from the manual where the first came from a binary, so the two cover intent and behavior rather than repeating one another, and a rule that suppressed the second would have lost that.
- **Settled** - The current rule is right about what it governs. A repository carrying the hub's findings would carry claims about files it does not have, each naming a revision it never had, which is the staleness the per-repository rule exists to prevent. So the fix cannot be to relax that rule, and any answer has to distinguish the subject of a finding from the repository that filed it.
- **Settled** - The cost is bounded and recurring rather than one-off. It falls once per repository per finding, on carried text only, and only where a reviewer raises the same point twice. It is small enough that doing nothing is a legitimate outcome, which is why this is a decision cluster and not a defect.

### Peer Messaging Between Agents as a Declared Method

One pull request writing down the agent-to-agent messaging this fleet has now used successfully, so it is a method with stated boundaries rather than a capability each session rediscovers. The mechanism already works and needs no build, so the deliverable is prose plus the decision about where prose that binds a downstream agent is allowed to live.
Expand Down