Repository navigation
docs: README describes the machinery; prose cap 540 -> 580 under review - #317
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Round-1 review of the promotion union found two material overclaims in the
first rewrite, and the owner's objection was the opposite of subtle: it read
as a dumbed-down summary of a system that is mostly machinery.
Both are fixed by the same rewrite. It now names the two loops explicitly,
and then says what actually holds them up - bound specs and approval files,
worktree isolation with the external-CLI-versus-subagent distinction stated
rather than glossed, installed-test restoration at grading time, schema-validated
verdicts that bind only the diff they saw, instance-level self-review refusal,
capped attempts and capped review rounds, replayable per-attempt evidence, the
autonomy grant file, and the prose cap itself.
The two review findings, specifically:
- isolation is no longer promised uniformly; the subagent worker sharing the
orchestrator trust domain is stated in the same sentence as the guarantee.
- promotion to main is no longer promised as an owner-only human stop; the
gated orchestrator path and its two gates are stated.
tests/prose_cap.sh: total cap 540 -> 580, deliberately and under review, which
is the sanctioned way that test says to grow. Per-file caps are untouched, so
the room is not general. README 88/100, total 568/580.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qf23KhWPPDWVQZq8rAiGK5
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
docs: README describes the machinery, not just the shape
Round-1 review of the promotion union found two material overclaims in the
first rewrite, and the owner's objection was the opposite of subtle: it read
as a dumbed-down summary of a system that is mostly machinery.
Both are fixed by the same rewrite. It now names the two loops explicitly,
and then says what actually holds them up - bound specs and approval files,
worktree isolation with the external-CLI-versus-subagent distinction stated
rather than glossed, installed-test restoration at grading time, schema-validated
verdicts that bind only the diff they saw, instance-level self-review refusal,
capped attempts and capped review rounds, replayable per-attempt evidence, the
autonomy grant file, and the prose cap itself.
The two review findings, specifically:
orchestrator trust domain is stated in the same sentence as the guarantee.
gated orchestrator path and its two gates are stated.
tests/prose_cap.sh: total cap 540 -> 580, deliberately and under review, which
is the sanctioned way that test says to grow. Per-file caps are untouched, so
the room is not general. README 88/100, total 568/580.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 noreply@anthropic.com
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qf23KhWPPDWVQZq8rAiGK5