blob: 26fa332e0b1c75716b72d54cf22fc1b26fb6a1b8 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
|
#+TITLE: Re: wrap-up inbox/transcript routing request (2026-06-13 handoff)
Filed as a [#B] :feature:spec: TODO in rulesets, spec-bound rather than implemented straight off. The request clears the spec-create Phase 0 bar (more than 6 hours, real design uncertainty, cross-cutting, hard to reverse), so it goes through spec-create first instead of landing as a direct workflow edit.
The design questions the spec has to settle, drawn from your notes plus one you couldn't have seen:
- Earlier in this same session a defer-and-stage router landed in process-inbox.org (the new Skeptical Review files a VERIFY that routes shared-asset proposals). Your router is the general case. The spec reconciles the two so wrap-up doesn't grow two competing "move inbox items to todo.org" mechanisms.
- Merge into the existing Inbox sanity check or stay a separate optional router (your lean toward separate is captured).
- The transcript half carries the unresolved source-location dependency and the extract-action-items open question you flagged. Likely splits to vNext so the ready task-routing half isn't held behind it.
- Project-discovery widening, the recommendation-confidence requirement, and the atomic cross-project move helper are all in the task body.
Your proposal is preserved as the spec source at docs/design/. No archsetup-side work, as you noted. I'll surface the spec for your review when it's drafted.
|
