Claude Code skills, rules, and language bundles https://git.cjennings.net/rulesets/atom?h=main 2026-06-15T15:36:22+00:00 2026-06-15T15:36:22+00:00 Craig Jennings c@cjennings.net 2026-06-15T15:36:22+00:00 urn:sha1:edb545db727861f21052ca5111db1d949ebf030a Redefine "monitor the inbox" as the explicit behavior Craig wants: run one process-inbox pass now, then loop process-inbox every 15 minutes. The 15-minute loop was previously an opt-in background recipe; it's now the defined meaning of the phrase. Gate the workflow at both ends on a clean worktree and a green full-suite run. Starting on a dirty tree lets the per-item auto-commit sweep up unrelated changes; starting on a red suite hides whether the monitor broke anything. On a dirty tree, offer to commit in discrete batches; on a red suite, offer to investigate — never start until both are satisfied, and leave the tree clean and green when the loop stops. Add the no-approvals execute criteria: an accepted item self-applies only when agreed (passed the value gate and Skeptical Review), quick (under ~15 min including verification), and solo (no decision needed from Craig). All three commit and push at the end of the item; miss any and it files or, for shared-asset and convention changes, parks. Broaden the Skeptical Review to run on every arriving task and file, not only shared-asset proposals — a core right/complete/simpler pass on everything, with the cross-project battery added for changes that sync to consuming projects. 2026-06-13T01:04:05+00:00 Craig Jennings c@cjennings.net 2026-06-13T01:04:05+00:00 urn:sha1:19829305721a327d07b6fe5b6dfba5bf34c8ed37 The value gate asks whether to take an inbox item, never whether the proposed change is right. process-inbox gains a Skeptical Review for proposals that change shared assets: a written question battery (fit for all consumers, conflicts elsewhere, effect on common activities, enhancement, simplification, plus at least three change-specific questions), ending in a summary and recommendation Craig approves before the change lands. In a no-approvals session, behavior-changing proposals park instead of self-applying: prepared diff in working/, a [#B] VERIFY carrying the decision package, a reply to the sender. Wording-only fixes proceed, logged. monitor-inbox's act-vs-file rule and protocols.org's act-now line gain the matching exception so all three statements of the rule agree. protocols.org's tables picked up the org-table-standard reflow in the same pass. The motivating case is today's spec-decisions handoff. I applied it as-is, and the after-the-fact review surfaced a lost state and a vacuous gate pass the battery would have caught up front. 2026-05-31T05:07:03+00:00 Craig Jennings c@cjennings.net 2026-05-31T05:07:03+00:00 urn:sha1:8c0eca8375db2c2d346f5fd08ac752209349f94e Handoffs that arrive mid-session used to sit unseen until the next startup or a manual check. Today's burst of cross-project handoffs made that gap obvious. I added monitor-inbox.org, the cadence-and-decision layer over process-inbox: check the inbox at every task boundary, decide act-now (just do it) versus file (ask, with filing as option 1), and reply to the sender. An opt-in background-monitor /loop recipe covers unattended watching. inbox-status (with bats tests) is the cheap check the cadence calls. It lists unprocessed handoffs and exits nonzero when any are pending, using the same artifact exclusions as the wrap-up sanity check. protocols.org gets a short cadence note so the habit fires every session, and INDEX.org lists the new workflow. The act-vs-file rule (act-now is silent, filing asks with file as option 1, ambiguity asks) is the decision protocol we settled today.