chore(ai): archive session record

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 172 deletions

diff --git a/.ai/session-context.org b/.ai/session-context.org
deleted file mode 100644
index c15f4ad..0000000
--- a/.ai/session-context.org
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,172 +0,0 @@
-#+TITLE: Session Context
-#+DATE: 2026-05-28
-
-* Summary
-
-** Active Goal
-
-** Decisions
-
-** Data Collected / Findings
-
-** Files Modified
-
-** Next Steps
-
-* Session Log
-
-** 2026-05-28 00:55 CDT — Startup + inbox triage
-
-Clean startup (no crash-recovery file). Rulesets + project repo current, templates synced, no reminders/pending decisions, task-review staleness 0, language bundle clean (no bundle in rulesets), cross-agent queue empty.
-
-Inbox held 4 files:
-1. pearl handoff 2026-05-27 23:31 — UI pattern standardization meta-question (cross-project pattern travel)
-2. pearl follow-up 2026-05-28 00:03 — third worked example (no-empty-input-as-meaningful)
-3. .emacs.d suggestion 2026-05-28 00:14 — add "recommendation at item 1" convention to interaction.md
-4. Codex spec 2026-05-28 — generic agent runtime support v0 (runtime-neutral rulesets)
-
-Craig chose option 1: process item 3 now (small, scoped, has proposed wording), file the rest as tasks before starting.
-
-** 2026-05-28 01:10 CDT — Filed remainder as tasks
-
-Moved 3 inbox files into docs/design/ so the task bodies' file: links survive:
-- inbox/2026-05-28-generic-agent-runtime-spec.org → docs/design/2026-05-28-generic-agent-runtime-spec.org
-- inbox/2026-05-27-2331-from-pearl-rulesets-handoff-ui-patterns.org → docs/design/2026-05-27-pattern-catalog-pearl-notes.org
-- inbox/2026-05-28-0003-from-pearl-rulesets-followup-no-empty-input.org → docs/design/2026-05-28-pattern-catalog-no-empty-input.org
-
-Added two TODOs to todo.org under Rulesets Open Work, both [#C], both LAST_REVIEWED 2026-05-28:
-- Cross-project pattern catalog :spec:thinking: — pairs the two pearl handoffs; open design questions captured; pearl available for spec-review iterations.
-- Generic agent runtime support — Codex spec v0 :spec:design: — links to moved spec; flags Codex's recommended Phase 1 (AI_AGENT_ID + session-context.d/) as the immediate-correctness slice independent of the broader refactor.
-
-Staleness still 0 after the additions. Mid-session inbox arrival noted but not processed: 2026-05-28-reconstruct-spec-workflow-history.org (1170 bytes, flagged for end-of-session or next inbox cycle).
-
-Next: implement the .emacs.d suggestion — add "Order Options with the Recommendation at Item 1" section to claude-rules/interaction.md (Craig pre-approved the draft).
-
-** 2026-05-28 01:30 CDT — No-approvals mode + three commits pushed
-
-Craig invoked no-approvals mode: no per-commit approval gates for the remainder of the session, /review-code and /voice personal still mandatory, stop only on a real question (recommendation as item 1) or when done. Craig asked me to create .ai/project-workflows/no-approvals.org capturing this contract, then follow it.
-
-While I was preparing the interaction.md edit, Craig himself added the "Order options with the recommendation at item 1" subsection — as an H3 inside the existing "No Popup Menus for Choices" section (better placement than my proposed H2). Wording covers the same trigger/skip/last-option ground; I committed his edit verbatim. The .emacs.d inbox file was deleted as processed.
-
-Three commits, all pushed to origin/main (adce315..96f0a5f):
-- e27bf57 feat(workflows): add no-approvals.org project workflow
-- 1777773 docs(rules): add recommendation-at-item-1 convention to interaction.md
-- 96f0a5f chore(intake): file pearl pattern-catalog and codex runtime spec as TODOs
-
-Each ran /review-code (all Approve, no Critical/Important) and /voice personal walked inline (clean — no em-dashes, semicolons, fragments).
-
-** 2026-05-28 01:35 CDT — Surfacing question: org-drill inbox vs Craig's WIP
-
-Read the inbox arrival 2026-05-28-reconstruct-spec-workflow-history.org (org-drill asking whether rulesets can backfill iteration-history sections for the spec-review/spec-response workflow files themselves, using rulesets' session history as evidence). Discovered the request directly overlaps Craig's uncommitted WIP — he is currently adding the "Review and iteration history" REQUIREMENT to both workflow files (spec-review.org +18 lines establishing the section spec; spec-response.org +26 lines adding the same on the response side; open-tasks.org +62 lines on a separate friction-cascade restructure).
-
-The org-drill backfill request can't ride on top of in-flight requirement work without conflict. Surfacing as a real question for Craig: defer, do alongside, or skip.
-
-Inbox not touched (file still present); Craig's WIP untouched.
-
-** 2026-05-28 01:36 CDT — Craig picked option 1; filed as TODO + pushed
-
-Filed the org-drill backfill request as ** TODO [#C] under Rulesets Open Work, tagged :docs:followup:, with the dependency on Craig's WIP committal explicitly stated. Deleted the inbox file. LAST_REVIEWED 2026-05-28, staleness still 0.
-
-Commit 80775e7 chore(intake): file org-drill iteration-history backfill as TODO. /review-code Approve, /voice personal walked clean. Pushed to origin/main (96f0a5f..80775e7).
-
-Another inbox arrival mid-stream noted but untouched: 2026-05-28-0124-from-.emacs.d-suggestion-whats-next-auto-considers-task-audit.org (6036 bytes). Out of scope for this turn — Craig's directive was scoped to the org-drill request.
-
-Planned work is fully done (4 commits this session, all pushed). Not auto-wrapping per the no-approvals contract — wrap-up stays Craig's call.
-
-** 2026-05-28 01:50 CDT — Iteration-history backfill phases 1-4 (read-only research + draft)
-
-Craig asked "as you recommend" for the iteration-history backfill TODO. Ran phases 1-4 (read-only research + drafting) without touching the workflow files.
-
-Evidence base assembled:
-- git log --follow on both workflow files: one commit each (7f2aea1, 2026-05-23)
-- Full body of 7f2aea1 (rich provenance — names all 5 tightening edits, the 3 research subagents, the close-read findings)
-- Session record .ai/sessions/2026-05-24-03-10-spec-workflows-memory-sync-and-ai-kb-reviews.org (contains both the install pass AND the cross-project ai-kb application that validated the loop)
-- INDEX entries
-- Craig's current uncommitted WIP via git diff (the 2026-05-28 Iteration-3 requirement addition)
-
-Three iterations identified per file, all gathered with confidence ratings (HIGH where commit/session-backed, INFERRED on the original drafts' "why" pressure + the trigger sequencing for Iteration 3). Plus cross-project applications noted as deployment evidence but flagged as belonging in ai-kb.org's own history, not these workflow files'.
-
-Output: working/spec-workflows-iteration-history-backfill/draft-entries.org (untracked). Includes draft entries for both files, evidence base, confidence ratings, a recommendation to splice once WIP commits, suggested splice plan, and 4 open questions for Craig (labeling convention, section placement, granularity, INFERRED-line treatment).
-
-Phases 5-6 await Craig's judgment + WIP commit. Working dir not committed (per working-files convention — it ships flat into the workflow files on completion, dir gets deleted).
-
-** 2026-05-28 01:55 CDT — Handoff confirmed; standing by
-
-Craig picked option 1: he reviews the draft entries + answers the 4 open questions + commits his WIP, then I splice (single follow-up commit, working dir deleted). Standing by — nothing else queued.
-
-** 2026-05-28 02:40 CDT — Codex review came back; spec-response cycle complete
-
-Craig handed off to Codex for review of draft-entries.org. Codex's review file landed at working/spec-workflows-iteration-history-backfill/draft-entries-review.org (verdict: Not ready; two blocking findings on correctness).
-
-Ran the spec-response workflow against it:
-- Phase 0: oriented on the working draft + review file
-- Phase 1: read the whole review before touching the spec
-- Phase 2: dispositions assigned to every finding (5 accepts; 2 modified to preserve original-draft detail Codex's rewrites had compressed out)
-- Phase 3: N/A (single spec under review)
-- Phase 4: applied edits to draft-entries.org — fixed both blocking correctness issues (spec-review Iteration 2 split; spec-response Iteration 2 "Three edits" with file-specific content), added Codex's two medium points and the UX trim guidance to the splice plan, added a Review-dispositions section + a Review-and-iteration-history section (Draft 1 / Review 1 / Response 1)
-- Phase 5: deleted the review file per workflow exit criterion; updating session log now
-
-Verdict: Ready-with-caveats. The 4 open questions for Craig remain (iteration labeling, section placement, granularity, INFERRED-line treatment) — those are the caveats. Both blocking correctness issues resolved.
-
-Working dir state: just draft-entries.org. Still uncommitted (working files don't ship until splice). Codex's review file deleted per spec-response Phase 5.
-
-Next: Craig answers the 4 open questions + commits his WIP. Then phase 6 splice + working dir cleanup + single commit.
-
-** 2026-05-28 02:55 CDT — Codex Round 2; spec-response cycle round 2
-
-Codex re-reviewed the post-Response-1 draft. Verdict: Ready-with-caveats. No high or medium findings. Three accepts (optional INDEX path polish; test-strategy verification steps for splice closure; canonical/mirror distinction stays).
-
-Spec-response cycle round 2:
-- Applied the INDEX path polish in the evidence list
-- Added item 6 to the splice plan covering the three verification steps Codex named (7-field check per entry, canonical/mirror diff, git-diff-scope confirmation)
-- Renamed "Codex review 2026-05-28" → "Codex Review 1" in dispositions for symmetry; added a "Codex Review 2" disposition section
-- Added Review 2 + Response 2 entries to the Review-and-iteration-history section
-- Deleted the round-2 review file per spec-response Phase 5
-
-Status unchanged: Ready-with-caveats. The 4 open questions for Craig remain the only caveats — no further reviewer-discoverable issues expected.
-
-** 2026-05-28 03:13 CDT — All 4 open questions answered; Response 3 applied
-
-Walked Craig through the 4 open questions one by one. His answers:
-
-1. *Labeling:* compound-id heading "timestamp — contributor — role". Rejected sequence labels (Draft 1, Review 1, etc.) on the grounds that sequence implies ordering it can't reliably carry under branching. Compound id is opaque — nothing more should be read into it.
-2. *Placement:* literal bottom of each file.
-3. *Iteration 2 granularity:* combined "reviewer + responder" entry — honest to single-pass evidence.
-4. *INFERRED whys:* replaced with direct rationale. Iteration 1 (linear-emacs drafts) was motivated by division-of-labor by comparative advantage (Craig's time on user scenarios + direction-setting; agents on structured technical review). Iteration 3 (requirement addition) was motivated by needing scannable processing state inside spec content — file mtime / created-time was the only signal, silly and error-prone.
-
-Response 3 applied all 4 answers to the draft:
-- Restructured 6 entries (3 iterations × 2 files) to compound-id heading shape
-- Updated top-of-file entry-shape description to match
-- Flagged that Craig's uncommitted WIP entry-shape requirement needs a small adjustment to match (drop Iteration + Date as separate body fields; the heading-as-compound-id covers them)
-- Renamed Open Questions → Agreed Decisions, with each resolution recorded
-- Added a Response 3 history entry inside the draft's own iteration history
-- Iteration 3 timestamps remain placeholders ([commit-time pending]) until WIP lands
-
-Draft status: Ready. Pending only: Craig's WIP commit + .ai/ mirror sync, then splice into the two workflow files. Splice plan items 1-6 in the draft cover the splice procedure including the 7-field check (now compound-id-heading + 3 body fields), canonical-vs-mirror diff verification, and intended-files-only check.
-
-** 2026-05-28 03:25 CDT — Craig delegated commit + splice; two commits pushed
-
-Craig: "commit the changes for me please. then splice the iteration history into both files."
-
-Executed both. Open-tasks.org left uncommitted per scope (Craig's separate WIP, not part of the iteration-history work).
-
-Commit A — 55adf6e feat(workflows): add iteration-history requirement to spec workflows:
-- Entry-shape adjustment in both canonical workflow files: replaced the old list (Iteration / Date / Contributor / Role / What / Why / Artifacts as separate body fields) with the compound-id form Craig settled (heading-as-timestamp+contributor+role + 3 body fields)
-- Rsynced canonical → mirror so both copies byte-identical
-- 4 files staged: claude-templates/.ai/workflows/{spec-review,spec-response}.org + .ai/workflows/{spec-review,spec-response}.org
-- /review-code Approve, /voice personal walked clean
-- Pushed (e83e323..55adf6e)
-
-Commit B — 684b273 feat(workflows): backfill iteration history in spec workflows:
-- Added new "* Review and iteration history" section at literal bottom of both canonical workflow files (after Research notes on spec-review.org; after Updates and Learnings on spec-response.org)
-- Each file got 4 entries: Draft 1 (linear-emacs, 2026-05-23 placeholder), Review-and-Fold (7f2aea1, 2026-05-23 12:59:31), Requirement addition (55adf6e, 2026-05-28 03:22:25), This backfill (2026-05-28 03:23:01)
-- Rsynced canonical → mirror, byte-identical
-- Deleted the working/spec-workflows-iteration-history-backfill/ directory and its parent (empty)
-- Closed the org-drill backfill TODO in todo.org (DONE [#C], CLOSED [2026-05-28 Thu])
-- 5 files staged: 4 workflow files + todo.org
-- /review-code Approve, /voice personal walked clean
-- Pushed (55adf6e..684b273)
-
-Verification: =diff -u= canonical vs mirror confirmed byte-identical on both files in both commits. =git diff= scope confirmed only intended files (no incidental working notes). 7-field entry-shape — actually 4 with the compound-id reform — present in every entry across both files.
-
-org-drill backfill TODO complete. Open-tasks.org WIP still uncommitted (Craig's separate change). Iteration-history requirement now live in both workflow files plus mirror; future spec reviews under either workflow will add their own entries per the new requirement.