diff options
| author | Craig Jennings <c@cjennings.net> | 2026-05-14 21:44:16 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Craig Jennings <c@cjennings.net> | 2026-05-14 21:44:16 -0500 |
| commit | 372fb766a91e00428abbcc521b26b546e38704c9 (patch) | |
| tree | 3c99d449065c6a231852fc1f6c6e587dd6bc83d2 /hooks | |
| parent | 9f62a7cadf37e3f453efbb0cdf253bcafb1b6393 (diff) | |
| download | rulesets-372fb766a91e00428abbcc521b26b546e38704c9.tar.gz rulesets-372fb766a91e00428abbcc521b26b546e38704c9.zip | |
docs(workflow): add date-coverage scan to the wrap-up flow
New sub-step under Step 3 surfaces [#A] and [#B] tasks in todo.org that have neither DEADLINE: nor SCHEDULED: directly under the heading. Candidates land in the same lint-followups.org the next morning's daily-prep merges in, so the operator reviews them at the start of the day instead of discovering the drift later.
Why both timestamp shapes matter: DEADLINE is external (RFP cutoffs, partner-announced dates, regulatory). SCHEDULED is social (a commitment to surface to the team). The asymmetry drives the promotion rule — DEADLINE inside 7 days auto-promotes to [#A], SCHEDULED passing surfaces for re-eval without auto-promoting. High-priority work carrying neither is suspicious; the scan flags it, the operator decides whether to add a date, drop the priority, or confirm no-date-by-intent.
Inline awk does the scan (no new script). Output appends to the follow-ups file under a dated heading; if no candidates, no append. Conservative: surfaces every candidate, expects false positives to be cheap dismissals.
Counterpart to the DEADLINE-vs-SCHEDULED practice section just added to todo.org's '* Work Priority' header on the work side.
Diffstat (limited to 'hooks')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
