1 files changed, 8 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.ai/workflows/spec-review.org b/.ai/workflows/spec-review.org
index 833dfc9..d4998eb 100644
--- a/.ai/workflows/spec-review.org
+++ b/.ai/workflows/spec-review.org
@@ -50,6 +50,11 @@ Run it *early* — design review exists to catch viability problems and costly m
 
 Before Phase 1, verify the file under review ends with =-spec.org=. Every design, decision, or planning document under a project's =docs/= directory carries that suffix as its identifier. The =.org= extension alone is not enough because =docs/= holds non-spec org files too (tutorials, frozen inventories, reference material).
 
+*Location expectation (docs-lifecycle convention).* Formal specs live in =docs/specs/=. Whether that's enforced depends on whether the project has run its one-time =spec-sort= retrofit:
+
+- =:LAST_SPEC_SORT:= present in =.ai/notes.org= Workflow State → the project has sorted; a =-spec.org= file outside =docs/specs/= fails this precondition. Surface it: "this spec sits outside docs/specs/ — move it (and update inbound links) before review."
+- Marker absent → legacy locations (=docs/= root, =docs/design/=) stay reviewable; add one nudge line to the review output ("this project's docs pile has never been spec-sorted — say 'run spec-sort' to sort it") and proceed. No legacy spec is ever unreviewable during the transition.
+
 If the file does not end with =-spec.org=, stop immediately and surface the mismatch:
 
 #+begin_example
@@ -128,6 +133,7 @@ Work the spec against these. Each is a source of concrete findings, not a box to
 - *Performance & scale.* Expected counts (issues/comments/labels/teams/projects/views)? Server-side filtering where possible? Bounded, visible pagination? Cached name→ID lookups? Sync calls in the command path acceptable? Could a save hook or whole-file scan make N network calls? Rendering linear? Full-file rewrites avoided? Long-running operations async/cancellable/observable? Is concurrency/queueing/backpressure defined? Are high-output process filters throttled and cheap? Is progress/ETA exposed only when defensible, and are hung/stalled operations detectable and killable? Identify UI freezes, repeated network calls, unbounded pagination — without premature optimization.
 - *Security & privacy.* API keys safe? Debug logs leaking secrets or private issue text? Confirmations before mutating shared workspace objects? Personal vs shared distinguished? Local files holding sensitive descriptions/comments? Anything to redact from messages/logs? Any work-tracker integration may handle private company data.
 - *UX & accessibility.* Discoverable commands? Recoverable mistakes? Prompts ordered to the task? Safe, useful defaults? Informative-not-noisy status messages? Does the UI avoid implying unsupported actions are supported? Match the upstream product's permissions/concepts? Are customizations named in user language, with clear defaults and docstrings? For Emacs packages, command names, completion candidates, buffer layout, defcustom names, and message wording *are* the UX.
+- *Operational-panel UI traps.* Applies when the spec covers a user-facing panel, dialog, or control surface; skip otherwise. Lists that mix saved, current, and generated items must name each item's source. Refresh or scan actions must not gate data that could be shown immediately. Add-forms must not ask the user to retype values the system already discovered. Destructive confirmations read in future tense before the action and verified-result tense after it. Diagnostics, performance, logging, and repair affordances are reviewed as one coherent flow before extra pages or buttons are added. A popup launched from a bar, tray, or tool surface should visually belong to that launcher. (Promoted from archsetup's Waybar network-panel review, 2026-06-30.)
 - *Test strategy and coverage.* Characterization tests before behavior changes? Pure functions to unit-test? API responses needing fixtures? Command flows needing stubs? Regression tests for prior bugs? Boundary/error cases? What's covered elsewhere and shouldn't be re-tested? Which existing tests must change? How is coverage generated, summarized, and used to find untested/refactor-worthy code? Prefer tests that lock contracts: representation shape, query compilation, sync no-op, conflict refusal, pagination, dirty-buffer protection, log redaction, and long-running/slow-operation behavior via fakes rather than flaky live dependencies.
 - *Observability & operations.* How does a user see what the package is doing? Progress messages for long ops? Useful, safe debug logging? Are logs structured enough to isolate issues from a bug report? Are commands provided to inspect/clear caches, test connectivity, diagnose backends/tools, copy redacted debug info, or reproduce command invocations? How are terminal states discovered: completion, failure, partial success, stalled/hung, cancelled, cleanup-unverified, and "needs user action"? Does the product notify only when useful, avoid noisy success spam, and keep non-success states visible until acknowledged? For generated org files, headers should often carry source, filter/view name, refresh time, count, truncation state.
 - *Comparable-product sentiment.* When there are obvious adjacent products, research what users love and hate about them from official docs plus current community reports. Do not cargo-cult their feature set; translate findings into the spec's scope. For each loved behavior, say whether the spec provides it, intentionally omits it, or defers it. For each hated behavior, say whether the spec avoids, resolves, inherits, or accepts it.
@@ -166,6 +172,8 @@ Assign one label consistently:
 
 The most useful reviews move a spec from =Not ready= to =Ready with caveats= or =Ready= once decisions are captured.
 
+*The =Ready= verdict flips the spec's lifecycle status.* spec-review owns the =DRAFT= → =READY= transition (docs-lifecycle convention): on assigning =Ready= (or =Ready with caveats= the author accepts), update the spec's top-level status heading keyword to =READY=, add a dated history line under it naming the review that passed, and set the Metadata =Status= mirror to =ready= — three lines, one file. Any other rubric label leaves the keyword where it stands (a re-review that finds new blockers on a =READY= spec demotes it back to =DRAFT= the same three-line way, with the reason in the history line).
+
 Finding severity maps to blocking power: *high-priority findings block =Ready=* — they hold the rubric at =Not ready= (or =Ready with caveats= if the author accepts and tracks them) until dispositioned; *medium-priority findings are the author's discretion* and don't block. State the blocking status on each finding so the author running spec-response knows which ones gate the rubric.
 
 Then update the spec's review history. Specs should carry a bottom section named =Review and iteration history= (or the nearest existing equivalent) that tracks each material author/reviewer pass. Add a concise entry for this review even when the spec is ready and no findings are recorded.