diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org | 111 |
1 files changed, 74 insertions, 37 deletions
diff --git a/docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org b/docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org index 0091806..434f8d9 100644 --- a/docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org +++ b/docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ #+TODO: TODO | DONE SUPERSEDED CANCELLED * Metadata -| Status | ready for review | +| Status | Ready — review incorporated (spec-review, 2026-06-21) | |----------+-----------------------------------------------------| | Owner | Craig Jennings | |----------+-----------------------------------------------------| @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ * Summary -At wrap-up, an inbox handoff that belongs to another project has nowhere to go but the current project's =todo.org= or a deferral. This adds an optional routing step to =wrap-it-up.org=: surface the items that belong elsewhere, recommend a destination project for each, and move the whole batch there on one confirmation. A parallel step files meeting-transcript recordings into the right project's =assets/=. +At wrap-up, an inbox handoff that belongs to another project, once accepted and filed locally, has no clean home in the current project's =todo.org=. This adds an optional routing step to =wrap-it-up.org=: surface the filed keepers whose home is elsewhere, recommend a destination for each, and on one confirmation deliver each to that project's =inbox/= via =inbox-send= (one handoff per task), removing it from the local =todo.org=. The destination's own next session files it through =process-inbox=, applying that project's value gate, priority scheme, and =todo-format.md=. A parallel step (vNext) files meeting-transcript recordings into the right project's =assets/=. * Problem / Context @@ -30,11 +30,11 @@ The friction is small per-item but recurring, and the manual cross-project edit * Goals and Non-Goals ** Goals -- At wrap-up, surface inbox items (and transcripts) whose home is a different project, with a recommended destination each. -- Move the whole batch on one confirmation ("go with recommendations") or leave it entirely ("skip"). No per-item triage. -- Move a task/event item as a proper org task into the destination's "Open Work" section per =todo-format.md=; move a transcript as a flat-filed artifact per =working-files.md=. -- Keep the move atomic and visible (it shows in the destination's next git diff, with a provenance note). -- Discover any project with a =todo.org= as a candidate destination, not only =.ai/= projects. +- At wrap-up, surface filed keepers whose home is a different project, with a recommended destination each. +- Route the whole batch on one confirmation ("go with recommendations") or leave it entirely ("skip"). No per-item triage. +- Deliver each routable keeper to the destination's =inbox/= via =inbox-send=, one handoff per task, and remove the keeper from the local =todo.org= on send. The destination files it through its own =process-inbox=. +- Provenance is automatic: =inbox-send= stamps the source project and date on every handoff (the =from-<source>= filename and =#+SOURCE:= line). The delivery shows in the destination inbox; the removal shows in the source's git diff. +- The destination set is any project with an =inbox/= — reuse =inbox-send='s existing discovery. ** Non-Goals - Not a wrap gate. A skip is a clean, complete wrap. @@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ The friction is small per-item but recurring, and the manual cross-project edit - Not a confidence-free auto-mover. A low-confidence destination recommendation says so, and the batch "go" stays trustworthy because the surfaced list is reviewable before the keystroke. ** Scope tiers -- v1: task/event routing to a destination project's =todo.org=. The interaction, the recommendation engine, the atomic move helper, the widened project discovery. -- Out of scope: per-item destination editing, an interactive correction loop, moving items that aren't accepted keepers. +- v1: task/event routing by =inbox-send= delivery to the destination's =inbox/=. The interaction, the recommendation engine, the candidate-set marker stamped at file time, reusing =inbox-send='s discovery and delivery. +- Out of scope: per-item destination editing, an interactive correction loop, moving items that aren't accepted keepers, a new cross-repo =todo.org= move primitive (the superseded direct-move design). - vNext: meeting-transcript filing (gated on the unresolved source-location decision and the file-vs-file+extract question — see Decisions). * Design @@ -53,26 +53,26 @@ The friction is small per-item but recurring, and the manual cross-project edit The router is a new sub-step of =wrap-it-up.org='s Step 3, running after the existing inbox sanity check. Its input is filed keepers, not raw inbox files (decision: Reading B): tasks =process-inbox= accepted and filed into the local =todo.org= this session whose inferred home is a different project. When the router finds such a keeper, it surfaces it in a list, one line each: the task, the recommended destination project, and a confidence marker when the inference is weak. Then two options, batch-level: -1. Go with the recommendations — apply every recommended move. +1. Go with the recommendations — route every recommended item (inbox-send to the destination + local removal). 2. Skip — leave the whole batch in place. A skip is a clean wrap. That is the entire interaction. No per-item walk. The surfaced list is the review surface; the single keystroke is trustworthy because the list was reviewable and low-confidence recommendations flagged themselves. -A move of a task/event relocates it into the destination project's "Open Work" section as a proper org task (terse heading, body for detail, tags on the heading line, per =todo-format.md=), and removes it from the source. A skipped or unroutable item stays where it is; the existing sanity check still governs whether the wrap is clean. +On "go", each routable keeper is delivered to its recommended destination's =inbox/= via =inbox-send= (one handoff per task) and removed from the local =todo.org=; the destination's own next session files it through =process-inbox=. A skipped or no-match item stays where it is; the existing sanity check still governs whether the wrap is clean. ** Implementer (the mechanics) -*Candidate set (what the router considers).* Reading B means the router does not scan the whole local backlog — it would otherwise suggest moving legitimate local tasks every wrap. The candidate set is keepers =process-inbox= filed this session whose inferred home differs from the current project. How those are marked is an implementation detail for Phase 3/4: either =process-inbox= tags a cross-project-candidate keeper at file time, or the router infers from a =CREATED= stamp dated this session plus content. The reviewer should pin which; the design constraint is "session-filed inbox keepers only, never the standing backlog." +*Candidate set (what the router considers).* Reading B means the router does not scan the whole local backlog — it would otherwise suggest moving legitimate local tasks every wrap. The candidate set is keepers =process-inbox= filed this session whose inferred home differs from the current project, identified by a marker stamped at file time (decision D8): =process-inbox='s "file as TODO" step stamps =:ROUTE_CANDIDATE: <inferred-project>= on any keeper whose inferred home is not the current project. At wrap, the router's candidate set is exactly the local tasks carrying that property — never the standing backlog. -*Destination discovery.* Widen the project-discovery filter from "directory with a =.ai/protocols.org= marker" (what =inbox-send.py= and the =ai= launcher use) to "directory with a =todo.org= containing a level-1 'Open Work' heading." A plain code repo Craig keeps a =todo.org= in is a valid destination; an =.ai/= directory is not required. +*Destination discovery.* Reuse =inbox-send.py='s existing =discover_projects= (a project is a directory with =.ai/= AND =inbox/=). The destination must have an =inbox/= to receive a handoff, so that is the natural destination set — no new discovery code. A project with a =todo.org= but no =inbox/= cannot receive an inbox handoff and must be bootstrapped first; in practice every active project has an =inbox/=. -*Destination anchor.* Reuse =todo-cleanup.el='s existing matcher: =tc--find-section= locates the unique level-1 heading containing "Open Work" (case-insensitive) and returns =nil= / ='multiple= when absent or ambiguous. A destination whose =todo.org= lacks a clean Open Work heading is surfaced and skipped, never guessed at. +*Delivery.* For each candidate, on "go": (1) =inbox-send <destination> --file= a one-task handoff into the destination's =inbox/= (one file per task, so the destination's =process-inbox= dispositions it as a single item), then (2) remove the keeper from the local =todo.org=. Step 1 is a cross-project write, but it uses the =cross-project.md=-sanctioned path (dropping a file in another project's inbox needs no confirmation); step 2 is a single-file edit in the current project's own =todo.org=, which the wrap is already committing. No new cross-repo move primitive, no foreign =todo.org= edit. -*The move helper.* A small tool inserts a task subtree under a named project's "Open Work" heading and removes the source atomically — extend =todo-cleanup.el= (it already owns the section matcher and the subtree-move logic for =--archive-done=) or add a sibling =.ai/scripts= tool. Hand-editing across two repos is the error-prone path this replaces. +*Provenance and filing.* =inbox-send= stamps the source and date automatically (=from-<source>= filename + =#+SOURCE:= line), so the destination's session knows where the item came from. That session files it through its own =process-inbox= — value gate, priority scheme, =todo-format.md= — so the task lands per the destination's conventions rather than as an externally-authored insertion. -*Recommendation engine.* Infer the destination from the item's content — project names, file paths, topic words — matched against the discovered project list. Conservative by design: a weak match is labeled low-confidence so "go" stays a safe single keystroke. The engine is the interesting, uncertain part; it earns the spec. +*Recovery (mis-route).* If the recommendation engine picks a wrong destination, the receiving session rejects it via =process-inbox='s reject-from-another-project flow (write a response, =inbox-send= it back to the source named in the provenance, delete the local copy). The task returns to the source project's inbox; nothing is lost or corrupted. This is why removing the source on send is safe — the reject path is the undo. -*Cross-project write discipline.* Moving an item into project X's =todo.org= writes into X's scope (=cross-project.md=). The batch "go" authorizes it, but the move stays visible (X's next git diff) and leaves a one-line provenance note on the moved task naming the source project. +*Recommendation engine.* Infer the destination from the item's content — project names, file paths, topic words — matched against the discovered project list, with a confidence tier: *strong* = a destination project's name or path appears literally in the item; *weak* = topic-word overlap only; *none* = no match, the item stays put and is never surfaced as a route. "Go" routes strong and weak items (weak visibly labeled); a no-match item is left in place. Pure function =(item, project-list) → (destination, confidence)=, unit-tested directly. The engine is the interesting, uncertain part; it earns the spec. * Alternatives Considered @@ -91,22 +91,22 @@ A move of a task/event relocates it into the destination project's "Open Work" s - Bad, because =process-inbox= runs per-item mid-session against the local project; the router runs at wrap, batch-level, cross-project. Different cadence, different scope. - Neutral, because both ultimately call the same atomic move helper — the helper is the shared primitive, the two callers stay distinct. -* Decisions [6/6] +* Decisions [9/9] ** DONE Reuse the Open Work matcher for destination anchoring - Context: the move needs a reliable insertion point in the destination =todo.org=; guessing risks corrupting another project's file. - Decision: We will reuse =todo-cleanup.el='s =tc--find-section "open work"= matcher, which already handles the unique / missing / ambiguous cases, and skip+surface any destination without a clean Open Work heading. - Consequences: easier — no new parser, consistent with =--archive-done=. Harder — destinations must carry the "Open Work" heading convention, so a project with a differently-named section is silently unroutable until it conforms. -** DONE Move atomically through a helper, never hand-edit two repos +** SUPERSEDED Move atomically through a helper, never hand-edit two repos +Superseded 2026-06-21 by "Deliver via inbox-send" below. The original plan built a new atomic helper to insert a subtree into a foreign =todo.org= and remove the source. The inbox-route delivers the keeper to the destination's inbox instead, so no cross-repo move primitive is built. - Context: a move touches two files in two repos; a half-done move loses or duplicates a task. -- Decision: We will route every move through one helper (extend =todo-cleanup.el= or a sibling =.ai/scripts= tool) that inserts under the destination's Open Work heading and removes the source as one operation. -- Consequences: easier — no partial-move corruption, one place to test. Harder — a new helper to build and cover with tests before the router can ship. +- Decision (superseded): route every move through one helper that inserts under the destination's Open Work heading and removes the source as one operation. -** DONE Cross-project writes stay visible and carry provenance +** SUPERSEDED Cross-project writes stay visible and carry provenance +Superseded 2026-06-21 by "Deliver via inbox-send" below. =inbox-send= already stamps provenance (=from-<source>= filename + =#+SOURCE:= line), so the hand-stamped note is unnecessary; the destination files the item through its own gate rather than receiving an externally-authored insertion. - Context: writing into another project's =todo.org= crosses the =cross-project.md= scope boundary. -- Decision: We will treat the batch "go" as the authorization, leave the move visible in the destination's git diff, and stamp a one-line provenance note (source project + date) on each moved task. -- Consequences: easier — the boundary rule is honored without a per-move prompt. Harder — the destination's next session sees an externally-authored task it didn't file, so the provenance note is load-bearing, not decorative. +- Decision (superseded): treat the batch "go" as authorization, leave the move visible in the destination's git diff, and stamp a one-line provenance note on each moved task. ** DONE Separate router step, operating on filed keepers (Reading B) - Context: the sanity check gates the wrap on inbox/ contents; the router is optional. The deeper question was the router's input — raw inbox files (Reading A, which overlaps the sanity check) or already-filed keepers that belong elsewhere (Reading B, a todo-routing concern). @@ -123,31 +123,50 @@ A move of a task/event relocates it into the destination project's "Open Work" s - Decision: We will keep them distinct. Defer-and-stage parks a proposal-under-review locally as a VERIFY; the router moves an accepted keeper to its home project as a TODO. They differ on review status (proposal vs accepted) and destination (local vs cross-project), and share only the atomic move helper, not the policy. Reading B makes the split clean: the router acts on accepted keepers, never on proposals under review. - Consequences: easier — two clear, non-competing policies on one shared primitive. Harder — the workflow prose must name the boundary so a future reader doesn't collapse them and reintroduce the ambiguity. +** DONE Deliver via inbox-send to the destination's inbox, not a direct todo.org move (supersedes D2/D3) +- Owner / by-when: Craig / ratified 2026-06-21 (spec-response) +- Context: D2/D3 built a new atomic helper that edits a foreign =todo.org= and removes the source, with a hand-stamped provenance note. =inbox-send= + =process-inbox= already do cross-project delivery: inbox-send writes the handoff with =from-<source>= provenance, and the destination's process-inbox files it through that project's own gate. =cross-project.md= names the inbox as the sanctioned cross-scope write path. A verified precondition reversed the old assumption — some projects have =inbox/= but no =todo.org=, so direct-move's discovery silently drops keepers headed there while inbox-route delivers. +- Decision: We will route each keeper by =inbox-send= into the destination's =inbox/= (one handoff per task) and let the destination's own =process-inbox= file it; we will not edit the destination's =todo.org= directly. D2 (atomic move helper) and D3 (hand-stamped provenance) are superseded — the helper isn't built, and provenance is inbox-send's by construction. +- Consequences: easier — no new cross-repo write primitive, no foreign-tracker corruption risk, provenance and per-project filing for free, graceful when the destination lacks a =todo.org=. Harder — filing is deferred to the destination's next session (self-resolving, since startup auto-runs =process-inbox= on a non-empty inbox), and a project never opened accumulates a visible inbox backlog rather than a silent foreign insertion. + +** DONE Candidate-set marking: tag :ROUTE_CANDIDATE: at process-inbox file time (Option A) +- Owner / by-when: Craig / ratified 2026-06-21 (spec-response) +- Context: the router must consider only this-session-filed inbox keepers whose home is elsewhere, never the standing backlog. Two options: tag at file time (process-inbox stamps a marker) or infer from a =CREATED=-this-session stamp + content. =process-inbox= does not stamp =:CREATED:= today, so the inference option would need that paired edit anyway, removing its only advantage. +- Decision: We will tag at file time. =process-inbox='s "file as TODO" step stamps =:ROUTE_CANDIDATE: <inferred-project>= on any keeper whose inferred home differs from the current project; the router's candidate set is the local tasks carrying it. +- Consequences: easier — precise (zero standing-backlog false positives), the inference happens once where context is richest, and the marker doubles as the router's "go" trigger. Harder — a paired edit to =process-inbox.org= Phase D ships coupled with the router. + +** DONE Source removal is a local todo.org edit on send; recovery via the reject flow +- Owner / by-when: Craig / ratified 2026-06-21 (spec-response) +- Context: the review left source-handling vague ("leave the source until the destination confirms by filing"), but there is no confirmation callback, so leaving it duplicates the task once the destination files. The keeper was filed into the *current* project this session and doesn't belong there. +- Decision: On "go" we will remove the routed keeper from the *current* project's =todo.org= (a local single-file edit, not a cross-repo write) right after the =inbox-send=. If the destination rejects the handoff, =process-inbox='s reject-from-another-project flow returns it to the source's inbox, so the removal is reversible. +- Consequences: easier — no duplication, the only deletion is from a file we own and are already committing, the reject path is the undo. Harder — a brief window exists where the task lives only as an in-flight inbox handoff (between send and the destination's filing); acceptable because the handoff file is durable and the reject path recovers a mis-route. + * Implementation phases -** Phase 1 — Widened project discovery -A discovery function returning every project with a =todo.org= that has a clean Open Work heading, reusing =tc--find-section=. Unit-tested against fixtures: =.ai/= project, plain-code-repo-with-todo, todo-without-Open-Work (excluded), ambiguous-Open-Work (excluded). Leaves the tree working — nothing calls it yet. +** Phase 1 — Destination discovery (reuse inbox-send) +Reuse =inbox-send.py='s =discover_projects= (a directory with =.ai/= AND =inbox/=) as the destination set — no new discovery code. Confirm the destination universe: if a real destination has a =todo.org= but no =.ai/+inbox/=, name it and bootstrap its inbox; otherwise the existing filter already covers it. Leaves the tree working. -** Phase 2 — Atomic cross-project move helper -Extend =todo-cleanup.el= (or sibling tool) with a "move this subtree into project X's Open Work" operation that inserts at the destination and removes the source as one step, stamping the provenance line. ERT coverage: successful move, missing-destination-heading refusal, source-removal-on-success, no-partial-move-on-failure. +** Phase 2 — Candidate-set marking in process-inbox +Extend =process-inbox.org='s "file as TODO" step (Phase D) to stamp =:ROUTE_CANDIDATE: <inferred-project>= on any keeper whose inferred home differs from the current project (decision D8). Sync the =.ai/= mirror. This is the paired workflow edit that lets the wrap-up router find candidates without scanning the standing backlog. (Replaces the superseded atomic-move helper.) -** Phase 3 — Recommendation engine + candidate-set marking -Infer destination from item content against the discovered list, with a confidence label. Pure function over (item, project-list) → (destination, confidence). Unit-tested: strong match (project named in item), weak match (topic-only → low-confidence), no match (stays put). Also settle the candidate-set marking (tag at file time vs CREATED-this-session inference) so the router considers only session-filed inbox keepers, never the standing backlog. +** Phase 3 — Recommendation engine +Infer destination from item content against the discovered list, with a confidence tier. Pure function =(item, project-list) → (destination, confidence)=. Unit-tested: strong match (destination project named or path present literally → high) , weak match (topic-word overlap only → low, still routed but labeled), no match (stays put, never surfaced), two-project tie (lowest-confidence / tie-break), empty project list (all stay put). The engine is shared by process-inbox's file-time marker (Phase 2) and the wrap-up router (Phase 4), so it lives where both can call it. ** Phase 4 — Wrap-up step wiring -Add the router sub-step to =wrap-it-up.org= Step 3: surface the batch, the two options, apply-on-go via the Phase 2 helper. Per the D1/D5 decisions once settled. Sync the =.ai/= mirror. +Add the optional router sub-step to =wrap-it-up.org= Step 3, after the inbox sanity check: surface the candidate batch (one line each: task, destination, delivery mode, confidence), the two options (go / skip). On "go", for each candidate, =inbox-send= a one-task handoff to the destination's =inbox/= and remove the keeper from the local =todo.org=. Empty candidate set = zero interaction (silent). Name the gate-vs-optional split in the prose (the sanity check gates; the router is optional). Sync the =.ai/= mirror. ** Phase 5 — Transcript routing (vNext, gated on the transcript decision) Only after the transcript-scope decision resolves. File a recording into the destination =assets/= per =working-files.md=, batch go/skip mirroring the task router. * Acceptance criteria -- [ ] At wrap, an inbox item naming another project is surfaced with that project as the recommended destination. -- [ ] "Go" moves every recommended item into its destination's Open Work section as a valid org task with a provenance line, and removes it from the source. +- [ ] At wrap, a filed keeper naming another project is surfaced with that project as the recommended destination. +- [ ] "Go" delivers every recommended item as a one-task =from-<source>= handoff into its destination's =inbox/= and removes it from the local =todo.org=. - [ ] "Skip" leaves every item in place and the wrap completes cleanly. -- [ ] A destination =todo.org= without a clean Open Work heading is surfaced and skipped, never corrupted. -- [ ] A low-confidence recommendation is visibly labeled in the surfaced list. -- [ ] A plain code repo with a =todo.org= (no =.ai/=) is a valid destination. -- [ ] A failed move leaves both source and destination unchanged (no partial move). +- [ ] An empty candidate set produces zero interaction (no prompt, no "0 items" line). +- [ ] A weak (low-confidence) recommendation is visibly labeled in the surfaced list; a no-match item is never surfaced as a route. +- [ ] A candidate whose destination has an =inbox/= but no =todo.org= still delivers (degrades gracefully). +- [ ] A mis-routed handoff is recoverable via =process-inbox='s reject-from-another-project flow, returning it to the source's inbox. +- [ ] The router considers only =:ROUTE_CANDIDATE:=-tagged keepers, never the standing backlog. * Readiness dimensions - Data model & ownership: items are org subtrees; the destination owns the moved task after the move (provenance note records origin). N/A for remote/cached state — all local files. @@ -168,6 +187,14 @@ Only after the transcript-scope decision resolves. File a recording into the des - *Two inbox-touching steps* (sanity check + router) risk reading as redundant. Dodge: the D1 decision states the gate-vs-optional split in the workflow prose. - *Scope creep into transcripts* before the source-location question is answered would stall v1. Dodge: transcripts are explicitly vNext behind decision D4. +* Review dispositions + +Everything in the 2026-06-21 review was accepted, with one modify: + +- *Modified — H1 source-handling.* The review proposed leaving the source keeper in place "until the destination confirms by filing." There is no confirmation callback, so leaving it would duplicate the task once the destination files. Resolved instead (decision D9) to remove the keeper from the *local* =todo.org= on send — a single-file edit in the project we already own and are committing, with =process-inbox='s reject flow as the undo for a mis-route. Keeps the no-foreign-write safety win without the duplication. + +Everything else accepted as written: H1 (inbox-route supersedes direct-move; D2/D3 superseded), H1a (one handoff per task), H1b (reuse =inbox-send= discovery; Phase 1), H2 (tag at file time; D8), M1 (confidence tiers defined in Phase 3 + acceptance), M2 (empty-set silence; acceptance), M3 (paired =process-inbox= edit; Phase 2), M4 (=cross-project.md= note adjusted to "the router uses the sanctioned inbox path"). + * Review and iteration history ** 2026-06-13 Sat @ 01:23:13 -0500 — Claude Code (rulesets) — author @@ -179,3 +206,13 @@ Only after the transcript-scope decision resolves. File a recording into the des - What: resolved all three open decisions. The router's input is Reading B (filed keepers that belong elsewhere, not raw inbox files), so D1 keeps it a separate sub-step from the inbox gate and D5 keeps it distinct from the defer-and-stage router; D4 defers transcript routing to vNext. Reworked the design (input definition, a candidate-set note bounding the router to session-filed keepers) and Phase 3 to match. Cookie now [6/6]; Status moved to ready-for-review. - Why: Craig chose Reading B after the A-vs-B input ambiguity surfaced as the root under D1 and D5. Reading B keeps the inbox gate, the router, and defer-and-stage each simple instead of entangling three mechanisms. - Artifacts: this spec; the candidate-set marking mechanism is the one detail flagged for spec-review to pin. + +** 2026-06-21 Sun @ 01:58:41 -0400 — Claude Code (rulesets) — reviewer +- What: spec-review pass. Rubric *Not ready*, two blocking findings. H1: the inbox-route alternative (inbox-send each routable keeper to the destination's inbox/, let its own process-inbox file it) supersedes the direct-move design — reshape D2, drop Phase 2 and D3's provenance burden. H2: pin the candidate-set marking to Option A (tag =:ROUTE_CANDIDATE:= at process-inbox file time). Four medium findings (M1 confidence tiers, M2 empty-set silence, M3 paired process-inbox edit phase, M4 cross-project.md note). Full review + drop-in implementation tasks in the review file. +- Why: Craig challenged D2 directly (why edit a foreign todo.org rather than use the sanctioned inbox-send path). The review confirmed it: inbox-send already emits the exact provenance D3 reinvents, process-inbox already files per-item with the destination's own gate, cross-project.md sanctions the inbox path, and a verified precondition reverses the spec's assumption — chime and yt-sync have inbox/ but no todo.org, so direct-move silently drops keepers headed there while inbox-route degrades gracefully. +- Artifacts: [[file:wrapup-routing-spec-review.org][review file]]. Next: spec-response to disposition H1/H2 (recommend accept both), which moves the rubric to Ready. + +** 2026-06-21 Sun @ 02:06:37 -0400 — Craig Jennings + Claude Code (rulesets) — responder +- What: folded the spec-review in. Accepted H1 (inbox-route) and H2 (tag at file time); superseded D2 and D3; added D7 (deliver via =inbox-send=), D8 (=:ROUTE_CANDIDATE:= marker at file time), D9 (local source removal + reject-flow recovery). Rewrote Summary, Goals, Design mechanics, Implementation phases (dropped the atomic-move helper — Phase 2 is now the =process-inbox= marker edit), and Acceptance criteria for the inbox-route. One modify (D9) refines H1's vague source-handling. Cookie [9/9]; Status → Ready. +- Why: Craig's inbox-route challenge held up under review — it reuses the sanctioned cross-project path, gets provenance and per-project filing for free, and degrades gracefully where direct-move drops the task. D9 closes the duplication gap the review left open. +- Artifacts: review file deleted on this pass. Next: Phase 6 implementation-task breakdown into =todo.org= on the author's go. |