diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'todo.org')
| -rw-r--r-- | todo.org | 3 |
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 0 deletions
@@ -393,6 +393,9 @@ Skeptical-review read (open design questions to resolve in the spec, not settled - *Auto-pull vs explicit list* — whether the set comes from an explicit ordered list or a tag/priority query. - *Guardrails* — must refuse to speedrun tasks needing design decisions or carrying data-loss risk without a checkpoint (the sender's biased-safe unused-tile flag is the worked example). +*** 2026-07-01 Wed @ 22:10:35 -0400 Phase 0 landed — hard tag definitions + review/audit enforcement +todo-format.md gained the "Hard definitions: :solo: and :quick:" subsection under the scheme header (fixed across projects: :solo: = buildable + agent-verifiable + no deliberation, with one-or-two upfront-answerable quick decisions allowed per the ratified spec; :quick: = ≤30-min effort hint, never a gate). task-review.org: the two tagging sections are now explicitly mandatory ("a review that skips them is incomplete") and gate 3 was realigned from "no upfront decision" to the spec's no-deliberation form — the stricter old wording predated the pre-flight-Q&A decision and would have wrongly excluded quick-question tasks. task-audit.org: the re-assess bullet is marked mandatory and points at the todo-format hard definitions as canonical. Phases 1-6 (work-the-backlog extraction, callers, commit gate, checklist/Q&A/page, metrics, synthesis) remain. + *** 2026-06-16 Tue @ 00:53:36 -0500 Spec written; design questions answered Craig's "your call" (2026-06-16) answered in [[file:docs/design/2026-06-16-autonomous-batch-execution-spec.org][the autonomous-batch execution spec]], which reconciles this with Phase E into one feature: - *Most effective / workflow-vs-preset:* one dedicated =work-the-backlog.org= workflow holds the execution loop; "fix speedrun" is a thin named preset (no-approvals + always-push + end page) feeding it an explicit list, and the inbox-zero loop feeds it a tag query. Pros of the shared workflow: one execution loop to audit, inbox-zero's three callers stay clean, both input shapes reuse one guardrail set. Cons: one more workflow file and a caller-to-workflow indirection. The con list is shorter and lighter than the duplication cost of two separate features, which is why the shared workflow wins. The pros carry the more important entries (single audit surface, clean seam). |