| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The value gate asks whether to take an inbox item, never whether the proposed change is right. process-inbox gains a Skeptical Review for proposals that change shared assets: a written question battery (fit for all consumers, conflicts elsewhere, effect on common activities, enhancement, simplification, plus at least three change-specific questions), ending in a summary and recommendation Craig approves before the change lands. In a no-approvals session, behavior-changing proposals park instead of self-applying: prepared diff in working/, a [#B] VERIFY carrying the decision package, a reply to the sender. Wording-only fixes proceed, logged.
monitor-inbox's act-vs-file rule and protocols.org's act-now line gain the matching exception so all three statements of the rule agree. protocols.org's tables picked up the org-table-standard reflow in the same pass.
The motivating case is today's spec-decisions handoff. I applied it as-is, and the after-the-fact review surfaced a lost state and a vacuous gate pass the battery would have caught up front.
|
|
|
Handoffs that arrive mid-session used to sit unseen until the next startup or a manual check. Today's burst of cross-project handoffs made that gap obvious. I added monitor-inbox.org, the cadence-and-decision layer over process-inbox: check the inbox at every task boundary, decide act-now (just do it) versus file (ask, with filing as option 1), and reply to the sender. An opt-in background-monitor /loop recipe covers unattended watching.
inbox-status (with bats tests) is the cheap check the cadence calls. It lists unprocessed handoffs and exits nonzero when any are pending, using the same artifact exclusions as the wrap-up sanity check. protocols.org gets a short cadence note so the habit fires every session, and INDEX.org lists the new workflow. The act-vs-file rule (act-now is silent, filing asks with file as option 1, ambiguity asks) is the decision protocol we settled today.
|
