| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Each spec decision is now an org TODO task that flips to DONE when the decision-maker agrees, with a [/] cookie on the Decisions heading and a Discussion child for disputes. This replaces the inline State: proposed | accepted | superseded field. spec-response folds settled decisions by flipping them to DONE. spec-review's readiness gate and Ready rubric require the cookie to read complete. A spec can't move past draft to implementation-ready while any decision is still TODO.
From the .emacs.d handoff 2026-06-12.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I added Phase 6 to spec-response: once the author confirms a spec is Ready, file the full implementation-task breakdown in todo.org rather than leave a Ready spec nobody can act on. The phase creates one task per implementation phase, runs a completeness pass against every acceptance criterion and principle rule, marks :solo: only where the agent can build and verify end to end, collects the rest under a Manual-testing task, and defers outward-facing publish steps until the user confirms.
This is the author-side complement to spec-review's Phase 6, which emits the drop-in task block. Review produces the block, response files the work.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Both workflows now check that the file under review (or the spec
being responded to) ends with -spec.org before proceeding. If it does
not, the workflow stops and surfaces the mismatch with the rename
suggestion.
The suffix is the identifier per Craig's spec-naming convention:
every design, decision, or planning document under a project's docs/
directory ends with -spec.org. The .org extension alone is not enough
because docs/ holds non-spec org files too (tutorials, frozen
inventories, reference material).
spec-review.org gained a top-level Precondition section between When
to Use and Approach. spec-response.org gained the same Precondition
section in the parallel position, with a note that the review-file
convention <spec-basename>-review.org means a misnamed spec produces
a mis-pointed review file too.
Inbox source: 2026-05-28-0858-from-home-spec-naming-convention-apply-to-spec.org.
Home renamed two docs to the new convention and asked rulesets to
update the template workflows so the next startup rsync in every
project picks up the guard.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes the org-drill backfill TODO. Both workflow files now carry a bottom "Review and iteration history" section with four entries: Draft 1 (linear-emacs origin, 2026-05-23, placeholder timestamp), Review-and-Fold (commit 7f2aea1, 2026-05-23), Requirement addition (commit 55adf6e, 2026-05-28), and this backfill commit. Canonical and mirror updated together. Working directory working/spec-workflows-iteration-history-backfill/ removed on this commit.
The spec-response cycle on the working draft (two Codex reviews, three rulesets responses) validated the entry-shape and the content before splice. Codex caught file-history conflation that would have made per-file provenance inaccurate. Craig's direct rationale on the Iteration 1 and Iteration 3 Why lines replaced the original INFERRED markers.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Specs reviewed under either workflow now carry a bottom =Review and iteration history= section. Each entry is an org subheading with a compound id (timestamp, contributor, role) plus What/Why/Artifacts body fields. The id is opaque. Timestamp, contributor, and role concatenate without implying any decision ordering.
spec-review.org adds the gate item, the entry-shape spec, and a "Preserve iteration provenance" principle. spec-response.org adds the matching Phase 4 step and a "history explains provenance" principle. Canonical and mirror updated together.
|
|
|
These two workflows form a reviewer side and an author side for taking a design spec to implementation-ready. spec-review judges a spec against a readiness gate, reads the code before critiquing, evaluates across dimensions, assigns a rubric (Ready / Ready-with-caveats / Not-ready / Needs-research), and writes a <spec>-review.org file when it isn't ready. spec-response consumes that file: it decides accept / modify / reject for every recommendation, weaves the accepts into the spec body, records the modifies and rejects with reasons in a "Review dispositions" section, and reconciles tensions when coupled specs get reviewed together. The review file is the contract between them.
Both were validated by a real run on 2026-05-23 before landing here. I then reviewed them against established practice and tightened five things. The readiness gate now covers security/privacy and observability, since a spec shouldn't pass with those undefined. Phase 1 is a fast triage and Phase 3 is the authoritative gate after the code read. Finding severity maps to blocking power. A rejection goes back to the reviewer instead of standing as a unilateral call. And the response loop has an explicit termination condition.
I added both to INDEX.org under a new "Specs and design" section with trigger phrases, cross-linked as a pair, and kept the canonical and mirror copies identical.
|
