| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The spec-review/spec-response pair wrote findings to a sibling <spec>-review.org file that spec-response deleted once processed. The deletion left the iteration-history Artifacts line dangling and dropped the verbatim review. Keeping the file instead collided with spec-response's file discovery and its "no review files remain" done-condition.
Findings now live in the spec under a * Review findings section as TODO tasks with a [/] cookie, the same shape * Decisions already uses. The reviewer records findings there. The responder completes each in place (accept and modify finish DONE, reject finishes CANCELLED with the reason), and the readiness rubric gates on the cookie. A scope-expanding response re-runs the rubric and files any new obligation as a finding or decision before claiming Ready, because resolving every finding can still introduce unreviewed assumptions.
Also folds in two reviewer-practice principles: keep review and response roles explicit, and cite the source for external-dependency facts in a finding. Updates spec-create.org and the workflow INDEX so the trio describes one convention.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
A superseded decision now flips to SUPERSEDED (linking its replacement) and a moot one to CANCELLED. Both are done-class via a #+TODO: header the spec template auto-adds, so the [/] cookie counts them resolved and neither blocks implementation-ready. The TODO/DONE pair alone had lost the old State: field's superseded value.
spec-review's gate and Ready rubric now read "no decision is still TODO", and a spec still on the retired State: field model fails the gate item until converted. The gate as first written would have vacuously passed old specs, which have no decision tasks at all.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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 This replaces the inline State: proposed | accepted | superseded field.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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
A generated config gets read in a different namespace than the one that wrote it. Build host, chroot, image runtime, target system, container, and VM are distinct, so a path valid where the config is generated can be absent where it's read. I added the check to the Architecture & maintainability dimension.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I folded the reusable, product-neutral checks from two emacs-d review passes into the canonical spec-review.org, so they survive the startup rsync and reach every project instead of living only in a downstream copy. The additions cover package-readiness and Makefile scope, actionable error strings, observability and diagnostics, long-running performance and failure-mode research, defcustom surface, a documentation plan, architecture weak-point mitigation, simplicity controls, extension/plugin developer experience, comparable-product sentiment, terminal-state discovery, CLI-wrapper value, and rollout/rollback, plus three reviewer principles and a generalizable-question harvesting rule.
The promotion is a pure superset. Every change adds or expands a generic check, nothing regresses. Project-specific findings stayed in the source spec. The handoff that asked for this is preserved under docs/design.
|
| |
|
|
| |
From a pearl handoff: Phase 6 logged deferred and v1 work only in passing, so the implementer handoff was a re-read of the spec rather than a paste. I added a step that lifts the spec's Implementation phases section into a drop-in todo.org block: one [#B] TODO per phase plus a test-surface entry mirroring the Acceptance criteria. A spec with no phase decomposition fails the step, surfacing the shape problem as a finding before Ready rather than inventing phases. Added Exit Criterion 6 and a review-history entry.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
