| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I merged process-inbox, monitor-inbox, and inbox-zero into one inbox.org engine. A shared core (value gate, skeptical review, disposition ladder, reply discipline, capture-guard, priority-scheme check) holds the logic that used to be duplicated and cross-referenced across the three files. Each mode (process, monitor, roam) references the core by name instead of restating it.
Every trigger phrase still works, now routing to a mode, so there's nothing to relearn. I added the interactive auto inbox zero mode: ask for an interval, run roam mode on /loop, acknowledge-only on an empty cycle, surface a find to a queue gated on a yes. The fully-unattended /schedule pass stays vNext, tracked separately.
I repointed every live caller (INDEX, protocols, startup Phase C, wrap-up Step 3, triage-intake, broadcast) at inbox.org and its modes, then deleted the three old files. triage-intake and no-approvals stay separate by design. The value gate, dispositions, capture-guard, and reply discipline all behave as before.
Built from the Ready spec. Workflow-integrity and sync-check pass on both the canonical and mirror trees, the stale-reference grep is clean, and the full suite is green.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017PtX1nt1rtYVATuzmzBS4f
|
| |
|
|
| |
The old rule dated a resolved VERIFY at every depth, including the top level. A level-2 dated header carries no keyword, so todo-cleanup's --archive-done can never archive it and task-review drops it from selection. Now a top-level VERIFY closes like any other top-level task (DONE/CANCELLED + CLOSED:), and dated rewrites are reserved for level 3 and deeper. Updated the rule and the three places that encoded the old behavior: todo-format.md, respond-to-cj-comments.md, and process-inbox.org. Also repaired two pre-existing level-2 dated headers.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Redefine "monitor the inbox" as the explicit behavior Craig wants: run one process-inbox pass now, then loop process-inbox every 15 minutes. The 15-minute loop was previously an opt-in background recipe; it's now the defined meaning of the phrase.
Gate the workflow at both ends on a clean worktree and a green full-suite run. Starting on a dirty tree lets the per-item auto-commit sweep up unrelated changes; starting on a red suite hides whether the monitor broke anything. On a dirty tree, offer to commit in discrete batches; on a red suite, offer to investigate — never start until both are satisfied, and leave the tree clean and green when the loop stops.
Add the no-approvals execute criteria: an accepted item self-applies only when agreed (passed the value gate and Skeptical Review), quick (under ~15 min including verification), and solo (no decision needed from Craig). All three commit and push at the end of the item; miss any and it files or, for shared-asset and convention changes, parks.
Broaden the Skeptical Review to run on every arriving task and file, not only shared-asset proposals — a core right/complete/simpler pass on everything, with the cross-project battery added for changes that sync to consuming projects.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
|
Generic process-inbox workflow at claude-templates/.ai/workflows/ and
mirror. Owns inbox discipline across every project: items are ideas to
evaluate, not orders to execute, and earn a place in todo.org or git
history only when they pass a three-question value gate.
The gate (Phase B):
- Advances an existing TODO (look up by topic).
- Improves how the project works (architecture, workflows, tooling,
rule hygiene).
- Serves the project's stated mission (read from notes.org
Project-Specific Context).
One yes accepts. Three nos reject.
Per-source rejection flow (Phase D):
- From Craig: state in chat, wait for override.
- From another project: write a response via inbox-send naming which
gate question failed plus any reconsideration condition. Silent
rejection on a handoff is worse than no reply.
- From a script or automated system: just delete.
Phase B.1 gates filing on priority-scheme presence. If todo.org has a
scheme at the top, file with cookie + mandatory type tag + optional
effort/autonomy tags. If not, surface a one-sentence nudge to adopt
one (or to skip grading and flag the gap in the commit).
Phase D within accepts splits implement-now / fold-into-existing /
file-as-TODO so the inbox doesn't default to inflating todo.org for
every item that passes the gate.
Phase E stamps :LAST_INBOX_PROCESS: in notes.org Workflow State if the
section exists.
startup.org Phase C step 2 now delegates here instead of inlining the
inbox-processing language. INDEX entry under Tasks and planning lists
the full set of trigger phrases.
|
