| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Craig clarified what :solo: means. The old third gate ("the outcome is verifiable locally, no ... confirmation that the result is right") read literally disqualified every task, since Craig spot-checks everything regardless of the tag. It conflated "Craig will also check" with "only Craig can check."
The three gates are now buildable, verifiable by Claude, and no upfront decision. The fix is decoupling Craig's routine spot-check from the determination: a task Claude builds and verifies itself, leaving a manual-testing reminder for the residual human-in-the-loop confirmation, is solo. The disqualifier is having no verification path of Claude's own, a result only judgeable by Craig's eyes. task-audit.org Phase C already defers here for the definition, so this is the one edit site.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
The task-review and task-audit workflows already assess :quick:, an effort estimate. I added :solo: alongside it: a task Claude can finish end-to-end without Craig's input, gated on bounded scope, no design or preference call, and local verifiability.
In task-review.org I added a tagging subsection paralleling :quick:, a mention in the close-out summary, and a common-mistake entry against over-tagging. task-audit.org now re-assesses both tags during content reconciliation, since a resolved dependency can make a stuck task newly solo-able. It points at task-review.org for the definitions rather than restating them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I added a per-task effort check to the task-review walk. If a task looks like 30 minutes or less and isn't already tagged, mark it :quick: on the heading. When the heading and body don't make the effort clear, ask instead of guessing. A mislabeled :quick: defeats the point, since the tag exists so Craig can grab a genuinely small task in a spare moment.
I edited the canonical claude-templates copy and the synced project mirror together, so the next startup rsync won't revert them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The new task-review.org workflow is the daily habit that retires the old date-coverage scan. It surfaces the oldest-unreviewed top-level tasks, walks them one at a time, and records each outcome — keep, re-grade, kill, mark DOING, or edit — stamping :LAST_REVIEWED: as it goes. It's a pure Claude workflow, no elisp. open-tasks.org displays the list; this one changes it.
task-review-staleness.sh gains a --list mode that emits the N oldest-unreviewed tasks (line, review date, heading), oldest first, so the workflow walks a deterministic batch instead of eyeballing todo.org. Never-reviewed and unparseable-date tasks sort oldest. Seven new bats cases cover ordering, the count limit, exclusions, and output format; count mode is unchanged.
startup.org gains the matching nudge. Phase A counts tasks unreviewed for >7 days and Phase C surfaces one line when that count is non-zero, pointing at the workflow. It lives in the template startup.org rather than the project-only startup-extras layer, so every project picks it up the same way it picks up the wrap-up health check.
The INDEX entry is added with the "task review" triggers the rename freed up.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The list-and-pick-next workflow was named task-review.org, but "task review" better describes a list-hygiene habit that re-grades and prunes tasks, not one that just displays them. I'm freeing the task-review.org name (and the "task review" trigger) for that habit, which lands next.
This workflow goes back to open-tasks.org — the name it carried before it merged with whats-next.org. Its content and INDEX entry drop the "task review" trigger and point at task-review.org for the hygiene habit. Behavior is unchanged; only the name and the routing phrases move.
The rename touches both the canonical workflow and the project mirror.
|
| |
|
