rulesets - Claude Code skills, rules, and language bundles

	Commit message (Collapse)	Author	Age	Files	Lines
*	docs: spec-response wrap-up routing — redesigned to inbox-send delivery, Ready	Craig Jennings	2026-06-21	1	-172/+0
\| \| \| \|	Folded the spec-review in. The router now delivers each routable keeper to the destination's inbox via inbox-send and lets that project's own process-inbox file it, instead of a new atomic cross-repo todo.org move. Superseded D2 (move helper) and D3 (hand-stamped provenance, now inbox-send's for free); added D7 (inbox-send delivery), D8 (ROUTE_CANDIDATE marker stamped at process-inbox file time), D9 (local source removal with the reject flow as undo). Rewrote summary, goals, mechanics, phases, and acceptance to match. Decisions [9/9], status Ready. Review file consumed and removed.
*	docs: spec-review wrap-up routing — inbox-route supersedes direct-move	Craig Jennings	2026-06-21	1	-0/+172
	Reviewed the approved wrap-up routing spec; rubric Not ready, two blocking findings. The central one: route keepers via the existing inbox-send path to the destination's inbox and let its own process-inbox file them, rather than the spec's new atomic cross-repo todo.org move. inbox-send already provides the provenance the direct-move design reinvents, the destination files through its own value gate, and a verified precondition (chime and yt-sync have inbox/ but no todo.org) reverses the spec's assumption. Second finding pins the candidate-set marking to a tag stamped at process-inbox file time. Review file carries the analysis and drop-in implementation tasks.