From 4fa8fd739a09e4ddd424e434fe174e3180d2f233 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Craig Jennings Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 19:33:12 -0500 Subject: docs(rules): clarify proactive inbox-send vs the stop-and-ask rule A literal reading of cross-project.md could see its new propagation section (send synced-file edits to rulesets without being told) as conflicting with the file's stop-and-ask rule. One sentence reconciles them: ask-first governs work inside another project's scope, and an inbox drop is the sanctioned alternative to that, so it needs no confirmation. --- claude-rules/cross-project.md | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/claude-rules/cross-project.md b/claude-rules/cross-project.md index f9f0598..ed4a19c 100644 --- a/claude-rules/cross-project.md +++ b/claude-rules/cross-project.md @@ -64,6 +64,11 @@ targets a synced file and propagating it is the agent's job. The rulesets session applies its own value gate on arrival, so sending is a proposal, not a bypass. +This doesn't conflict with the stop-and-ask rule at the top of this file: +ask-first governs doing work inside another project's scope. Dropping a +proposal in its inbox is the sanctioned alternative to that, so a proactive +inbox-send needs no confirmation. + Worked example: the 2026-06-12 `spec-create.org` decisions-as-TODO change — `.emacs.d` edited its local copy as a stopgap, sent the edited file plus an intro note naming the two companion workflows to reconcile, and rulesets -- cgit v1.2.3