docs(planning): groom floors — court cards, decision log, read-in arc - #38
Open
djradon wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs(planning): groom floors — court cards, decision log, read-in arc#38djradon wants to merge 1 commit into
djradon wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Two codex read-only analyses harvested into wa.dave-court as cards: - fingerprint verification (lean BUILD-LATER): the gap is real — payload LocatedFiles carry no digest even though sflo:hasContentDigest exists and the resolver already hashes every read — but no consumer asked, and both hold stronger anchors than a self-recorded digest. Surfaced a contract conflict needing a ruling first: --overwrite-existing-state rewrites states in place, so either fingerprinted states become non-overwritable or the guarantee is only current-byte consistency - embedded RDFa/JSON-LD (lean PARK): JSON-LD over RDFa, Microdata dismissed; the page document model is too lossy for an honest graph without a new parsed-dataset seam. A ~547 bytes/page identity slice exists if Dave rules it normative, against 29.41 MiB for full-payload - markdown renderer: the framework Dave could not name is markdown-it, chosen 2025-11-29; unified/remark/rehype was explicitly rejected there Decision log gains four entries: the wa.cancelled.* prefix, carve-before-close, capability-changes-force-a-minor, and the rule that a ruling saying "current code" must name a commit and state whether a release follows. Read-in active arc refreshed to the v0.7.0-in-flight state. All five groom floors met. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change adds four workflow decisions and updates August maintenance and read-in notes. The notes record the v0.7.0 release state, merged work, pending publication, catalogue classification, open court cards, and residual tasks. ChangesDocumentation policy and release tracking
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@documentation/notes/wd.decision-log.md`:
- Around line 35-37: Update the decision-log entry for v0.7.0 to replace “was
cut” with wording that indicates it was classified or prepared as a minor
release, without implying the release was published or tagged.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 6da896ab-a0e0-4580-891c-da19c1eb15f8
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
documentation/notes/wd.decision-log.mddocumentation/notes/wd.maintenance.2026-08.mddocumentation/notes/wd.read-in.jimbo.md
Comment on lines
+35
to
+37
| ### 2026-08-02: A Capability Change Forces A Minor, Regardless Of Diff Size | ||
|
|
||
| - Decision: `v0.7.0` was cut as a minor rather than a patch because one of its four changes (`d6f87ca`) makes a previously-*refused* invocation succeed. Three `fix`-labeled changes do not make a release a patch if any change adds capability. Release scope is judged by the shape of the behavior change, not the size of the diff. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Clarify the v0.7.0 release state.
Line 37 says that v0.7.0 “was cut,” which can mean that it was released. The maintenance note and read-in state that, as of August 2, 2026, no tag exists and publication is pending. Use “was classified as a minor release” or “was prepared as a minor release” instead.
This finding relies on documentation/notes/wd.maintenance.2026-08.md Line 55 and documentation/notes/wd.read-in.jimbo.md Line 51.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@documentation/notes/wd.decision-log.md` around lines 35 - 37, Update the
decision-log entry for v0.7.0 to replace “was cut” with wording that indicates
it was classified or prepared as a minor release, without implying the release
was published or tagged.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Planning-notes only. Archive-side cards landed at
semantic-flow/weave-dev-archive@58db613.All five groom floors met (read-in, queues, court, closure, decision-log); queue gate green at 3 entries.
Two analyses, both landing on "not yet"
Both came back recommending against building — with evidence, and each with its strongest counter-argument stated.
Fingerprint verification — BUILD-LATER. The gap is genuine and specific:
renderFirstPayloadWovenKnopInventoryTurtlewrites a LocatedFile with type declarations and no digest, even thoughsflo:hasContentDigestexists in the ontology and the resolver computes SHA-256 on every read.validateis planner/preflight coverage by explicit contract, not integrity coverage. But no consumer asked, and both real consumers hold stronger anchors than a mesh-local digest — Git tags, tagged source, Accord fixtures. The SFLO publication did this check by hand withcmpagainst tagged source, which is more trustworthy, since an attacker who can edit a payload can edit its digest.It also surfaced a contract conflict that must be ruled before implementation:
--overwrite-existing-staterewrites a state in place, so either fingerprinted states become non-overwritable, or the guarantee is only current byte-consistency and the docs must say so. Shipping without ruling this would make the feature mean something we never decided.Embedded RDFa/JSON-LD — PARK. JSON-LD wins over RDFa, which couples graph correctness to presentation markup — hiding a panel would silently drop triples, and the custom-page renderer bypasses the shared document model entirely. Microdata dismissed. The deeper finding: the page model already drops datatypes, language tags, blank-node identity, and inventory ordinals, so a faithful graph can't be reconstructed from rendered panels without a new parsed-dataset seam.
A cheap slice exists if you want it — the three-triple page-identity graph, ~547 bytes/page, ~0.77 MiB across SFLO, clean seam, no new dependency. Compare full-payload embedding at 29.41 MiB on a 24.61 MiB publication.
One recovered decision
The pluggable markdown framework Dave couldn't name is
markdown-it, chosen 2025-11-29 insflo.conv.2025-11-29-rdf-storage-options(~line 2353, buried inside an RDF-storage conversation). unified/remark/rehype was explicitly rejected there as too heavy, along withmarkedandshowdown.Decision log
Four entries: the
wa.cancelled.*prefix; carve-before-close; capability changes force a minor regardless of diff size; and a ruling that says "current code" must name a commit and state whether a release follows — the ambiguity that made the SFLO publication look like an accident when it was a deliberate pin.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit