0cee0eee47fbccf81bf2065ebf58582d0e8ea1fb
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Tom Boucher
|
2cefa5a5ac |
enhance(#4139): Phase 8 — the toggle becomes discoverable, and the ledger closes (#4587)
* enhance(#4139): Phase 8 — the toggle becomes discoverable, and the ledger closes ADR-4139's final phase. workflow.compact_content already defaulted to false (Phase 1's buildNewProjectConfig hardcoded default), but nothing surfaced it: /gsd-new-project never asked, and /gsd-settings/config had no toggle path for an already-initialized project — config-set/config-get were the only route. new-project.md gains a fourth question in the existing Round 2 AskUserQuestion array (grouped with the other general-workflow-behavior toggles, not the per-agent capability questions above it) and threads compact_content into the config-new-project CLI JSON literal. settings.md mirrors the exact pattern every other non-capability workflow.* key already follows: read_current bullet, question block, update_config write, the safe-merge non-capability-keys list, save_as_defaults, and the confirm summary table — seven edits, zero new src/*.cts code, since Phase 1's merge logic is a generic passthrough. Its success_criteria question-count ("24 settings") is bumped to 25 to match the now-25-entry main AskUserQuestion batch. settings-advanced.md deliberately does NOT get a duplicate question: no other boolean toggle in this repo is asked in both settings.md and settings-advanced.md, and there's no reason to start with this one. docs/CONFIGURATION.md, docs/USER-GUIDE.md, and a new docs/features/4139-compact- content.md fragment (regenerated into docs/FEATURES.md) document the toggle. ADR-4139 itself: Status flips Proposed -> Accepted, the acceptance-criteria section becomes a guard ledger — a 13-row table covering all 12 of #4139's original checkboxes plus the shipped-content guard criterion, each with real evidence (the merged PR that satisfied it, fetched via `gh issue view --json closedByPullRequestsReferences` rather than asserted from phase numbers) — and both "Open questions for the implementation phases" are resolved rather than left dangling: discuss-phase was never converted to spine+detail shape (verified: no detail/ subdir exists) — a genuine gap, not a reasoned decline; the disjointness check is confirmed line-based by reading compact-content-split.cjs's normalizeNonTrivialLines directly. Orthogonal review (isolated Standards/Spec code-review + security-review sub-agents) found and this fixes two real defects: the changeset fragment's body didn't match CONTRIBUTING.md's single em-dash-sentence format (was multi-sentence prose naming implementation file paths); and settings.md's own success_criteria still said "24 settings" after the new question pushed the main batch to 25. Also fixed, found by the Spec pass while confirming commands/gsd/settings.md correctly needed no sync edit: that file and its skills/gsd-settings/SKILL.md twin both still described "Interactive 5-question prompt (model, research, plan_check, verifier, branching)", stale since long before this phase (the batch has had far more than 5 questions for a while) — replaced with a description that names the current set without hardcoding a count that will drift again. gsd-test (real run, sha 1da78fe2) caught a third real regression the local sweep missed: new-project.md is a registered spine+detail split for Phase 4's token-reduction benchmark (scripts/benchmark-compact-content.cjs), and the new question's +167 tokens drifted the committed baseline (tests/fixtures/compact-content-benchmark-baseline.json). The benchmark itself is designed never to fail CI on drift, but the test asserting the COMMITTED baseline is currently non-drifted correctly caught it. Regenerated via `node scripts/benchmark-compact-content.cjs --write`; re-verified --check now reports "up to date" and the test file passes 27/27. Closes #4408. Closes #4139. Emitted-Drift-Ack-Growth: new-project.md — new 4th Round-2 AskUserQuestion entry (Compact Content, #4139) plus the config-new-project CLI JSON field and explanatory sentence; a new opt-in toggle needs new prose. Emitted-Drift-Ack-Growth: settings.md — new workflow.compact_content read_current bullet, question block, update_config write, safe-merge key, save_as_defaults field, and confirm summary row (the same seven-edit pattern every other non-capability workflow.* toggle already follows), plus the 24->25 success_criteria count fix found in review. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore(#4408): backfill changeset PR number pr:0 -> pr:4587 now that gh pr create has returned the real number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Tom Boucher
|
aad04f4e9a |
docs(#4400): ADR-4139 — the compact-content seam (#4410)
* docs(#4400): ADR-4139 — the compact-content seam Phase 0 of epic #4139. Locks the design before any code lands. #4139's stated mechanism cannot reach the stream it exists for: 58 of 72 shipped commands deliver their whole workflow file through an eager @-include, which the host expands before any project config is in context. An in-content gate is evaluated after those bytes are already paid. The ADR declines the obvious fix (convert the 58 execution_context blocks to runtime Reads) because that removes the host guarantee for every user, not only opted-in ones — a global install shares one skill tree, so an @-include cannot be conditional. It instead keeps every @-include exactly where it is and splits what sits behind them: the canonical path becomes a runnable spine, elaborations move to a sibling detail file read at runtime. A missed Read then degrades to "runs correctly with fewer tokens", never to "runs with no instructions". Also records: the rename to workflow.compact_content, the re-pitch onto ADR-1610's context-rot argument rather than the cost argument ADR-1610 discounts, partition-not-duplication (which dissolves the dual-maintenance cost the Feature Review called disqualifying), the guard-scope and NEW_FILE_CAP mapping for the new subtree, and an argued reconciliation of the acceptance criteria this design does not meet literally. Corrects ADR-3646 §Context: it cites #3647 as open; #3647 closed 2026-09-01 as a duplicate of #3606. ADR-3646's Decision is unaffected — it explicitly disclaimed any dependence on #3647's state. The residual prose-dispatch variance named in #3647's own closure thread is unresolved, and this ADR routes around it rather than assuming it away. Refs #4139 Closes #4400 * docs(#4400): fold the two orthogonal review findings into ADR-4139 Code review (isolated context) and security review (isolated context) both returned findings. Fixed here rather than carried. Critical, from code review: the ADR repeated earlier research's claim that discuss-phase, manager and pause-work all reach a workflow by runtime Read. manager and pause-work carry plain eager @-includes and are inside the 58, not outside. discuss-phase is the only precedent, and it is one file. The Open Questions section is corrected with it. The NEW_FILE_CAP mapping was wrong in a way that changes the layout. It lives at tests/helpers/emitted-diff.cjs:96, not in workflow-size-budget, and its own doc comment records that it is a hard cap, not ack-able, and NOT tier-exemptible -- the pre-#2724 test-file version was. So a single detail.md holding plan-phase.md's elaborations is blocked outright with no exemption path. Detail content is now one or more parts under workflows/<name>/detail/, each below the cap, named by the spine in the dispatch-table shape discuss-phase.md already uses. commit-files-pathspec is in scope and earlier research called it irrelevant. Per CONTRIBUTING.md:1164-1170 it sweeps every .md under gsd-core/workflows/ for unscoped commit-seam invocations. Added to the guard table. Two byte figures were inherited rather than measured, against this ADR's own evidence note. Templates and agents re-measured; the table now carries the method and the exact numbers. From security review: "a spine that has shed a protected-content marker fails" never defined what a marker was, leaving the strongest check in the set resting on a prose-category judgment. Protection is now a literal greppable sentinel in the existing gsd: comment namespace, and the guard rule has no discretion in it. Also added: an explicit statement that the detail path is never user- or project-supplied and cannot be shadowed by a project-local file, and an exact-version pin commitment for gpt-tokenizer. Code review also found a real hole in the central fail-safe argument: spine sufficiency is verified once at split time and never again, so load-bearing procedural text carrying no sentinel could later drift into a detail part with every check green. Sufficiency is not machine-decidable, so a fifth ongoing check is added -- a spine that loses lines which reappear in its parts fails unless the PR declares the boundary move. The ADR now states plainly that this is authoring discipline with a forced checkpoint, not a structural invariant, and that the partition relocates the Feature Review's cost rather than fully eliminating it. Refs #4139 Refs #4400 --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local> |