d1cd04e808ff3d030fd6909fb54cd8992e1dbae2
1 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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> |