Files

Jakub Zych a9a7a328e6 refactor: hard-fork GSD -> MSD (Make Software Done)

Mechanical rename produced by scripts/msd-rename.cjs: gsd/Gsd/GSD -> msd/Msd/MSD
across contents and paths, upstream package/repo coordinates -> @golem15/msd-core
and golem15com/msd-core. Deep links into upstream history, sibling upstream
packages, the GSD-2 import feature, CHANGELOG.md and .changeset/ are kept as-is.

Hand edits on top: MSD block-letter banner and logos, LICENSE copyright line,
package/plugin identity, regenerated lockfile, install-tree fixtures, derived
registries and benchmark baseline; migration checksum baseline re-locked
(MSD keeps its own install state, so no install had applied the old sums);
sort-order and regex-escaped expectations in tests adjusted.

2026-10-06 01:47:40 +02:00

3.2 KiB

Raw Blame History

Statusline draws its data boundary at local, read-only sources

Status: Accepted
Date: 2026-07-11
Issue: #2164
Implementation: Policy ADR — no code change. Governs triage of statusline enhancement/feature requests.

Decision

The MSD statusline (hooks/msd-statusline.js) may source data from three tiers, and is bounded to the first two:

Tier	Data source	In scope?
0 — Refine existing	The stdin payload Claude Code already sends (model name, context-window usage, MSD-state read from `.planning/`)	Yes
1 — New local source	Read-only local reads / bounded subprocesses scoped to the workspace (e.g. `git status`)	Yes, if opt-in and bounded
2 — External / credentialed	Reading credentials (OAuth tokens, keychains) or calling external/network APIs for data	No

The statusline refines what it is already handed and may add a new local, read-only source, but it does not read credentials or make authenticated/network calls to fetch data. Surfacing account-level or platform-level resource state (usage limits, rate-limit windows) from a MSD hook is a platform concern, not MSD's.

Rationale

The statusline is a planning-workflow surface, not a platform dashboard. Its existing segments (model, context meter, directory, MSD-state) are all local, read-only projections of data MSD is already given.
Reading credentials from a planning hook is a materially larger trust surface than any rendering concern; even read-only and opt-in, it is not something a planning tool should own.
External/undocumented endpoints (e.g. an OAuth usage API) are unstable dependencies that rot silently when they change.
Consistent with the existing prior in .out-of-scope/temporal-context.md: "Statusline / TUI re-entry is platform-level, not MSD-level."

Consequences

New statusline requests are triaged against the tier table. The data-source axis (this ADR) is orthogonal to the enhancement-vs-feature axis (CONTRIBUTING.md): refining an existing segment is an enhancement; adding a new segment or data source is a feature (a new concept/integration), regardless of tier.
Applied at decision time:
- #2160 / #2161 / #2162 — refine existing model / context-meter / MSD-state rendering. Tier 0; approved as enhancements.
- #2163 — git segment. Tier 1 (new local source): in scope, but routed to the feature track (approved-feature + complete spec) because it adds a new segment.
- #2164 — 5h/7d account-usage segment. Tier 2 (reads OAuth creds + calls api.anthropic.com/api/oauth/usage): out of scope; closed wontfix, recorded in .out-of-scope/statusline-account-usage.md.

Revisit if

A documented, first-party usage API — or a platform-provided value delivered to the hook without MSD reading credentials — becomes available. That would move usage display out of Tier 2.

References

.out-of-scope/statusline-account-usage.md — the #2164 rejection record.
.out-of-scope/temporal-context.md — prior "statusline is platform-level" note.
CONTRIBUTING.md — enhancement vs feature gates.
Issues: #2160, #2161, #2162 (approved enhancements), #2163 (feature-track), #2164 (this ADR's trigger).

3.2 KiB Raw Blame History