738f42f4fd
* test(#2398): failing-first suite for the CYCLE_SUMMARY consensus gate Binds the gate before it exists, so the suite is RED against next. The load-bearing rows are the two the closed PR #2417 did not have. The B2 regression row asserts a judgment-class lone HIGH counts WITHOUT corroboration when its raiser is unmarked — if anyone re-couples that class to corroboration, more reviewers again produce a weaker gate than one, which is what closed #2417. The parity row asserts every marker literal the gate names is one review-lane-runner actually emits, so the gate cannot key on a signal nothing produces; a mutation row and a seeded fast-check property prove that guard runs its failure branch rather than only reading a correct tree. Also pinned: gate position before Counting rules, the untouched CYCLE_SUMMARY line shape the orchestrator greps, fence balance, the single-reviewer no-op, classification by what a claim asserts rather than by citation presence, the all-marked fail-open, current_actionable staying out of scope, and the leading-marker requirement that stops a review which merely quotes a marker from suppressing its own findings. * feat(#2398): consensus gate for CYCLE_SUMMARY on multi-reviewer runs With review.reviewer_instances running several reviewer identities off one adapter, any single instance's fabricated HIGH could force a full replan cycle on its own. Across ~9 real cycles on two projects each of four instances fabricated at least once, and each was also the most accurate reviewer in some other cycle, so dropping to fewer reviewers trades away real signal. The gate engages only when 2+ reviewers actually ran, and weighs a lone HIGH by what the claim asserts rather than by whether anyone agreed with it. An existence claim -- a symbol, file, flag, commit or ID exists, is absent, or says something specific -- counts only if source-grounding confirms it or another reviewer raised the same concern. A judgment claim -- a design or correctness property -- counts unless that reviewer's own section opens with an evidence-quality discount marker the review lane already stamps ([reviewed-without-source-citations] #3194, [reviewed-without-repo-access] #2176, or a diff-only lane). That split is what resolves B2, the finding that closed PR #2417. B2 showed the approved wording made more reviewers produce a WEAKER gate than one: condition (a) pointed at the source-grounding pass, which verifies every symbol THE PLAN cites and never takes reviewer claims as input, so a genuine architectural HIGH that one reviewer caught and another missed was neither groundable nor corroborated and stopped gating. Judgment-class findings are therefore exempt from corroboration entirely -- reviewers catch materially different classes of issue, and demanding two of them independently raise the same architectural concern suppresses exactly what a multi-reviewer setup exists to surface. Guards on the gate itself: an all-marked cycle disengages it, so a cycle in which nothing was verified can never be counted as converged; the marker must OPEN a reviewer's section, so a review that merely quotes a marker does not suppress its own findings; a suppressed HIGH stays listed and tagged rather than dropped; current_actionable is untouched; and a single-reviewer run is unchanged. No new command, config key, or dependency -- the gate reads signals that already exist. The CYCLE_SUMMARY line shape the orchestrator greps is unchanged; only the integer it computes moves, and only for 2+ reviewers. Known limit, inherited rather than introduced: SOURCE_CITATION_RE checks citation presence, not resolution, which src/review-lane-runner.cts records as a deliberate #3194 scope boundary. A fabricated but plausible file:line still gates. Scope revised and re-approved on the issue before any code was written. * test(#2398): make marker parity behavioral, and stop overclaiming the gate Review found the parity tests were vacuous: they asserted a marker STRING appeared in review-lane-runner.cjs's source text, never requiring the module or calling the stampers, so they would pass even if stampUngroundedReview were broken or never invoked. They now invoke the real exported functions and assert what those functions PRODUCE — that an uncited review gains a leading marker blockquote, that a review carrying a file:line does not, that a self-reported blind review is stamped, and that stamping is idempotent. Removing the source read also removes an incidental no-source-grep evasion via a parameterized path. Review also found the changeset headline false for the class it matters most in. The discount markers detect 'cited nothing' and 'had no repo access'; they cannot detect 'drew a wrong conclusion from a real citation', so a judgment-class finding invented by an evidence-bearing reviewer still counts alone. That is the deliberate side of the tradeoff jags-faith named when closing #2417 — the alternative is requiring corroboration for design findings, which is B2 — but the changeset claimed lone hallucinations no longer force a cycle, full stop. Corrected there, and stated plainly in docs/COMMANDS.md and the design record. Also dropped the reviewer-instances.md entry from the emitted-drift ack: the growth ratchet's currentSizes() scans only gsd-core/workflows/ and agents/ (tests/helpers/emitted-runtime.cjs:916-929), so references/ is outside it and that entry acknowledged a delta the gate cannot see. * chore(#2398): backfill changeset pr number to 3755 --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local>
Changeset Fragments
This directory holds per-PR CHANGELOG fragments. Every PR with user-facing changes drops one (or more) <random-name>.md files here describing its CHANGELOG entry. Fragments are consolidated into the top-level CHANGELOG.md at release time.
Why
Two PRs that both edit the ### Fixed block of CHANGELOG.md always conflict on merge — git can't pick a serialization order without human input. Two PRs that each add a fresh .changeset/<unique-name>.md never conflict because they don't share lines.
See #2975 for the full rationale.
Adding a fragment
node scripts/changeset/new.cjs \
--type Fixed \
--pr 1234 \
--body "fix the thing — explain the user-visible change in one sentence"
This writes .changeset/<adjective>-<noun>-<noun>.md with frontmatter and a body. Three random words → concurrent PRs don't collide.
Format
---
type: Fixed
pr: 1234
---
**`/gsd-foo` no longer drops trailing slashes** — explain the user-visible change.
Allowed type: values follow Keep a Changelog: Added, Changed, Deprecated, Removed, Fixed, Security.
Opting out
PRs that legitimately have no user-facing impact can add the no-changelog label. CI honors it. When unsure, add the fragment.
At release time
Promotion is automatic. The release workflow's finalize job runs:
node scripts/changeset/cli.cjs render --version vX.Y.Z --date YYYY-MM-DD --allow-empty
This reads every fragment, groups bullets by type:, replaces ## [Unreleased] with a new ## [vX.Y.Z] - YYYY-MM-DD block, opens a fresh ## [Unreleased] above, and deletes consumed fragments. The --allow-empty flag ensures a no-change release still gets a dated heading (with a _No notable changes._ placeholder). A subsequent verify step confirms the promotion landed correctly. Maintainers do not run this by hand.
Archived fragments
.changeset/archived/ holds fragments for already-shipped releases (≤ 1.3.1), retained for provenance. Their content was hand-curated into the dated ## [1.x.y] sections of CHANGELOG.md during the #690 backfill — they were never consumed by render. All changeset tooling enumerates .changeset/ non-recursively, so archived fragments are never picked up or rendered. Do not move them back to the top level.