feat(specify): record in-context fork resolutions as auditable issue comments
The `spec-skeptic` `scope-fork` juror reads only the seeding issue plus the spec. On the legitimate `specify` direct-entry path — a fork settled in a long in-context design discussion — that resolution lives only in ephemeral chat the juror cannot replay. When the issue body lags the discussion (still lists the fork open), the juror correctly blocks, and a design BLOCK escalates without self-correction. The result: auto-sign was structurally almost unreachable for the in-context entry path. Close the blind spot by giving the juror an auditable source instead of weakening the gate. When `specify` enters in-context and a tracker issue still lists a now-resolved fork as open, the orchestrator posts a reconciliation comment recording each fork's resolution WITH provenance (a record of the user's decision, never a fresh orchestrator one) before writing the spec. The comment is persistent and audit-able — unlike a carrier digest — so it, not the orchestrator's confidence, is what the juror checks. Separation of powers keeps it honest: the orchestrator writes the comment, the adversarial juror enforces the provenance requirement. A bare `decision: X` with no provenance does not resolve the fork — the re-dispatched juror blocks on it. The escalation rule and the three-field carrier are untouched; only the juror's information changes. Mechanics: - specify Step 1.5: reconciliation-comment sub-step, provenance format, issue-less fallback (auto-sign -> human sign-off, no weak spec-note). - spec-skeptic: replace the "quoted in the dispatch" drift; juror reads the issue WITH comments via `issue_tracker.show_cmd`; provenance check. - new profile slot `issue_tracker.show_cmd` (must render comments); documented in schema + template. - issue skill: `tea issues <idx>` is body-only; `--comments` required (verified against tea 0.14.1 and Aura #55 — 180 vs 144 lines). - consistency: design.md out-of-scope, README, pipeline.md, boss skill.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -369,6 +369,12 @@ and defined there. The boss-side contract is just this:
|
||||
question in the user's place; the full re-panel each round is what
|
||||
stops an editorial repair from laundering one in. The gate owns this
|
||||
loop (`../specify/SKILL.md` Step 6) — boss only enforces the notify.
|
||||
One upstream detail matters here: when a fork was settled in-context
|
||||
but the seeding issue still lists it open, `specify` Step 1.5 posts a
|
||||
provenance-bearing reconciliation comment on the issue so the
|
||||
`scope-fork` juror ratifies the resolution from an auditable source
|
||||
rather than false-blocking on the stale body. That comment records a
|
||||
*user* decision; it never lets the orchestrator certify its own.
|
||||
- **On a clean sign, do not stop.** Commit the spec (the auto-sign
|
||||
commit subject carries `(boss-signed)` so the act is auditable in
|
||||
history), fire the auto-sign notify, and continue to `planner` in
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user