The ruled-term paragraph now names its field — a check carrying a
terminal conclusion is green or not-green by that conclusion whatever
its status reports — and rules the head with no checks configured:
nothing to wait for, request straight away, no argued exception owed.
The draft-round restatement comes out so the file states the rule once.
Closes#260, closes#272 via the PR.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
"no activity for N days" was true of the old clock and is now imprecise:
an assignment no longer counts, so an item assigned yesterday would read
a nudge claiming nine days of nothing. It says "no comment" instead —
the fact the sweep actually read.
Refs #254
"a comment, a review or a commit" is the ruling nudge's house phrasing and
false on the issue surface twice over: there is no review or commit fact in
what the sweep reads, and an assignment is no longer counted here. Say
what is read, and say what does not buy another 7 days of silence.
Refs #254
The nudge rode `last_issue_activity`, which counts `assigned` timeline
events because assignment is the claim the 48-hour reclaim protects.
`post-merge` has no claim: an assignee there is the invalid composition
the flag beside it reports, so counting the assignment let a broken board
buy the item another 7 days of silence — this issue's failure direction
taken backwards.
One computation, two clocks over it: `issue_activity_at` is the body,
`last_issue_activity` keeps the reclaim and ruling clocks byte-identical,
and `last_issue_comment_activity` is the evidence clock. Both clocks are
read before this branch posts anything, the ruling one included — read
after, it would date the issue by the evidence nudge's own comment and
silence the ruling nudge, which is the self-silencing the branch already
guarded against in the other direction.
Refs #254
The two 'must fail loudly' cases from the plan: an unparseable body still
nudges and the nudge quotes none of it, and a grep-level pin that no second
7-day constant appears in the sweep.
Refs #254
LABELS.md said the sweep never reclaims post-merge and stopped there, which
now reads as 'the machine says nothing' — after this change it says one
thing, once per 7 quiet days. Plus the fragment.
Refs #254
Covers the must-nudge pair (8 quiet days; post-merge + needs-ruling both
speak), the must-not set (6 days, fresh comment, every other queue state),
self-rate-limiting proven by sweeping again a day later rather than by
asserting a marker's absence, and zero writes across every probe.
Two existing probes move: #36's 'no comment' assertion described the
starvation this issue ends, and #67 gets recent activity so its precedence
count stays the assertion doing the work.
Refs #254
WIP checkpoint: the nudge itself, tests still owed. Reuses
ruling_nudge_decision so the 7-day rule keeps one spelling, addresses the
triage actor (post-merge is triage's completion queue), and carries no
idempotency marker — the comment is itself activity, so it self-rate-limits.
Refs #254
Both occurrences said crew's engine already converts a PR back to draft at
round close; crew#139 is OPEN, blocked and unassigned, so the passage was
describing an unshipped mechanism as live (codex, kimi). The same sentence
also read as if the conversion caused the CI spend — it is the status quo
the conversion would end, so the counterfactual is now explicit. Rewrapped
the paragraph at 80 columns; 7948b99 had left one line at 133.
The first paragraph referred to a 15-minute cadence and a checkpoint
discipline, neither of which BUILDER.md states — the cadence is crew's
engine rule and the pointer sent a reader to a section that says nothing
about it. Attribute the measurement to crew#139 and point at what
Building actually says. The LABELS.md sentence stops restating the
state:building row's condition and points at it instead: one rule in two
voices, per #258's test plan.
Refs #258
BUILDER.md's review round assumed ready-throughout, so a builder or
reviewer meeting a mid-round draft found behaviour the doctrine never
described. Three points, doctrine not mechanism: the draft phase stays
the builder's through a fix round, ready-for-review is the builder's own
act and no engine's, and where the draft suppressed CI green is proven
at the flip with the request following it — step 1's rule at a stated
moment, not a second rule.
REVIEWER.md gains the reading that keeps a reviewer from misfiling it:
a draft carrying state:addressing is a fix round in progress.
Refs #258
AC-1 names two inputs and says "both by fixture". The suite had the first and,
for the second, only a re-sweep of a BYTE-IDENTICAL body — which is the test
plan's other must-not-echo bullet, and cannot stand in for this one: an
identical body is quiet under both spellings of the decision, the one that
keys on the parse and the one that keys on the prose, so it cannot tell them
apart. Only an edit that changes the prose and preserves the parse can.
The new probe reorders the refs and adds sentences on either side, leaving the
set at {#90, #91}, and asserts the marker count, the thread's total echo count
and the issue-edit count all hold still. What it pins is that the marker is a
function of the PARSE and not of the prose around it — the property the whole
idempotency rests on.
Mutation-proven isolating: an echo that also re-fires when the declaration
prose moved since the last echo — quiet on identical re-sweeps, correct on
every set change — passes the pre-existing suite 304/0 and reds only here.
The echo body wrote `no longer blocked by #9` unbackticked, twice in one
sentence. GitHub linkifies both, so every echo posted a pair of "mentioned in"
events onto this repo's issue #9 — an issue with nothing to do with the one
being echoed. On a 15-minute cron that is one pair per `blocked` issue on the
board, and the first sweep after merge would have written the whole board's
worth at once.
The file's own convention two branches down already avoids this: the
`blocked-unparseable` comment code-spans its `Blocked by #N` for exactly this
reason. The prose is unchanged, the rendered set is unchanged, and the marker
digests the parsed set rather than the comment body, so no marker moves.
#263 landed on main after this branch's head and asserts that a healthy
assigned attention under blocked posts nothing at all. The #252 echo makes
every blocked issue carry one comment — its parse — so the proxy is false
while the contract behind it is not: probe 66 draws the parse echo and no
attention diagnostic.
Re-spelled the way the same section's other cases already spell it, as the
absence of the attention-malformed marker, plus a companion assertion that
exactly one comment landed. That is strictly tighter than test -f was: this
case now fails if an attention comment appears beside the echo, which the
old form could not detect once any comment existed.
Refs #252
claude-bot: `{acme.widgets#9}` is not a reachable declared set — the clause
parser stops at the `.` and blocked_reference_records never hands the token
through, though issue_references does answer CROSS for it. The comment claimed
all four were declarations the reconciler accepts. The member stays (the
marker's contract is over the tokens the classifier admits) and the comment
now says which is which.
Refs #252
ensure_comment's any-occurrence grep answers "have I ever said this", which
is right for a flag like blocked-unparseable and wrong for a value that
changes. A -> B -> A found A's own first echo and stayed silent, leaving the
thread's newest echo asserting B while the sweep gated on A: a stale parse
presented as the current one, and the third edit did change the parsed set,
so the criterion says it speaks.
blocked_parse_echo_needed compares this parse's marker against the LAST
blockers-parsed-* marker on the thread. The read stays inside guarded_read /
skip_issue, so an unreadable history still fails closed (#247 D1) rather than
answering "nothing echoed yet" and re-posting. ensure_comment is untouched
for every other caller.
Refs #252
