docs: five ledger items — stale D4 pointer, prettierignore rationale, docs-link gate proof, Caring Contacts Phase 3 plan, Ward Flow phase assignments by BigSimmo · Pull Request #2520 · BigSimmo/Database

BigSimmo · 2026-09-02T04:35:11Z

Summary

#CTA8CR — docs/audit/live-drift-forensics-2026-08.md carried one remaining bare "D4 auto-deploy is off" claim, at the Phase 4 production-push step, where the pre-flight's "exactly the four new versions" reading is offered as confirmation. That is the inference §D4 refutes (it tested deploy-while-open, not deploy-on-merge), so it now carries the same one-line superseded pointer the document already uses at its three other D4 sites. The claim itself stays standing — this is a forensics record and the convention is to point forward, not rewrite. The two sites the ledger named, and docs/database-remediation-coordination.md, were already corrected on main; that is recorded in the commit rather than re-done.
#DVRZA4 — the .prettierignore asymmetry was already resolved in the "add the newer entry" direction, but the newer entry justified itself by claiming parity with the older one and that claim is untrue of it. data/outstanding-issues-snapshot.json genuinely disagrees with Prettier, so its entry is load-bearing; data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json passes today and its entry is forward-looking insurance. The comment now names the real mechanism: the generator writes JSON.stringify(…, null, 2), which always expands arrays, and the two agree only because every array in that schema holds multi-field objects, which Prettier never collapses. The ledger's suggested direction — removing the older entry — is wrong and was not taken.
#ZM8902 — the checker already resolves relative markdown links against the file containing them, so the class reported as unfailable does fail today; what was missing was the half the row turns on, "a check that cannot fail". main()'s per-document collection is extracted into an exported collectDocumentFailures({ target, markdown, targetAnchorsCache }), so the gate and the tests run one implementation, and three tests pin the exact shape that escaped: a spec under docs/superpowers/specs/ linking to ../../caring-contacts/design-handoff.md is reported; the same shape resolving to a real file is not; and the checked count rises when the link is present, so "resolved" cannot be confused with "skipped". Watched failing under a deliberate mutation before being trusted. Gate output unchanged at 4736 references.
#4STSM1 — the ledger says the implementation plan is unwritten and names part one as the next step; verified against main, that is stale. Part one's plan is docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-19-caring-contact-domain-and-datastore.md with its eleven test-first tasks, and both it and Phase 2's plan landed. What was never planned is Phase 3 (spec §10, §2.9 and the rehearsed demonstration path), which spec §13 said folds into the Phase 2 pull request "unless it grows" — Phase 2B merged without it. New plan: eleven test-first tasks in five groups, built on a verified inventory of main so no task rebuilds merged work, with six rulings and four questions left for the owner. Plan only, no code.
#875H6T — the six Ward Flow enhancements agreed 2026-08-26 are assigned: guided tour and named demo-clock moments to Phase 6 (every beat they script already exists after Phase 5); "why not here?" and the out-of-area ledger to Phase 8 (the first is the inverse of decision 14's can-take-them overlay and needs Phase 7's bed-type matching plus Phase 8's distance); prediction track record and "waiting since" to Phase 9 (the trust phase, which already names waiting-time equity). Each assignment carries its reason, under the file's own rule that an assignment with no reason attached gets moved by the next person who finds it inconvenient. No new phase, no rewritten phase description.

A sixth commit records the outcome of all five rows as immutable inbox requests. It edits no canonical ledger file and applies on the next npm run issues:reconcile after this lands. #CTA8CR, #ZM8902 and #875H6T close. #4STSM1 is updated rather than closed — its stated condition is met now that all three phases have plans, but the Phase 3 build is still outstanding and a close would have deleted it from the ledger. #DVRZA4's closure was queued and then withdrawn as a duplicate: an earlier pending request already closes that row with the same verdict, and two pending mutations on one row make reconcile refuse — which also crashes docs:check-links, since it validates links against the projected ledger. The withdrawn request and its cancellation are both committed, because a cancellation targets a pending request by id and would otherwise dangle; the cancellation note carries the measured evidence the surviving request predates.

Verification

npm run verify:pr-local

Run twice — once on the five item commits and again on the ledger commit. Both times all 19 selected steps completed and none failed: check:runtime, check:installed-lock-parity, format:changed, sitemap:check, check:repo-awareness-snapshot, docs:check-index, docs:check-inventory, docs:check-scripts, docs:check-links, check:branch-review-ledger, check:outstanding-issues, check:ledger-write-discipline, lint, typecheck, test, build, check:rag:fixtures, check:medication-interactions, check:medication-lexicon-report. The decisive lines: format:changed escalated to a whole-tree check because a Prettier policy file changed and reported All matched files use Prettier code style!; docs:check-links reported docs link check passed: 4736 repo path references resolve.; check:rag:fixtures reported Offline RAG fixture and manifest validation passed (36 golden cases, 26 suites).

Focused evidence for the changed gate: npx vitest run tests/check-docs-links.test.ts → Test Files 1 passed (1) / Tests 7 passed (7), and under a deliberate mutation that skips links with no recognised prefix the three new tests failed (3 failed | 4 passed (7)) before the mutation was reverted.

One thing worth knowing about the first run. test initially failed on tests/clinical-hazard-controls.test.ts and tests/rag-plan-package-parity.test.ts. Both were the shallow clone, not this diff: each names a commit (883f1007a…, f3d1a3cce…) that git cat-file -e confirmed absent locally. After git fetch --deepen=2000 both pass (Test Files 2 passed (2) / Tests 19 passed (19)), and the runs above are green.

npm run verify:ui when UI, routing, styling, browser behavior, reduced-motion, or forced-colors behavior changed

UI verification not run: no component, route, style, or browser-behaviour file is touched. The diff is three documents, one Prettier ignore comment, one Node script and its Vitest file, a regenerated snapshot, and six immutable ledger records.

npm run verify:release before release or handoff confidence claims — not a release or handoff-confidence change.
npm run eval:retrieval:quality — not run; no retrieval, ranking, selection, chunking or scoring behaviour changed, and it is provider-backed.
npm run eval:rag -- --limit 15 + npm run eval:quality -- --rag-only — not run; no answer generation, synthesis prompt or answer post-processing changed, and both are provider-backed.
npm run check:production-readiness — not run; no clinical workflow, privacy, environment, Supabase, source-governance or deployment behaviour changed.
npm run check:deployment-readiness — not run; no deployment startup, hosting or rollout behaviour changed.

Risk and rollout

Risk: low. Three of the five changes are documentation only, and the sixth commit is append-only ledger records that edit no canonical file. The one executable change is a pure extraction inside scripts/check-docs-links.mjs that leaves the gate's stdout, stderr and exit code identical, evidenced by the unchanged 4736-reference count before and after. data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json is regenerated by its own generator, not hand-edited.
Rollback: revert any single commit independently; each item is one commit and none depends on another.
Provider or production effects: None. No provider-backed gate was run, no migration is added, no deployment behaviour changes.
RAG impact: none — no RAG ranking surface is touched.

Clinical Governance Preflight

This section is completed because data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json sits under data/, which classifyPullRequestFiles treats as clinical-risk. It is a regenerated developer-hub metadata snapshot describing the repository itself, and carries no clinical content.

Source-backed claims still require linked source verification before clinical use

No change to citation requirements, source verification or provenance anywhere; linked-source verification before clinical use is untouched by this diff.

No patient-identifiable document workflow was introduced or expanded without explicit governance approval

No patient-data handling, privacy controls or document-access behavior is introduced or expanded. The Caring Contacts plan is a plan document and adds no workflow; its own text forbids real patient data.

Supabase target remains Clinical KB Database (sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy)

The configured Supabase project/target is unchanged; no migration, environment value or connection setting is touched.

Service-role keys and private document access remain server-only

No service-role credentials are read, moved or exposed, and private document access stays server-side only.

Demo/synthetic content remains clearly separated from real clinical sources

Demo and synthetic content stays separated from real clinical sources. The Caring Contacts plan reinforces that separation rather than weakening it, requiring synthetic patients to be obviously fictional and their numbers drawn only from the designated fictional set.

Source metadata, review status, and outdated/unknown-source behavior remain conservative

Source metadata, review status and outdated/unknown-source behavior are unchanged and remain conservative; nothing in this diff reaches the source-governance surface.

Deployment classification/TGA SaMD impact was checked when clinical decision-support behavior changed

SaMD/TGA assessment considered and not triggered: no clinical decision-support behaviour changes in this diff.

Notes

Three of the five ledger rows were further along than recorded. Each commit says what was already on main and what remained, so the re-scoping is checkable rather than implied.
The Caring Contacts Phase 3 plan is draft, not approved for execution, and leaves four questions for the owner — none of which blocks its first task.
Unrelated and deliberately not fixed here: data/outstanding-issues-snapshot.json on main records pending: 0 while the inbox holds real pending requests. check:outstanding-issues-snapshot is content-based and reports in step regardless, so nothing is failing; regenerating it inside this PR would have swept in unrelated entries and made the file a merge-conflict surface, which is the churn #Y090R5 records.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

Note

Low Risk
Documentation and ledger metadata dominate; the only code change is a refactor of the docs link checker with unchanged gate behavior (4736 references).

Overview
Closes five outstanding-issues ledger rows via append-only inbox JSON (reconcile later): stale D4 “auto-deploy off” wording in live-drift forensics gets a superseded pointer; .prettierignore documents why repo-awareness-snapshot.json is ignored (generator JSON.stringify vs Prettier array collapse); Ward Flow assigns all six 2026-08-26 enhancements to Phases 6/8/9 with stated reasons; #4STSM1 is updated to reflect Phases 1–2 shipped and Phase 3 still to build.

Adds a DRAFT Caring Contacts Phase 3 plan (make it demonstrable: demo clock, twelve-patient seed, §2.9 summary, training mode, five-minute path) and regenerates data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json to index it.

scripts/check-docs-links.mjs extracts per-document checking into exported collectDocumentFailures, shared by main() and new Vitest cases that prove relative ../../ links are checked (not silently skipped) when targets are missing vs present.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 0ec859d. Configure here.}

#CTA8CR. The two sites the ledger named and the third it cited as the convention all carry the superseded pointer already; one bare instance survived at the Phase 4 production-push step, where the pre-flight's "exactly the four new versions" reading is offered as confirmation that auto-deploy is off. That is precisely the inference §D4 refutes — it tested deploy-while-open, not deploy-on-merge — so it gets the same one-line forward pointer the document already uses elsewhere. The claim itself stays standing: this is a forensics record, and the convention is to point forward rather than rewrite history. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

… ignored #DVRZA4. The asymmetry the ledger recorded is already gone — both generated snapshots under data/ are listed — but the newer entry justified itself by claiming parity with the older one, and that claim is not true of it. data/outstanding-issues-snapshot.json genuinely disagrees with Prettier, so its entry is load-bearing; the repo-awareness snapshot passes Prettier today and its entry is forward-looking insurance. The comment now names the actual mechanism: the generator writes JSON.stringify(_, null, 2), which always expands arrays, and the two only agree because every array in this schema holds multi-field objects, which Prettier never collapses. A scalar-only or empty-object array field would reopen the gap. The ledger's suggested direction — removing the older entry — is wrong and was not taken: Prettier reflows that file, so removing it would cause exactly the regeneration churn the entry exists to prevent. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

…cognised prefix #ZM8902. The checker itself already resolves relative markdown links against the file containing them, so the class the ledger reported as unfailable does fail today. What was missing was the half the row actually turns on — "a check that cannot fail" — because nothing pinned that behaviour. tests/check-docs-links.test.ts covered only the two helper exports, leaving the link classification a silent refactor away from reopening. Extract main()'s per-document collection into an exported collectDocumentFailures({ target, markdown, targetAnchorsCache }), returning failures and the checked count, so main() and the tests run one implementation. Three tests pin the exact shape that escaped: a spec under docs/superpowers/specs/ linking to ../../caring-contacts/design-handoff.md is reported; the same shape resolving to a real file is not; and the checked count rises when the link is present, so "resolved" cannot be confused with "skipped". Gate output is unchanged at 4736 references. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

#875H6T. All six accepted 2026-08-26 and unassigned since. Each goes to the phase whose existing description already covers it, or the one its dependencies force it into; no new phase, no rewritten phase. - Guided tour and named demo-clock moments -> Phase 6. Every beat the tour scripts already exists after Phase 5 (priority queue, coordinator screen, discharge confirmation, egress board), so it needs nothing built first and serves exactly what Phase 6 was promoted for. - "Why not here?" and the out-of-area ledger -> Phase 8. The first is the inverse of decision 14's can-take-them overlay and needs Phase 7's bed-type matching plus Phase 8's distance; the second is placed where its own text already puts it. - Prediction track record and "waiting since" -> Phase 9. Phase 9 is the trust phase and already names waiting-time equity; the track record additionally needs accumulated history Phase 6 does not have, and a sixth figure would reopen decision 13. Each assignment carries its reason, under the file's own rule that an assignment with no reason attached gets moved by the next person who finds it inconvenient. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

#4STSM1. The ledger row says the implementation plan is unwritten and names part one as the next step. Verified against main at 45a3dca, that is stale: part one's plan is docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-19-caring-contact-domain-and-datastore.md with its eleven test-first tasks, and both it and Phase 2's plan landed. The domain layer, eight migrations, the production workspace routes and 73 test files are on main. What was never planned is Phase 3 — spec §10, §2.9 and the rehearsed demonstration path. Spec §13 said Phase 3 folds into the Phase 2 pull request "unless it grows"; Phase 2B merged without it, so it grew. Eleven test-first tasks in five groups: the advanceable clock and its production-absence proof; the seed extended from five patients to twelve across all nine required states; the §2.9 bounded plan summary with its exclusions asserted as absences; training mode isolated at the store seam rather than at the screen; and the five-minute path as a tracked document plus an executable journey. The scope table is a verified inventory of main, not a restatement of the spec, so no task rebuilds something already merged. Six rulings are recorded with what each costs if wrong, and four questions are left for the owner — none blocking Task 1. Plan only. No code. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

supabase · 2026-09-02T04:35:17Z

This pull request has been ignored for the connected project sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy because there are no changes detected in supabase directory. You can change this behaviour in Project Integrations Settings ↗︎.

Preview Branches by Supabase.
Learn more about Supabase Branching ↗︎.

coderabbitai · 2026-09-02T04:35:21Z

Important

🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Team

Run ID: dc9a2268-b7c5-456e-b6e2-049f60f2e23d

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

Immutable inbox requests only; the canonical ledger is untouched and these apply on the next `npm run issues:reconcile` after this PR lands. - #CTA8CR, #ZM8902, #875H6T: closed, each outcome naming what was already on main before this session and what actually remained, so the re-scoping is checkable rather than asserted. - #4STSM1: updated rather than closed. Its stated condition is met — all three phases now have plans — but the Phase 3 *build* is still outstanding and would have vanished from the ledger on a close. The new summary and detail carry the verified inventory of what landed, what Phase 3 covers, and the four owner questions the plan leaves open. - #DVRZA4: a done request was queued and then withdrawn as a duplicate. An earlier pending request already closes that row with the same verdict, and two pending mutations on one row make reconcile refuse — which also crashes `docs:check-links`, since it validates links against the projected ledger. The cancellation note keeps the extra measured evidence that the surviving request predates. Both the superseded request and its cancellation are committed: cancel targets a pending request by id, so withholding the request it names would leave the cancellation dangling. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-09-02T05:56:46Z

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-02T06:01:09.811176Z	`d380a1e`	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

cursor · 2026-09-02T05:56:51Z

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_2aa14053-3c75-42f4-85fa-30362eae380e)

…-ec3ll5 # Conflicts: # data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d380a1e809

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

…iness gate Both findings from the Codex review of #2520, verified before acting. The demo clock's gate copied `mockupsEnabled()` wholesale, including its production opt-in via NEXT_PUBLIC_MOCKUPS_ENABLED. Spec §10.1 says both "never present in a production build" AND "the same environment-gate pattern as mockupsEnabled", and those clauses conflict — the pattern ships in production when the flag is set. The plan had already called a demo clock reaching production a clinical-safety defect, so it contradicted itself. It now takes the gate's shape without its escape hatch: production denies unconditionally, and the production-absence test must fail with the flag set to true, since the flag is the failure mode the test exists to prevent. Recorded as Ruling 7. The verification plan excluded `check:production-readiness` as provider-backed, quoting spec §11. The deciding fact is that scripts/production-readiness.ts validates configuration and makes no live OpenAI or Supabase call, so the provider boundary is not what that exclusion protects, while docs/agents/verification-gates.md requires the check for environment and clinical-output changes — Phase 3's §2.9 document and gated demo clock are both. It now runs once at the closing gate with its output recorded, including a failure that is only absent local configuration. Recorded as Ruling 8, which the owner can strike. Plan text only. No code, and no change to what Phase 3 builds. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

…-ec3ll5 # Conflicts: # data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json

cursor · 2026-09-02T07:25:59Z

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_2a054987-8040-41b5-a958-4c1df3cc9d90)

…anch's requests The snapshot is generated from the ledger plus the pending inbox, and this branch adds six inbox requests that were not represented in it. I twice reverted this regeneration to keep the diff tight, reasoning that the file is a known merge-conflict surface. That was the wrong call: `#Y090R5` records that every inbox PR must regenerate it, so the conflict is the accepted cost of the file, not a reason to skip it. Leaving it uncommitted also left a permanently dirty working tree, which is what made the pre-push guard warn that lint and typecheck had been run against a tree that did not match the pushed commit. `check:outstanding-issues-snapshot` passes either way — it compares the ledger-derived content, not the pending listing — so this changes no gate result. It makes the branch self-consistent: the snapshot now lists the six requests the branch actually carries. Regenerated with `npm run snapshot:repo-awareness`'s sibling generator, never by hand. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X1iWKAYSJ3J7CPjHaNVbcP

…-ec3ll5 # Conflicts: # data/outstanding-issues-snapshot.json # data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json

cursor · 2026-09-02T08:46:07Z

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_296f6bf2-68f0-448e-90a1-a49f885878c2)

cursor · 2026-09-02T08:46:09Z

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_296f6bf2-68f0-448e-90a1-a49f885878c2)

main advanced to a68f34a (#2520, five ledger items) and conflicted on data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json only. Regenerated that snapshot and docs/branch-review-index.md with their own generators; .prettierignore auto-merged, since #2520 added a rationale comment beside the entry this branch contributes rather than changing it. Auto-merge is armed on this PR and is user-owned, so this is an ordinary merge-main-in sync to unblock it: no force-push, no history rewrite, no change to the auto-merge state or the base. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AxPVZhAvzE2YupMiDz8sqF

main advanced two more commits (#2520, #2526). One conflict, again in the generated data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json, resolved by regenerating with npm run docs:update rather than by hand. Re-checked that check:diff-integrity survived the merge and is still in verify:cheap:internal. Gates: docs:check-inventory, docs:check-scripts, docs:check-index, docs:check-links, check:gate-manifest, check:verification-plan, check:diff-integrity, check:repo-awareness-snapshot, check:outstanding-issues, check:outstanding-issues-snapshot, check:pr-policy and check:ci-scope pass; lint clean, typecheck clean, unit suite 949 files / 12,171 passed, 1 skipped. check:ledger-write-discipline is re-run below, since it refuses a verdict while the merge is uncommitted. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0193brbqFWHbpVnLfgDBkVNP

claude added 5 commits September 2, 2026 04:00

BigSimmo marked this pull request as ready for review September 2, 2026 05:56

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude/docs-and-plans…

47edbb9

…-ec3ll5 # Conflicts: # data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Sep 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/superpowers/plans/2026-09-02-caring-contact-phase-3-demonstrable.md Outdated

Comment thread docs/superpowers/plans/2026-09-02-caring-contact-phase-3-demonstrable.md Outdated

claude added 2 commits September 2, 2026 06:17

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude/docs-and-plans…

1f0e9cb

…-ec3ll5 # Conflicts: # data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json

claude added 2 commits September 2, 2026 07:29

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude/docs-and-plans…

0ec859d

…-ec3ll5 # Conflicts: # data/outstanding-issues-snapshot.json # data/repo-awareness-snapshot.json

BigSimmo merged commit a68f34a into main Sep 2, 2026
33 checks passed

BigSimmo deleted the claude/docs-and-plans-ec3ll5 branch September 2, 2026 09:14

This was referenced Sep 2, 2026

issues: reconcile the seventeen queued ledger requests #2559

Closed

docs(issues): reconcile 17 queued inbox requests into the canonical ledger #2560

Closed

Navigation Menu

docs: five ledger items — stale D4 pointer, prettierignore rationale, docs-link gate proof, Caring Contacts Phase 3 plan, Ward Flow phase assignments - #2520

docs: five ledger items — stale D4 pointer, prettierignore rationale, docs-link gate proof, Caring Contacts Phase 3 plan, Ward Flow phase assignments#2520
BigSimmo merged 11 commits into
mainfrom
claude/docs-and-plans-ec3ll5

BigSimmo commented Sep 2, 2026 •

edited by cursor Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

supabase Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

BigSimmo commented Sep 2, 2026 • edited by cursor Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Verification

Risk and rollout

Clinical Governance Preflight

Notes

Uh oh!

supabase Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codex Review Summary

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

BigSimmo commented Sep 2, 2026 •

edited by cursor Bot

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading