Observation
ADR 0003 (merged in #1357) requires a guard to measure firing rate and precision "on the real corpus, at real scale" before shipping default-on. It never says whose corpus.
For a PostToolUse guard shipped inside a plugin, that omission matters. The guard does not execute here — it executes in arbitrary consuming repositories, whose document, path, and command distributions can differ substantially from this marketplace's. A sweep across this repo's 975 tracked markdown files establishes precision for this repo. A guard can clear that bar here and then over-fire for every consumer.
The evidence the ADR itself cites illustrates the gap: asserted-path-verify's dominant failure class was consumer-project config paths (.claude/**) that a doc describes for a consuming repo and that a marketplace correctly lacks. That is precisely a deployment-scope mismatch, and the rule as written would not have caught it in the general case.
Direction (no open decision)
Amend decision rule 1 so the corpus requirement names the guard's deployment scope rather than the authoring repo. Two readings satisfy it and the ADR should say which:
- A guard whose matcher explicitly confines it to this marketplace may measure here.
- A guard that ships default-on into consumer projects measures against corpora representative of that deployment scope — and states which corpora, since a single-repo sweep is not evidence about them.
Acceptance
Related
Raised as review feedback on #1364 (closed as superseded by #1357). Refs #1352, #1270, #1314, #1319.
Observation
ADR 0003 (merged in #1357) requires a guard to measure firing rate and precision "on the real corpus, at real scale" before shipping default-on. It never says whose corpus.
For a
PostToolUseguard shipped inside a plugin, that omission matters. The guard does not execute here — it executes in arbitrary consuming repositories, whose document, path, and command distributions can differ substantially from this marketplace's. A sweep across this repo's 975 tracked markdown files establishes precision for this repo. A guard can clear that bar here and then over-fire for every consumer.The evidence the ADR itself cites illustrates the gap:
asserted-path-verify's dominant failure class was consumer-project config paths (.claude/**) that a doc describes for a consuming repo and that a marketplace correctly lacks. That is precisely a deployment-scope mismatch, and the rule as written would not have caught it in the general case.Direction (no open decision)
Amend decision rule 1 so the corpus requirement names the guard's deployment scope rather than the authoring repo. Two readings satisfy it and the ADR should say which:
Acceptance
asserted-path-verifyconsumer-config finding is cited as the motivating casedocs/conventions/hook-precision/README.mdRelated
Raised as review feedback on #1364 (closed as superseded by #1357). Refs #1352, #1270, #1314, #1319.