You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This was generated by AI from a fresh-context verification round during PR #1886; none of these were caused by that PR, so they were recorded rather than fixed there.
Context
The design doc docs/topics/audit-pass/design/rerun-contract.md (path may have drifted; locate by
filename) and the shipped contract plugins/claude-config/skills/audit-pass/reference/run-contract.md contradict each other on four
points. PR #1886 already fixed the two staleness cases it was scoped to (adopting the shipped fix-comparable and scan-baseline state digest vocabulary); these four remain.
The four contradictions
Inline suppression markers — the design doc (around its line 424 at time of writing)
mandates inline suppression markers, while the shipped contract states "suppression is always
central. There is no inline marker, at any target" and records the inline form "was specified and
withdrawn… so it is not re-proposed." This one will break any implementation that follows the
design doc. Shipped contract is the authority.
Redirect refusal — existence-only vs name-based refusal criteria disagree between the two.
Closure dispositions — shipped contract has four dispositions, design doc has three.
Additional drift
PLAN.md for the audit-pass topic marks Phases 6, 8, 9 TODO while audit-pass ships a more
advanced run contract — implementation ran ahead of the plan; the plan no longer describes reality.
Acceptance criteria
Each of the four contradictions is reconciled with the shipped contract as the default
authority, or the divergence deliberately decided the other way with the decision recorded.
The audit-pass PLAN.md phase status reflects what actually shipped.
Related
Refs #1886
No linked issue is closed by this report.
This was generated by AI from a fresh-context verification round during PR #1886; none of these were caused by that PR, so they were recorded rather than fixed there.
Context
The design doc
docs/topics/audit-pass/design/rerun-contract.md(path may have drifted; locate byfilename) and the shipped contract
plugins/claude-config/skills/audit-pass/reference/run-contract.mdcontradict each other on fourpoints. PR #1886 already fixed the two staleness cases it was scoped to (adopting the shipped
fix-comparableandscan-baseline state digestvocabulary); these four remain.The four contradictions
mandates inline suppression markers, while the shipped contract states "suppression is always
central. There is no inline marker, at any target" and records the inline form "was specified and
withdrawn… so it is not re-proposed." This one will break any implementation that follows the
design doc. Shipped contract is the authority.
contract's boot-identity + liveness + hard-ceiling shape (post fix(claude-config,source-control): close five stranded findings from #1318/#1320/#1405 #1848) is current.
Additional drift
PLAN.mdfor the audit-pass topic marks Phases 6, 8, 9 TODO whileaudit-passships a moreadvanced run contract — implementation ran ahead of the plan; the plan no longer describes reality.
Acceptance criteria
authority, or the divergence deliberately decided the other way with the decision recorded.
Related
Refs #1886
No linked issue is closed by this report.