docs(upstream): record that a user mod loads in Claude Desktop's Code tab

[kyle-sexton]

No related issue: the Desktop probe was left as an open manual step inside PR #4241's own committed trail, and this PR records the maintainer's result in that same trail. No tracker item was ever filed for it.

Summary

PR #4241 deferred adopting Claude Code "mods" and listed "does Desktop's Code tab load a user-authored mod?" as an open probe with a by-hand procedure. The maintainer has now run it. Without this, the next reader of ADR 0035 reasons from a stale unknown and repeats a finished experiment.

Fix

• docs/upstream/claude-code-mods/experiments.md — the Desktop probe section now opens with the dated result (OBSERVED: a user-authored mod loads in Desktop's Code tab) rather than "Unanswered", records Desktop build app-2.2553.1 and its bundled Claude Code 2.1.275 against 2.1.278 on PATH, and lists the untested arms. Step 3 gains route (c), the route that actually worked: the fully quit app launched from PowerShell with the enable flag set for that process only, resting on the documented Windows rule that the app inherits user and system environment variables. Route (a), the local environment editor's gear icon, is marked absent in that build. The negative-reading paragraph now names where the bundled version is read.
• What enabled the load is labelled INFERRED, not OBSERVED: the flag-unset arm was never run in Desktop, so the probe cannot separate "the variable reached the bundled process" from "the rollout gate is already on in that build". Still open: that unset arm, cloud sessions, Cowork, and mods that draw UI.
• docs/adr/0035-defer-claude-code-mods-with-five-go-criteria.md — the "two probes are open" bullet becomes one open (rollout switch) and one partly answered, with the observed result and what remains. The Defer verdict and the five go criteria do not change; Desktop loading is in no criterion. Note that go-no-go.md's after-run rule says a runbook run does not amend an accepted ADR by itself; this is not a runbook run but a correction of a factual open-unknown statement, made at the owner's direction, and it leaves the decision untouched.
• docs/upstream/claude-code-mods/go-no-go.md — that file never named Desktop, so its only inaccurate line was the pointer calling experiments.md's manual probes wholly open. It now states the observed result and that the other arms stay untested.
• docs/upstream/claude-code-mods/sources.md — the code.claude.com/docs/en/desktop row gains the Windows environment-inheritance sentence the route relies on, and experiments.md in its used-by column, per the runbook's own after-run rule.
• docs/upstream/claude-code-mods/research-2026-09-19/ is frozen and untouched. docs/plugin-philosophy.md is untouched: its mods row makes no Desktop claim.

Verification

• node_modules/.bin/markdownlint-cli2 on all four touched files: 0 issues.
• scripts/check-docs-naming.sh --check: every tracked file under docs/ is lower-kebab-case.
• Relative links added resolve: ../upstream/claude-code-mods/experiments.md from docs/adr/.
• Diff grepped for personal data and absolute machine paths: none. The bundled-CLI location is written as a %APPDATA% placeholder.
• Docs only; no code, config, or CI change.

Related

• PR docs(adr): defer Claude Code mods with five go criteria #4241, which deferred mods and left this probe open.
• ADR 0035.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01LZaei9mJtbHVmC7kqnsayX

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

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

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-19T23:13:33.732728Z	0803460	PR opened

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.

[claude]

Claude finished @kyle-sexton's task in 2m 56s —— View job

---

Code review complete

• Check skip-gate conditions (draft, closed, trivial, already reviewed)
• Gather context: gh pr diff, changed files, CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md conventions
• Review changed files for correctness/maintainability per /review:code-review criteria
• Post findings (inline comments + summary)

Skip gate: none applied — PR is open (not draft, since this lane only runs on non-draft PRs per this repo's AGENTS.md), the diff is a substantive 4-file docs update, and I found no prior successful review from this lane on this head.

Scope: docs-only change (docs/adr/0035-…md, docs/upstream/claude-code-mods/{experiments,go-no-go,sources}.md), reviewed against origin/main...HEAD.

What I checked:

• Cross-file consistency of the new claim (Desktop build app-2.2553.1, bundled Claude Code 2.1.275 vs. 2.1.278 on PATH, the OBSERVED/INFERRED labels, the four untested arms) across all four touched files — consistent everywhere it's restated.
• The docs/conventions/upstream-drift/README.md four-part record requirement (claim, basis, as-of date, recheck trigger) against the new Desktop-probe entry in experiments.md — all four parts present, and the "rerun if a consumer reports using these plugins mainly through Desktop" trigger is carried over unchanged from the prior text.
• go-no-go.md's own "after a run" rule (line 330: "a runbook run does not amend an accepted ADR by itself") against this PR's rationale for editing ADR 0035 directly — the PR body's reasoning (a factual correction of a stated open-unknown, not a runbook run) matches what that rule actually says.
• Relative links added/touched resolve: ../upstream/claude-code-mods/experiments.md from docs/adr/ → confirmed target exists.
• The sources.md row's "Used by" addition (experiments.md) against the corresponding claim in experiments.md (the Windows environment-inheritance rule route (c) rests on) — consistent, though the citation is indirect (experiments.md doesn't hyperlink the source, it just restates the rule the source row documents), which matches this file's existing pattern elsewhere.

No correctness or maintainability issues found that clear the high-signal bar (a careful reviewer would not block on anything here). No inline comments posted.

Note on the PR's own Verification section: I did not re-run markdownlint-cli2 or scripts/check-docs-naming.sh myself, so those two claims are author-claimed and unverified by me. I did independently confirm the relative links resolve and re-checked cross-file consistency of the restated facts by reading the files directly.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 080346000d

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".

[github-actions]

Claude has reviewed this PR 1 time. The lane skips further automatic reviews after 5; deleting this comment resets the count.