Skip to content

Decide whether to carry the Verification Discipline section to the fleet #368

Description

@ptr727

Summary

Decide whether the ## Verification Discipline section in the hub AGENTS.md should be carried to the fleet, and if so, genericize the hub-specific parts and reconcile a small thematic overlap with the new Repository Boundaries and Write Safety section.

Filed as a deliberate follow-up to keep #367 (the write-safety incident change) a single-incident change.

Current state

## Verification Discipline was added to the hub AGENTS.md on 2026-07-19 (c81420d), but it is not in the spec/files.json AGENTS.md sections allowlist, so it is hub-only and does not propagate to downstream repos. #367 added Repository Boundaries and Write Safety as the first carried section; Verification Discipline sits just below it in the same file, uncarried.

The section's rules:

  • A test must assert the mechanism it names.
  • Gates, filters, and gate-like watchers fail loud, never narrow quietly.
  • Run the repo's whole lint gate before every push.
  • Editing CRLF files programmatically: . matches \r in a regex.
  • A green check is not evidence the work happened.
  • A workflow change is only fully exercised by CI.
  • A review flags an instance; fix the class.

The decision

Most of these are fleet-general (test discipline, run-all-linters, green-is-not-done, CRLF-regex hazard, fix-the-class) and would benefit every derived repo. A few lean hub/workflow-specific and would need genericizing or dropping before carrying:

  • The WORKFLOW.md D8.4 cross-reference (identity-allowlist gate).
  • The codegen changes-job reference under "Branching Model".
  • "A workflow change is only fully exercised by CI" (assumes the repo ships the shared workflow set).

If carried

  1. Add "Verification Discipline" to the AGENTS.md sections allowlist in spec/files.json.
  2. Genericize or footnote the three hub-specific bullets so a downstream repo without the shared workflows still reads cleanly.
  3. Reconcile the thematic overlap with Repository Boundaries and Write Safety: both touch the "a construct reports success while doing nothing" idea (a suppressed write misread as a harmless failure; a skipped job indistinguishable from a passing one). State the write-verification point once rather than twice.

No code change is required to keep it hub-only; this issue is the explicit decision point.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions