5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5.5	0f5ef0be63	rename(547): the server is grimoire — package, image, DB defaults, backups ... Step 2 of the Scribe -> Grimoire rename. - src/scribe -> src/grimoire, and every import, patch target, module path, hypercorn entry point and `python -m grimoire.restore` with it; pyproject, uv.lock and the frontend package are named grimoire. - Image git.fabledsword.com/bvandeusen/fabledgrimoire; CI's Postgres service runs as grimoire / grimoire_test. - Compose files default the DB user, database and (prod) volume to grimoire, each overridable from .env, so an install created as Scribe keeps its data by setting POSTGRES_USER, POSTGRES_DB and PGDATA_VOLUME. - Backups are written as grimoire-<ts>.tar with format grimoire-backup-tar. Archives named scribe-* with the scribe-backup-tar manifest still restore and are still counted at the destination (folder and S3), with tests. - Exports, the MCP auth realm, the ASGI scope key and the persistent logger carry the new name. Kept on purpose: the secret-sealing key label stays "scribe.secrets.v1", because every stored secret was derived under it. Plugin identity (plugin name, hooks, env vars, .scribe marker, skills) is step 3. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-22 10:50:45 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5.5	914f31359c	docs(6209): the remaining test files — lessons, reply moment and shape, retrieval specs and scopes, rule doors and judgments, services, snippets, search scope; five tests renamed to their property ... Docstrings, section headers and assertion messages drop the record number, milestone or step that introduced the behaviour, and incident accounts are restated as the present-tense failure shape. A dead pointer to a design doc that is not in the repo is removed. Renamed to the property they check: test_the_old_shape_would_be_caught -> test_a_rank_then_scope_query_is_caught test_a_ledger_repeat_no_longer_produces_that_case_at_all -> test_a_ledger_repeat_is_counted_not_withheld test_the_header_no_longer_promises_once_per_session -> test_the_header_explains_the_seen_marker test_the_portal_case_no_longer_stamps_one_canon_onto_a_whole_file -> test_one_canon_is_not_stamped_onto_a_whole_file test_the_repos_own_prose_no_longer_defines_with -> test_the_repos_own_prose_does_not_define_with test_the_original_regression_create_note_with_content -> test_the_real_server_refuses_content_on_create_note Fixture and example ids stay: "note 5" in a supersession chain, "rule 156" in an illustrative question, `#2275` as the hex-versus-citation case, `#3244` as the example of a bare number, fixed dates in date-filter tests. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-21 21:44:58 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	0ed8e86cd5	feat(instructions): a rule proposal has five answers, and three of them route (#3733, #3896) ... Step 6 of both milestone 385 (lessons) and 399 (preferences). #3896 asked for the fourth and fifth answers in one pass, because two people each adding one branch to a three-way distinction produce a list that does not read as a set. create_rule now opens by asking what kind of thing is being held, with one question that sorts it — what happens if someone doesn't do this? Something breaks, a boundary is crossed: a rule. It gets done a way the operator didn't want: a preference. They lose time rediscovering it: a lesson. The closing question grew the two matching answers, and they are named as first-class outcomes rather than places a proposal lands when it fails. An observation that turns out to be a lesson has been routed, not dropped. Stated as a practice, not a prohibition (rule 165). #3557's first cut opened "NOT YOURS TO CALL UNPROMPTED" and cost the noticing; the wanted behaviour here is still more proposals, and what changes is only which door they go through. create_note says the same from its side, so routing does not depend on having opened create_rule first — and its existing rule test ("a mistake, not merely uninformed") turned out to name the lesson exactly. create_lesson names the fifth kind so the set is complete from every door. create_project_rule's citation of the loop names five answers, since it cites rather than repeats. The force axis has one owner (decision #4027): using-scribe states all three strengths, the sorting question, that updating a preference mid-work is the normal case, and that preferences shape how work is done and never what gets recorded. _INSTRUCTIONS carries the pointer — "Rules bind; preferences guide and you keep them current; lessons inform." It had 14 characters of headroom, so the clause is paid for by trimming atmosphere from three other lines; 1998 of 2000 now. Guards: the proposal-loop test learns the preference branch, the lesson branch and the force question, on both rule surfaces; guidance-ownership gains the force-axis topic (shared with the docstrings, for the moment a proposal is actually written) and the preference-scope topic; a new guard pins that the index names all three strengths and who keeps the middle one current, with its can-fail case being the omission that actually happens — a kind added to the product while the index still describes the corpus that came before it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-19 12:12:14 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	c3ecdf0972	feat(rules): the rule gate becomes a practice with a question, not a prohibition (#3557) ... The first cut opened "NOT YOURS TO CALL UNPROMPTED", and that is the wrong instrument. A caller reading a prohibition stops NOTICING rule-shaped things rather than noticing them and asking — which trades a small failure for a larger one. The wanted behaviour is more proposals, not fewer. So both docstrings now describe the practice: propose readily, state the four things, and close with a question the operator answers in one word — approve it as written / let's talk about it / no. Named options where the interface has them, three written-out options where it does not. "Approve it as written" is what makes element 1 load-bearing: they approved TEXT, so that text is stored verbatim. "Let's talk about it" is framed as the expected answer rather than a setback. "No" routes the observation to create_note, which records without binding. The argument for asking is also better than consent. The operator's yes is the one moment the rule is certainly in front of them: afterwards a conditional rule is not read aloud at session start, and a project rule is absent from an unfiltered list_rules(). The proposal IS the review. Guard gains the answers-offered-back element and drops the wording that forbade; its header records why the framing changed, so the prohibition does not get reintroduced as a tidy-up. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011cPyzNnegXHr5iRMzzy5KJ	2026-09-04 20:11:42 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	1a34363059	feat(rules): the rule-creation tools ask for approval, and ask what would enforce it (#3557) ... Every gate on create_rule and create_project_rule was about SHAPE — rule vs process vs snippet, one-thing-you-could-violate, general-enough, not-a-dupe. All of them improve a rule someone has already decided to write. None asked the prior question: has the person this will bind agreed to be bound by it? Both docstrings now open with the gate, and with the four things a proposal carries: what it would require in the words it would carry, its intent, why now, and how it would be enforced. The fourth is the one that decides it. "A test, a CI check, a hook, a schema constraint... or nothing" is a question that sometimes dissolves the rule: what a test can assert should BE that test, and a rule is what is left when nothing mechanical can hold the thing. A rulebook grows by default and shrinks only on purpose. create_project_rule needs the gate more, not less, and says so: a project rule is absent from an unfiltered list_rules(), and a conditional one is absent from session start too, so one written there can bind for months without ever having been in front of the person it binds. test_rule_creation_asks_first pins structure, never wording — each element matches a family of synonyms, and the gate must precede the Args: block, because a caller who has decided to make the call reads the parameters and not the prose under them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011cPyzNnegXHr5iRMzzy5KJ	2026-09-04 20:02:05 -04:00