3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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