Merge pull request 'feat(rules): rule creation becomes propose-then-approve (#3557)' (#141) from dev into main

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

src/scribe/mcp/tools/rulebooks.py

@@ -315,6 +315,61 @@ async def create_rule(
 ) -> dict:
     """Create a new rule in a rulebook (a SHARED rule — keep it general).
 
+    PROPOSE RULES READILY, AND WRITE ONE WHEN THE OPERATOR SAYS YES. Noticing
+    that something has hardened into a standing instruction is valuable work,
+    and a session that notices it and says nothing has thrown the observation
+    away. So raise it whenever you see one. The single step that belongs
+    between noticing and writing is the operator's yes: a rule binds every
+    future session, and they are the person it binds.
+
+    Their yes is also the only moment the rule is reliably IN FRONT of them.
+    After the write it may not be again for months — a conditional rule is not
+    read aloud at session start, and a project-scoped one does not appear in
+    an unfiltered list_rules() at all. So the proposal is the review.
+
+    When the operator asks for a rule in so many words, that IS the yes —
+    write it and move on. The loop below is for the rule you thought of.
+
+    A PROPOSAL CARRIES FOUR THINGS, and the fourth is the one that decides it:
+
+      1. WHAT it would require — the statement, in the words it would carry,
+         not a gloss of them. The operator is agreeing to text.
+      2. INTENT — what it changes about how work gets done, and what goes
+         wrong today without it. "Be careful about X" is not an intent; the
+         behaviour that would differ tomorrow is.
+      3. WHY NOW — the incident, observation or decision behind it. Pass that
+         record as arose_from_id, and say it in the conversation too: the
+         field is for the reader six months out, the sentence is for the
+         person deciding.
+      4. HOW IT WOULD BE ENFORCED — a test, a CI check, a hook, a schema
+         constraint, a duplicate gate, a review step... or nothing, in which
+         case say so plainly: "nothing — this is prose a session has to
+         remember." Answer this one honestly and it will sometimes dissolve
+         the rule, which is the point rather than a side effect. What a test
+         can assert should BE that test; a rule is what remains when nothing
+         mechanical can hold the thing. A rulebook grows by default and
+         shrinks only on purpose, so a question that prevents a rule is worth
+         more than any question that improves one's wording.
+
+    THEN CLOSE WITH A QUESTION THEY CAN ANSWER IN ONE WORD. Offer three
+    answers, and make the middle one the easy one:
+
+      * "Approve it AS WRITTEN" — you create it with the statement exactly as
+        shown. This is what makes element 1 load-bearing: they approved TEXT,
+        so that text is what gets stored, verbatim.
+      * "LET'S TALK ABOUT IT" — the wording, the scope, the tier, whether it
+        wants to be a rule at all. Most good rules arrive this way, so treat
+        this answer as the expected one rather than a setback.
+      * "NO" — let it go. If the observation is still worth keeping, it is a
+        note (create_note): recorded, findable, and binding on nobody.
+
+    Where the interface offers structured choices, ask it that way — a
+    question with named options is answered in a click, while the same
+    question inside a paragraph is answered by scrolling past. Where it does
+    not, write the three options out as three options. Either way ask once
+    and let the answer stand; re-raising a declined proposal argues a rule
+    into existence, which is the thing this whole loop exists to prevent.
+
     A rulebook rule is shared by every project that gets the rulebook: an
     always_on rulebook binds ALL your projects; a subscribed rulebook binds the
     projects that opt in. So a rulebook rule must read as a general standard —
@@ -433,6 +488,16 @@ async def create_project_rule(
     the rule is returned in get_project's applicable_rules (under
     project_rules) and in list_rules(project_id=...).
 
+    PROPOSE, THEN WRITE ON A YES — create_rule's opening carries the whole
+    loop: the four things a proposal states (what it would require, its
+    intent, why now, and how it would be enforced) and the one-word question
+    that closes it (approve as written / talk about it / no). All of it
+    applies here unchanged. Reach for that loop MORE readily on this surface,
+    not less: a project rule stays out of an unfiltered list_rules(), and a
+    conditional one stays out of session start too, so the operator's yes is
+    the one moment this rule is certain to have been seen by the person it
+    binds.
+
     Check first whether a rule is the right shape at all — create_rule's
     opening asks that question and it applies identically here. A visual
     standard is a design system; a procedure is a process (create_process);

tests/test_rule_creation_asks_first.py

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+"""Both rule-creation tools run the propose-then-approve loop (#3557).
+
+WHY THIS EXISTS
+
+Every other gate on `create_rule` and `create_project_rule` is about SHAPE:
+is this a rule or a process, is it one thing you could violate, is it general
+enough for a rulebook, is it a near-duplicate. All of those improve a rule
+someone has already decided to write. None of them asks the prior question —
+whether the person the rule will bind has agreed to be bound by it.
+
+That question belongs at the tool, because the tool is the last surface a
+caller reads before the write, and because the write is less reversible than
+it looks. The operator's yes is not merely consent; it is the one moment the
+rule is certainly IN FRONT of them. Afterwards it may not be again for
+months: a conditional rule is not read aloud at session start, and a
+project-scoped rule does not appear in an unfiltered `list_rules()` at all.
+The proposal IS the review, so there had better be one.
+
+WHY IT IS PHRASED AS A PRACTICE AND NOT A PROHIBITION
+
+The first cut of this guidance opened "NOT YOURS TO CALL UNPROMPTED." That is
+the wrong instrument, and the failure it invites is worse than the one it
+prevents: a caller reading a prohibition stops NOTICING rule-shaped things,
+rather than noticing them and asking. The wanted behaviour is more proposals,
+not fewer — spotting that something has hardened into a standing instruction
+is valuable work, and the only step that was ever missing came after it.
+
+So the docstrings describe what to DO: propose readily, state four things,
+close with a question the operator answers in one word. This test is written
+the same way — it asserts the parts of the loop are present, and has nothing
+to say about any wording that forbids.
+
+The fourth element — how the rule would be ENFORCED — is not ceremony. It is
+the part that sometimes dissolves the rule: a thing a test can assert should
+be that test, and a rule is what is left when nothing mechanical can hold it.
+A rulebook grows by default and shrinks only on purpose, so the question that
+prevents a rule earns more than any question that improves one's wording.
+
+WHAT THIS PINS, AND WHAT IT DOES NOT
+
+STRUCTURE, never wording — the same bargain the disambiguator guard (#3123)
+strikes next door. Each element matches a family of synonyms, so the prose
+stays free to be rewritten, reordered or sharpened; only DELETING one fails.
+Pinning phrasing would make every improvement a red build, and a test that
+punishes editing is a test someone deletes.
+
+It cannot tell whether an agent actually proposes. Nothing in a docstring
+can. It catches the regression that really happens: guidance tidied away in
+a later pass by someone who read it as throat-clearing in front of the Args.
+"""
+import pytest
+
+from tests.helpers import tool_doc as _doc
+
+# Both surfaces, because the one that needs it most is the one that looks
+# minor. A project rule is the least visible record the system can hold —
+# absent from an unfiltered list_rules(), and absent from session start too
+# whenever it is conditional — so the surface that writes one carries the
+# larger risk while reading as the smaller act.
+_SURFACES = [
+    ("scribe.mcp.tools.rulebooks", "create_rule"),
+    ("scribe.mcp.tools.rulebooks", "create_project_rule"),
+]
+
+# The loop, element by element, each as a family of ways to say it. A
+# docstring satisfies an element by containing ANY member — that is the room
+# left for rewriting. The families deliberately exclude bare words a
+# docstring would hold by accident ("why", "how", "reason", "rule"), which
+# would let the assertion pass on prose that says nothing of the kind.
+_ELEMENTS = {
+    "the invitation to propose": ("propose", "proposal"),
+    "the operator's approval": ("approve", "approval", "says yes", "a yes"),
+    "the rule's intent": ("intent", "what it changes about how work"),
+    "why it is being proposed now": (
+        "why now", "arose_from_id", "the incident", "prompted it",
+    ),
+    "how it would be enforced": ("enforc",),
+    "the answers offered back": ("as written", "talk about it", "discuss"),
+}
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(("module", "name"), _SURFACES)
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("element", sorted(_ELEMENTS))
+def test_a_rule_surface_carries_every_part_of_the_proposal_loop(
+    module, name, element
+):
+    """Each element of propose → state four things → ask survives."""
+    doc = _doc(module, name).lower()
+    assert any(token in doc for token in _ELEMENTS[element]), (
+        f"{name}'s docstring no longer mentions {element}. A caller reads "
+        f"this immediately before writing a rule that will bind every future "
+        f"session, and the proposal is the one moment that rule is certain to "
+        f"be seen by the operator. Say it in whatever words you like; this "
+        f"guard only checks it is still said. See create_rule's opening."
+    )
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(("module", "name"), _SURFACES)
+def test_the_proposal_loop_comes_before_the_parameter_contract(module, name):
+    """It has to be read to work, and the Args: block is where reading stops.
+
+    A caller who has decided to make the call skims down to the parameters.
+    Guidance parked below them — or folded into one argument's description —
+    arrives after the decision it was meant to inform, which is the same as
+    not being there.
+    """
+    doc = _doc(module, name).lower()
+    args_at = doc.find("args:")
+    assert args_at > 0, f"{name}'s docstring has no Args: block"
+    loop_at = min(
+        (doc.find(t) for t in _ELEMENTS["the invitation to propose"]
+         if doc.find(t) >= 0),
+        default=-1,
+    )
+    assert 0 <= loop_at < args_at, (
+        f"{name} introduces the proposal loop at or after its Args: block "
+        f"(loop {loop_at}, args {args_at}). Move it to the opening — a "
+        f"caller who has already decided to write the rule reads the "
+        f"parameters, not the prose under them."
+    )