bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
0ed8e86cd5
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Failing after 10s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 51s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 55s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 1m31s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 24s
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