bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
5c9bb40777
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 6s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 11s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 32s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 35s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Failing after 1m0s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Skipped
The rules payload carries a marker; the write-path hook hands it back; the server says which rules moved. Nothing is said when nothing moved. THE COUNT IS NOT DECORATION. max(updated_at) alone cannot see a DELETED rule — it moves no timestamp — and that is the single change that takes an instruction OUT of force, which is the one a session most needs to hear about. The marker is `<max updated_at>|<count>`, and a deletion is reported through the count because there is no row left to name. THE HOOK IS THE CARRIER because it already fires before a write, which is the moment acting on a stale rule costs something. One comparison, no payload, no extra round trip. WHERE THE MARKER IS CAPTURED, and it could not be anywhere else: the SessionStart hook, from /api/plugin/context. The model also receives one from list_always_on_rules, but a hook cannot see an MCP tool's result — so the value the write path compares has to be stored where a shell script can reach it. Keyed by session id in the state dir the prior-art hook already uses, so "changed since" means since THIS session loaded its rules. NOT ON rules_payload, against the task's letter. Those are applicable_rules — a different, subscription-derived set. One key name over two sets is how a comparison starts reporting phantom changes, and the write path compares against the always-on set. WHAT IT CANNOT SEE is stated in both the service and the write-path arm as a table, because a reader who finds an etag will assume it covers staleness generally: another session edits a rule mid-flight | caught the session is misremembering a rule read hours ago | caught compaction summarised the rules out of context | NOT caught The third is the most common, and the marker is blind to it — the etag was in context too and went with the rules. The SessionStart nudge is that case's only mechanism and must not be softened because this shipped. A test asserts both modules still explain that. Instance-agnostic (rule 115): an install with no rules produces a stable marker rather than an error, and "no rules" reads as a state rather than as a change. An unreadable or absent marker reports nothing — a signal that cries wolf is worse than none, because it trains a reader to skip the line that will one day be true. The arm fails open like every other arm on this hook. The delivery is tested through the real build_write_path_hint rather than the helper alone: the feature IS a line arriving in a session, and the arithmetic being right proves nothing about that. Live acceptance is deploy-gated and not yet recorded on the task. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>