3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	1ad0b2147d	Retire the old build spec, and point every reference at the architecture (M0.1) ... Development Plan M0.1. Every section reference in code, tests, specs/, the example config, the tuning guide, and the CLAUDE.md and README files now cites docs/Architecture.md (P, L, D, O, X, Q) instead of the old spec's A-H, and docs/Architecture-Build-Spec.md is deleted (git keeps it). The plan's old-to-new table goes with it. Mostly mechanical, with a per-site choice where one old section split: A4 became L2 where it meant stop/abandon/the loop and L3 where it meant approvals; A10 became L6 in the context-budget code and L7 elsewhere; B2 became D4 for outbound Gitea and publishing and D5 for review intake; 'A3 step N' became the matching step of L8's boot sequence. Comments describing behaviour the architecture drops (planning always escalating, thresholds tuned at an old build step) now describe the current code and point at the Development Plan. docs/Architecture.md gains one line the rewrite missed: intake outages delay but never fail work (old B2), now in L5, where the poller and Matrix code cite it. Comments and docs only; no behaviour change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PPQ14L3LikyefCMFBqEbKE	2026-10-01 00:17:48 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	f97e459bc7	Publish work the executor committed itself, and gate when there is none ... On the first live run the executor committed its milestone itself, as its plan asked. The publisher only published a commit it made, found a clean tree, reported "no changes to publish", and left the agent in EXECUTING, where every message is answered "busy". - publish(): with nothing left to commit, publish anyway when the branch has commits origin/<base> lacks; report no changes only when it has none. - push_followup(): same for review fixes, comparing HEAD with what the remote branch holds (ls-remote; pushes go by URL, so there is no tracking ref). - Nothing to publish now gates to AWAIT_INPUT, and the reply returns to the still-approved milestone plan. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PPQ14L3LikyefCMFBqEbKE	2026-09-29 16:17:41 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5	3117565928	Publish finished milestones as PRs (B2/A3) — step 6a, part 2 ... Completes the B1 loop past EXECUTING, and answers the question raised reviewing #6: PR acceptance is a milestone's final gate, so there is no separate FINISHED state — completion returns to milestone planning or to IDLE. - publish.py: MilestonePublisher commits the work on a task-namespaced branch, pushes, and opens a PR carrying the approved plan. Intent is recorded before the first externally visible act, so a crash anywhere in the sequence leaves a durable record and boot reconciliation asks Gitea whether the PR exists rather than opening a second one - Nothing to commit is reported, not raised: the executor may legitimately conclude there was nothing to change - control.py: PR_OPEN state with EXECUTING -> PR_OPEN and PR_OPEN -> {MILESTONE_PLANNING, IDLE}; operator commands 'next milestone' and 'project complete' - A configured publisher always contributes its own reconciler at boot, so an interrupted publish is settled against external truth without the caller having to remember to register it - A publish failure gates to the operator rather than retrying into a possible duplicate Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-07 20:43:20 +00:00