You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
standards: per-concern standards layout - part 2 of 2 #10232
Proposed work class: work-class: scoped
Basis: automated intake triage; the lanes App applied this class.
Size: Medium
Complexity: Medium
Uncertainty: Known
Flags: none
Blocked by: #10231
Understood: this is part 2 of 2 of #7583's per-concern standards layout. It asks for two things. First, the drift check should exit non-zero after a hand edit inside a generated block of a fixture copy, and 0 after regeneration. Second, every slice sub-issue (per-concern-split, review-md) should be closed by a merged PR. The issue body cuts the first item off mid-sentence. The restored wording is in the earlier comment from the repository owner's account. Part 1 (#10231) is still open and should land first. I found no duplicates.
Refinement. A read-only run explored this repository, searched its issues and pull requests, and read the allowed docs to draft what follows. On an issue a listed human filed, it counts as the issue's spec once posted, while unedited; it is still model text, so check it.
Intended outcome: A drift check fails on hand edits inside generated blocks of the per-concern standards layout, and all slice sub-issues of #7583 are closed by merged PRs.
Dependencies
#10231: part 1 of 2 delivers the per-concern layout this part checks
What is the rest of the first done-when item after 'and'? It reads 'exits non-zero after a hand edit inside a generated block of a fixture copy and' and stops there.
RECOMMENDED: Copy the full line from #7583 into this issue. Basis: judgment
Which slice sub-issues does 'every slice sub-issue is closed by a merged PR' cover?
RECOMMENDED: List the sub-issue numbers in the body. An unattended run cannot check an unnamed set. Basis: judgment
Should this wait for #10231?
RECOMMENDED: Yes. The drift check needs the layout and generated blocks from part 1. Basis: 10231
Is the second item something a person should verify rather than an unattended run, since it depends on other PRs merging?
RECOMMENDED: Yes. Treat it as a person-run check, or drop it from this issue's done-when. Basis: judgment
Sources read
/home/runner/work/_temp/refine-data/context.json: issue body done-when is truncated at 'and'; triage lists Blocked by #10231
Automated refinement by the lanes App. Answer with a comment whose first line is **Decision recorded.**.
Decision recorded. The owner answered in the Refinement and Issue Triage sessions (2026-10-25), deciding the open items below on the facts:
go with whatever the facts/data/metrics + /discovery:research says and ensure we're aligned with SOLID, DRY/SSOT principles
I should only ever be in the loop ONLY when necessary (intent/vision changed, something came up during implementation that impacts trajectory/alignment, OR a high security risk) - I've covered this all before
No owner ledger (.work/*/interview-checklist.md, .work/gh-monitor-owner-decisions/) names this issue or #7583.
This answers the triage questions (#10232 (comment)). The body says its done-when is copied from #7583 as written, and #7583 is filed by kyle-sexton, so its own criteria are the source.
The work-resolve-issue lane stopped partway through this issue and needs a person.
Reason: design
Why, in the run's own words:
design-change: the first done-when item needs a drift check over a generated block, but nothing in the per-concern review layout is generated today, so there is no such check or block yet. Deciding which file gets a generated block, what it is generated from, and how a repository opts in is a new generator contract, which is the primary design and not an implementation detail. The facts that leave it open: (1) part 1 (＃10231, merged in ＃12124) kept the 'point at' branch of ＃7583's outcome. docs/review/README.md indexes six hand-written per-concern files, and REVIEW.md's Depth section points at that index. Neither file has a generated block. (2) REVIEW.md is synced byte-exact from melodic-software/standards and guarded by pr-check-managed-files, so it cannot hold a block generated in this repository. A REVIEW.md generator (＃7583's Decision: 'generation is opt-in, keeps a hand-maintained section') would live in melodic-software/standards, which is another repository this lane cannot change. (3) The 'review-md' slice that ＃7583 says defines this work ('Slices, filed when this phase starts: per-concern-split, review-md') was never filed. ＃7583's only sub-issues are ＃10231 and ＃10232. Options for a person to pick: (a) generate REVIEW.md in melodic-software/standards from its standards/review/.md files, with the drift check and fixture test there, and mark this item done here by reference; (b) add an opt-in generator to the review plugin that writes a marker block into a consumer's tool-specific review file from its docs/review/.md files, with a --check drift mode and a fixture test (a new plugin contract); (c) generate the rows of this repository's docs/review/README.md index from each per-concern file, using scripts/lib/marker-block.mjs and wiring --check into scripts/validate-plugins.sh. That one is not opt-in and not a tool-specific file, so it meets the letter of the item rather than ＃7583's intent. Recording a decision that names one of these (or drops the item, since the 'point at' branch is already done) unblocks the next run.
What the run says it did not do:
Done-when 1 (drift check exits non-zero after a hand edit inside a generated block of a fixture copy, and 0 after regeneration): not built, because which generated block it guards is an open design choice (see reason)
Done-when 2 (every slice sub-issue of ＃7583 is closed by a merged PR): ＃10231 is closed by merged ＃12124. This issue stays open, and the named slices 'per-concern-split' and 'review-md' were never filed as issues
Tidy, review, verify and checks pipeline steps: skipped because the run stopped before any edit and there is no diff
Written by the Issue Triage session, on the evidence below and the GitHub Support hub's ruling (2026-11-02). It is not an owner decision.
The issue lane stopped this item on a design change (#10232 (comment)): its first done-when line needs a drift check over a generated block, and nothing in the per-concern review layout is generated. That line is dropped, and the item closes on the branch already delivered, for three reasons:
The second done-when line, "Every slice sub-issue is closed by a merged PR", is met for part 1 (#10231 by #12124). This item, part 2, closes here with no PR and no further change.
#7583 keeps one undelivered Decision, "the nit cap lives in its per-concern file (Q570)". It is filed as #12198 under #7583, so #7583 stays open until that lands.
Activity
github-actions commentedon Oct 26, 2026
Proposed work class: work-class: scoped
Basis: automated intake triage; the lanes App applied this class.
Size: Medium
Complexity: Medium
Uncertainty: Known
Flags: none
Blocked by: #10231
Understood: this is part 2 of 2 of #7583's per-concern standards layout. It asks for two things. First, the drift check should exit non-zero after a hand edit inside a generated block of a fixture copy, and 0 after regeneration. Second, every slice sub-issue (per-concern-split, review-md) should be closed by a merged PR. The issue body cuts the first item off mid-sentence. The restored wording is in the earlier comment from the repository owner's account. Part 1 (#10231) is still open and should land first. I found no duplicates.
Automated triage, applied by the lanes App.
melodic-automation-lanes commentedon Oct 26, 2026
The latest triage verdict holds nothing: the issue is at
status: ready.melodic-automation-lanes commentedon Oct 26, 2026
Refinement. A read-only run explored this repository, searched its issues and pull requests, and read the allowed docs to draft what follows. On an issue a listed human filed, it counts as the issue's spec once posted, while unedited; it is still model text, so check it.
Intended outcome: A drift check fails on hand edits inside generated blocks of the per-concern standards layout, and all slice sub-issues of #7583 are closed by merged PRs.
Dependencies
Related work
Open questions
RECOMMENDED: Copy the full line from #7583 into this issue. Basis: judgment
RECOMMENDED: List the sub-issue numbers in the body. An unattended run cannot check an unnamed set. Basis: judgment
RECOMMENDED: Yes. The drift check needs the layout and generated blocks from part 1. Basis: 10231
RECOMMENDED: Yes. Treat it as a person-run check, or drop it from this issue's done-when. Basis: judgment
Sources read
Automated refinement by the lanes App. Answer with a comment whose first line is
**Decision recorded.**.kyle-sexton commentedon Oct 27, 2026
Decision recorded. The owner answered in the Refinement and Issue Triage sessions (2026-10-25), deciding the open items below on the facts:
No owner ledger (
.work/*/interview-checklist.md,.work/gh-monitor-owner-decisions/) names this issue or #7583.This answers the triage questions (#10232 (comment)). The body says its done-when is copied from #7583 as written, and #7583 is filed by kyle-sexton, so its own criteria are the source.
What is the rest of the first done-when item?
Decided: the split cut the line at the wrap. Basis: standards: per-concern standards layout #7583 body (raw/full/7583.json). standards: per-concern standards layout #7583 body lines 40-41 read:
Which slice sub-issues does the second item cover?
Decided: standards: per-concern standards layout #7583's slices. Basis: its body names them: "Slices, filed when this phase starts: per-concern-split, review-md." (standards: per-concern standards layout #7583 body line 34). When fetched, standards: per-concern standards layout #7583 listed no sub-issues. The item is a tracker state the lane checks (BRIEF, "Host and attended runs are agent work"), so it stays a
- [ ]line and is not a person's check.Should this wait for standards: per-concern standards layout - part 1 of 2 #10231?
Decided: yes. Basis: triage recorded it (
Blocked by: #10231). standards: per-concern standards layout - part 1 of 2 #10231 is not in this lane's issue data, so this record states nothing about its state or content.Blocked by: #10231
Acceptance criteria (the first line restored from #7583; the second unchanged except for naming its scope):
melodic-automation-lanes commentedon Oct 27, 2026
Not admitted to the issue lane yet: blocker #10231 is not closed by a listed human or a merge.
github-actions commentedon Oct 27, 2026
The triage sweep dispatched intake triage for this issue (attempt 1 of 2).
github-actions commentedon Nov 2, 2026
melodic-automation-lanes commentedon Nov 2, 2026
The work-resolve-issue lane stopped partway through this issue and needs a person.
Reason:
designWhy, in the run's own words:
What the run says it did not do:
Run: https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/actions/runs/41366842816
To retry, remove
needs-humanand addagent-readyagain.kyle-sexton commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Delivered: closing as completed.
Written by the Issue Triage session, on the evidence below and the GitHub Support hub's ruling (2026-11-02). It is not an owner decision.
The issue lane stopped this item on a design change (#10232 (comment)): its first done-when line needs a drift check over a generated block, and nothing in the per-concern review layout is generated. That line is dropped, and the item closes on the branch already delivered, for three reasons:
docs/review/, indexed bydocs/review/README.md.REVIEW.mdpoints reviewers at that index (REVIEW.md:52-57on main, from the standards sync e1c1e6f, chore: sync standards components #11983).REVIEW.mdis synced byte for byte from melodic-software/standards (standards: per-concern standards layout - part 1 of 2 #10231 (comment)), so a block generated here would be overwritten or rejected. Generating it in melodic-software/standards is the other-repository work standards: per-concern standards layout #7583's Decisions mark as an owner stop. Closing on the "point at" branch does not start that work.REVIEW.mdlocally (review-instructionsis listed under medley'slocally-ownedin https://github.com/melodic-software/standards/blob/main/distribution/sync-manifest.yml) and has nodocs/review/. A generated block there would be new opt-in work for that repository, not part of this item.The second done-when line, "Every slice sub-issue is closed by a merged PR", is met for part 1 (#10231 by #12124). This item, part 2, closes here with no PR and no further change.
#7583 keeps one undelivered Decision, "the nit cap lives in its per-concern file (Q570)". It is filed as #12198 under #7583, so #7583 stays open until that lands.