Compare commits

...

1 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Jesse Vincent 61f669ebc9 fix(sdd): preflight emits its pairwise checks as a ledger table and rules on what it surfaces
The pre-Task-1 conflict scan currently permits 'the scan is clean' with
no evidence the scan happened — mined sessions show controllers skipping
straight to dispatch and plan conflicts surfacing mid-execution as
blocking questions. Requiring the scan to emit one row per task pair
sharing a file/interface and one row per task's self-consistency turns
the claim into an artifact; in controlled evals the table appeared 3/3
with conflicts surfaced pre-dispatch, and the mechanism held 3/3 when
composed with the never-stall ruling change (#2077).

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy
2026-08-03 09:03:05 -07:00
+13 -6
View File
@@ -142,17 +142,24 @@ a ledger file, not only in todos.
Read the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a
todo per task.
Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:
Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts, writing down
what you checked as you check it:
- tasks that contradict each other or the plan's Global Constraints
- anything the plan explicitly mandates that the review rubric treats as a
defect (a test that asserts nothing, verbatim duplication of a logic block)
Present everything you find to your human partner as one batched question —
each finding beside the plan text that mandates it, asking which governs —
before execution begins, not one interrupt per discovery mid-plan. If the
scan is clean, proceed without comment. The review loop remains the net for
conflicts that only emerge from implementation.
The scan's output is a table, not a verdict. One row for every pair of tasks
that share a file or an interface: the two tasks, what one produces against
what the other consumes, and what you found. One row for every task: whether
its own text agrees with itself — the tests it specifies against the code it
specifies, the files it creates against the files it later touches. "The scan
is clean" without those rows is not a scan you ran.
Write the table to the ledger. Rule on each conflict it surfaces — the spec
is the binding authority, the plan is its argument — record the ruling beside
its row, and dispatch Task 1. The review loop remains the net for conflicts
that only emerge from implementation.
## Model Selection