| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
nested-builder-completion-follows-arbitration (piece 4b-1)
|
|
(lesson from piece 3's dispatch saga)
|
|
|
|
Piece 3 of docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-recursive-arbitrated-review-design.md.
Removes ensureFixAttempt's story.RootTaskID re-pointing write path,
migrating processStory/processRetro/ensureFixAttempt onto
task.CurrentAttempt resolution (piece 2b). RootTaskID becomes a true
immutable anchor after this lands.
|
|
Piece 2b of docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-recursive-arbitrated-review-design.md.
Builds the shared CurrentAttempt primitive (internal/task, behind a
minimal TaskLookup interface so both executor.Store and
scheduler.StoryStore can use it without duplication) and wires
maybeUnblockParent to resolve through it. Deliberately does not touch
ensureFixAttempt/story.RootTaskID (piece 3) or arbitrated-review
triggering (piece 4) -- scoped to the isolated primitive plus its
first real caller.
|
|
Piece 2a of docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-recursive-arbitrated-review-design.md,
discovered while grounding piece 2 in the real executor code: a subtask
that itself spawns subtasks is incorrectly marked COMPLETED the instant
its own agent turn ends, ignoring pending grandchildren. handleRunResult,
maybeUnblockParent, and RecoverStaleBlocked all special-case "is this
top-level" instead of "does this task have its own pending subtasks" --
a prerequisite bug fix the currentAttempt()/fix-loop generalization
(piece 2b) depends on.
|
|
Piece 1 of docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-recursive-arbitrated-review-design.md's
implementation order: adds the field the earlier 2026-07-08 spec
incorrectly claimed already existed, and exposes it on spawn_subtask.
|
|
Closes the recursive-story-decomposition design spec's "fix-and-
re-evaluate loop has to become real" gap -- today NEEDS_FIX is a dead
end requiring manual human intervention. Design decision (re-point
story.RootTaskID at a fresh fix-attempt task, vs. spawning as a
dependent of a fixed root) made with user input before writing this
plan.
|
|
Scopes the "MCP surface: story-level tools, additive to what exists"
piece of the recursive-story-decomposition design spec on its own,
independent of the larger deferred per-node arbitrated-review
generalization and builder role system-prompt work.
|
|
reporting
Plan 1 of the recursive-story-decomposition design (see
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-08-recursive-story-decomposition-design.md).
Deliberately scoped to two small, independent, fully-groundable additions
-- SubtaskSpec.DependsOn and a structured report_verdict tool closing the
"arbitration never parses its own verdict" gap -- rather than attempting
the full recursive orchestrator rewrite in one pass. That rewrite becomes
its own plan(s) once story_orchestrator_test.go (1023 lines of existing
convention) has been read in full.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VTUSAEKfsPc6WGDq45yPHD
|
|
This should have been committed alongside the design spec (f626155) before
task execution began. It wasn't -- every claudomator container that cloned
this repo during the Tasks board build never actually had this file, since
containers clone from the pushed remote, not the local working tree. Tasks
dispatched with only a "read this file" instruction had nothing to read and
silently improvised instead, which explains most of the review-cycle churn
during that build far better than "the implementer didn't follow
instructions" did. Committing now for the historical record and so the
gap can't repeat for this specific file.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VTUSAEKfsPc6WGDq45yPHD
|
|
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|
|
