os-aidd-lint: promote judgment-dense layout-doc claims to Tier 2 charter candidates #176

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-07-30 20:41:27 +00:00 by jared · 2 comments

jared commented

2026-07-30 20:41:27 +00:00

Owner

Candidates from cc-architect references/layout/: context: fork narrow-fit, description formula shape ([Action verb] [what]. [Unambiguous trigger].), disable-model-invocation decision criteria, injection graceful-degradation prose, workflow model-tier fit. Closed-catalog additions require an ADR each per ADR-0060/0068.

jared referenced this issue

2026-07-31 12:34:24 +00:00

os-backlog: deterministic ticket-filing surface — labels/body-file in the Ruby CLI plus a filer skill or agent #186

jared added the

needs-triage

label

2026-07-31 12:52:55 +00:00

jared added

and removed

labels

2026-08-01 16:39:16 +00:00

jared commented

2026-08-01 16:45:01 +00:00

Author

Owner

This was generated by AI during triage.

Proposed: 5 Tier-2 charter candidates from cc-architect references/layout/ — context: fork narrow-fit, description-formula shape, disable-model-invocation criteria, injection graceful-degradation prose, workflow model-tier fit. Each needs its own ADR-0060/0068-style amendment.

Evidence so far: none run yet — no blind-validation study per any candidate.

Overlap note: description-formula quality is the same candidate as #185's Candidate 1 (already has concrete evidence and a proposed split there).

Maintainer must decide: dedupe against #185, then which of the remaining 4 are worth a validation study first vs. dropping for thin motivation.

Recommendation: close the description-formula duplicate here in favor of #185, and require a validation study (blind critique, unrelated files) for each of the other 4 before drafting any ADR.

> *This was generated by AI during triage.* Proposed: 5 Tier-2 charter candidates from cc-architect references/layout/ — context: fork narrow-fit, description-formula shape, disable-model-invocation criteria, injection graceful-degradation prose, workflow model-tier fit. Each needs its own ADR-0060/0068-style amendment. Evidence so far: none run yet — no blind-validation study per any candidate. Overlap note: description-formula quality is the same candidate as #185's Candidate 1 (already has concrete evidence and a proposed split there). Maintainer must decide: dedupe against #185, then which of the remaining 4 are worth a validation study first vs. dropping for thin motivation. Recommendation: close the description-formula duplicate here in favor of #185, and require a validation study (blind critique, unrelated files) for each of the other 4 before drafting any ADR.

jared added the

plugin/os-aidd-lint

worklist/lint-rule

labels

2026-08-13 18:13:13 +00:00

jared referenced this issue

2026-08-13 18:34:18 +00:00

ADR-0060 amendment proposal: description-formula quality + delegation-mechanism statement as Tier-2 catalog candidates #185

jared commented

2026-08-13 18:34:21 +00:00

Author

Owner