Give test-writer/programmer a conventions nudge up front, deep references on gate failure #506
Labels
No labels
P0
P1
P2
P3
bug
create
delete
enhancement
filed-by/agent
filed-by/user
frozen
lint-rule
needs-info
needs-triage
next
plugin/cc-architect
plugin/os
plugin/os-adr
plugin/os-aidd-lint
plugin/os-backlog
plugin/os-context
plugin/os-doc-hygiene
plugin/os-sdlc
plugin/os-vault
project/cc-os
ready-for-agent
ready-for-human
recurring
review
update
waiting
wayfinder:grilling
wayfinder:map
wayfinder:map
wayfinder:research
wayfinder:task
wayfinder:task
wontfix
worklist/deviations
worklist/lint-rule
worklist/new-implement-build
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
jared/cc-os#506
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Context
Pipeline runs regularly burn 2-3 repair rounds per agent on lint/style corrections. Current design principle (reference/standards-and-conventions.md:44-47) gives the programmer no standing standards: quality rules arrive only as gate feedback. User decision 2026-08-25: keep expecting mistakes, but (a) inject a short conventions nudge (not a book) into test-writer/programmer briefs before code is written, and (b) on a gate failure, have the agent pull the in-depth rationale for the specific violated cop from our references into context, so fixes are conceptual, not guesswork. This supersedes the gate-feedback-only principle and requires a superseding ADR.
Tasks
Acceptance criteria
Origin