Why: include the current integration baseline before verification.
Evidence: fetched origin/main=32b585aa0a1c70039cb4bdbd9020390676145d70.
Impact: integrate upstream changes without rewriting task history.
Refs: task-sync
Why: The approved contract requires exactly three safe attempts for Cursor, agy, and PI, then one Codex emergency attempt, never host implementation authority.
Evidence: Routing/config tests were RED for never, max attempts, forbidden adapters, and legacy host fallback; 133 related tests now pass with one opt-in probe skipped.
Impact: Normal emergency-mode roles reject all non-Cursor/agy/PI adapters, project fallback is never, and Codex remains available through emergency/review paths.
Refs: independent Codex review of feature/agent-cli-enforcement
Why: Agents must use configured CLIs for implementation and testing, while remaining free to inspect, plan, test, and iterate within bounded scope.
Evidence: Task-card contract tests and the full 430-test governance discovery pass with 19 existing skips; diff-check passes.
Impact: Defines three safe attempts per normal CLI, one emergency Codex attempt, fail-stop terminals, and mandatory apply/admit integration.
Refs: feature/agent-cli-enforcement
Why: Ensure implementation authorship is delegated per unit while the primary model remains responsible for planning and delivery management.
Evidence: The focused task-card generation regression went red then green, and git diff --check passed.
Impact: Every repository-writing implementation unit gets a fresh Cursor CLI run; unavailable or failed Cursor work is recorded as a blocker instead of being silently implemented by the primary model.
Refs: .task/feature-goal-first-delivery.md
Why: Keep authorized work focused on its stated outcome, prevent private scope expansion, and remove mechanical human stage gates.
Evidence: make test-governance passed 344 tests with 18 environment-dependent skips; receipt is recorded in the task card.
Impact: New tasks use goal-first execution while retaining real decision points, independent review, evidence, platform admission, and high-consequence dual keys.
Refs: .task/feature-goal-first-delivery.md
Why: The user requires all merges to follow agent-run synchronization, review, current-head CI and platform admission.
Evidence: Existing delivery stages and owner-only protection boundary reviewed; exact current Gitea Chinese labels verified from runtime resources.
Impact: Strengthen the merge executor rule only; retain human stage reviews, owner protection actions and actual CI requirements.
Refs: User instruction; merge-queue implementation plan U4/U5; Dev PR #519; Issue #518
Why: agents need consistent entrypoints and recording defaults to avoid retrying synchronization and CI outside the final delivery window.
Evidence: SELF generated-task-card red-green regression and governance suite recorded through make evidence; pending shared record created as Issue #518.
Impact: rules, task template and capability matrix stay explicit about pending activation, default strict startup, manual coordination and unchanged CI triggers.
Refs: U4; policy/merge-queue.md; .task/feature-merge-queue-policy-draft.md
Why: avoid general manual-stage wording overriding stages eight and nine.
Evidence: SELF document and link checks captured in the task card; existing governance checks cover unchanged script and test content.
Impact: clarify two policy sentences and record review-node synchronization; no mechanism or component change.
Refs: .task/feature-agent-pr-merge.md; policy/delivery.md
Why: make the agent responsible for merging reviewed PRs without another human merge step.
Evidence: SELF governance and generated-card checks are captured in .task/feature-agent-pr-merge.md; CI remains required on the final PR HEAD.
Impact: update project delivery policy, agent entry points, task metadata and closure guidance; preserve platform protection and scoped authorization.
Refs: .task/feature-agent-pr-merge.md; user instruction on 2026-10-12
Why: The 2026-10-09 diagnosis showed behavior-surface regressions (gate
deadlocks, silently broken lint, wrong artifact verdicts) passing every unit
test because no task-level check ran the real model. User ruling 6 approved
making before/after live-eval evidence a delivery requirement for prompt,
skill, tool-description, context-assembly and gate changes.
Evidence: SELF - clause drafted to reference modules/backend/eval/live and the
GATE/REPLAY/SELF sourcing already defined in AGENTS.md; task card for
feature/agent-quality-phase01 filled with the P0+P1 scope and requirements.
Impact: policy/delivery.md gains the 智能体行为面的真实验证 subsection;
NOT_RUN stays legal but must be explicit. Phase01 task card records scope,
requirements R1-R4 and the before/after eval protocol.
Refs: modules/documents proposal 2026-10-09-agent-quality-improvement-plan.md (ruling 6).
Why: preserve project direction across tasks and require grounded next-task recommendations.
Evidence: the generated task-card regression fails before the template update and passes afterward; original SELF receipts are in the task card.
Impact: document the planning entrypoint and extend task records without granting new-task execution rights.
Refs: .task/feature-goal-continuity.md; policy/delivery.md
agent-exec-transport
weichen