Why: The further-objective docs are now the system's next big-phase
target; the plan pins the two-tree-one-net product on top of the
generic platform with two hard invariants - downstream-only domain
logic and always-degradable-to-generic-agent when the plugin is off.
Evidence: docs-only change; milestone mapping verified against
further-objective 10 (W1-W16), readiness claims verified against the
pinned worktrees (EXT-1 symbols in surface.txt, v0.1.0 tags, RDM repo
seed facts as recorded in vision doc 13).
Impact: Adds one proposal; no code changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-07-agent-stack-n1q1i1-plans.md
Why: The completion proposal defines the N1/Q1/I1 phases but not their
work packages; D1 has landed, so the three phases are now unblocked and
need file-level plans grounded in the current pins.
Evidence: docs-only change; file:line claims verified against the pinned
worktrees (native 3a110a7, squad 5a57636, intent 65aaebc, backend
e7fb276).
Impact: Adds one proposal and one link line; no code changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-02-agent-stack-completion.md
Why: downstream parsers are unreachable through the Host handle and the base lacks xlsx/pptx parsers; MS1 needs both. The snapshot also missed interface methods, so adding one was undetectable.
Evidence: request follows compat-policy sect.6 four elements; behavior contract and limits in the proposal body (documents has no CI; verified via git diff --check recorded on the Dev task card).
Impact: docs only; compat-policy sect.3 gains one sentence, usage.md format list gains xlsx/pptx.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-06-ext-5-host-parse-document.md
Why: AGENTS.md requires PROJECT.md but the referenced project facts and verification entry did not exist.
Evidence: SELF git diff --check and checked the README reference and Dev verification targets.
Impact: adds documentation-specific validation and evidence limits; no runtime change.
Refs: Agent-System-Dev feature/governance-reliability audit remediation
Why: The comparison has to say what was borrowed, what was refused, and which product behaviors changed, without copying upstream text.
Evidence: The record lists the verified security gaps and the features implemented in this task. Proposal section 2.5 links to it.
Impact: Deferred and rejected items stay deferred and rejected. Adopted context and secret behavior is no longer described as a later batch.
Refs: feature/sillytavern-review
Why: The October 3 durable note described Pico5 before packages 1-23 existed, and the stack proposal had no place for the v1.0.1 and ZCode v3.14.3 findings.
Evidence: The new record, the correction at the top of the durable note, and proposal section 2.4 link to each other. No code changes.
Impact: Documents only. Later batches can cite the adopt, hold, and reject rows.
Refs: Dev feature/pi-zcode-second-pass
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: The review record still said the proposal was unmerged, but Documents PR #34 is on main and this branch is cut from that commit.
Evidence: origin/main is 76044b5, the merge of feature/agent-stack-blueprint.
Impact: One sentence in the review record. The proposal text is unchanged.
Refs: Dev feature/pi-durable-borrow
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: Pico5's package is a contract sketch, but its commit and recovery rules match four verified gaps in how runs survive a hard kill.
Evidence: Reviewed earendil-works/pi @ c7cdb460a, packages/durable and docs/pico-v5.md, against the skeleton section 4.2 and the current backend store, run manager, and SSE handler.
Impact: Documents only. The record rejects taking the package as a dependency and lists what the matching backend task changes.
Refs: Dev feature/pi-durable-borrow
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: The three libraries cannot be reused or recovered independently, and the tested dependency combination is not the one the product builds.
Evidence: Read-only audit at native c6d867c, squad 590fd86, intent 1dbbe81, recorded with file references in docs/records/2026-10-02-agent-stack-audit.md.
Impact: Documents only. No library code or gitlinks change in this commit. Later stages stay separate tasks.
Refs: Dev feature/agent-stack-blueprint
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: The harness proposal still said the script decision was deferred, after the implementation chose both declarative workflows and two dynamic forms.
Evidence: The P4 section now states routing order, copy-on-start, step and retry caps, and the script switch.
Impact: Documentation only.
Refs: feature/agent-harness-p4
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: Tool-call history is flattened into assistant text, so the model imitates calls and invents artifact ids. The fix belongs to a shared harness, not another prompt tweak.
Evidence: Proposal 2026-10-01-agent-harness.md records the 2026-10-01 session evidence, the ZCode and Claude Code patterns, and the P0-P4 acceptance.
Impact: Documents only. P0 code lands in the backend on the same branch name. P1-P4 are not implemented here.
Refs: feature/agent-harness-p0
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: The base must stay unmodified by downstream products, so the roadmap, compatibility window, and plugin contract need a written proposal before further forks.
Evidence: Three proposals under docs/proposals and a short pointer in the plugin development guide.
Impact: Tag commands in the compat proposal are not executed.
Refs: Agent-System-Dev feature/base-extension-roadmap
Why: The base must stay unmodified by downstream products, so the roadmap, compatibility window, and plugin contract need a written proposal before further forks.
Evidence: Three proposals under docs/proposals and a short pointer in the plugin development guide.
Impact: Downstream work follows extension-point requests and a published base version. Tag commands in the compat proposal are not executed.
Refs: .task/feature-base-extension-roadmap.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: user approved the proposal 2026-09-30 and directed implementation.
Evidence: approval recorded in status line and D49 note.
Impact: docs-only; unlocks CF-S task start.
Why: parallel conversations in one project cannot see each other's
transcripts, which already caused duplicate delivery of the same
requirement (records/2026-09-30-lesson-parallel-session-duplication.md);
artifacts/knowledge are already project-shared, so transcripts are the
only missing channel.
Evidence: permission formula and gate matrix designed fail-closed
(project switch default off; per-conversation outbound/inbound flags
default open/shared); tool design lands the "conversation history
search" builtin planned in skeleton design 4.8.
Impact: documents only; implementation follows in core/backend/frontend
under Dev task feature/cross-session-reading.
Refs: proposals/2026-09-29-system-skeleton-design-and-plan.md 4.8/4.9;
records/2026-09-30-lesson-parallel-session-duplication.md.
Why: proposal must record the 2026-09-30 decision (avatars, cards,
settings as base capabilities plugins reuse) and where it landed.
Evidence: feature/ui-capability-platform across core (avatar
vocabulary), ui (shared components + full vocabulary renderers),
frontend (consumption); 35+ tests and headless walk green.
Impact: status line only.
Why: the user replaced the stage-2 email self-registration sketch with
admin-issued accounts (2026-09-30): no self registration, admin sets
initial passwords, first login after creation or reset forces a change.
Evidence: R2 landed on feature/auth-admin-accounts (migration v10,
auth/session APIs, CLI user subcommands, login page + forced change
gate + admin user management); store/e2e tests and a full headless
journey on the real binary are green (see that task's PR).
Impact: proposal status line only; section 5.1 sketch superseded.
Why: the backend now registers tavily_search/web_search via
Agent-Native's TavilyProvider, so the guide's not-ported reason no
longer holds.
Evidence: backend PR records the registration and runtime checks.
Impact: table row updated, library count 44 -> 46.
Refs: feature/tavily-search-tool task card.
Why: the user picked option A (task-centric) after reviewing the demos;
the proposal status must reflect the decision and where R1 landed.
Evidence: R1 delivered on feature/task-sidebar-r1 across core/backend/
frontend (contract flags, migration v8, task list APIs, TaskSidebar);
headless walk and test suites green there.
Impact: status line only; no design content change.
Why: deciding what enters the library from an external prompt catalog
needs a stated rule (carrier mechanism or future slot) and an auditable
per-item disposition, otherwise coverage drifts by reviewer taste.
Evidence: table maps every Claude Code catalog entry to a library module
or an explicit not-ported reason.
Impact: guide gains section 9; no code change.
Refs: feature/prompt-catalog-coverage task card.
Why: the prompt system's design rationale (layering, the eight module
patterns, trigger semantics, override chain) needs to live with the
docs so future prompt work follows it instead of re-deriving it.
Evidence: guide content distilled from the implemented library and the
Claude prompt catalog analysis recorded in the task card.
Impact: new docs/guides/prompt-library-design.md; no code change.
Refs: feature/prompt-library task card.
Why: current UI scatters creation entries (project + at sidebar top-left,
new session at bottom-left), has no user/tenant surfaces, and the project
tree forces per-project navigation; the system targets multi-user
multi-tenant operation.
Evidence:
- Studied zai-org/ZCode desktop layout (WorkspaceShellLayout, WorkspaceSidebar,
DESIGN.md) and mapped transferable patterns (single New-Task entry,
organize-by views, sidebar account footer) with repo file citations.
- Three layout proposals (task-centric / activity rail / project portal) with
comparison table and recommendation A; auth stage-2 design (orgs,
memberships, server sessions) with SSE cookie upgrade removing ?key=.
- Five static demos (index + A/B/C + auth) verified headless: DOM layout
assertions (column widths, view switching, screen switching), clipping and
contrast QA clean, zero console errors, light/dark themes render.
Impact: documents only; no code change. Demos double as the R4 design-token
target palette. Implementation proceeds only after direction is approved.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-09-30-ui-inbox-command-workspace.md (D25-D33),
docs/proposals/2026-09-30-dual-tier-storage-and-multitenancy.md (D17-D24)
Why: T2-T4 changed the interaction foundation (pure-inbox rail, four-entrance command bus, overlay workspaces) and the guide still described the classic tabs; T5 acceptance also requires the verification record with the zero-page walkthrough.
Evidence: zero-page walkthrough 12/12 PASS on a fresh real binary (fresh data dir: empty instance -> project/conversation -> slash commands -> #upload card lifecycle -> card action receipts -> tidy -> HITL block+resolve -> button-entrance dispatch -> plugin workspace declaration -> artifacts -> four-entrance audit); StatusLamp shape+color dual encoding asserted by ui suite; combo make test at pinned heads.
Impact: usage guide sections 4.2-4.7/5/6.2/7 rewritten; new T5 record; no code change.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-09-30-ui-inbox-command-workspace.md T5; task card feature/polish-r1
Why: T4 acceptance requires a verification record in this repo before the Dev combo pin.
Evidence: backend full sweep green with TestWorkspacesOverlay; ui 23/23 (OverlayHost semantics); frontend tsc+vitest+build; example plugin workspace/command assets JSON-validated; combo make test at pinned heads.
Impact: docs/records only.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-09-30-ui-inbox-command-workspace.md T4; task card feature/workspaces-r1
Why: T3 acceptance requires a verification record in this repo before the Dev combo pin.
Evidence: backend 15 pkgs ok incl. new cmdbus suite and danger-confirm e2e (dispatch -> confirm card -> action -> committed -> audit query ordered); ui 18/18; frontend 9/9; combo make test at pinned heads.
Impact: docs/records only.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-09-30-ui-inbox-command-workspace.md T3; task card feature/command-bus-r1
Why: Delivery gate requires a verification record with per-case PASS evidence
for the T1 contract task before requesting review.
Evidence: record covers core/agent-command/frontend/ui suites, combo test and
the additive-compatibility check; contract change list enumerated.
Impact: Documentation only.
Refs: Dev task feature/core-cards-commands-r1
Why: Record the approved design for the interaction foundation phase — inbox/
command-bus/workspace mechanisms sink into the base system, domain views stay
plugin territory (target-system strategy), decisions D25-D33.
Evidence: proposal covers background, five UI principles, dialogue-completeness
P0 constraint, module/repo split (Agent-System-UI, Agent-Command), contract
sketch, task sequence T0-T5 and acceptance criteria.
Impact: Becomes the design baseline for T0-T5 tasks across five repos.
Refs: Agent-System-Dev feature/ui-foundation-r0
weichen
