Why: the card and PR description are one record.
Evidence: PR #115 created via the Gitea API.
Impact: task card only.
Refs: Documents PR #115
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: track preservation and merge of the approved U3 contract documents.
Evidence: SELF blob identity, diff check and ancestry checks recorded in the card.
Impact: task card only.
Refs: Dev PR #626; Documents c236d30, fb3a821, 5783940
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: U4 must sync main before stage 7 acceptance; main carries 21 newer commits (renderer, regulations and two-trees documents). Evidence: git merge-tree reported no conflicts; no content resolved by hand. Impact: U4 documents now sit on main 5bb4877. Refs: Dev card feature-iam-u4-role-authority
Why: the adoption PR is reviewed and its candidate HEAD passed CI; the card closure is folded into the PR so no separate close PR is needed.
Evidence: CI GATE on 9d4582a47f4f4c887afd2fafb3ad507f20716f8d; independent Review REPLAY (cursor-agent-stable --mode ask 全新只读会话（fresh_session=true，session id not-observable）闭合重审 VERDICT: APPROVE（对象 9d4582a，与 HEAD 仅 .task/ 不同）).
Impact: task card only (moved to .task/archive/).
Refs: https://git-home.u1680832.nyat.app:30319/weichen/Agent-System-Documents/pulls/110
Why: independent Review blocked the adoption; the repair unit ran through the shared executor and was integrated with agent-exec apply.
Evidence: .task/evidence/governance-adoption/ (SELF): governance check and agent-exec validate on the repaired head.
Impact: task card and evidence logs only.
Refs: .task/feature-governance-adoption.md
Why: Phase 6 requires one positive executor run and the negative cases (missing config, bad receipt, out-of-scope path, unknown side effect) before adoption becomes active.
Evidence: .task/evidence/governance-adoption/ (SELF): governance check, agent-exec validate and adoption cases; this commit passed the generated pre-commit hook (admit).
Impact: task card and evidence logs only.
Refs: .task/feature-governance-adoption.md
Why: development-governance-v2 Phase 6 adopts the shared governance kit in every formal repository; the executor needs a valid AGENT-EXECUTION.md before any implementation unit can run.
Evidence: generated by dm-server governance init at Development-Manager bd3a7de57a3a9e1a4495b94c5fa5c08d71e7be8c; dm-server agent-exec validate passes.
Impact: configuration and task card only; no code or CI change yet.
Refs: Agent-System-Dev docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-16-development-governance-v2-master.md
Why: The approved role and permission implementation needs a focused, reviewable path through browser acceptance, component delivery, and guarded closure.
Evidence: Structural audit confirms DR1-DR21, U1-U9, and KTD1-KTD6; git diff --check passes; six-lens document review findings are incorporated.
Impact: Adds the stage 7-10 plan, records the focused specification approval, and indexes the plan without authorizing production migration or deployment.
Refs: feature/iam-u4-role-authority
Why: base the IAM delivery plan on the current Documents main.
Evidence: fetched origin/main=87b88018b9236434b97ff6781655d625901d4090.
Impact: integrates documentation-only upstream changes before adding the U4 delivery plan.
Refs: feature/iam-u4-role-authority
Why: the plan's progress annex still described the pre-adjudication
state (44 needs-review, U2-U6 pending); the authoritative record must
reflect the 2026-10-14 landing: batch adjudication, publication flip
(44/44 published), U5 product-loop wiring with pilot pass, U6
per-identity matrix (41 PASS + 2 EXPECTED_BLOCKED + 1 EXPECTED_LIMITED),
and the owner-side exit items (deployment pilot, independent REPLAY,
U4 originals) now blocked on the owner per the handoff checklist.
Evidence: docs-only change in the Documents repo; all referenced RDM
PRs (#377/#381/#383/#385/#387/#389/#391) carry green CI and merged
state; pilot and matrix outputs are recorded in the RDM task cards and
docs/records/dhf/.
Impact: plan annex only; no code or asset change.
Refs: RDM docs/records/dhf/package-review-decision-2026-10-14.md;
RDM docs/records/dhf/u6-acceptance.md; u6-replay-handoff.md
Why: The approved scope spans Backend authority, RDM project enforcement, and Frontend configuration and needs exact contracts and verification boundaries.
Evidence: The plan was checked against every specification section, fixed interface names, failure cases, and placeholder rules.
Impact: Implementation is limited to one effective role, system and project authorization, and the requested configuration views.
Refs: Focused role and permission system spec
Why: The implementation scope must match the requested single-role position model and three permission layers without carrying unrelated IAM work.
Evidence: The spec was checked for placeholders, internal contradictions, and whitespace errors.
Impact: Backend becomes the role authority while RDM retains project permissions and document duties.
Refs: IAM role and permission system
Why: The process-document main branch advanced with project membership and privacy records after this implementation plan was reviewed.
Evidence: origin/main was freshly fetched; the reviewed plan remains the same and the final combined document checks will be replayed on the resulting head.
Impact: Preserve the other task's proposal and index entries alongside the approved merge queue plan, without changing its scope or execution authorization.
Refs: Documents PR #96; origin/main 047d362; independent review docs_delivery_review
Why: Historical observations in the approved plan used current-tense wording after implementation advanced, making the progress pointer harder to interpret.
Evidence: Independent documentation review identified the wording; the diff changes only baseline time and references current task/PR evidence. Document replay follows on the new candidate.
Impact: No change to approved units, interfaces, authorization or acceptance criteria; actual progress remains in the task and fixed-candidate records.
Refs: Documentation review Minor finding; approved plan ba4044d; U1-U6
Why: Validation of the complete candidate against origin/main detected added blank lines at the end of the authored documents.
Evidence: git diff --check origin/main validates the final candidate format; unchanged semantic content remains covered by the approved specification and implementation plan.
Impact: Document whitespace only; no version obligations, execution mode or authorization change.
Refs: Merge queue implementation plan U4; formal document validation
Why: preserve the approved plan and point readers to the actual task objects instead of treating historical planning state as current delivery status.
Evidence: user approval of plan r1 and Dev task-card receipts; actual platform activation and real trial remain NOT_RUN.
Impact: plan metadata, test-file organization and navigation only; task state remains authoritative in Dev.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-13-merge-queue-implementation-plan.md; Dev .task/feature-merge-queue-policy-draft.md
Why: turn the confirmed scheduling specification into sequenced work with explicit interfaces, evidence handling and admission validation.
Evidence: SELF plan checks verified fixed source commits, 83 relative links, six units and four Python example blocks; implementation and runtime checks remain NOT_RUN.
Impact: reviewable implementation plan and navigation only; no task scripts, workflow, platform settings or business behavior are implemented.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-13-merge-queue-implementation-plan.md; Dev policy/merge-queue.md r1; Development-Guidelines draft.11
Why: The 2026-10-13 login recovery flow was approved and merged
(Backend #187, Frontend #76, Dev #504); the master proposal must carry
the three adjudications, implementation record, and evidence pointers
per the repo's lineage conventions.
Evidence: Dev #504 HEAD CI (test/test-pg/svc-realcombo) success; browser
acceptance receipts be7ae9a2/b3a9e691 bound to Dev HEAD 268ef29 (SELF).
Impact: r3 is an implementation record only; R/KTD/U numbering semantics
unchanged; U7 explicitly NOT marked complete (atomic bootstrap and CLI
credential delivery remain). INDEX.md status line updated.
Refs: Dev docs/svc-deploy/2026-10-13-login-recovery-contract.md
Why: the 2026-10-12 approval covers the recovery U8 and account U7 additions, and the RDM U5 note still treated the lifecycle pull request as the whole export.
Evidence: Backend 183 and 185 plus Dev 486 were already green; Dev 482, RDM 301, Frontend 73, and Dev 488 remain open and are not marked merged.
Impact: proposal status only. No implementation or deployment claim changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-12-service-restart-data-recovery.md, docs/proposals/2026-10-12-svc-unified-deploy-and-login-key.md, docs/proposals/2026-10-11-rdm-two-trees-trace-audit-integration.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: the 2026-10-12 batch-update failure still had identity, rollback, and real-combo gaps after Dev #474, Backend #180, and RDM #276. The recovery plan is the single record for that work, and the rdmcand data-ownership check needed a written result before any restore.
Evidence: read-only queries on runtime-backups/{dev,rdm1,rdmcand}/20261012T133921Z and the matching domain backups. No business rows were moved.
Impact: adds r3.1 sections D1/D2/D3 and the ownership finding that dev conversations predate rdmcand's use of dev/data, so no cross-instance restore is indicated. r3's earlier unapproved text stays unapproved.
Refs: Dev feature/svc-d1-identity-flow; Backend feature/d1-identity-open
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: policy requires updating applicable plan progress on task
completion; WP3-I3 landed the admin-zone entrance via the generic
declaration mechanism.
Evidence: Dev PR #414 and live verification comment (R5, SELF).
Impact: progress line of 2026-10-11-rdm-two-trees-trace-audit-integration.md only.
Refs: WP3-I3/KTD4.
Why: D1-D5 were settled by the user (deps in, full-fidelity pptx, OG
card plus optional embed, dual placement); the proposal status must
reflect that before implementation starts.
Evidence: decision section rewritten with the settled choices and the
accepted trade-off on D2 (fall back to outline level with evidence only
if no Vite-compatible renderer builds).
Impact: documentation only.
Refs: task feature/file-preview-caps.
Why: agents rediscovered Gitea hosts and credential locations from
scratch each session, and the retired git-panel host kept failing with
TLS broken-pipe errors before the right host was recalled.
Evidence: curl git-home...:30319/api/v1/version with token from
~/.secrets/gitea -> {"version":"1.27.3"}; ssh -p 31411 git@git-ssh...
(BatchMode) -> "Hi there, weichen!" with key ~/.ssh/home_gitea (ED25519,
SHA256:GYXaOXIMeloQ1fKSfdJ/ndgPQzs/Ix7Hk62ekfkfQ20). Same section already
merged in Agent-System-Dev (PR #73).
Impact: AGENTS.md only; records hosts and credential locations, no
secret values (baseline hard boundary 2).
Refs: Agent-System-Dev PR #73
Why: the user asked for a reviewable plan covering (a) previews for
office/image/markdown/code files and web links, docked in the right rail
or the system overlay, (b) keeping artifact deletion as a capability with
no UI entry, and (c) implementing fs tools without enabling them.
Evidence: the proposal assesses each idea against current architecture,
defines the FilePreview capability component with a format matrix and
lazy-loaded office parsers, the SSRF-guarded url-preview endpoint, the
gated sandboxed fs tool family, four delivery phases with acceptance
criteria, and decision points D1-D5 for the user.
Impact: documentation only; implementation follows in a separate task
after D1-D5 are settled.
Refs: task feature/file-preview-proposal; extends 2026-09-30
ui-redesign-and-auth.md section 9.
Why: the delivery log for the 2026-09-30 afternoon fixes (part-order
fidelity, download channel, artifact file management, settings cascade)
belongs with the redesign proposal it extends, including the two durable
conventions it produced.
Evidence: adds section 9 with root causes, the render-order-equals-
storage-order rule, the compound-selector lesson for @ui shells on host
generic classes, and the full verification record (vitest/go suites plus
the 12/12 headless run).
Impact: future UI work inherits both conventions without rediscovering
the failure modes.
Refs: task feature/chat-order-artifact-files.
Why: the backend startup layer had only defaults and CLI flags; the
configuration standard's baseline (file, env, CLI layers, read-only explain,
instance isolation) requires the full pipe for dev/test/prod operation.
Evidence: fields and categories mapped one-to-one onto the existing app
Options; runtime settings API kept as the separate business-policy layer.
Impact: design record only; implementation follows in the backend repo.
Refs: standards/configuration.md; backend feature/config-surface
Why: the migration safety net (archive refs, bundles, SHA maps) had never
been exercised; verification rules treat untested recovery as a claim.
Evidence: 15/15 drill checks in a remote-only fresh environment (fsck, tip
and count matches, go test passing on the restored pre-rewrite tip, parent
gitlink reachability); the found gap — chain SHAs only in local bundles —
fixed by pushing refs/rewrite-backup/pre-2026-09-30-chain.
Impact: record-only; backend full-chain restore noted as a known, accepted
limitation.
Refs: 2026-09-30-history-migration.md; 2026-09-30-history-migration-sha-map.md
Why: the migration recovery data lived only on the migration workstation;
before the local backup bundles are retired, the maps belong in the
process repo per the single-source rule.
Evidence: combined from backups-2026-09-30/mapping-*.txt (10 repos + parent
+ restored chains); migration record pointer updated.
Impact: record-only; enables the scheduled local backup cleanup while
remote archive refs remain the full safety net.
Refs: 2026-09-30-history-migration.md
Why: both 2026-09-30 incidents produced reusable causal knowledge (nil-slice
JSON null vs .map; shared-checkout conflicts and gitlinks pinning unpushed
commits) that meets the lesson bar of trigger, mechanism, checks, and
verified guards.
Evidence: incident records and fix PRs referenced inline; guards validated
in policy/adoption.md and the tool-adaptation matrices.
Impact: record-only; documents no product code.
Refs: Agent-System-Dev 8f7cf2d; Agent-System-Backend fix/empty-list-json
Why: the composition-wide message normalization rewrote ten repos; the
governed-migration rule requires bundle backups, archive refs, SHA maps, and
a recovery record in the process repo.
Evidence: per-repo commit counts and empty tree diffs captured during
execution; remote mains verified against local after force-push.
Impact: record-only; documents no product code. Also records the
multitenancy delivery defect (gitlinks pinning unpushed commits) and its
remediation.
Refs: Development-Guidelines 0.1.0-draft.7 multi-repo.md; Agent-System-Dev ef89fc8
Why: the composition adopted the delivery gate (Dev repo ef89fc8); resident
entry rules must carry the gate so agents load them without reading the
guidelines submodule first.
Evidence: text-only entry change; gate mechanics validated in the Dev repo
scratch-repo suite (19/19) and merged as PR weichen/Agent-System-Dev#1.
Impact: entry doc only; no code, contract, or build change in this repo.
Refs: Development-Guidelines 0.1.0-draft.7; Agent-System-Dev ef89fc8
Details (original message):
R2: defer domain plugins to the future roadmap (fresh design, no legacy compat) and expand the skeleton extensibility and customizability design.
weichen