Why: N2 is closed; per the completion doc's dependency order N3 is
next and needs a plan grounded in current code (the crash window
between persist and intent commit is unprotected, the product
conversation path has zero durability, span names/attributes do not
follow the GenAI convention, the memory port does not exist).
Evidence: five-area survey with file:line citations at the pinned
baselines (agent-native 74aa60b, backend 7980a8a, core 0b5c774);
audit N1/N21 verified fixed, N6/N20 verified still open.
Impact: documentation only; work starts after this plan merges.
Refs: 2026-10-02-agent-stack-completion.md N3 section
Why: expose existing milestone records and distinguish source observations from combination tests.
Evidence: linked records exist at the fixed source version; proposal blobs and the observation receipt remain unchanged.
Impact: index wording and navigation only; no plan or acceptance decision changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/INDEX.md
Why: author and task-account names do not establish ownership of a plan.
Evidence: independent review found four missing owner fields in the adopted set and N2 also has none; fourteen source headers explicitly name weichen.
Impact: correct the index attribution and clarify the local N2 document adoption boundary; source proposals remain unchanged.
Refs: planning-index review P2; docs/proposals/INDEX.md
Why: make existing directions, milestones and tasks discoverable without treating document claims as acceptance.
Evidence: fixed file blobs, 55 PR API records and Git ancestry are preserved as SELF observations; document links and all 19 proposals are checked.
Impact: navigation and evidence only; original plans, approval scope and business code are unchanged.
Refs: Dev feature/planning-index; docs/proposals/INDEX.md
Why: N1/Q1/I1/I2 are closed; per the completion doc's dependency order
N2 is next and needs a plan grounded in current code (the audit's N4 is
still open; the product-side ctxasm trim is the real gap for acceptance
clause 2; MCP 2026-07-28 features are absent).
Evidence: six-area survey with file:line citations at the pinned baselines
(agent-native ead690b, backend 68addfd); audit items N2/N3/N18/N19/N22
verified fixed against current code, N4 verified still open.
Impact: documentation only; work starts after this plan merges.
Refs: 2026-10-02-agent-stack-completion.md N2 section
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: 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
weichen
