Compare commits

..

1 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Jesse Vincent
61f669ebc9 fix(sdd): preflight emits its pairwise checks as a ledger table and rules on what it surfaces
The pre-Task-1 conflict scan currently permits 'the scan is clean' with
no evidence the scan happened — mined sessions show controllers skipping
straight to dispatch and plan conflicts surfacing mid-execution as
blocking questions. Requiring the scan to emit one row per task pair
sharing a file/interface and one row per task's self-consistency turns
the claim into an artifact; in controlled evals the table appeared 3/3
with conflicts surfaced pre-dispatch, and the mechanism held 3/3 when
composed with the never-stall ruling change (#2077).

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy
2026-08-03 09:03:05 -07:00

View File

@@ -142,17 +142,24 @@ a ledger file, not only in todos.
Read the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a Read the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a
todo per task. todo per task.
Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts: Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts, writing down
what you checked as you check it:
- tasks that contradict each other or the plan's Global Constraints - tasks that contradict each other or the plan's Global Constraints
- anything the plan explicitly mandates that the review rubric treats as a - anything the plan explicitly mandates that the review rubric treats as a
defect (a test that asserts nothing, verbatim duplication of a logic block) defect (a test that asserts nothing, verbatim duplication of a logic block)
Present everything you find to your human partner as one batched question — The scan's output is a table, not a verdict. One row for every pair of tasks
each finding beside the plan text that mandates it, asking which governs — that share a file or an interface: the two tasks, what one produces against
before execution begins, not one interrupt per discovery mid-plan. If the what the other consumes, and what you found. One row for every task: whether
scan is clean, proceed without comment. The review loop remains the net for its own text agrees with itself — the tests it specifies against the code it
conflicts that only emerge from implementation. specifies, the files it creates against the files it later touches. "The scan
is clean" without those rows is not a scan you ran.
Write the table to the ledger. Rule on each conflict it surfaces — the spec
is the binding authority, the plan is its argument — record the ruling beside
its row, and dispatch Task 1. The review loop remains the net for conflicts
that only emerge from implementation.
## Model Selection ## Model Selection