Compare commits

..

1 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Jesse Vincent
44c9b2d6e8 docs: remove the "We're Hiring" section from the README
The community engineer role has a candidate on trial, so the posting no
longer needs to be at the top of the README.
2026-07-28 12:25:36 -07:00

View File

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