Repository navigation
Post-merge check of #335 and #337 - #338
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Duty owed 1 h 58 min (from #335's merge at 11:05:49); the duty line reached the session only at 12:57, since duties.py reads the local origin ref and origin was not fetched 10:42 to 12:53. Held: 90 in step order, 49 net lines, one-line review records; rule cuts reviewed twice before the push, 11,914 to 9,494 words; merge-tree before each push question; worktrees via new_worktree.py. Findings: two stalls on permission prompts after Ola's yes (72 min on private #47's merge, 88 min on #50's PR create, the Mac asleep for 69 of them); the rule cuts, nearest to merging, waited 07:55 to 09:27 while a new item took the writer slot; 91 started as a fourth item; #335/#337 reported to Ola as waiting on checks 85 min after merging, with four spawns before the restart; the 90 developer planted a mutant while the full suite ran from the same tree and polled with sleep; recording commits carried code-file wordings (7c8e957b), a design behaviour change (e095b54) and file deletions (769bcba7); three reports to Ola corrected after the fact; 293 worktrees filled the disk. session.md: 141 lines, 41,174 characters, recap 47,133 against the 10,000 cap; nine shell appends since 06:23. Section 3 gives the format practice. Proposals: private auto-merge (Ola's setting); session.md written whole with Write (-15 words); shorter harness-round paragraph in orchestrator.md (-18). Rule text 9,494 words at ffbae90. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
…lessons (@orchestrator) Applies @Reviewer's six prose wordings to the post-merge check of #335 and #337 exactly as given: Ola's restart question and the answer (07:47:43, 07:47:47); Ola's remark (10:40:41) placed before the forcing claim; 24 shell appends to session.md, not nine; session.md measured at about 13:00, before its rewrite; the 09:48:04 polling loop ran in the background; "Fill both or delete them". Adds a one-line ## Review record of the prose round on dfc0365 (APPROVED WITH WORDINGS) and two lessons to section 4: a refusal test's searched word must not also be in the test file's name (@tester, increment 91); README step 4 has the main session write the review record, but the architect was briefed to (@architect, increment 91). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Post-merge check of #335 (rule cuts) and #337 (MCP source reload), with private #47-#50: waits after Ola's yes, writer-slot order, a stale report, and how to keep session.md to its format. Prose review APPROVED WITH WORDINGS, applied in 09f6ed0.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code