Repository navigation
[rebuild of #19474] spec(lint): wire the inert runtime-create rules for action / hook / report / skill / email_template / mapping — six types, one edit (ruling #203/4 group A+C) #19542
Description
Activity
Claim: PM loop round 15
Session:session_01AmH9bKvGoLjiY86Q4Z3og2
Branch:claude/issue-19474-wire-inert-runtime-create-rules
Worktree:objectstack-issue-19474
Domain:domain:spec
Seat:domain:spec#4
File surface:packages/lint/src/(stop on breach; explain in the report)
Container & model:M,mode:subagent,model: opus— quoting the--tieroutput taken for this work: 「Model tier — no path-derived mandate: the surface hits none of the 3 declared glob(s) … floor sonnet · default opus · ceiling fable」
Clause-②: no
Thread-read: none
Serial constraints cleared: PR #19486 (claude/issue-19370-role-word-crosses-whole) merged asa227afa415f596269ed36aae0a0631c84270ccc9, and its conflict with this branch is resolved in merge commit33db31d234. No other open PR touchespackages/lint/src/authoring-rules.tsorruntime-gate.ts.
⭐ This is the SAME claim, on a rebuilt card — ⛔ not a second claim and ⛔ not a re-dispatch. The original claim is comment
5755122378on card #19474, which is unreachable (GETandPATCHboth 404) because theos-samaccount that filed that card was banned. This card is its verbatim rebuild. ⛔ The branch, the worktree and the work are unchanged; nothing was re-dispatched and no dev was re-run.⚠️ The branch name keepsissue-19474, ⛔ deliberately: it is the name the work was pushed under and the one PR #19517's head carries. ⛔ Renaming it is not available to this session anyway —POST …/branches/{b}/renameanswers HTTP 403 through this proxy, measured earlier today on another branch.State carried over, ⛔ not re-derived, at 2026-09-21T08:15Z:
what reading PR #19517 draft, head 72de2b946301aa59f624da807ae7fc383e82b81e, 6 files, +1018 / −11,mergeable_state: blockedround-1 at-tier review FAIL on head 33db31d234, record5756052587on the PRround-2 ⛔ ABSENT — two dispatches both died on their first request, HTTP 429 「You've reached your Fable limit」; the maintainer has since said 「fable 没有了」 needs:contract-reviewhung on both carriers again — this card and PR #19517 the scope question the absent review owes whether holding skillout (group A landing as three types, not four) is inside ruling5754204885's own logic or a scope reduction its author should decide⛔ This seat has not settled that question and will not: a seat cannot rule on whether it delivered the ruled work.
Generated by Claude Code
- added a commit that references this issue
on Sep 21, 2026 - added 4 commits that reference this issue
on Sep 28, 2026
⭐ REBUILD of card #19474, whose original is unreachable. Filed by the
domain:specseat 4 (session_01AmH9bKvGoLjiY86Q4Z3og2, seat post #18917) on 2026-09-21, under the same instruction that rebuilt #19384 as #19541: the original was filed by the bannedos-samaccount.⛔ The original is not deleted and ⛔ nothing here overrules it. Measured at this act, exit codes captured before any pipe:
GET …/issues/19474PATCH …/issues/19474…/issues/19474/comments·/timeline…/issues/19491200⇒ Why a rebuild was not optional here
This card has a live delivery: PR #19517, draft, head
72de2b946301aa59f624da807ae7fc383e82b81e, 6 files, +1018 / −11. The unreadable card blocks it mechanically, ⛔ not cosmetically:and
⇒ the clause-② enqueue gate can never be satisfied for #19517 while its card cannot be read, and this seat cannot hang or strip
needs:contract-reviewon the card side of the ruled dual carrier. The PR could never land. That is the whole reason this card exists.The delivery's state, carried over so nothing is re-derived
33db31d23457560525875756068299on the old card5755777834on the old card5756460515on the old card5755122378on the old cardclaude-fable-5-1=CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER), and the maintainer has since stated 「fable 没有了」. The review is ABSENT — ⛔ not FAIL, ⛔ not PASS — and PR #19517 stays draft, out of the queue, until the tier question is settled.skillout, so group A lands as three types, not four. Whether that is inside the ruling's logic or a scope reduction its author should decide is the open question the absent round-2 review was dispatched to answer. ⛔ It is not settled, and ⛔ this seat has not settled it.The hand-off card the hold-out produced is #19527.
The original card, reproduced verbatim below, ⛔ not rewritten
Filed by the
domain:specexecution seat 3 (os-sam,session_01HnRAeVTLJevtQ5iCPX6JSm) at 2026-09-21T02:02Z, as the split ruling 5754204885 on #19275 explicitly instructs this seat to perform (batch #203 item 4, letter B, maintainer 「203 同意」). ⛔ Not a new finding, ⛔ not a re-grading:priority:p1anddomain:specare inherited from #19275, whose split this is.The policy, ruled once for all ten types: 「declared ⇒ honoured; not honourable ⇒ retired」.
Read before writing: ruling
5754204885· measurement round5750725047(the specification) · triage's grouping5750895260. Sibling ruling forapp/position: #19370 (B, same policy).Scope — six types, ONE card
Group A —
action·hook·report·skill. The ruling: 「wire the existing candidate rules (runtimeTypesrows /TYPE_TO_STACK_KEYrows already present, inert only because the gate filters onruntimeTypesfirst)」. ⭐ One execution card for the four, ⛔ not four — the ruling says so in those words.Group C —
email_template·mapping. 「wire the ledger-driven rule the same way」, and the ruling folds group C into this card.⛔ Fences, quoted from the ruling rather than paraphrased
doc/external_catalogretire under a separate card;translation/toolare read first under two more. Each has its own carrier.Acceptance
Per type: a real runtime write that the wired rule must refuse is refused, plus a lit control that a good write passes. ⛔ A
surfaces/runtimeTypesfield that merely changed is not the deliverable.⇒ acceptance is behavioural. ⛔ A diff that changes a declaration without a test proving a real write is judged does not close this card.
查重词
allowRuntimeCreate·runtimeTypes·TYPE_TO_STACK_KEY· inert runtime-create declaration · declared but never honouredGenerated by Claude Code