191f9f4f2a
Tighten root/core control flow, add dedicated post-mortem, web, and context-hygiene capabilities, and reduce instruction drift through clearer ownership, conflict-priority handling, and README/docs workflow alignment. This makes long-session AI behavior more deterministic while keeping the instruction system compact and maintainable.
38 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
38 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
# Post-Mortem Reference
|
|
|
|
Use this file for expanded guidance and the canonical report template.
|
|
|
|
## Required Report Structure
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
### Post-Mortem — <short title>
|
|
- Summary: <one-line>
|
|
- Trigger: <what user/test/check did>
|
|
- Evidence: <commands, file paths, snippets>
|
|
- Root cause: <1-3 sentences>
|
|
- Proposed fix: <files & minimal patch>
|
|
- Verification plan: <commands/tests to run>
|
|
- Apply?: (pending user approval)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Evidence Quality
|
|
- Prefer concrete proof over interpretation.
|
|
- Keep snippets short and directly relevant.
|
|
- Include exact file paths for changed/proposed targets.
|
|
|
|
## Fix Quality
|
|
- Prefer narrow, root-cause-level changes.
|
|
- Avoid style-only or unrelated cleanup changes.
|
|
- If behavior guidance is touched, patch only the owning skill.
|
|
|
|
## Approval Protocol
|
|
- Ask a single explicit accept/deny question.
|
|
- Wait for approval before modifying `.ai/` files.
|
|
- If denied, archive under `tmp/<topic>/<short-title>.md`.
|
|
|
|
## Verification Checklist
|
|
- Does the proposed patch prevent recurrence?
|
|
- Is there any conflicting rule introduced?
|
|
- Are mandatory guardrails still intact?
|
|
- Is scope limited to the reported failure?
|