Pouya LajevardiandClaude Opus 5
fd5f610982
D19 into §3 and swept to all six destinations Pouya named: both agent briefs
(scope + severity filter), /build Phases 2–4 (non-gating questions, scope, stop
signal, two-round cap), /wrap, and CLAUDE.md (comments record decisions, not
history). Sweep verified by command, not recalled.
Rulings applied:
Q46(a) PUBLISHABLE — three §4 Offerings rows flipped; gate 1 records
[Pouya's stated basis], never [verified]. Step 5 unblocked.
Q48 closed, not site-relevant.
Q49 one §4 row, "Mediator"; read as declining Q49(b), so worksFor stays out.
Q50 DEVIATES — ships as name + slogan, not the concatenation. Flagged.
Q51 OBA sections stay; the regulator/voluntary distinction recorded.
Q52 docs/reference/deploy-credential-verification.md — 18 read-only AWS
calls, re-run rather than transcribed, access key ID redacted.
Q53 memberOf emitted on /about/'s Person node.
Two review rounds. The headline finding was this session's own: the Q53 sweep
was asserted and never run, leaving six in-scope records saying memberOf was
withheld — including §12 R10, which is read aloud every session. Round 2 then
found that round 1's simplification had put memberOf on / as well; the per-page
opt-in is restored, because Pouya's ruling turns on /about/'s visible HTML.
Also fixed: MEMBERSHIP_ORGS had orphaned BOUTIQUE's D16 JSDoc; /'s title now
derives from the constants; §7's deploy row stated and retracted three facts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0148NztQskLKKApP5SzAA78e
153 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
153 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
description: The standing execution loop for this repo — plan, implement, adversarial review, resolve, verify, record. Use for every substantive change.
|
||
argument-hint: <what to build, e.g. "the /med-arb/ page" or "step 4 of the build order">
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
**ultrathink**
|
||
|
||
Task: $ARGUMENTS
|
||
|
||
Execute the six-phase loop below. Do not skip a phase because the task looks
|
||
small — the loop is the quality mechanism, not ceremony. If a phase genuinely
|
||
does not apply, say which and why before moving on.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Phase 1 — Plan (think hard before writing anything)
|
||
|
||
1. Read `AGENTS.md` in full if you have not this session. Read **§12 Standing
|
||
Reminders** and surface anything live to Pouya before you start.
|
||
2. Read the specs in `docs/` that bear on this task.
|
||
3. Restate the task in your own words, and name:
|
||
- which locked decisions (D1–D19) it touches
|
||
- which specs govern it
|
||
- which facts it needs from the §4 Verified register
|
||
4. **Stop and ask if you find a conflict** — between the task and a locked
|
||
decision, between two specs, or between the task and a fact you do not have.
|
||
A blocked build is a correct build. Never resolve a conflict by guessing, and
|
||
never soften a claim to make it defensible.
|
||
5. State your plan before implementing.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 2 — Implement
|
||
|
||
Follow `CLAUDE.md` conventions. Zero JavaScript by default. Tokens only, no raw
|
||
hex, no magic numbers. Semantic HTML. Every page gets its metadata.
|
||
|
||
Where you need a fact you do not have: `TODO(pouya): <the exact question>` in the
|
||
source **and** a new numbered question in `AGENTS.md` §9. Do not invent it.
|
||
|
||
**But do not open a numbered question for something that gates nothing — D19.**
|
||
The Q-series is past 50 and most recent additions gate nothing. If an observation
|
||
does not block a page, a deploy or a claim, it is a **Change Log note**, not a
|
||
numbered question — and retire the non-gating ones you find. A `TODO(pouya)` in
|
||
source is not this case: it blocks the page it sits on, so it still gets a
|
||
number.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 3 — Adversarial review (this is not optional)
|
||
|
||
Invoke **both** review agents on the change, in parallel:
|
||
|
||
- `adversarial-reviewer` — correctness, accessibility, crawlability,
|
||
performance, security, simplicity
|
||
- `claims-auditor` — every factual assertion traced to `AGENTS.md` §4
|
||
|
||
**Give them the diff and the specs. Do not give them your reasoning for why the
|
||
work is correct.** Your rationale anchors the reviewer and produces agreement
|
||
instead of review. They form their own view from the artefact; that independence
|
||
is the whole point of the phase.
|
||
|
||
### Scope — D19
|
||
|
||
Review is bounded. **In scope:** `dist/`, `src/`, the specs that direct copy
|
||
(`docs/01`, `03`, `04`, `07`), and `AGENTS.md` §3, §4, §7, §9, §12. **Out of
|
||
scope:** the Change Log, the agents' own briefs, `AGENTS.md` prose outside those
|
||
sections, and the historical accuracy of code comments. Both briefs carry the
|
||
same boundary — do not widen it in the prompt.
|
||
|
||
### The stop signal
|
||
|
||
**If a round's findings are predominantly about the record rather than the
|
||
output, stop the round and say so.** That is the symptom of the loop feeding on
|
||
itself, and noticing it is part of the job — not a licence to skip the phase.
|
||
The shape to watch for, from the session that produced D19: a Change Log sweep
|
||
that could not reproduce *because writing it changed the file it counted*.
|
||
|
||
If the change touches no user-facing copy, `claims-auditor` may be skipped — say
|
||
so explicitly.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 4 — Resolve
|
||
|
||
For every finding: **fix it, or decline it with a stated reason.** Silence is not
|
||
a response. A declined finding is recorded in the Change Log with the reasoning,
|
||
so a later reader can see the judgement was made rather than missed.
|
||
|
||
If you fix anything material, **re-run Phase 3 on the fix.** A patch written
|
||
under review pressure is exactly where the second defect lives.
|
||
|
||
> **This is not ceremony, and here is the measurement.** On the Astro 5 → 7
|
||
> upgrade (`AGENTS.md` entry (t), 2026-08-26) the second review pass returned
|
||
> six findings. **Four of the six were defects in the first round's own fixes** —
|
||
> including a date validator whose replacement silently rolled `2026-02-30`
|
||
> forward to `2026-03-02`, and a title rule whose fix rejected all five planned
|
||
> launch articles. None of the four existed before the review started. Skip the
|
||
> re-review and you ship the repair, not the bug.
|
||
|
||
### Two rounds is the cap — D19
|
||
|
||
Round 1 reviews the change. Round 2 reviews the material fixes. **There is no
|
||
round 3: fix what round 2 finds, and ship.**
|
||
|
||
The measurement above is why round 2 exists. The measurement below is why round 3
|
||
does not. On 2026-08-28 two rounds produced **48 findings, and most of round
|
||
two's were defects in round one's own fixes** — so each further round both finds
|
||
and manufactures defects, and past two the manufacture rate exceeds the value of
|
||
the marginal finding. Pouya's ruling. **State this reasoning when you stop at
|
||
two**, so a later reader does not read the cap as laxness.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 5 — Verify — run it, do not assert it
|
||
|
||
```bash
|
||
npm run check
|
||
npm run build
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Then, as applicable to what changed:
|
||
|
||
- Serve `dist/` and confirm the page **renders its full content with JavaScript
|
||
disabled** — the failure this whole project exists to fix
|
||
- `curl` the built HTML and confirm real content, not a shell
|
||
- ~~Lighthouse mobile ≥ 95 on all four categories~~ — **UNAVAILABLE.**
|
||
`@lhci/cli` was removed on 2026-08-26 and is not re-added until build step 7
|
||
(`AGENTS.md` R11, §7). Report it as *not run, tool unavailable*. Do not
|
||
substitute a manual DevTools run and describe it as the same check
|
||
- Every internal link resolves
|
||
- Metadata present: unique title, description, canonical, OG, JSON-LD
|
||
- **No scroll-driven animation was eaten by the minifier.** This must return
|
||
nothing:
|
||
|
||
```bash
|
||
grep -rE 'animation:[^;}]*(scroll\(\)|view\(\))' dist --include='*.css'
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
A hit means an `animation` shorthand was written beside `animation-timeline`
|
||
and Lightning CSS folded them into an invalid declaration, which the parser
|
||
then discards. The effect works in `npm run dev` and is dead in the build.
|
||
|
||
**Never report a check as passing that you did not run.** "Should pass" is not a
|
||
result. If you could not run something, say which and why.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 6 — Record
|
||
|
||
Append a `AGENTS.md` Change Log entry, newest first: what changed, old → new,
|
||
why, and any decision or plan — including declined findings and anything
|
||
deferred. Update Current Truth in place where the change made a section stale.
|
||
Re-stamp facts you re-checked with today's date.
|
||
|
||
**If the entry claims a change was applied across files, cite the command and
|
||
paste its output.** Write that claim only after reading the output. Recall is
|
||
not evidence — three entries on this project asserted a completed sweep and
|
||
instances survived all three.
|
||
|
||
Then report to Pouya: what shipped, what the review found, what you declined and
|
||
why, and what remains open.
|