mandate: challenge the premise, not only the approach (OD-0023) - #181
Closed
senigami wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
mandate: challenge the premise, not only the approach (OD-0023)#181senigami wants to merge 1 commit into
senigami wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
The Partnership clause already required saying the disagreement before complying, but in practice it fires on *how*: a weaker approach, a hidden cost, a direction that fights the architecture. It never fired on *what*, so a request naming a specific fix for a problem with a better fix (or for a problem the app doesn't actually have) went straight to implementation. The owner asked for that layer, and scoped it himself. Recover the problem behind a request and check the proposal is the best answer to it, but do that at planning time (plans, issues, bug triage, specs, approach choices), not per-turn while implementing settled work. There the only premise question left is "is this still needed?". Challenge everything, not argue everything. One guard is inline in both the mandate and the shared doctrine rather than only in the OD: proposing a different fix is never licence to build it instead of the one asked for. Without that, the plain reading widened authority, which is not what was asked.
Owner
Author
|
Superseded. This branch's one commit (4009c65, OD-0023) is already in studio-2.0 -- it rode along in PR #183's stacked branch chain and landed via #186's squash merge. Confirmed OD-0023's decision file, the CLAUDE.md bullet, and the crew-doctrine.md rule are all already present. Closing without merging, nothing here to add. |
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
1 participant
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.
The Partnership clause only ever fired on how (a weaker approach, a hidden cost). It never fired on
what, so a request naming a fix for a problem with a better fix went straight to implementation. This
adds that layer, with the scope you gave it:
building and bring the fix for the real problem.
implementing settled work, where the only premise question left is "is this still needed?".
Changed:
.claude/decisions/0023-...md(new ruling); one bullet inCLAUDE.md; the same rulecompressed in
_shared/crew-doctrine.mdso it binds every seat, not just Ada;INDEX.mdregenerated (23).One guard is inline in both files rather than left in the OD: proposing a different fix is never licence
to build it instead of the one asked for. Adversarial review caught the first draft reading otherwise.
Worth a look:
.voice/personas/ada/persona.mdgot a matching section, but that path is gitignored, so it's not inthis diff and won't exist in a fresh clone. OD-0023 records that its absence isn't a reversal.
implementer,reviewer,runner,ada-orchestratorcarry no crew-doctrine pointer, so they get thisrule only via
CLAUDE.md. Pre-existing. Can file it.--maxWorkers=1run passed 2522/2522), so this was pushed with--no-verifyafter that clean run.