Repository navigation
Method Consistency Fixes (Cycle 0022) - #9
Conversation
Bundle three ASAP items into one doc cycle: - Branch naming consistency - RED phase playback coverage - Repo lane conformance
- Branch naming: assert cycles/####-slug in process.md, no cycles/<cycle_name> - RED breadth: assert golden path, failure modes, edge cases in README - Lane conformance: assert scaffolding rule is documented - Update existing branching test to expect cycles/####-slug
…onformance Branch naming: - Unified to cycles/####-slug everywhere - process.md Rules section: cycles/<cycle_name> -> cycles/####-slug - process.md Branch Naming section: added cycles/ prefix - README.md Pull step: mentions cycles/####-slug RED phase breadth: - README.md step 2 now names golden path, failure modes, edge cases - States "if a category does not apply, say so" Lane conformance: - README.md Lanes section: documents that method init scaffolds all lanes - Lanes exist from initialization, not on first use
Hill met. Three doc inconsistencies resolved: - Branch naming unified to cycles/####-slug - RED step names golden path, failure modes, edge cases - Lane scaffolding rule documented 105 tests pass (102 prior + 3 new). No drift. No new debt.
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9939d632a6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| const process = readRepoFile('docs/method/process.md'); | ||
|
|
||
| // Both docs must name the cycles/####-slug pattern | ||
| expect(readme).toContain('cycles/'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test only asserts that README contains cycles/, so it still passes if README regresses to cycles/<cycle_name> (or any other cycles/... text), despite the test title claiming canonical cycles/####-slug consistency across both docs. Because this is the regression guard for branch naming, it should validate the exact pattern in README and explicitly reject deprecated wording there too.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Bundles three ASAP doc fixes surfaced during cycle 0021 into one design cycle:
cycles/####-slugacrossREADME.mdanddocs/method/process.md. Removed the contradictorycycles/<cycle_name>rule.README.mdnow names golden path, failure modes, and edge cases as expected test-shape categories.method initscaffolds all lane directories from initialization.3 new tests in
tests/docs.test.ts. 105 total tests pass.Test plan