The owner's report: the process works but every stage takes a long time even on
simple bugs. Two causes, and neither was the one that first comes to mind.
The reviewer ran everything regardless. On #89 it installed Chromium, ran all 127
smoke files and a full golden capture — right for a task rated 10/10 for
complexity, absurd for a bug about a room divider. Full suites are the pre-beta
gate; the review now runs typecheck, unit and build always, and smokes, golden,
pytest or performance only where the diff and the AC call for them. The price of
narrowing it is honesty: the reviewer must list which gates it ran, which it did
not, and why, so a skipped gate is a visible decision rather than a silent one.
The reviewer also built its own environment out of model turns, with no npm cache
and no browser cache, paid for from the same forty-five minutes. The workflow now
installs dependencies and Chromium as ordinary cached steps, after switching to
the task branch so the lockfile is the branch's own.
Second, ceremony did not scale down. The light track makes a spec cheap; the new
trivial track does without one — S2-analysis straight to S5-ready, no spec review,
AC in the issue body. It is deliberately hard to qualify for: a bug on one surface,
no new UX contract, no migration, no i18n, no perf or touch effect, three checkable
AC at most, and expected behaviour already on record. Nothing left to decide is the
criterion that holds the whole thing up, and it cannot be met by feeling sure.
Code review is never skipped on either track. It is what stands in for testing
here, so it is the one stage speed may not buy.
Issue: #127
Issue: #128
User-Visible: no
Check 2 compared the Issue trailers against whatever branch the working tree
happened to be on, over whatever range it was given. Those two are not the same
set. After a rebase the CI range widens — `before` points at a discarded commit,
the merge-base slides back, and commits that belong to dev arrive carrying other
issue numbers. Every one of them then looks like a violation.
Running the gate over real history from issue/89 with a dev range produced 26
false refusals out of 26 commits, which would have reddened Validate on the next
force-push of any task branch.
The rule now reads origin/dev..HEAD for its own verdict and leaves the event
range to the other checks. A commit that genuinely carries the wrong trailer for
its branch is still caught; the integration test covers both directions.
Issue: #105
User-Visible: no
PROCESS.md 10.2 describes scripts/process-gate.mjs; the script never existed.
Commits go straight to dev without PRs and GitHub blocks nothing on its side, so
until now the only thing standing between the process and rule #1 was the good
faith of whoever was committing. Hooks catch a violation on the author's machine
but --no-verify walks past them; this job is the catch-up pass that cannot be
skipped locally.
Checks 1-7 offline, 8 through gh, plus the escalation of check 3: a class A
commit with neither a spec file nor the `small` label is a failure, not a
warning. Check 8 is fail closed — an unreachable or closed issue is a refusal,
never a silent pass.
Two things surfaced while wiring it up and are recorded in the script header.
S8-merged had to join the allowed statuses: the pipeline merges into dev before
it moves the label, so Validate reads the issue already advanced and a strict set
would redden every accepted task. And the status question now applies only to
class A/B commits — asking it of a review document would fail every time, since
that document lands while the issue sits in S4-spec-review or S7-code-review.
Issue: #105
User-Visible: no
Sergey Matyunin