Skip to content

ask 4: a LOOK row kind in the build plan, tied to the artifact the look obligation already counts #68

Description

@MendixMau

What Studio needs

A way to tell, from the build plan, that a step is "a person looks at this", so the Plan and Build rooms can show human validation as a real column rather than inferring it.

Today

skills/brd-to-build-plan.md defines Kind as a closed set of five: BRIEF, BUILD, PROVE, RUN, HARNESS. LOOK already exists, but in a different place: it is stage 4 of the one review pass in skills/module-review.md, with a PROOF-OF-LOOK block. Existing plans express it as a HARNESS row whose Step text names the LOOK pass.

Separately, bin/lib/obligations.tsv already has a look row: scope module, denominator required, artifact design/ui-reviews/ui-review-*.html. That is the existing machine record of "was it looked at".

Blast radius

Rating: needs care, though the code impact is nil.

  • No script parses the Kind column. Searching bin/, project-bin/, project-tests/ and tests/ for the existing kinds finds only an unrelated label in report-render.js. So nothing breaks mechanically.
  • Both brd-to-build-plan.md and module-review.md are stage mapped, so editing them makes every project's protocol ack stale. Notify by default, blocking under --strict-protocol.
  • Backwards compatibility: a parser matching kind == LOOK misses every plan written before this change. Studio should treat a pre-existing HARNESS row whose Step names LOOK as a look row.

The risk is two records of one fact. A LOOK row marked built while no ui-review-*.html exists means the plan says a person looked and the gate says nobody did. gate-check stays honest; the plan lies.

Decision needed

  1. Is LOOK a new Kind at all, or is it already served by HARNESS rows plus the look obligation?
  2. If new: is a LOOK row satisfied by the same artifact the look obligation counts, so the two always agree? It should never be settable by hand.
  3. Does a LOOK row count as the verification row that ends a phase? If yes, a phase could end with nothing executed.

If this and ask 5 both go ahead, bundle their prose edits into one PR so projects see one stale ack notice instead of two.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions