DongHyeonkaandClaude Fable 5.1
9d2a3725c5
리뷰 두 건을 반영했다. 계약 - tech-log-tree.json 하나가 분해 계약이자 색인이다. 사람이 읽는 트리·Node Specification· 후보 대장은 없어졌고, 문서에 남아 있던 그 개념을 걷어냈다 - candidateScope — 후보를 찾는 SSOT 범위. 접어 넣은 제2부·제3부는 근거이지 후보가 아니다 - sourceRepository — 분석한 저장소의 경로·리비전·판단 근거. 리비전을 모르면 null 로 두고 지어내지 않는다. 갈래가 여럿이면 revisions - 검사기: 계약 미채택·PENDING·PROMOTE↔글감 양방향·candidateScope·sourceRepository 를 error/warn 으로 센다. 옛 스키마도 검사를 피하지 못한다. 테스트 22 → 31 기록 쓰기 - 템플릿 5종에 source·sourceRevision·topicName, Question 에 닫는 조건, 본문 없는 종류에서 assets 제거. 고정 절 개수 삭제 - check_evidence.mjs — 인용한 코드가 SSOT 에 있는지, 앵커가 SSOT 를 가리키는지, 제목이 계약과 같은지, 리비전이 저장소에 있는지. 게시된 기록에서 SSOT 와 다른 URL 을 잡았다 문체 - 문체 규칙의 정본을 ai-tells.md 로. explaining.md 의 질문체 제목·절 끝 대조 반복·그림 예고 규칙을 삭제해 충돌을 없앴다. 첫 절 「설명 뒤에 평가를 붙이지 않는다」에 지우는 사례 네 유형 - voice 스킬의 「독자 쪽을 본다」를 자료에 오독 기록이 있을 때로 좁히고, 평가만 더한 예시를 교체 - check_prose: 안내 문장을 요구하던 경고 제거, 문장이 끝나지 않은 채 문단이 끝나는 조각 검사 추가 Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
75 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
75 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
# Tech Log Tree Decomposition Checklist
|
|
|
|
## Selection
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Every analysis candidate carries a disposition, and `KEEP_IN_SSOT` is used.
|
|
- [ ] `dispositionReview: PENDING` is 0 — nothing reached the tree by recall alone.
|
|
- [ ] Each `PROMOTE` node passes the independence test.
|
|
- [ ] Candidates were discovered from `final/document.md`, not from `analysis/**`.
|
|
- [ ] Material found only in `analysis/**` was added to `final/document.md` first.
|
|
- [ ] `candidateScope` is declared, and no candidate came from outside it.
|
|
|
|
## Source integrity
|
|
|
|
- [ ] The tree records the source document hash, ledger hash, and project revision.
|
|
- [ ] Every node has at least one source anchor.
|
|
- [ ] Source anchors actually contain the material implied by the title.
|
|
- [ ] Runtime-dependent claims name evidence or use `NEEDS_EVIDENCE`.
|
|
- [ ] `readiness` states how well evidenced the node is. It does not state whether the
|
|
record has been written or published.
|
|
|
|
## Topic quality
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Every Topic has one reader question, and every node in it helps answer that question.
|
|
- [ ] No two Topics share a reader question.
|
|
- [ ] Topic is an engineering problem space rather than a directory name.
|
|
- [ ] A large Topic is split when its records no longer share useful relations/criteria.
|
|
|
|
## Case
|
|
|
|
- [ ] There is a specific incident, experiment, failure, diagnosis, or verification sequence.
|
|
- [ ] The title can be understood without inventing a historical story.
|
|
- [ ] The conclusion is bounded by actual evidence.
|
|
- [ ] Observations that answer the same question with the same conclusion are one Case,
|
|
as a table or sub-sections — not several partial Cases.
|
|
|
|
## Concept
|
|
|
|
- [ ] It was added because a Case, Decision, or Question needs it, not by sweeping headings.
|
|
- [ ] `basis-version` names what the explanation was written against.
|
|
- [ ] The title names a mechanism, not an absence, a count, or an analysis-scope fact.
|
|
- [ ] No analysis section number or finding grade survives in the title.
|
|
|
|
## Reference
|
|
|
|
- [ ] The rule is reusable beyond the originating incident.
|
|
- [ ] It is not the Case summary rewritten declaratively.
|
|
- [ ] Scope and exception can be stated from sources.
|
|
|
|
## Open Question
|
|
|
|
- [ ] The answer is not already in the analysis.
|
|
- [ ] Known/unknown/next verification are separable.
|
|
- [ ] The design or a decision actually turns on the answer.
|
|
- [ ] Candidate options are included only when sources really considered them.
|
|
|
|
## Decision
|
|
|
|
- [ ] A project choice is explicitly recorded or user-supplied.
|
|
- [ ] `technology is present` is not being treated as rationale.
|
|
- [ ] The accepted cost is stated, not only the benefit.
|
|
- [ ] `NEEDS_DECISION` is used if the direction is only a recommendation.
|
|
|
|
## Duplication and shape
|
|
|
|
- [ ] No two nodes have the same primary purpose.
|
|
- [ ] Relations are used instead of copying one record into another.
|
|
- [ ] Node count is bounded by what a reader would read, not by the analysis denominator.
|
|
|
|
## Parity
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Every node traces back to a `PROMOTE` candidate, and every `PROMOTE` candidate has a node.
|
|
- [ ] `counts` matches what `build-tech-log-tree.py` produces.
|
|
- [ ] `unlisted` is empty — no record file exists outside the contract.
|
|
- [ ] `python3 scripts/verify-tech-log-tree.py <project>` reports 0 errors.
|