Repository navigation
REL-0: the brief allows a few scripts and a report-first upgrade, plus the CRA/PLD re-check - #92
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…lt on Groundwork The owner builds paid client software for Vibe-IT with Groundwork, and the plugin names vibe-it.nl as its author. Re-verified against the Official Journal texts and the Commission's CRA guidance C(2026) 5252: Groundwork itself stays outside both regimes, because the test is whether access to the framework is paid, not how it is developed or who uses it. Duties for the client products sit with Vibe-IT in each product's own register. One open point is recorded on C-4: no guidance addresses "developed" in PLD Art 2(2). Traces-to: explicit request: herstelplan D-11, re-assess C-1 and C-4 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The out-of-scope list said "there is nothing to run" and ruled out any mechanism that brings later framework changes into a copy. The owner's decision D-2 of 2026-09-25 changes that before anything is built against it: the product may carry a few zero-dependency scripts (init, assess, status) that a person or agent runs and the project never needs to keep working, and an optional plugin may scaffold, report and copy framework files, only with a per-file yes and never deleting, resolving dependencies or touching project or merge files. A package manager stays out of scope. Platform packs are named as dated, sourced fact registers. The retired line goes into the denylist in the same commit, so it cannot return. This commit lands first; decision 0022, which records the route and replaces 0017, follows it. Traces-to: E-03/F-01/S-01 (REL-0), owner decision D-2 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…-first Decision 0017 named its own exit: if a mechanism ever became right, the out-of-scope line would change first and 0017 would be superseded rather than bypassed. The brief changed in the commit before this one, so 0022 records the new route: a report-first upgrade from an optional plugin that compares three states of each framework file and writes nothing without a per-file yes, plus the few scripts the product may carry. It carries 0017's rejected alternatives forward, the sync mechanism and the silent fork, and says why drift in four of the owner's own copies retired the hand route. Until the upgrade is built, improvements still travel by hand. 0017 is marked superseded and stays readable, with the dated comment 0012 uses. The brief's rollout link moves to 0022 and the explainer's decision count reads 22. The links on the explainer, README and changelog move with their rewrite in the next commit. Traces-to: E-03/F-01/S-01 (REL-0), owner decision D-2 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…s begin 0018 called a script that installs Groundwork into an existing repo "not on the table", because the out-of-scope line ruled it out. That line changed two commits ago and decision 0022 records why, so the option carries a dated amendment the way 0001 does: adoption runs through `init --adopt` plus `begin`, the script laying the files down and measuring the starting position, `begin` keeping the interview and the brownfield branch. The original sentence stays readable, and until `init` is built the existing route is the whole route. Traces-to: E-03/F-01/S-01 (REL-0), owner decision D-2 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…grade All three said there would never be a way to bring framework changes into a copy. Since decision 0022 a report-first upgrade is planned, so they now say what is true today and what is coming, and nothing more: improvements travel by hand, and the upgrade that will list what is behind, what you changed and what collides, writing nothing without a yes per file, is named as planned and not built. Their links move from 0017 to 0022. The retired promise goes into the denylist in the same commit, and the Unreleased section of the changelog records the scope change. Traces-to: E-03/F-01/S-01 (REL-0), owner decision D-2 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three lenses read the branch in a fresh context: no blockers, three majors from the architecture lens and three from the technical lens, all fixed here. Decision 0022 now draws the line it claims to draw. The upgrade writes no framework file without a yes that names that file, its own records under .groundwork/ excepted, and it never writes a merged result: a conflict ends as a report and a three-way diff the person resolves. Without that, the planned conflict step already met the brief's own definition of a package manager. 0022 also says the brief's constraints reach the plugin (vendor-neutral, MIT, free, unmonetised), that its logic runs as plain Node with the hand route as the visible fallback, where it is paid (decision 0015), and that the plan it cites is kept outside the repo. The file states are left to REL-5 instead of being fixed here, and a missing file is named as missing. The claim that the hand route was available to all four measured copies is gone, since copies older than v0.1.0 never had it, and 0017's third rejected alternative, a changelog alone, is carried forward. The "nothing to run" denylist entry is narrowed to the retired sentence, "there is nothing to run", because the bare phrase would fail legitimate prose in every product copy; the updater entry also catches "no update mechanism". Both reasons point to 0022 instead of restating it. The brief's own wording around the plan's sentences says "install step" rather than "tooling", which the hooks contradicted; 0018's amendment is in the future tense and leaves the first measurement with begin until init exists; 0017's comment and the changelog entry say what they mean. Findings for packages not yet started are parked in the maintainer's intake. Traces-to: E-03/F-01/S-01 (REL-0), owner decision D-2 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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.
What changed and why
Phase 0 of the owner's recovery plan, first package (REL-0, story E-03/F-01/S-01), plus the one decision commit that preceded it on this branch.
97ee9a9, owner decision D-11). Groundwork stays outside both regimes: the test is whether access to the framework is paid. No change to the register's verdicts, one open point recorded on C-4.f8bada6, owner decision D-2). The out-of-scope list said "there is nothing to run" and ruled out any way to bring framework changes into a copy. It now allows a few zero-dependency scripts (init, assess, status) that a project never needs to keep working, and an optional plugin that may scaffold, report and copy framework files, only with a per-file yes, never deleting, never resolving dependencies. A package manager stays out of scope. This commit lands before everything that builds on it, which is why the PR must merge by rebase (decision 0014).29f7d6c), as 0017's own exit clause asked: the brief changed first, then the record. 0022 records the report-first upgrade and why (measured drift in four of the owner's own copies), and carries 0017's rejected alternatives forward. 0017 stays readable, marked superseded.02e8120): adoption will run throughinit --adoptplusbegin; untilinitexists the current route is the whole route.99015d5). Explainer, README and changelog say improvements travel by hand today and name the upgrade as planned, not built, linking 0022.e7913b0). Three lenses read the branch in a fresh context. No blockers; the majors are fixed: 0022 now says the upgrade never writes a merged result and asks a yes that names each file, the brief's constraints reach the plugin, and the "nothing to run" denylist entry is narrowed to the retired sentence so it cannot fail ordinary prose in a product copy.Both retired phrasings are on the denylist, each in the same commit as the text that made it green; no commit on the branch is red.
Verified by
node checks/check.mjsfailed on exactly the four lines the story names (BRIEF:76, index.html:611, README.md:88, CHANGELOG.md:8).node checks/check.mjsgreen, all eighteen suites green,node checks/drill.mjs --require-walkpassed (a fresh copy reached a governed first commit in 3.9 s), and the pinned design detector overindex.htmlexited 0. Locally on Node 24; this PR's CI run is the Node 22 proof.mainand resolves only after this merges.🤖 Generated with Claude Code