Defame1297
58a3f402a6
- ADR-0004: add the "Amended by ADR-0028" note, following the ADR-0025 convention. - ADR-0028: correct Q5 (parse_status is gone), the skill count (38, not 39), and the question order. Q7 records the anchored, format-only sha check. Q8 records the decision to commit real Vale fixtures. A new consequence covers path confinement and list rejection. - CONTEXT.md: the `_Avoid_` entry means the bare noun, not the field. - gates.md: correct the authored-hook counts after the corpus gate. - create.md: a `none` entry backed by a reproduction must name committed fixtures in `Basis:`; use the `(digest: <full path>)` form. - gitea-releases: use the `(digest: <full path>)` form. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EGHFJextYtVQseaHPDDhxB
2.3 KiB
Add INFO as a third finding level in skill-audit reports
Amended by ADR-0025 (2026-09-15). skill-audit and agent-audit were removed and their flows
merged into factory-audit, which dispatches to a skill flow and an agent flow at Step 0. Read
skill-audit below as factory-audit's skill flow. The decision itself is unchanged — ADR-0025
carried every audit criterion, tier and finding level across as-is.
Amended by ADR-0028 (2026-09-21). INFO stays for a check that cannot run. A check that ran and
found a mismatch in Research doc: is now a FAIL, so INFO no longer covers it.
skill-audit shipped with two finding levels: FAIL (blocks shipping) and
SUGGESTION (optional improvement). Provenance validation introduced observations
that are worth surfacing but not actionable: a references/*.md file with no
source_keys when sources.md is present, and a skill-level source slug absent
from upstream research docs. Folding these into SUGGESTION would imply they
should be fixed — but retroactive source backfill after a reference file is
written is unreliable and not expected practice. A third level, INFO, is therefore
introduced: observational, no action implied, never changes the pass/fail verdict.
Counted separately in the result block as · P info.
Considered options
SUGGESTION with softer language (rejected) — describe the finding as "worth noting" rather than "should be fixed." Rejected because SUGGESTION already carries an established meaning in the report; softening the language creates ambiguity without changing the semantic level. Downstream consumers (humans, skill-improve) would need to infer intent from prose rather than a stable token.
Suppress entirely (rejected) — omit findings that have no fix. Rejected because the observations are useful for a human reviewing provenance completeness. Silent omission loses information without reducing noise.
Consequences
- Report format gains a third token: FAIL, SUGGESTION, INFO. INFO findings do not
affect pass/fail; counted as
· P infoin the result block. skill-improvecurrently ignores anything below FAIL — that behavior remains correct; INFO findings are not forwarded to it.- Future soft observations should use INFO rather than SUGGESTION when no fix is actionable.