Hare/yoi
1
1
Fork 0
Code Actions Packages Releases Activity

ticket: accept planning readiness implementation

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Keisuke Hirata 2026-06-08 08:09:38 +09:00
parent 2abc5df9ac
commit c83fecd057
No known key found for this signature in database
2 changed files with 86 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
.yoi/tickets/open/20260607-230044-relax-implementation-planning-readiness/item.md
View File

@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ status: open
kind: task kind: task
priority: P2 priority: P2
labels: [workflow, ticket, orchestrator, preflight, review] labels: [workflow, ticket, orchestrator, preflight, review]
workflow_state: queued workflow_state: inprogress
created_at: 2026-06-07T23:00:44Z created_at: 2026-06-07T23:00:44Z
updated_at: 2026-06-07T23:08:01Z updated_at: 2026-06-07T23:09:32Z
assignee: null assignee: null
legacy_ticket: null legacy_ticket: null
queued_by: workspace-panel queued_by: workspace-panel

84
.yoi/tickets/open/20260607-230044-relax-implementation-planning-readiness/thread.md
View File

@ -86,3 +86,87 @@ For this Ticket, additional preflight is not required before implementation if t
Implementation should use this as the binding policy boundary and update workflow wording accordingly. Escalate only if the wording would weaken authority/product/API/design-boundary gates rather than narrowing unnecessary preflight churn. Implementation should use this as the binding policy boundary and update workflow wording accordingly. Escalate only if the wording would weaken authority/product/API/design-boundary gates rather than narrowing unnecessary preflight churn.
--- ---
<!-- event: decision author: orchestrator at: 2026-06-07T23:09:28Z -->
## Decision
Routing decision: implementation_ready
Reason:
- Human recorded the missing policy boundary directly in the Ticket thread and explicitly authorized proceeding.
- The human decision clarifies that `needs_preflight: true` and risk flags are strong signals, not unconditional blockers, when the missing design/policy boundary has already been supplied.
- Intent, constraints, acceptance criteria, binding decisions, implementation latitude, and escalation conditions are now reviewable enough for coder/reviewer handoff.
Evidence checked:
- Ticket body requirements, non-goals, acceptance criteria, and affected workflow paths.
- Intake summary and prior `preflight_needed` routing decision.
- Human decision at `2026-06-07T23:08:01Z` supplying the binding policy boundary.
- Workspace state: main workspace clean; no branch/worktree exists for this slug; separate `parse-ticket-frontmatter-as-yaml` worktree/Pod is active but isolated.
- Visible Pods: intake peer for this Ticket is idle; no coder/reviewer Pods are active for this Ticket.
IntentPacket:
Intent:
- Relax workflow wording so Ticket readiness and implementation handoff focus on clear intent, constraints, acceptance criteria, and reviewability rather than prematurely fixed implementation tactics.
Binding decisions / invariants:
- Preflight is not removed; it remains mandatory when implementation would silently decide product/API/UX/authority-boundary questions or weaken explicit design constraints.
- Human/Orchestrator/Ticket-recorded design decisions and invariants remain binding. A coder must follow them or escalate/record a justified deviation.
- `ready` means ready for Orchestrator routing, not fully implementation-planned.
- `implementation_ready` may include bounded implementation uncertainty when intent, constraints, acceptance criteria, reviewer judgment basis, and escalation conditions are clear.
- `needs_preflight: true` and risk flags are strong signals, not unconditional hard blockers, if a human decision has already supplied the missing boundary.
Implementation latitude:
- The coder may choose exact wording and file-local organization after inspecting the workflow docs/prompts/tests.
- The coder may decide whether `.yoi/workflow/multi-agent-workflow.md` or role prompt/test wording needs updates, based on whether existing text over-demands pre-decided implementation plans.
- The coder may keep the change docs/workflow-only if no runtime prompt/tests are affected.
Requirements:
- Update `.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md`.
- Update `.yoi/workflow/ticket-orchestrator-routing.md`.
- Update `.yoi/workflow/ticket-preflight-workflow.md`.
- Update `.yoi/workflow/multi-agent-workflow.md` if needed.
- Adjust role prompt wording/tests if generated prompt guidance currently over-demands pre-decided implementation plans.
- Intent packet guidance must distinguish binding decisions/invariants, implementation latitude, and escalation conditions.
- Reviewer guidance must judge implementation against recorded intent, constraints, acceptance criteria, and explicit decisions—not unrecorded preferred tactics.
- Example wording should make coder investigation acceptable when intent is clear and risks are bounded.
Non-goals:
- Do not change Ticket state machine names.
- Do not weaken product/API/authority/design-boundary gates.
- Do not make coders silently decide product/API/authority questions.
- Do not introduce scheduler/lease/workflow-state redesign.
Escalate if:
- The wording would weaken authority/product/API/design-boundary gates rather than narrowing unnecessary preflight churn.
- A runtime prompt/resource/test change is larger than wording alignment.
- Existing workflow docs contain a contradictory policy that cannot be reconciled with this Ticket without broader redesign.
Validation:
- `target/debug/yoi ticket doctor` or equivalent built binary doctor.
- `cargo fmt --check`.
- `git diff --check`.
- If code, prompt runtime resources, or tests are changed, run focused tests and `nix build .#yoi`; if docs/workflow-only, report why Nix build was not needed.
Current code/docs map:
- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md`
- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-orchestrator-routing.md`
- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-preflight-workflow.md`
- `.yoi/workflow/multi-agent-workflow.md`
- Search role prompts/tests only if workflow docs reveal generated guidance is out of sync.
Critical risks:
- Replacing too-strict preflight churn with too-loose implementation authority.
- Ambiguous reviewer instructions that evaluate against hidden preferences instead of recorded intent.
- Over-editing workflow docs beyond this policy cleanup.
---
<!-- event: state_changed author: orchestrator at: 2026-06-07T23:09:32Z from: queued to: inprogress reason: orchestrator_acceptance_after_human_policy_boundary field: workflow_state -->
## State changed
Orchestrator accepted the queued Ticket for implementation after the human decision supplied the policy boundary for bounded implementation latitude versus binding design/authority decisions. Worktree and sibling coder/reviewer routing may proceed from this accepted in-progress state.
---