## Created Created by LocalTicketBackend create. --- ## Decision ## Intake refinement Readiness: `implementation_ready` Needs preflight: `true` Risk flags: `pod-lifecycle`, `persistence`, `cli`, `panel`, `recovery` ### Binding decisions / invariants - Fresh start must be explicit. Profile/workflow/system-guidance changes must not silently bypass normal restore behavior. - Archive/reset targets only stopped/restorable Pod names. A live reachable Pod must be explicitly stopped before archive/reset is accepted. - Preserve by default: archive/rename old metadata rather than destructively deleting it, with deterministic collision-safe archive naming. - After archive, same-name launch should flow through the existing `missing -> spawn fresh` lifecycle rather than a hidden special-case restore bypass. - User-facing docs/help should guide users to the official command/action and mention manual `~/.yoi/pods` surgery only as emergency/debug context. - The implementation must be clear about what is preserved: Pod metadata/current-state and session logs/history should remain inspectable or recoverable where applicable. ### Implementation latitude - The exact CLI spelling (`yoi pod archive ` versus `reset`/alias wording) can be chosen during design/preflight, provided the behavior and help text are explicit. - Panel support may be a bounded Companion fresh-start action or diagnostic path; it does not need to become a general Pod manager if CLI coverage plus discoverability is sufficient. - Archive storage may live under the Pod metadata root or a dedicated archive subdirectory if name lookup, collision handling, and recovery semantics remain simple. - Tests can be focused around Pod metadata/lifecycle helpers and CLI/panel lifecycle behavior; full E2E process spawning is not required unless the implementation already has a suitable harness. ### Escalation conditions Escalate before implementation if the chosen design would delete metadata/history by default, change live-Pod stop semantics, require a storage migration, introduce a new authority/scope boundary, or make Panel bypass restore without an explicit user action. ### Validation Expected validation includes focused Rust tests for live refusal, stopped/restorable archive success, and same-name fresh launch behavior; `cargo fmt --check`; `git diff --check`; `target/debug/yoi ticket doctor`; and `nix build .#yoi` because this touches CLI/runtime/panel behavior. --- ## Intake summary Existing Ticket refined for an explicit safe Pod archive/fresh-start path. It is implementation_ready with needs_preflight=true because it touches Pod lifecycle metadata/persistence plus CLI and Panel UX. Binding decisions: fresh start must be explicit, live reachable Pods are protected, archive preserves by default with deterministic collision-safe naming, same-name launch after archive uses the normal missing->spawn path, and docs should prefer official command/action over manual ~/.yoi/pods edits. Escalate if implementation would delete by default, alter live stop semantics, require migration, add authority/scope boundaries, or silently bypass restore. --- ## State changed Intake refinement is complete. Ticket is ready for Orchestrator routing; implementation must not start until the user queues it and Orchestrator accepts it as inprogress. --- ## State changed Ticket queued for Orchestrator routing. --- ## Decision Routing decision: preflight_needed Reason: - Intake marked this Ticket `implementation_ready` but also explicitly `needs_preflight=true` for Pod lifecycle metadata/persistence plus CLI and Panel UX. - Several product/storage choices are still intentionally left open: command spelling (`archive`/`reset`), archive location/layout, deterministic collision naming, recovery semantics, and whether Panel support is a bounded Companion action or diagnostic path. - Those choices affect user-facing CLI, metadata preservation, live/restorable Pod safety, and recovery expectations, so coder delegation should wait until a short binding design note fixes the boundary. Evidence checked: - Ticket body: background, requirements, acceptance criteria. - Thread: Intake refinement, binding decisions/invariants, implementation latitude, escalation conditions, validation, and latest `ready -> queued` event. - Workspace state: no matching branch/worktree exists; main workspace has unrelated Ticket-record edits for other Intake work. - Visible Pods: only peer Intake Pods and this Orchestrator are live; no coder/reviewer implementation Pods are active. Next action: - Run `ticket-preflight-workflow` before implementation delegation. - Preflight should record: final CLI spelling and help text, archive storage layout, deterministic collision-safe naming format, exact live-Pod refusal/stop interaction, what metadata/history is moved or preserved, how same-name launch observes `missing -> spawn`, Panel Companion UX scope, recovery/inspection wording, and focused test strategy. - Leave this Ticket queued for now; do not transition `queued -> inprogress`, create `.worktree/add-pod-archive-fresh-start-path`, or spawn coder/reviewer Pods until preflight records implementation readiness. Escalate if: - The design would delete metadata/history by default. - The implementation would alter live-Pod stop semantics or silently bypass restore because profiles/workflows changed. - Archive requires a storage migration or a new authority boundary. - Panel support would become a broad Pod manager rather than a bounded explicit fresh-start path. ---