Skip to content

Add a context canary to the root CLAUDE.md #18

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
dsnger merged 1 commit into from
Jul 27, 2026
Merged

Add a context canary to the root CLAUDE.md #18

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 14 additions & 0 deletions CLAUDE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -401,6 +401,20 @@ like the rest of §5; the detection is a reader comparing the pass against the s
any other pass. Counter and workspace state persist in `.context/`; the *pass* does
not.

## 6. Context Canary

Begin every response to the user by addressing him as "Daniel."

**Why:** it is a context canary. These guidelines are only in force while this file is in
context, and nothing signals when it falls out. The address is a per-response marker: if
it disappears, CLAUDE.md is gone from context and the user knows to reload rather than
discovering it through work that quietly stopped following §1–§5.

**Scope: conversational responses only.** Never in file contents, commit messages, code,
or gate artifacts. §5's findings file admits no line that is not a finding line or the
terminator, and its reply is exactly one line per branch — a greeting there is a malformed
pass, so a canary that reached into artifacts would break the protocol it sits beside.
Comment on lines +413 to +416

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win

Exclude review artifacts from the canary scope.

The scope excludes gate artifacts but not machine-readable review artifacts. Prefixing review output with “Daniel” can violate the review protocol’s required markers and parsing format. Add review artifacts explicitly to the exclusions.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents 
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@CLAUDE.md` around lines 413 - 416, Update the canary scope statement in
CLAUDE.md to explicitly exclude machine-readable review artifacts alongside gate
artifacts, ensuring review output is never prefixed or modified and its required
markers and parsing format remain unchanged.

Source: Learnings


Comment on lines +404 to +417

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win

Do not hardcode Daniel in a reusable CLAUDE.md template.

MANIFEST.md and plugins/dev-workflow/commands/workflow-init.md identify this file as scaffolded project content, so initialized projects may apply this rule to users who are not Daniel. Make the name project-configurable or keep this canary out of the shared template.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents 
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@CLAUDE.md` around lines 404 - 417, Remove the hardcoded “Daniel” requirement
from the reusable CLAUDE.md template, or replace it with a project-configurable
user name. Update the “Context Canary” guidance and its related explanation so
initialized projects do not address every user as Daniel, while preserving the
conversational-only scope.

📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win

Run the mandatory Gate B review for this change.

The supplied guidelines classify CLAUDE.md as product code requiring full Gate B review even when it is Markdown. The PR objective’s “Gate B was skipped” rationale contradicts that requirement.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents 
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@CLAUDE.md` around lines 404 - 417, Run the mandatory Gate B review for the
CLAUDE.md change, treating it as product code despite its Markdown format.
Remove or correct the PR objective’s rationale claiming Gate B was skipped, and
ensure the review follows the required Gate B procedure.

Source: Coding guidelines

---

**These guidelines are working if:** fewer unnecessary changes in diffs, fewer rewrites due to overcomplication, and clarifying questions come before implementation rather than after mistakes.
Expand Down