docs: leave the README claim, fill the corpus instead - #84
Merged
Conversation
The task said to correct the README for calling openspec/specs/ the current description of how osapi-io behaves. That is what OpenSpec's model says the directory holds, so the sentence states the destination correctly. The gap is in the corpus, not the claim. Rewriting the README to describe forty-five process rules would record a temporary state as permanent intent. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Thank you for contributing to this project! 😊🕹️ |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Corrects task 4a.2, added in #83.
It said to correct the README for calling
openspec/specs/"the current description of how osapi-io behaves", on the grounds that the corpus holds rules rather than behavior.That reasoning was wrong. OpenSpec's own model describes
specs/as maintaining current behavior — the README states the destination correctly. What is true is that the corpus has not arrived: five of its six capabilities govern how work is done, because every change so far has been repository standardization.The gap belongs in the corpus, not in a smaller claim. The behavior capabilities queued in section 3 — routing, API design, provider semantics, domain completeness — are what close it.
Rewriting the README to describe forty-five process rules would have recorded a temporary state as permanent intent, and stopped being true the moment the next capability landed.
The entry point requirement from #83 stands unchanged; that gap is real and
openspec/still has no top-level document.🤖 Generated with Claude Code