fix: state the risk rule in the form that survives mdformat - #86
Open
retr0h wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
The rule asked for square brackets. The markdown formatter escapes those as link references, inconsistently, so no design ever used the prescribed form and two invented a bolded arrow instead. Adopt what those two were already doing, and bring the other two designs to it. One was missing Goals and Risks entirely; another had three findings appended as top-level sections rather than decisions. 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The design rule in
openspec/config.yamlasked for[Risk] -> Mitigation. Our own markdown formatter escapes[...]as a link reference, so the prescribed form cannot survivejust md-fmt— and did so inconsistently, escaping three of four bullets in the same list:No design has ever used it. Two invented a form that works instead — the risk in bold, an arrow, the mitigation — and that is what the rule now says.
The rule was ours
It came from
config.yaml, not from OpenSpec. We wrote a rule that fights our own formatter, and nothing caught it becausejust validatenever readsdesign.md— it checks that deltas are well formed, not that artifacts follow the schema.Regenerated rather than patched
Rebuilding each design against the template found more than the arrow:
specify-agent-tool-invocationhad noGoals / Non-Goalsand noRisks / Trade-offsat all — 41 lines with two of the four required sections missing. Regenerated to 82, with four risks and a second alternative recorded on a decision that previously asserted itself.specify-documentation-homescarried three findings appended as top-level##sections afterOpen Questions, where they read as peers of Context and Decisions rather than as the decisions they are. Moved under## Decisionsand demoted.specify-go-code-standardsstated its risks as prose. Rewritten to the form, and a third risk added — a rule universal today may stop being universal, which the measurement approach already answers.standardize-repository-layoutneeded nothing. Five risks, all in the form, all sections present.Patching would have fixed the arrow and left the missing sections in place.
Result
specify-agent-tool-invocationspecify-documentation-homesspecify-go-code-standardsstandardize-repository-layoutThe eleven archived designs are left alone. They record what was decided and why; rewriting them to satisfy a rule written after they were filed would make the archive claim a history that did not happen.
just testpasses.🤖 Generated with Claude Code