Turn D6 into a scope-boundary row in the variant spec - #16
Open
Carr1005 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Mirrors the same fix applied to the canonical spec.md. D6 asked "anything explicitly unwanted?" without ever showing the learner what was already excluded, held a single Options entry (so it could not be asked through AskUserQuestion's 2-4 option requirement), and defaulted to a pointer at a section the gate never renders. The row now carries the §1 list into the question and lets the learner name what they want back, rather than the spec guessing for them. Routing differs from the canonical row because this variant's §1 was rewritten: it has no "Oracle-specific operations" bullet (the store admin bullet is now store-agnostic) and no "integration into an existing codebase" bullet (replaced by the retrofit-scope bullet, since D1 here retrofits an existing chat app). The handling rules follow this file's §1, not the canonical one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Mirror of #15 for the variant spec. Same defect, same fix, one clause worded differently.
The problem
D6 asked "anything explicitly unwanted?" and never showed the learner what was already excluded:
Add exclusions freely;AskUserQuestionrequires 2–4. The only single-option row in the Ledger.Nothing beyond §1 "Not Included"is a pointer, and the gate presents rows one at a time, so the list is never rendered.The change
One table row. The question now carries the §1 list so the learner chooses against something visible, and a second option lets them name what they want back — the spec doesn't guess which.
What differs from #15
This file's §1 was rewritten by #14, so the handling rules follow this file's exclusion list, not the canonical one:
Everything else — Decision framing, Invariant, Default, Options, Trade-off — is identical to #15.
Scope
Same lowest-risk boundary as #15: §1 is not restructured and the §0 gate is not touched.
Verified: one line changed, D6 keeps the same eight columns as D5 and D7, no rows added or renumbered.
Two notes, both pre-existing and deliberately not fixed here:
spec.coding-agent-lab.diff.htmlis gitignored and now stale relative to this file — regenerate locally if you still use it.🤖 Generated with Claude Code