add dev-claude-plugin/0025/SESSION-0025.0-TRANSCRIPT-2026-06-22T07-40--INPROGRESS.md + replace placeholder/variant SESSION-0025.0-TRANSCRIPT-2026-06-07T09-29--2026-06-07T14-25.md

This commit is contained in:
2026-06-22 07:48:52 -07:00
parent 85d20d9e94
commit 342313d856
2 changed files with 80 additions and 127 deletions
@@ -1,127 +0,0 @@
# Session 0025.0 — Transcript
> App: dev-claude-plugin
> Start: 2026-06-07T09-29 (PST)
> End: 2026-06-07T14-25 (PST)
> Type: coding
> Goal: decide where the superpowers spec & plan artifacts live (operator: put
> them on the app's `*-content` repo under `specs/` and `plans/` so rfc-app can
> render them as reviewable collections).
> Outcome: **design-only** — brainstormed + approved + committed a design doc;
> branch pushed, NOT merged. Implementation is the explicit follow-up.
## Launch prompt
```
Update the superpowers spec and plan artifact file locations to live on the
app's *-content repo, under "specs" and "plans" directories — so that if we set
up collections in the rfc-app they'll be easy to review.
```
## Plan
What the session set out to do, and what it became: the ask started as "move the
spec/plan file locations to the content repo," but brainstorming surfaced that
the question is entangled with the session-type taxonomy (the v0.18.0 verbiage
rename had renamed spec-init → `wgl-writing-plans`, colliding with superpowers'
"writing-plans = implementation plan" meaning, and had left plans with no durable
home). So the session became the **artifact-pipeline reconciliation** that memory
had flagged as deferred — designed, not yet built.
## Pre-session state
- On `feat/feedback-as-gitea-issues` with one unpushed design-doc commit
(`6d97845`) for a *different* feature (parked, left untouched).
- `main` = `origin/main` = `4fe6998` (v0.18.0) at session start.
- Memory's recorded `Next /goal` for this thread was the artifact-pipeline
reconciliation.
## Turn-by-turn arc
1. **Gate + claim.** Classified the prompt as a coding session; ran
`wgl-session-coding-init` (under the live 0.17.0 cache). Peek showed four open
`--INPROGRESS` placeholders (0020/0021/0022/0024) — none flagged
ENDED-UNFINALIZED; treated as stale/abandoned, warned and proceeded
(autonomous). Claimed **0025**.
2. **Baseline.** Found I was on the parked feedback branch, not clean `main`.
Established `main` was the real baseline; branched fresh
`feat/two-session-artifact-collections` off `main`; left the feedback branch
alone.
3. **Explored current artifact routing** (Explore agent): specs → `spec-rfc` role
via `submit-spec.sh`; **plans have no durable home** (transcript + memory
only); BDDs → `bdd` role; the schema enum already has `content`, `specs`,
`spec-rfc` roles but the runtime only resolves `spec-rfc`.
4. **Brainstormed** (superpowers:brainstorming). Key discoveries, in dialogue with
the operator:
- Vanilla superpowers does plan→execute in **one session**; the **spec** is the
human-reviewed artifact, the **plan** is agent-facing (no review gate).
- Our v0.18.0 split `writing-plans`/`executing-plans` into separate tracked
sessions, which is why a plan would need a durable home — but it has none.
- Operator's reframe: **collapse to two session types**`session-brainstorming`
and `session-planning-and-executing`.
- Plans: keep as a **non-reviewed archive record** (→ `content/plans/`).
- BDDs: **inputs** to brainstorming, not outputs — leave them alone.
5. **Confirmed the v0.18.0 collision** by reading the renamed skills: `wgl-writing-plans`
actually authors the *spec*, not an impl plan. Read the verbiage-rename design
doc — it had explicitly *conflated* the Solution-Design spec with "the
superpowers writing-plans artifact." Our design supersedes that.
6. **Presented the full design; operator approved** ("yes" to the two-session model,
retiring `wgl-writing-plans`, and the `content` role over `spec-rfc`).
7. **Wrote + self-reviewed + committed** the design doc (`dc684a8`); tightened the
BDD-as-input wording. Pushed the branch (`origin` set).
8. **Operator invoked `/wgl-session-finalize`** at the design checkpoint.
9. **Finalize.** Discovered (via memory + fetch) that origin/main had advanced to
**0.20.0** concurrently (sessions 0026/0022). Corrected the doc's version target
to "next free minor (≥0.21.0), rebase first" (`16e9dd7`); re-pushed. Updated
memory surgically without clobbering the concurrent SP2 `Next /goal`. Stripped a
spurious ENDED-UNFINALIZED banner the SessionEnd guard had stamped mid-session.
## Cut state (end of session)
- Branch `feat/two-session-artifact-collections` pushed to origin, **2 commits**
(`dc684a8` design doc, `16e9dd7` version-target correction), based on the
pre-advance `main` (4fe6998); **15 commits behind current origin/main (0.20.0)**.
- No PR, no merge, no version bump. Working tree clean.
- The parked `feat/feedback-as-gitea-issues` branch untouched.
- Design doc:
`docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-07-two-session-model-and-artifact-collections-design.md`.
## Deferred decisions
Autonomous-mode low-confidence calls surfaced at finalize:
1. **Disposition = push-only, no PR/merge.** This session produced the design doc
only; implementation is the explicit follow-up. Chose to push the branch (no
stranding) and ship design + impl together in one PR later (the v0.18.0
verbiage-rename precedent), rather than open/merge a design-only PR. Alternative:
merge the design doc to `main` on its own now.
2. **Did NOT clobber the top-level SP2 `Next /goal`** that a concurrent session set
in shared memory. Recorded this thread's continuation in the effort-B
follow-up bullet and surface it below instead. Alternative: overwrite the field
with this thread's next step.
3. **`content` role over repurposing `spec-rfc`**, and **removing `wgl-writing-plans`
outright** (vs a stub) — both explicitly approved by the operator during
brainstorming, so low residual risk.
4. **Version target left open** ("next free minor, ≥0.21.0") rather than a fixed
number, since origin/main moved during the session.
## What lands on the operator's plate
- Nothing blocking. The design is approved and recorded; nothing shipped.
- A real concurrency observation worth a feedback issue: the
`session-end-finalize-guard` banner-stamped THIS live placeholder mid-session
(same gotcha logged in 0024) — a live-session false positive.
- When ready to implement: the branch must be **rebased onto current origin/main
(0.20.0)** first.
## Prompt the operator can paste into the next session
This session's thread (the artifact-pipeline reconciliation) continues with:
```
/goal Implement the two-session-model + spec/plan content-repo collections design (docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-07-two-session-model-and-artifact-collections-design.md): rebase feat/two-session-artifact-collections onto origin/main, then writing-plans → execute → ship (≥0.21.0)
```
Note: shared memory's top-level `Next /goal` is currently **SP2** (the `/goal
feedback` orchestrator), set by a concurrent session — pick whichever thread you
want next.
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
# Session 0025.0 — Transcript
> App: engineering
> Start: 2026-06-22T07-40 (PST)
> Type: planning-and-executing
> Posture: yolo
> Claude-Session: 3141c3a0-ef70-4f90-9c36-f82858f08d3a
> Status: **PLACEHOLDER — claimed at session start; finalized at session end.**
>
> This file reserves session ID 0025 for engineering. The driver replaces this
> body with the full transcript and renames the file to its final
> SESSION-0025.0-TRANSCRIPT-2026-06-22T07-40--<end>.md form at session end.
## Launch prompt
```
Start F1 of the SDLC pipeline refactor — handbook reconciliation in
wiggleverse/engineering (issue #63 on the dev-claude-plugin tracker): §3.3
accretion, §4.3 slice-retirement (Feature = one SPEC = one plan = one execution;
Stories become standalone leaf issues, R2(b)), solution-design GUIDE/TEMPLATE
updates, and the documented home of the Claude-Design-vs-Code decision.
Source: engineering docs/sdl-pipeline-refactor-brief.md (decisions locked).
It's the docs-lead spine F2F5 cite — first.
```
## Plan
> Anchor: design `docs/sdl-pipeline-refactor-brief.md` (R2a — locked Solution-Design
> brief; eligibility ELIGIBLE). Work repo: `wiggleverse/engineering`. Feature #63 on
> the dev-claude-plugin tracker. Branch: `feat/sdlc-f1-handbook-reconciliation`.
**F1 — Handbook reconciliation for the staged-gate SDLC pipeline.** Reconcile the
canonical engineering docs to the brief's locked decisions. F1 is the *only* Feature
touching `engineering` (F2F5 are dev-claude-plugin), so the full handbook sweep
happens here or never — internal consistency is required, not optional.
Deliverables (per brief §F1):
1. **§3.3 accretion** (README) — the Solution Design is authored by ACCRETION: each
design-track lens (business → product → engineering) is written into the same
growing SPEC at its own gated stage; never separate brd.md/prd.md files; one
coherent doc `superpowers:writing-plans` consumes. Reframe the Delivery row +
traceability row (drop "Slice").
2. **§4.3 reconciliation** (README) — Feature = one SPEC = one plan = one execution;
its internal units are the plan's Tasks (not slices/Stories). Feature→Story(slice)
sub-layer retired; Stories are STANDALONE leaf issues only (R2(b)). "Slice" is not
used (superpowers grain: sub-project / spec / plan / Task / Step). R1R4 intact.
3. **GUIDE/TEMPLATE** — accretion authoring model (replaces "drafted whole, reviewed
whole"); §7 Delivery Plan = rollout/launch strategy only (retire §7.2 "Slicing
plan" task-checklist; renumber 7.3→7.2, 7.4→7.3); relocate the `**Design:**` field
to §5.1 (Product lens, with the Claude-Design-vs-Code decision); drop "Slice"
columns from traceability + docs tables.
4. **Claude-Design-vs-Code home** — keep §5.1 (Product/prd lens) as the documented
home; note the decision is authored at the prd-lens stage under accretion.
5. **Full slice sweep** across README §4 day-to-day, §7 roadmap, §10, lifecycle tree.
Then: verify (residual-slice grep + internal §7.x ref check) → commit → PR → merge.
No engineering version bump (handbook, not a semver'd plugin). No code/tests/PPE
(docs-only; the pipeline's E2E/PPE gates don't apply to a prose change).
## Deferred decisions
_Autonomous-mode low-confidence calls the driver made and would have
liked operator input on. Appended as the session runs; surfaced at
finalize. Empty if none._
- **Full-handbook slice sweep (scope).** The brief's F1 item enumerates §3.3/§4.3/
GUIDE/TEMPLATE/claude-design-home, but "slice" is load-bearing in README §7
(roadmap) and §4 too. Since F1 is the only engineering-touching Feature, I swept
all of them for internal consistency rather than leaving §7 contradicting a
slice-retired §4.3. Confidence high (forced by the decomposition), logged for
visibility.
- **`**Design:**` field relocation + plugin lag.** Retiring per-slice §7.2 leaves the
shipped `**Design:**` field (consumed by `wgl-design-handoff` + the design-readiness
soft gate, which read it per-`--slice`) without a slice home. I relocated it to the
SPEC's §5.1 (Product lens), co-located with the Claude-Design-vs-Code decision —
one SPEC = one design decision. The plugin's `--slice`-grained plumbing
(`backfill-spec-design.sh`, `design-readiness.sh`) now lags the docs and needs a
downstream reconciliation (candidate: F5 wiring / a follow-up issue). Flagged, not
fixed in F1 (docs-lead-automation, §4.1).