Session 0079.0 — Transcript

App: ohm Start: 2026-06-06T00-49 (PST) End: 2026-06-06T11-44 (PST) Type: discovery Status: FINALIZED Driver model: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M)

Launch prompt

"Do you think we can use tags to do what I was planning with BDD releases? Ideally we can tag both what the feature of a BDD scenario is, but also allow people to manage release tags. The tag functionality would have to get much more integrated into the UX (tag management, tag types/templates [e.g. add a 'release' type of tag to the BDD project and when a new 'release' tag is created, it follows conventions set in the definition of the release tag], filtering in the left pane, workflow for tagging/untagging content)" — opened via /superpowers:brainstorming.

Outcome (one line)

A discovery session that produced and landed a Solution Design — docs/design/2026-06-06-configurable-collection-metadata.md (rfc-app PR #26, v0.1.6) — and, in the course of writing it, substantially revised the canonical Solution Design standard (engineering GUIDE/TEMPLATE + handbook §7, PR #14).

Pre-state

Opened on rfc-app main; baseline clean at claim. A live concurrent session (0078/0083 lineage) shared the canonical checkout — the §5.4 worktree hazard was in force the whole session.
The "BDD releases" plan existed only in the operator's head; no design in-repo. The retired BDD Release Planner (wiggleverse-ecomm-bdd-release-planner-app) was the reference: it clustered scenarios into named releases, attaching priority/owner/status, emitting a RELEASE-PLAN.md roadmap. §22 absorbed its corpus hosting but not its annotation half.

The arc

Session gate → classified as discovery; wgl-session-discovery-init claimed 0079 (warned about in-flight 0078, proceeded autonomously).
Brainstorming (visual companion accepted; mockups under .superpowers/). Explored: tags today are free-form tags_json with no filtering; BDD = a collection type; "BDD releases" = the retired planner's job. Operator pointed at ecomm-meta/research/shopify (the ~1,238-scenario corpus, one file per scenario, slug = DD-FF-NNNN).
Design decisions (all operator-confirmed): release ordering/ship/roadmap → out (downstream); Approach A one generic typed-field system; metadata grain = per-entry; schema in .collection.yaml fields:; values in clean <slug>.meta.yaml sidecars; faceted left-pane filtering with counts; single+bulk direct-commit tagging; in-app field management deferred.
Spec written to the Solution Design standard (v0.1.0), committed.
Standard-shaping iterations (operator drove a series of refinements to the spec and the canonical template/guide): value-only Executive Summary → Pain Points section → business-not-solution Outcomes → solution-agnostic Business Use Cases (concierge-fulfillable) → split Business Actors / Product Personas → two-part front (§1 Business Context solution-agnostic + §2 Solution Proposal, may be non-software) → Business Actors moved ahead of the roles they're referenced by.
Superseded the parallel 2026-06-06-per-type-surfaces.md draft: harvested its validation seam, malformed-flag, unknown-fields-ride-along, engine-unchanged rule, N=1 backcompat; kept bdd coverage as a future ref-field surface; added SLICE-0 to amend the binding SPEC.md §22.4a.
Process Q&A → canonized a per-slice execution convention (one slice = one coding session, writing-plans → executing-plans, plan just-in-time) into the spec §7.1, the Solution Design guide/template §7.1, and handbook §7.
Finalize → discovered the worktree hazard (below), recovered, landed both PRs via the Gitea API.

The worktree-hazard recovery (the notable wrong-turn)

Partway through, the live concurrent session switched the shared checkout onto main. As a result 5 of my 6 spec commits landed on local main (ahead-5), not on the feature branch (which held only the first commit). Content was always safe. Recovery (pointer-only / origin-side, to avoid disrupting the live session): git branch -f docs/collection-metadata-design <full-work> → push → Gitea-API PR #26 → merge. Local main left ahead-5 for the concurrent session to resync; the untracked corpus-tree design files (not mine) were left untouched. Lesson reconfirmed: parallel sessions on rfc-app must use isolated worktrees.

Artifacts landed

rfc-app PR #26 → origin/main: docs/design/2026-06-06-configurable-collection-metadata.md (v0.1.6) + supersede banner on 2026-06-06-per-type-surfaces.md.
engineering PR #14 → origin/main: solution-design/GUIDE.md, solution-design/TEMPLATE.md, README.md (handbook §7).
Memory: updated project_rfc_app_multiproject.md (Next /goal → SLICE-0 landed); new solution-design-authoring-principles.md (the standard's rules).

Deferred decisions

Holding all pushes/PRs for operator review rather than auto-landing (autonomous default would land). Resolved at finalize: operator said merge now.
No other low-confidence calls — every structural/standard decision was the operator's explicit choice.

Cut state

Both PRs merged; spec + standard on their origin/mains.
rfc-app local main is ahead-5 of origin (pending the concurrent session's resync) — intentional, not touched.
No code written this session (discovery only). The build starts at SLICE-0.

Next-session prompt

/goal Implement SLICE-0 of docs/design/2026-06-06-configurable-collection-metadata.md §7 —
amend binding SPEC.md §22.4a so the entry schema is collection-configured .meta.yaml
sidecar fields (not type-driven frontmatter), defer item-3 surfaces (bdd coverage =
future ref surface), confirm the per-type-surfaces supersede, add the §20 changelog
(doc-only). Then SLICE-1 (sidecar storage + dual-read + migration + malformed flag).
Read memory project_rfc_app_multiproject.md first. Use an ISOLATED WORKTREE (§5.4) —
a concurrent session shares the rfc-app checkout and local main is ahead-5.

6.1 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History