104 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
104 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
# Session 0092.0 — Transcript
|
|
|
|
> App: ohm
|
|
> Start: 2026-06-09T03-24 (PST)
|
|
> End: 2026-06-09T03-54 (PST)
|
|
> Type: brainstorming
|
|
> Status: **FINALIZED**
|
|
|
|
## Launch prompt
|
|
|
|
> Let's talk about the Scoped Admin Information Arch solution design.
|
|
> Specifically, Section 8 (risks, gaps). Do you consider any of these to be
|
|
> serious gaps in the user experience that should be addressed in this release?
|
|
|
|
## Summary
|
|
|
|
A short brainstorming session refining the **Scoped Admin Information
|
|
Architecture** Solution Design (`wiggleverse/rfc-app-content` →
|
|
`rfcs/2026-06-08-scoped-admin-ia.md`). The operator asked for a focused
|
|
**user-experience** read of §8 (risks/gaps): which of G-1..G-15 are genuine UX
|
|
gaps that should be pulled into this release, versus implementation risks or
|
|
deliberate tradeoffs. The verdict was then encoded into the spec (v0.1.4 →
|
|
v0.1.5) and pushed.
|
|
|
|
## Pre-state
|
|
|
|
- Spec at **v0.1.4** in `rfc-app-content`, last touched by session OHM-0090
|
|
(commit `f99214c`), in sync with origin/main.
|
|
- `rfc-app` framework repo clean on `main`.
|
|
- Two sessions still `--INPROGRESS` in ohm's history at claim time: **0080** and
|
|
**0090** (0090 = the original Scoped Admin IA brainstorming, same topic).
|
|
Overlap noted; `rfc-app-content` working tree showed no in-flight edit from
|
|
0090, so landing on top of the pushed v0.1.4 was safe.
|
|
|
|
## Arc
|
|
|
|
1. **Gate + claim.** Classified the opening prompt as **brainstorming**
|
|
(spec-refinement), invoked `wgl-brainstorming`, claimed session **0092**
|
|
(warned on the 0090 overlap, proceeded per autonomous default), confirmed a
|
|
clean pushed `main` baseline.
|
|
2. **Located the spec.** Resolved repos: the app's content repo is `ohm-rfc`,
|
|
but the Scoped Admin IA design is a **framework** solution-design whose
|
|
canonical home is `wiggleverse/rfc-app-content` (where v0.1.4 was committed
|
|
directly). Read the full spec.
|
|
3. **UX-gap analysis of §8.** Separated the table into real UX gaps vs.
|
|
implementation-risk / deliberate-tradeoff. Findings:
|
|
- **G-15 is stale** — already shipped+deployed as v0.53.0 (PR #47); the spec
|
|
still listed it 🚨 blocking. Its residual (write-family tables still
|
|
slug-keyed) belongs under G-5.
|
|
- **G-6** (inherited owners invisible in the new Members panel → reads "no
|
|
owners") — a real UX gap on the common single-owner deployment; cheap fix;
|
|
pull into release.
|
|
- **G-13** (no collection hard-delete/prune) — already bit OHM (the
|
|
"duplicate-collection cleanup" DB surgery); upgrade from "consider" to a
|
|
required decision.
|
|
- **§9 / S8** (Context panels with no consumer) — a new dead-end affordance,
|
|
the exact DEF-4 anti-pattern the design exists to remove. Tracked as new
|
|
**G-16**.
|
|
- The rest (G-1/2/4/5/8/10/14, etc.) — implementation risk or deliberate
|
|
tradeoff, correctly parked. G-3/G-7/G-9 judged adequately handled.
|
|
4. **Encoded into the spec (operator: "go ahead and update the spec").** Bumped
|
|
to **v0.1.5**: changelog row; G-15 struck/resolved with residual → G-5; G-6
|
|
re-tiered to in-release (S2); G-13 upgraded to required S6 decision; new G-16;
|
|
§7 delivery plan synced (S2 Members note, S6 prune decision, S8 G-16 gate);
|
|
self-review tally updated to G-1..G-16.
|
|
5. **Finalize.** Committed v0.1.5 directly to `rfc-app-content` main
|
|
(`aa8d5bf`, SSH, Co-Authored-By trailer — matching the v0.1.4 convention) and
|
|
pushed. Updated memory + index. Published this transcript.
|
|
|
|
## Cut state
|
|
|
|
- **Spec v0.1.5** pushed to `rfc-app-content` main (`aa8d5bf`). Live:
|
|
https://rfc.wiggleverse.org/p/rfc-app/c/rfc-app/e/2026-06-08-scoped-admin-ia
|
|
- `rfc-app` framework repo untouched (clean `main`).
|
|
- No code changes; no deploy (spec-only session — no pipeline stage applies).
|
|
|
|
## Deferred decisions
|
|
|
|
- **submit-spec.sh target.** The brainstorming addendum's `submit-spec.sh`
|
|
targets the resolved app's content repo (`ohm-rfc`), but this framework
|
|
solution-design lives canonically in `rfc-app-content` (where v0.1.4 landed).
|
|
Committed directly there instead of submitting into the OHM *deployment's*
|
|
content, to avoid divergence. Same call session 0090 made (its "decision #1").
|
|
Low-confidence only in that it diverges from the skill's default path; high
|
|
confidence it's the correct home.
|
|
- **G-14 left as-is.** It's a real correctness gap but already folded into
|
|
§4.5/S1 (being addressed, not deferred), so not re-tiered. Flagged to operator.
|
|
|
|
## Operator close-out
|
|
|
|
Operator requested "publish and finalize the session" — no objections raised to
|
|
the spec edits or the direct-to-`rfc-app-content` push.
|
|
|
|
## Next-session prompt
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
/goal Resume the Scoped Admin IA spec — fold in in-tool review feedback + the open threads (§9 LLM-context consumption split; collection `type` elimination), then kick off S0 (SPEC §22 amendments) when ready to build, per rfc-app-content/rfcs/2026-06-08-scoped-admin-ia.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Read `memory/project_scoped_admin_ia_spec.md` first. Note: the §8 re-tiering
|
|
(G-6 → S2, G-13 → S6 required decision, G-16 → S8 gate) is now binding on those
|
|
slices. Option B (canonical-view "Ask" no-op) and the G-5 write-family
|
|
slug-scoping remain queued as separate planning-and-executing sessions.
|