Files
stack/docs/plans/reviews/2026-09-07_issue53-inclusion-draft.md
T

27 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Issue #53 inclusion — preparation, not closure evidence yet
Source: https://git.mosaicstack.dev/mosaicstack/stack-v2/issues/53
Title: Plan agent/project/workspace sessions and execution audit. Current API response: open, HTTP 200. Client exited 1 despite HTTP 200; parsed response supplied the issue identity/body. Do not count client exit as a clean success or retry the read blindly.
Issue is planning-only: reusable agents, project membership/RBAC, workspace membership/state, Resume/Fresh sessions and execution audit. Acceptance requires separated agreed requirements/proposals/questions, ownership/coverage boundaries, later independently reviewed mapping/gap-analysis gates, and owner phase review. Implemented runtime enforcement is NOT this issue's acceptance scope.
Candidate local mapping for detailed verification:
- Requirements and owner decisions: docs/plans/2026-09-06_agent-project-workspace-foundation.md.
- Proposed contract and coverage boundaries: docs/plans/2026-09-06_foundation-phase2-contract.md and docs/plans/foundation-v1-candidate/.
- Later map/gap gates: docs/plans/2026-09-06_foundation-map-handoff.md and docs/plans/2026-09-06_foundation-technical-map.md.
- Phase acceptance history: docs/plans/CURRENT.md and append-only BUILD-LOG.md / docs/SESSIONS.md.
Local acceptance mapping checked:
- Agreed requirements: foundation plan section 2, line 31 onward; proposed record types explicitly separated in phase-2 contract section 2 (line 95 onward); open D1D16 reconciliation in foundation-v1-candidate/REVIEW.md section at line 73.
- Ownership/limits: phase-2 contract section 3 (line 132 onward) catalogues record ownership; REVIEW.md D2/D9/D11/D13 explicitly retain loader/context, audit-integrity, command-coverage and privacy enforcement gaps rather than claiming runtime guarantees.
- Later gates: foundation plan section 8, lines 226247, explicitly requires Archify independent review and Jason visual acceptance, a distinct non-author gap analyst and a different report reviewer.
- Owner phase review: foundation plan section 8 and phase-2 contract lines 34 record phase stops and Jason's explicit `accept phase 2` checkpoint.
Tracked Git blob identities verified locally:
- foundation plan: `466717dc02db0d7c3c3efea98caee4a59ecf5cb6`.
- phase-2 contract: `6fb7dca9874c9084a27e25adb4429a24c2b759e1`.
- map handoff: `0efc06adaa6d7a041db3c5718d3ad72956ee758e`.
- technical map: `6859884d38e3850434b80f7225eccba83a3a0db3`.
These identities establish tracked local artifacts, not publication. Pushed-ref verification remains pending. A9 is a later inspector acceptance, not a substitute for #53 planning acceptance. Final record must cite exact pushed commit, verified remote ref and acceptance-specific passages. Jason will close the original issue after verification; Darkwing must not close or renumber it.