cli: os lint --strict — a flag that makes warning-severity findings fail the run, so an app can rely on the 119 warning-level rules instead of re-implementing them locally (epic hotcrm#1579, step 1)

Sub-issue of the epic hotcrm#1579 (maintainer 2026-09-05, verbatim 「同意你的建议，你把卡片写好」 on the director seat's A′ plan). Filed by the director seat (objectstack#12708, summon #15); pm:epic marks it reserved for the epic PM — ⛔ not pm:queue, domain seats do not take it. domain:* / type / priority are triage's.

Governing text. hotcrm AGENTS.md § "Scope — a pure metadata application (2026-08-31 ruling)", rule 3: "Lint, validation, gates and diagnostics belong to the platform, uniformly … ⛔ Do not grow a gate farm." Protocol baseline (maintainer 2026-09-05, verbatim): 「本项目以协议为基准。所以开发应该对其协议，协议有问题应该立卡修改协议」— this card changes the platform on purpose, as its own card; it does not ask any app to route around it.

Measured (objectstack `origin/main` `6c439f2`; hotcrm pin `@objectstack/lint@17.3.0`)

packages/lint ships ≈250 authoring rules: 161 error · 119 warning · 5 info · 6 suggestion (git grep -h -oE "severity: '(error|warning|info|suggestion)'" -- packages/lint/src | sort | uniq -c).
packages/cli/src/commands/lint.ts:719 — if (errors.length > 0) process.exit(1); — only error fails the run; warnings and suggestions are printed and the exit code is 0.
os lint flags today: --json, --fix (dry-run), --score, --eval, --generator (lint.ts:479-487). No --strict, no --max-warnings, no per-rule severity override; objectstack.config has no lint section (grep over packages/spec/src/kernel/*.zod.ts empty).
Consequence, measured on the exemplar: hotcrm's pnpm lint (= objectstack lint) reads 90 warnings / 12 suggestions, exit 0, and the repo carries ~30 test files that re-implement shipped rules at error level — the census on hotcrm#1579 (comment 5552607309, § "Tests that re-implement a rule the platform already enforces") maps each local file to the rule ids it duplicates (flow-inert-node-condition, list-view-field-unknown, nav-target-unresolved, chart-field-unknown, security-owd-unset, sharing-rule-unlowerable-condition, flow-update-readonly-field, hook-body-write-unknown-field, …). scripts/check-lint-i18n-gate.mjs exists only to promote the i18n/missing-* family to failing; its header says the fix is a packages/lint severity change.

The ask

Add os lint --strict: when set, a run with one or more warning-severity findings exits 1 exactly as an error does today; info / suggestion stay advisory. Default behaviour unchanged (⛔ do not flip the default — that is every app's behaviour and a separate decision). --json output carries the flag's effect (e.g. strict: true and the failing count) so a gate can read it. Document the flag where os lint's other flags are documented; the published skill text that teaches os lint (skills/**, generated) follows through the generator, never by hand.

Not in this card: per-rule severity configuration (a contract-surface table — rejected by the plan under 创业阶段不扩散); changing any rule's severity; the i18n gate's own retirement (hotcrm's side, epic step 2/3).

Acceptance

os lint --strict on a stack with ≥1 warning and 0 errors exits 1 and says why (names the count and the flag); without the flag the same stack exits 0 — both pinned as tests in packages/cli.
os lint --strict --json includes the strict verdict.
No existing os lint test changes its expectation.
Changeset: @objectstack/cli minor (new public flag). Clause-② provisional reading: a new public CLI flag widens the CLI's public surface — the dispatching seat judges the tier from this content; the spec is untouched.

Downstream (this card's consumers)

hotcrm epic step 2 ("enable strict, zero the 90 warnings") is Blocked-by this card and by the consumability criterion of the lane charter: the fix must be in a published @objectstack/cli that hotcrm pins, not merely merged.

Refs: hotcrm#1579 (epic) · hotcrm#1543 (ruling F, first retirement) · objectstack#15922 (field-consumer diagnostic, a sibling platform gap) · objectstack#13848 (the 2026-08-31 hotcrm rulings).

Cross-seat request → triage seat (objectstack#6015): this card needs a `domain:*` before anyone can claim it

From the epic PM for hotcrm#1579, session_01DuzfS5chho38Yx1jxx9DEj, seated 2026-09-05T15:3xZ on the maintainer's instruction 「后续你只负责处理 1579 这个专题」.

Named reader and the one action asked for: the objectstack triage seat, to produce domain:* and type on this card. Everything else about it is already settled.

Why this is a request and not a claim

This card is the only unblocked card in the whole hotcrm#1579 epic — hotcrm#1581 is Blocked-by it on the install surface (published and pinned), and #1582–#1587 are each Blocked-by #1581. So the epic moves when this moves.

⛔ But this seat will not claim it. objectstack is a multi-lane repo, domain:* is the triage seat's sole product, and 「未打标签的 issue ⛔ 任何人不得认领」. This card carries pm:epic and no domain:* — and its own body already says "domain:* / type / priority are triage's."

⚠️ It will not reach you through the sweep. All three backlog-sweep disjunctions require either no pm:* label at all (①) or pm:queue (②/③). This card has pm:epic, so it matches none of them and would wait indefinitely without this comment. That is why the request is explicit rather than left to the rota.

⭐ Recording the shape, since it is likely to recur: a pm:epic sub-issue filed into a multi-lane repo is not routed by the current state model — reserved from the lane seats by pm:epic, invisible to triage's sweep, and unclaimable by the epic PM until triage acts. Filed as a candidate domain:skills finding by this seat; it is not yours to fix here.

Reading suggestion, ⛔ not a decision — the domain call is yours

The declared surface is packages/cli (src/commands/lint.ts and its tests), which the domain table maps to domain:cli. Type reads Feature by the mechanical boundary test: it widens the public surface with a new CLI flag rather than pulling behaviour back to a declared contract. ⛔ Both are inputs; correct them freely.

⚠️ pm:epic must stay on the card — it is reserved for this epic PM and ⛔ is not for the domain:cli lane seat to take. The label you add is a routing fact, not a release. ⛔ Please do not add pm:queue: pm:epic and pm:queue on one card is a half-state (reserved-and-handed-over) that would invite the lane seat to claim it.

Tier, measured here so it is not re-derived downstream

node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --tier packages/cli/src/commands/lint.ts packages/cli/test, run 15:3xZ on a tree fetched to origin/main 0467941:

Model tier — no path-derived mandate: the surface hits none of the 3 declared glob(s).
  Clause ② is NOT reachable from paths: a card that changes contract accept/reject
  behaviour or widens the public surface is fable-mandatory too, judged from the card
  CONTENT. This line is a FLOOR, never a clearance.

⇒ Path gives no mandate, but the content does: a new public flag on a published @objectstack/cli widens an already-published public surface ⇒ clause ② holds, and the dispatch tier is CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER (claude-fable-5-1, read from the constant, not recalled). The card's own "provisional reading" is hereby confirmed by the dispatching seat, not merely inherited.

⚠️ Two seats have logged fable as measured exhausted today (domain:cli at 14:40Z, un-retested; hotcrm's seat post from 09-02). If that still holds at dispatch time, the sanctioned route is the quota-exhaustion exemption down to the default judgement tier plus the needs:contract-review compensation — ⛔ never lower, and ⛔ never dispatched at judgement tier without that label.

This seat will claim and dispatch as soon as a domain:* lands. Epic round-open and the full park analysis are on hotcrm#1579.

Generated by Claude Code

Claim: epic PM, hotcrm#1579, round 1
Session: session_01DuzfS5chho38Yx1jxx9DEj
Branch: claude/issue-15935-os-lint-strict
Worktree: objectstack-issue-15935
Domain: pm:epic (epic sub-issue — see the direct-dispatch authorisation below; ⛔ domain:* is still triage's to produce)
File surface: packages/cli/src/commands/lint.ts and its tests under packages/cli/test, plus the changeset and the flag's documentation where os lint's other flags are documented (stop on breach; explain in the report)
Container & model: M, mode:subagent, model: CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER — read from the dispatch-gates.mjs constant at 15:5xZ, ⛔ not recalled
Clause-②: yes
Serial constraints cleared: none — nothing in flight on packages/cli from this seat, and this epic holds no other objectstack card. ⛔ hotcrm #1581–#1587 are Blocked-by this card and are not dispatchable until it is published and pinned.

Direct-dispatch authorisation — the `domain:*` prerequisite is waived by the maintainer, on this card

This seat declined to claim this card at 15:3xZ precisely because objectstack is a multi-lane repo where 「未打标签的 issue ⛔ 任何人不得认领」 and this card carries no domain:* (request: comment 5552857090; accelerator on the triage seat post #6015). The maintainer then instructed, verbatim and untranslated:

objectstack 的子任务你也应该派发处理

⇒ A maintainer ruling sits above 细则 in the priority order, and this is the direct-dispatch channel, which is valid only for cards the maintainer explicitly named — here, this epic's objectstack sub-issues and nothing else.

⚠️ The waiver is to the claim, ⛔ not to the label. domain:* and type remain the triage seat's sole product and are still owed on this card; the request at 5552857090 stands and is ⛔ not withdrawn. pm:epic stays — this card is reserved for the epic PM and is ⛔ not the domain:cli lane seat's to take.

Clause ② holds — this card is `CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER`, and that is not a judgement call

node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --tier packages/cli/src/commands/lint.ts packages/cli/test, run 15:5xZ:

Model tier — no path-derived mandate: the surface hits none of the 3 declared glob(s).
  Clause ② is NOT reachable from paths: a card that changes contract accept/reject
  behaviour or widens the public surface is fable-mandatory too, judged from the card
  CONTENT. This line is a FLOOR, never a clearance.

⇒ The path face gives no mandate. The content does: a new public flag on the published @objectstack/cli widens an already-published public surface. ⇒ clause ② holds, tier is CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER. This card's own "provisional reading" is confirmed by the dispatching seat rather than inherited.

⚠️ Two measurement gaps this seat is declaring rather than papering over

No clean gate-list reading was taken. dispatch-gates.mjs reports the shared checkout's HEAD (cee3961, 14:28Z) is at least 8 commits behind origin/main (a2051fa, 15:23Z), with 5 files that ARE the gate families changed across that range — check-role-word.mjs, engine-double-contract.pinned.json, pm/bare-root-worklist.mjs, pm/check-skill-line-ratchet.mjs, pm/ensure-pm-labels.sh. ⛔ This seat will not move HEAD in a shared checkout to get a cleaner number. ⇒ The dev re-derives the gate list in its own worktree at origin/main. A named gate list is a clue, never a spec.
fable availability is unverified. Two seats logged it measured-exhausted earlier today (domain:cli at 14:40Z, un-retested; hotcrm's seat post from 09-02). ⛔ Not inherited — the dispatch attempts the mandated tier and treats a failure as the probe. If it is genuinely unavailable, the sanctioned route is the quota-exhaustion exemption to the default judgement tier plus the needs:contract-review label — ⛔ never lower, and ⛔ never judgement tier without that label.

Generated by Claude Code

os-dev-report

{
  "issue": 15935,
  "status": "done",
  "branch": "claude/issue-15935-os-lint-strict",
  "pr": "https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/pull/15967",
  "premise_still_valid": true,
  "summary": "Added `os lint --strict` in packages/cli/src/commands/lint.ts: one verdict `failing = errors + (strict ? warnings : 0)` computed above both faces; exit 1 iff failing > 0; the console prints `N warning(s) fail this run under --strict (a warning is advisory without the flag)` when the flag alone decided the exit; `--json` gains two unconditional keys `strict` (boolean) and `failing` (integer), and `passed` becomes `failing === 0` (byte-identical to before without the flag). Default unchanged, suggestions stay advisory, `--i18n-strict` untouched, packages/lint untouched, hotcrm untouched. Docs: example line plus a 'What fails the run' paragraph in content/docs/deployment/cli.mdx; changeset @objectstack/cli minor. Premise re-measured at origin/main a2051fa: severities 161 error / 119 warning / 5 info / 6 suggestion and lint.ts:719 `if (errors.length > 0) process.exit(1);` exactly as the card said. Flag spelling is exactly `--strict` (no alternative chosen). skills/** untouched: no generator emits the `os lint` flag text, the --score/--eval lines in skills/objectstack-data/SKILL.md are hand-written prose on a governed surface, so the card's 'follows through the generator' had nothing to run. Assignee was already set by the PM; no second claim posted (PM Claim 5552988434 names this branch and session).",
  "tests": "All heavy runs via scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh, results read from its VERDICT line, tree b239599c. Closure build `turbo run build --filter='@objectstack/cli^...'` 56/56 exit 0; `pnpm --filter @objectstack/cli build` exit 0. New pins `vitest run --project integration test/lint-strict-warnings.e2e.test.ts`: 'Test Files 1 passed (1) / Tests 8 passed (8)', VERDICT command-exit 0. Unit tier `vitest run --project unit`: 'Test Files 1 failed | 176 passed (177)' where the 1 was a prerequisite refusal ('packages/cli is not built (./dist/index.js is absent)'), rerun after build: 'Tests 13 passed (13)' exit 0 => 177/177. `pnpm --filter @objectstack/cli typecheck` (tsc + check:test-typecheck over tsconfig.test.json) exit 0. Affected packages (TURBO_SCM_BASE=a2051fa turbo ls --affected: cli, dogfood, downstream-contract, example-crm, example-multi-package[no test script], example-showcase, example-todo): downstream-contract 3 files/31 tests, example-todo 4/106, example-crm 5/45, example-showcase 27/375, all VERDICT command-exit 0; dogfood narrowed to the 5 files that reach the CLI: 5 files/45 tests exit 0 (declared). ESLint --no-inline-config --format json over the 2 changed TS files: 2 files, 0 errors/0 warnings; population from eslint.config.mjs packages/cli/src/** block; no typed linting (config line 328) so untouched files cannot move. Gates: dispatch-gates.mjs --commands derived 85 families from the real changed set; all 85 ran; --ran reconciliation '85 derived, 85 run, 0 NOT-MEASURED, 0 UNRUN'. Three reached a verdict only on rerun after a prerequisite, none diff-related: check:skill-examples (client-react/client dist absent -> after build '257 prose examples type-check' exit 0); check:dual-build-cjs-loads and check:i18n-coverage (packages outside cli's closure unbuilt -> after `turbo run build --filter='!@objectstack/docs'` 71/72 cached: 'check-i18n-coverage: OK (13 config(s), 621 baselined untranslated string(s), none new)' exit 0 and dual-build exit 0 with population 103/66/619/1 at floors); check-plugin-teardown-shape --self-test (refused on the shallow clone -> after `git fetch --depth=1 origin 621a4876...` '47 cases pass' exit 0). check:nul-bytes 'OK (scanned 7695 text file(s))'. Ablation, fix committed first (HEAD b239599c, HEAD blob a0bb8e20...): mutation A `failing = errors.length` (anchor 1->0, marker 0->1 on disk) -> 'Tests 3 failed | 5 passed (8)', the reds being exactly pins 3, 4 and the strict half of 7 (predicted: strict half reds; observed as predicted); mutation B `strict = true` -> 'Tests 3 failed | 5 passed (8)', exactly pins 2, 5 and the default half of 7 (predicted: default half reds; observed as predicted). Each restore via `git checkout HEAD -- packages/cli/src/commands/lint.ts`, proven by `git hash-object` == HEAD blob a0bb8e20..., `git diff HEAD` 0 lines, marker count 0; trap-guarded. No dist on the measured path (tests run lint.ts from source via bin/run-dev.js), so no rebuild leg applies. `os lint --help` lists `--strict`.",
  "mcp_calls": "0 — every GitHub read and write went through repo-scoped REST (probe GET issue = 200; POST pulls = 201) or git; no MCP GitHub calls",
  "open_questions": [
    {
      "question": "JSON verdict key naming: the card said 'strict: true plus the failing count' without naming the count key; this PR spells it `failing` (integer, unconditionally present). hotcrm#1581 will pin the spelling.",
      "options": ["A keep `failing` as shipped in this PR", "B rename to `blocking` or nest under a `strict` object before merge"],
      "recommendation": "A, because it is the card's own wording, flat like the sibling counts, and already documented in cli.mdx and the changeset; a rename is a one-line edit if contract review disagrees"
    },
    {
      "question": "`passed` semantics under --strict: this PR makes `passed === (failing === 0)`, i.e. exit-code parity, so a warning-only stack under --strict reads passed:false beside exit 1. Without the flag the value is byte-identical to before.",
      "options": ["A exit-code parity as shipped", "B keep `passed === (errors === 0)` and let gates read `failing` only"],
      "recommendation": "A, because a machine-readable `passed: true` next to a failing exit is the lie AGENTS.md's 'machine-readable surfaces must not lie' forbids; no existing test pinned `passed` under a flag that did not exist"
    },
    {
      "question": "skills/objectstack-data/SKILL.md teaches `os lint --score` / `--eval` by hand (no generator covers the flag list; the card assumed 'generated'). Adding `--strict` there is a governed hand edit outside this card's file surface.",
      "options": ["A leave skills untouched (as shipped)", "B a separate governed PR adding one line under the skill's line ratchet, after the flag publishes"],
      "recommendation": "B as a follow-up owned by the maintainer, because the skill is the corpus AI authors from and it should learn the flag once a pinned @objectstack/cli carries it; not in this PR because the surface is governed and the card excluded hand edits"
    },
    {
      "question": "`--strict --eval` is a silent no-op (eval mode short-circuits the project lint), matching how `--score` already behaves there.",
      "options": ["A leave as precedent (as shipped)", "B declare `exclusive: ['eval']` so the combination is refused"],
      "recommendation": "A, because it follows the existing flag behaviour in eval mode and B would be the first refusal of its kind on this command; revisit if a caller trips on it"
    }
  ],
  "out_of_scope_findings": [],
  "gates": {
    "derived": 85,
    "ran": 85,
    "unrun": 0,
    "not_measured": 0,
    "reruns_to_reach_verdict": [
      "pnpm --filter @objectstack/spec run check:skill-examples (prerequisite: client-react/client dist) -> exit 0",
      "pnpm check:dual-build-cjs-loads (prerequisite: whole-repo build) -> exit 0",
      "pnpm check:i18n-coverage (prerequisite: connector-mcp dist) -> exit 0",
      "node scripts/check-plugin-teardown-shape.mjs --self-test (prerequisite: commit 621a4876 reachable) -> exit 0"
    ],
    "tree": "b239599c",
    "ci": "in_progress"
  },
  "line_budget": "n/a — skills/** unchanged (0 lines); no generator emits the os lint flag text",
  "deviations": [
    "No second claim comment: the dispatch prompt asked for one, AGENTS.md and the os-dev rules say a dispatched executor posts none; the PM's Claim (5552988434) names this branch and session_01DuzfS5chho38Yx1jxx9DEj",
    "Report shape: os-dev template JSON plus the PM-requested gates / line_budget / deviations / files_changed keys (dispatch prompt vs os-dev file, resolved per the file)",
    "dogfood narrowed to the 5 test files that reach the CLI (133 files exceed the foreground cap); remainder declared to CI's Dogfood Regression Gate",
    "packages/cli integration tier: only the new file and the pin rerun ran locally; tier declared to CI (diff touches no spawn entry, driver or kernel boot path)",
    "ESLint narrowed to the 2 changed TS files with the three-piece evidence; repo-wide pnpm lint declared to CI",
    "Whole-repo turbo build (71/72 cached) and a depth-1 fetch of 621a4876 into the shared object store were run solely to unblock gate prerequisites; neither changes the diff"
  ],
  "files_changed": [
    "packages/cli/src/commands/lint.ts",
    "packages/cli/test/lint-strict-warnings.e2e.test.ts",
    "content/docs/deployment/cli.mdx",
    ".changeset/cli-lint-strict-warnings-fail.md"
  ]
}

Generated by Claude Code

PM decisions on the four open questions — and ⛔ this card does NOT land on my review alone

Epic PM session_01DuzfS5chho38Yx1jxx9DEj, 2026-09-05T16:5xZ.

⛔ Contract review is owed, and this seat cannot supply it

This card is Clause-②: yes — a new public flag plus two new --json keys on the already-published @objectstack/cli. Protocol: the post-delivery review for a clause-② card is done at CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER, either by a PM who is at tier or by a dispatched review subtask. This seat runs below that tier, so ⛔ it may not self-review and ⛔ may not flip ready or enqueue on its own reading.

⇒ A contract-review-tier reviewer is dispatched, with the authority to overturn every decision below. needs:contract-review is on the PR until it returns. ⛔ 免复核不放行.

The four decisions — inputs to that reviewer, ⛔ not settled law

#	question	decision	why
1	JSON count key: `failing` vs a rename	A — keep `failing`	it is the card's own wording, flat like the sibling counts, already in `cli.mdx` and the changeset. A rename is a one-line edit if the reviewer disagrees — but it must happen before merge, because hotcrm#1581 will pin the spelling
2	`passed === (failing === 0)` vs `passed === (errors === 0)`	A — exit-code parity	a machine-readable `passed: true` sitting beside exit 1 is exactly the lie AGENTS.md forbids. ⚠️ Load-bearing check handed to the reviewer: without the flag the two formulas must be provably the same value, or this is a silent default change dressed as an addition
3	`skills/**` left untouched	A here, B as follow-up	⭐ the dev falsified the card's premise: #15935 says the skill text "follows through the generator", and there is no generator for the flag list — `skills/objectstack-data/SKILL.md` teaches `--score`/`--eval` as hand-written prose on a governed surface. ⇒ correctly out of this card. ⚠️ But the skill is the corpus AI authors from, and it will teach a flag list that is missing `--strict`. Raised to the maintainer as an owed follow-up; ⛔ not filed unilaterally by this seat
4	`--strict --eval` silent no-op	A — leave as precedent	it matches how `--score` already behaves in eval mode. Refusing the combination would be the first refusal of its kind on this command — a bigger change than the card, and not this card's to make

What this seat verified itself, on the diff and on GitHub

item	reading
Scope (`get_files`)	exactly 4 files, exactly the declared surface. ⛔ No `packages/lint`, ⛔ no `skills/**`, ⛔ no hotcrm ✓
Changeset	`@objectstack/cli` minor — correct for a new public flag ✓
Design	`failing` computed once, above both faces, so `--json` and the console cannot disagree about the verdict ✓
Gates	`dispatch-gates --commands` derived 85 families from the real changed set; 85 ran, 0 UNRUN, 0 NOT-MEASURED, reconciled with `--ran`. Four needed a prerequisite rerun, none diff-related ✓
CI on `b239599c`, 16:5xZ	9 `success`, 1 `skipped` (Pack Smoke, opt-in), 2 `in_progress` (`CI`, `Lint & Type Check`) ⇒ ⛔ not ready, ⛔ not enqueued

⭐ The test file's design is the strongest part, and it is a design, not a count. Every positive assertion has a negative twin on the same stack — because "flag is a no-op" and "warnings promoted by default" read identically to a one-sided test, and only the pair tells them apart. The anti-vacuity precondition runs first (warnings > 0 and errors === 0, with the count pinned at 2 so failing === warnings distinguishes a count from a boolean). The verdict keys are asserted on the serialized bytes as well as the parsed object, because JSON.stringify drops undefined silently. And which rule produces each finding is deliberately not pinned — a rule's severity is packages/lint's decision, so a severity move reds the precondition with a message naming the count instead of going quietly green over an emptier set.

⭐ The ablation predicted its red set before measuring it, twice, and both matched: failing = errors.length reds the strict halves; strict = true reds the default halves. Restores proven by blob-hash equality, empty git diff HEAD, and a marker count of 0.

⭐ A void run was reported as void. The first ablation attempt ran from the wrong cwd (vitest not found, exit 254) and was recorded as nothing measured rather than folded into the numbers. That is the rule this fleet has paid for repeatedly — an ablation that no-ops silently and still exits is the trap; declaring the miss is what makes the redo trustworthy.

⭐ Platform reading — `fable` is available, contrary to two inherited claims

Two seats logged CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER (claude-fable-5-1) as measured exhausted earlier today (domain:cli at 14:40Z, un-retested; hotcrm's seat post from 09-02). This seat ⛔ did not inherit that and dispatched at the mandated tier — it ran, to completion. ⇒ The exhaustion reading was stale, and treating it as standing fact would have forced an unnecessary tier drop plus a needs:contract-review compensation on a card that did not need one. ⛔ Probe availability; never recall it.

Generated by Claude Code

Contract review (CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER) — PR #15967 · verdict: PASS

Reviewer: claude-fable-5-1, dispatched by the epic PM (session_01DuzfS5chho38Yx1jxx9DEj) as the clause-② compensating control. Reviewed from the diff and the files at head b239599c (lint.ts blob a0bb8e20), never from the PR body or the report. No code written, nothing pushed, PR left as a draft — the landing decision is the PM's.

What was read

Source	Read as
PR #15967 diff, 4 files	the object under review
`packages/cli/src/commands/lint.ts` @ `b239599c`, whole file	every `emitJson` / `return` / `process.exit` path enumerated
`packages/cli/test/lint-strict-warnings.e2e.test.ts`	8 pins, traced by hand under both ablation mutations
#15935 body; comments `5552988434` (claim) and `5553290014` (report)	the ask, the acceptance, the dev's four open questions
`packages/cli/src/commands/validate.ts:55, 469-556`	the sibling `--strict` precedent
`packages/lint/src/data-model-rules.ts:593-620`, `lint.ts` protocol block, `validate-list-view-field-refs.ts`, `validate-security-posture.ts:11`	the severities the four fixtures rely on
`scripts/check-i18n-coverage.mjs:340-346, 606-625, 795-805`; hotcrm `scripts/check-lint-i18n-gate.mjs`	the two existing `os lint --json` consumers
`packages/cli/test/lint-conversion-notices.e2e.test.ts`, `json-stdout-purity.e2e.test.ts`, `i18n-duplicate-demand.test.ts`	existing lint tests, for exact-shape pins
`AGENTS.md:831`	the "machine-readable surfaces must not lie" rule
`packages/spec/scripts/build-skill-docs.ts`, `scripts/check-skill-frame-sync.mjs`, `skills/objectstack-data/SKILL.md:770-820`	the skills-generator measurement
`packages/cli/vitest.config.ts`, `vitest-tiers.ts`, `package.json` `test` script, `scripts/partition-test-shards.mjs`, `scripts/test-shard-timings.json`	whether CI runs the new pins, and on which shard
PR check runs + the Test Core (1/6) job log at `b239599c`	CI evidence, quoted below

The five contract questions

#	Question	Answer	Evidence
1	Default genuinely unchanged?	Yes — from the arithmetic.	`strict = flags.strict ?? false`; `failing = errors.length + (strict ? warnings.length : 0)`. With `strict === false`: `failing === errors.length`, so `passed: failing === 0` ⇔ the old `errors.length === 0`; JSON exit `failing > 0 ? 1 : 0` ⇔ old `errors.length > 0 ? 1 : 0`; console `if (failing > 0) process.exit(1)` ⇔ old `if (errors.length > 0)`; the reason sentence is gated on `strict &&`. Removing the two inserted keys (`strict`, `failing`, placed between `suggestions` and `hiddenPlatform`) from the new payload yields the old payload byte for byte.
2	`strict` / `failing` a sound, additive contract?	Yes. ⭐ No early return emits a project-lint payload without the two keys.	The project-lint verdict is emitted at exactly one site, and both keys are literal (never spread-conditional, never `undefined`-droppable — `?? false` and an integer). Every other exit was enumerated: `--eval` short-circuits before the verdict and emits the eval report (its own shape; `passed` there is a count of cases; pre-existing); the `catch` emits `{error, …, conversions}` on a throw, which never carried `passed` either; the console-face `issues.length === 0` return implies `failing === 0`. There is no `--fix` early return — `--fix` only adds hints to printed issues, and `--fix --json` takes the JSON branch. `--score` adds its keys after the verdict. So "unconditionally present on every project-lint payload" is true as scoped. Existing consumers read `issues[].rule` / `total` (`check-i18n-coverage.mjs`, hotcrm's gate) or `Object.keys(...).toContain` — none pins the exact key set.
3	`passed === (failing === 0)` right?	Yes.	AGENTS.md §4 is literally about `/discovery`; its principle is what the dev invoked and it holds. The sibling precedent cuts the same way, not against: `os validate --strict --json` keeps `valid: true` beside exit 1 and its own comment justifies that because `valid` describes the stack; `passed` describes the run, so `passed: true` beside exit 1 would be the contradiction `valid: true` is not. No in-repo, docs, skills or hotcrm consumer reads `passed` from the project-lint payload (the `passed` hits in `packages/cli/test` are all eval-mode), and a consumer that does not pass `--strict` sees the identical value. Decision (2) upheld.
4	Test pair distinguishes the two regressions?	Yes — the ablation sets trace exactly as claimed.	Mutation A (`failing = errors.length`) reds exactly T3 (exit 1), T4 (exit 1), T7-strict (`failing === errors + warnings`: 1 ≠ 2). Mutation B (`strict = true`) reds exactly T2 (exit 0), T5 (exit 0), T7-default (`strict` false). Matches the reported 3/5 both ways. T1 runs first (vitest declaration order; no `sequence.shuffle` configured) and T3 is also self-protecting: exit 1 with `errors === 0` asserted requires `warnings > 0`. T6/T7/T8 carry their own anti-vacuity assertions inline before their verdict lines. Fixture counts from source: `warns` = `protocol/missing-engines-range` (warning, `lint.ts`) + `relationship/master-detail-required` (warning, `data-model-rules.ts:595`) = 2; `suggests` = `relationship/delete-behavior` + `relationship/line-items-inline-edit` (both suggestion, `:605` / `:615`, `_line` suffix) = 2; `errs` adds `list-view-field-unknown` (error); `sharingModel` is set so `security-owd-unset` (error) never fires. Execution evidence: the dev's 8/8 at `b239599c` and, independently, CI Test Core (1/6) at the same SHA: `✓ integration test/lint-strict-warnings.e2e.test.ts (8 tests) 112744ms`.
5	Spelling safe to publish?	Yes — and ⭐ `--strict` must NOT be renamed.	`os validate` already ships `strict: Flags.boolean({ description: 'Treat warnings as errors' })` (`validate.ts:55`, documented at `cli.mdx:537`): same word, same meaning, on the sibling authoring command. Renaming here would break that parity — this is the reason the spelling is fixed, and hotcrm#1581 should pin it on that basis. `strict` (boolean) mirrors the flag; `failing` (integer) is the card's own wording and flat like `errors` / `warnings` / `suggestions`. I would name none of the three differently.

PM decisions — all four upheld

failing kept; --strict kept — the flag spelling is fixed by the os validate --strict precedent (Q5), a stronger reason than "the card's own wording"; the key strict follows the flag; failing stays as the card's wording.
passed = exit parity kept — see Q3.
skills/** untouched; follow-up owned separately — the dev's measurement is confirmed: packages/spec/scripts/build-skill-docs.ts writes only skills/README.md (the index, from each SKILL.md's frontmatter); check-skill-frame-sync.mjs compares, it does not generate; nothing under scripts/ or packages/*/scripts writes skills/objectstack-data/SKILL.md; the --score / --eval bullets at SKILL.md:810-813 are hand prose in a hand-written "Linting & Generation Quality" section. The card's "follows through the generator" had nothing to run. The follow-up is real: that skill will teach --score / --eval but not --strict until a governed hand edit lands, after the CLI publishes.
--strict --eval silent no-op — upheld, with the reason made explicit: the command already carries the same class for --score, --fix, --skip-i18n and --generator-without---eval (whose help says "Requires --eval" yet declares no dependsOn). Refusing this one combination alone would be the inconsistency. If exclusivity is ever declared it should cover the whole class in one card.

Findings, ranked — none blocks merge

Sev	Finding	Where	Action
Low	The console sentence's count is only pinned on a fixture where `errors === 0`, so a regression that printed `failing` instead of `warnings.length` stays green (it would say "2 warning(s)" on `errs`, which has 1 warning + 1 error). Contract unaffected; message accuracy only.	`lint-strict-warnings.e2e.test.ts` T4; `lint.ts` reason block	Optional: a console run on `errs` asserting the sentence names `1`. Can ride hotcrm#1581's pin or a later card.
Low	The comment says "A run that fails ONLY because of `--strict` says so", but the condition is `strict && warnings.length > 0`, which also prints when errors are present. The sentence is still true (those warnings do fail the run); comment ≠ code.	`lint.ts` reason block	Optional wording fix.
Info	`cli.mdx`'s new paragraph says "On the `--json` face…" without scoping out `--eval`, whose report has a different shape (`passed` is a count; no `strict` / `failing`). The changeset scopes it correctly ("every project-lint payload").	`content/docs/deployment/cli.mdx`	None required; a four-word scope would remove the ambiguity.
Info	For hotcrm#1581's pin: the two sibling verdicts differ in shape — `os validate --strict --json` publishes no `strict` key and keeps `valid: true` beside exit 1, while `os lint --strict --json` publishes `strict` and flips `passed`. Both are internally coherent (Q3). That asymmetry is `validate`'s gap, not this PR's.	`validate.ts:469-491`	Note for the downstream pin; no change here.
Info	Under `--strict`, folded `i18n/missing-*` non-default-locale findings (severity `warning`) fail the run — the exact family hotcrm's `check-lint-i18n-gate.mjs` exists to promote. Intended by the epic; stated so nobody is surprised. `hiddenPlatform` findings stay hidden and uncounted.	`lint.ts` `foldCoverageIssues`	None.

Also checked

Changeset @objectstack/cli minor — matches acceptance; Check Changeset green. content/docs/releases/ untouched.
Docs: flag added to the os lint block and a "What fails the run" paragraph (cli.mdx:1354, 1366-1377); Flag docs affected by code changes green.
"No existing os lint test changes its expectation": the diff touches no existing test; the three existing lint tests assert Object.keys(...).toContain or issue shapes, never the exact key set.
The new file is picked up by the integration tier (the vitest-tiers.ts predicate matches run-dev.js and .bin/tsx); packages/cli's test script is bare vitest run, so CI runs both tiers. @objectstack/cli (458 s, heaviest in test-shard-timings.json) is placed first by the greedy packer into bins[0] = Test Core (1/6).
CI at b239599c, read 17:13Z — nothing pending, nothing failed. Test Core (1/6) completed/success at 17:12:59Z; its log: ✓ integration test/lint-strict-warnings.e2e.test.ts (8 tests) 112744ms · @objectstack/cli:test: Test Files 260 passed (260) · Tasks: 58 successful, 58 total · check-test-completeness: OK (1 of 1 scheduled package(s) reported … 3109 test(s) declared and all accounted for). Test Core 2/6–6/6, Build Core, Build Docs, Dogfood Regression Gate 1/3–3/3 and rollup, Dogfood Verify CLI, Temporal Conformance, Type Check · source gates / consumer gates / debt ledger / workspace, Lint & Repo Gates (17:06:38Z), Check Changeset, Flag docs affected by code changes, Governed Surface Queue Guard, Spec property liveness, Check Documentation Links, the single-writer / same-issue / part-of guards, Check PR Size: all success. Skipped by design: Console Pin Gate, Packed-tarball smoke (opt-in).

Generated by Claude Code

ACCEPT → landing. Contract review PASS (`5553454472`), CI green, PR #15967 armed.

Epic PM session_01DuzfS5chho38Yx1jxx9DEj, 2026-09-05T17:1xZ.

Actions taken, in order: needs:contract-review stripped · draft:false · enable_pr_auto_merge. Governed-surface path test before the ready-flip: packages/cli/**, content/docs/**, .changeset/** — none of docs/adr/**, .claude/**, skills/**, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md ⇒ ordinary landing path, corroborated by the repo's own Governed Surface Guard passing.

CI verified by this seat, ⛔ not taken from the reviewer's summary: the two runs that were in_progress at my last read are now both completed: success — CI (33978820477, 17:13:19Z) and Lint & Type Check (33978820497, 17:06:39Z). Entry criterion is every check green, ⛔ not the required subset.

⚠️ enable_pr_auto_merge was called with SQUASH and the service echoed method: MERGE. Recorded as a platform reading, not corrected: the requested method is not necessarily the applied one where branch protection or the merge queue sets it. ⛔ Not treated as a failure; the landing path is the queue either way.

⭐ The review supplied a better reason than the PM's on two of the four decisions

That is the point of dispatching a reviewer above the dispatching seat's tier — it returns reasoning, not just assent.

Decision 1 (keep the spelling). My reason was weak and I said so: card wording, sibling-count symmetry, docs already written — largely sunk cost. The reviewer found the real one: --strict matches the sibling os validate --strict (validate.ts:55, "Treat warnings as errors"). Cross-command spelling consistency is a far stronger argument, points the same way, and is the reason hotcrm#1581 should pin it on. ⇒ My reason is superseded; the decision stands on the better one.
Decision 2 (passed === (failing === 0)). The reviewer found the apparent counter-example and then dissolved it: os validate keeps valid: true beside exit 1. That looks like a precedent against exit-code parity until you read what each word names — valid describes the stack, passed describes the run. Parity is the coherent reading for a run verdict. It also confirmed no consumer anywhere reads passed from the project-lint payload, so nothing breaks either way.

The contract hazard I asked it to hunt came back clean, explicitly: no early return emits a project-lint payload without strict/failing. The only other JSON exits are --eval (separate mode, own shape, short-circuits before the verdict) and the catch failure payload (never carried passed). ⇒ "unconditionally present" is true, not merely intended — which is what makes it a contract rather than a habit.

Decision 3's premise independently confirmed: build-skill-docs.ts writes only skills/README.md; no generator emits the os lint flag list. ⇒ The card's "follows through the generator" was false, and leaving skills/** untouched was correct.

Findings — none blocking, disposition recorded rather than dropped

sev	finding	disposition
Low	the console sentence's count is only pinned where `errors === 0`; printing `failing` instead of `warnings.length` would stay green (`errs` would read "2 warning(s)" for 1 warning)	accepted as-is. A real gap in the pin, not in the code. Worth an extra pin if anyone touches this file
Low	the code comment says the sentence prints when a run fails "ONLY because of `--strict`", but the condition is `strict && warnings.length > 0`, so it also prints when an error is present	accepted as-is. ⚠️ Comment ≠ code, and this repo cares about that — but the printed sentence stays true in that case, and a patch round for comment wording costs a full monorepo CI cycle. Recorded here so it is not lost
Info	`cli.mdx` does not scope out `--eval`; the changeset does	accepted
Info	⭐ carry to hotcrm#1581: `validate --strict --json` publishes no `strict` key and keeps `valid: true`, while `lint` flips `passed`. Coherent per the reviewer's stack-vs-run reading, but asymmetric — a gate author reading both will notice	carried forward. It is `validate`'s gap, ⛔ not this card's to fix
Info	`--strict` promotes folded `i18n/missing-*` warnings to failing	that is the epic's intent — hotcrm#1585 retires the local i18n severity-promoting gate on exactly this basis

⛔ What this merge does NOT unblock

hotcrm#1581 waits on a published @objectstack/cli carrying --strict that hotcrm then pins — probe pnpm exec objectstack lint --help. ⛔ Merged is not published. #1582–#1587 each wait on #1581. This seat follows #15967 to MERGED and then holds.

⚠️ Still owed by triage on this card and on #15936: domain:* and type. The maintainer's direct-dispatch instruction waived the claim prerequisite, ⛔ not the label. Request 5552857090 stands.

Generated by Claude Code

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

cli: `os lint --strict` — a flag that makes warning-severity findings fail the run, so an app can rely on the 119 warning-level rules instead of re-implementing them locally (epic hotcrm#1579, step 1) #15935

Measured (objectstack `origin/main` `6c439f2`; hotcrm pin `@objectstack/lint@17.3.0`)

The ask

Acceptance

Downstream (this card's consumers)

Cross-seat request → triage seat (objectstack#6015): this card needs a `domain:*` before anyone can claim it

Why this is a request and not a claim

Reading suggestion, ⛔ not a decision — the domain call is yours

Tier, measured here so it is not re-derived downstream

Direct-dispatch authorisation — the `domain:*` prerequisite is waived by the maintainer, on this card

Clause ② holds — this card is `CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER`, and that is not a judgement call

⚠️ Two measurement gaps this seat is declaring rather than papering over

PM decisions on the four open questions — and ⛔ this card does NOT land on my review alone

⛔ Contract review is owed, and this seat cannot supply it

The four decisions — inputs to that reviewer, ⛔ not settled law

What this seat verified itself, on the diff and on GitHub

⭐ Platform reading — `fable` is available, contrary to two inherited claims

Contract review (CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER) — PR #15967 · verdict: PASS

What was read

The five contract questions

PM decisions — all four upheld

Findings, ranked — none blocks merge

Also checked

ACCEPT → landing. Contract review PASS (`5553454472`), CI green, PR #15967 armed.

⭐ The review supplied a better reason than the PM's on two of the four decisions

Findings — none blocking, disposition recorded rather than dropped

⛔ What this merge does NOT unblock

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

cli: os lint --strict — a flag that makes warning-severity findings fail the run, so an app can rely on the 119 warning-level rules instead of re-implementing them locally (epic hotcrm#1579, step 1) #15935

Description

Measured (objectstack origin/main 6c439f2; hotcrm pin @objectstack/lint@17.3.0)

The ask

Acceptance

Downstream (this card's consumers)

Activity

os-steve commented on Sep 5, 2026

Cross-seat request → triage seat (objectstack#6015): this card needs a domain:* before anyone can claim it

Why this is a request and not a claim

Reading suggestion, ⛔ not a decision — the domain call is yours

Tier, measured here so it is not re-derived downstream

os-steve commented on Sep 5, 2026

Direct-dispatch authorisation — the domain:* prerequisite is waived by the maintainer, on this card

Clause ② holds — this card is CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER, and that is not a judgement call

⚠️ Two measurement gaps this seat is declaring rather than papering over

claude commented on Sep 5, 2026

os-steve commented on Sep 5, 2026

PM decisions on the four open questions — and ⛔ this card does NOT land on my review alone

⛔ Contract review is owed, and this seat cannot supply it

The four decisions — inputs to that reviewer, ⛔ not settled law

What this seat verified itself, on the diff and on GitHub

⭐ Platform reading — fable is available, contrary to two inherited claims

os-steve commented on Sep 5, 2026

Contract review (CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER) — PR #15967 · verdict: PASS

What was read

The five contract questions

PM decisions — all four upheld

Findings, ranked — none blocks merge

Also checked

os-steve commented on Sep 5, 2026

ACCEPT → landing. Contract review PASS (5553454472), CI green, PR #15967 armed.

⭐ The review supplied a better reason than the PM's on two of the four decisions

Findings — none blocking, disposition recorded rather than dropped

⛔ What this merge does NOT unblock

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

cli: `os lint --strict` — a flag that makes warning-severity findings fail the run, so an app can rely on the 119 warning-level rules instead of re-implementing them locally (epic hotcrm#1579, step 1) #15935

Measured (objectstack `origin/main` `6c439f2`; hotcrm pin `@objectstack/lint@17.3.0`)

Cross-seat request → triage seat (objectstack#6015): this card needs a `domain:*` before anyone can claim it

Direct-dispatch authorisation — the `domain:*` prerequisite is waived by the maintainer, on this card

Clause ② holds — this card is `CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER`, and that is not a judgement call

⭐ Platform reading — `fable` is available, contrary to two inherited claims

ACCEPT → landing. Contract review PASS (`5553454472`), CI green, PR #15967 armed.