Repository navigation
[Decision] Should check:platform-checklist move from manual cadence to a path-filtered CI gate? #9306
Description
Filed at the maintainer's request while scoping the QA wave #9296. This revises a recorded maintainer decision, so it is not auto-adjudicable: the confidence gate bars a triage ruling that narrows or overturns an existing one, even when the change would strengthen a gate rather than weaken it.
What triggered it
Maintainer, 2026-08-17, verbatim:
check-platform-checklist.mjs 如果 是 CI，会导致每一个pr都增加大量时间吧？有必要吗
The cost half of that premise is measurably false, so the question deserves a straight answer rather than an inherited assumption.
Measured facts (re-check commands included — a premise with no re-check command ages into folklore)
| fact | reading | re-check |
|---|---|---|
| validator runtime | ~80 ms | time node scripts/check-platform-checklist.mjs |
| full pnpm script (selector self-test + validator) | 0.165 s | time pnpm check:platform-checklist |
| dependencies | none — node:fs, node:path only, so no pnpm install and no build needed |
grep -n '^import' scripts/check-platform-checklist.mjs |
| current posture | not in CI, by maintainer decision | grep -n 'platform-checklist' .github/workflows/lint.yml (see the note at L426) |
drift has reached main at least once |
#7347 — "check:platform-checklist is red on main: the new qa liveness ledger is neither mapped nor waived" |
gh issue view 7347 |
(Cost-row correction, 2026-08-17: these figures were measured on an idle container; under load the pnpm wrapper dominates (~2.9 s wall). What survives any machine state: zero-dependency, direct-node sub-second. See the correction comment — cost was never the deciding axis.)
So the real trade is not seconds. Appended to the existing lint job (which already has a checkout) the marginal cost is ~0.2 s; only giving it a dedicated job would cost anything, and that cost is runner spin-up, not the script.
Options
- A — status quo. Manual/periodic cadence (before a release, after a large surface lands, alongside a
checklist-author/checklist-test). Drift is caught at the next manual run, by whoever remembers. - B — path-filtered CI (recommended). Append the one line to the existing lint job, guarded to PRs touching
packages/spec/liveness/**,packages/spec/src/**, ordocs/qa/platform-checklist/**. Unrelated PRs are untouched; the PRs that can actually turn it red pay 0.2 s. - C — every-PR CI. Cheap in seconds, but couples every PR in the repo to QA-ledger bookkeeping.
- D — scheduled run (e.g. nightly) that opens/refreshes one issue when red. Catches drift without touching PR flow at all; detection lands hours after the merge, on nobody's desk in particular.
B and D are not exclusive.
Four-corner card face
- ① platform long-term coherence — the coverage ratchet encodes a declared invariant ("凡是有的能力, 都要测试"). Under A it is enforced by memory, which is the declared≠enforced shape ADR-0049 exists to eliminate. B closes that gap without adding a special case: the check already exists, only its trigger changes. C closes it by making every author pay for a ledger they did not touch — coherence bought with coupling.
- ② measured business pull — one measured instance of drift reaching
main(finding:check:platform-checklistis red onmain— the newqaliveness ledger is neither mapped nor waived in coverage.json #7347, theqaliveness ledger neither mapped nor waived), found by a sweep rather than a gate. Low frequency, not zero. A second data point is inbound: QA wave R4: coverage sweep (checklist-author) — re-audit the ledger against the 727 commits since the 2026-08-08 sweep #9299 will report whether the ledger drifted again across the 727 commits since the 2026-08-08 sweep — that reading is worth waiting for before deciding, and is the honest answer to "有必要吗". - ③ AI-agent error-resistance — the gate would fire on the PR whose author still holds the context to map the new kind (usually an AI agent). Detected days later, a different agent has to reconstruct why the kind exists and what should cover it — the expensive direction. Loud refusal at authoring time over silent drift.
- ④ startup scope discipline — B is one line plus a path guard on an existing job: no new workflow, no new ledger, no new declared surface to maintain. D would add a schedule and an issue-updating step — a second mechanism, and a heavier obligation than the problem currently justifies.
Recommendation
B, and only after #9299 reports. If the sweep finds the ledger did not drift across 727 commits, the measured pull for any gate is weak and A is the honest answer — the manual cadence would have been proven sufficient. If it did drift, B is the smallest change that makes the invariant real, and it costs 0.2 s on exactly the PRs that can break it.
⛔ No agent implements any of this until the maintainer rules. Related: #9296 (QA wave), #9299 (which corrects SWEEP.md's factual claim that this check already runs in CI — a text fix only, explicitly not a posture change).
Ruled 2026-08-17 (final): A — status quo; card closed. The premised ruling (B if #9299 found drift, A if zero drift) resolved through the third branch: #9299 found the ledger did drift (8 gaps), but with zero new kinds and zero new enum members — every gap was new behavior inside already-mapped kinds, invisible to both ratchets by construction. The gate would have caught none of it; the sweep is the mechanism that works. check:platform-checklist stays out of CI; the .github/workflows/lint.yml L426 posture note remains authoritative. Re-open condition: gate-visible drift (a new kind or new pinned-enum member reaching main unmapped) — file a fresh card citing this one. See the resolution comment for the full record.
Activity
os-zhuang commentedon Aug 17, 2026
Maintainer ruling recorded (premised) — maintainer (zhuangjianguo@steedos.com), 2026-08-17, verbatim:
The maintainer delegated this decision to the PM seat. Recorded under that delegation, with the maintainer able to veto in one line. Provenance: PM session
session_01NYgmGheCzM6NrHZN436Cxf.Ruling: B — path-filtered CI, premised on #9299 finding drift
Append
pnpm check:platform-checklistto the existing lint job (no new workflow, no dedicated job), guarded to PRs touching:packages/spec/liveness/**packages/spec/src/**docs/qa/platform-checklist/**Named premise (falsifiable): #9299's sweep finds the ledger did drift across the 727 commits since the 2026-08-08 sweep. That sweep is in flight and has not reported.
If the premise fails — #9299 measures zero drift — the outcome flips to A (status quo): the manual cadence would have been proven sufficient over 727 commits, and the measured pull for any gate is too weak to justify even a one-line coupling. That is the honest answer to the maintainer's original 「有必要吗」.
⛔ Fork prohibition: no agent silently implements either branch. When #9299 reports, the PM reads the drift finding on that thread, states on this card which branch of the premise held, and only then does this card become dispatchable. If #9299 comes back ambiguous (e.g. drift found but only in prose, not in the coverage ledger itself), that is a report-back to the maintainer, not a judgment call.
Why B over C/D (four-corner summary)
main(finding:check:platform-checklistis red onmain— the newqaliveness ledger is neither mapped nor waived in coverage.json #7347); QA wave R4: coverage sweep (checklist-author) — re-audit the ledger against the 727 commits since the 2026-08-08 sweep #9299 is the second data point and arrives shortly — hence the premise, not a wait-and-re-decide loop.State
needs-user-decision→pm:blocked, body carriesBlocked-by: #9299. The unlock scan re-surfaces this card when #9299 closes; the PM then resolves the premise as above.Generated by Claude Code
os-zhuang commentedon Aug 17, 2026
Correction to the cost row in this card's premise table — recorded before the maintainer rules on it, because the ruling partly rests on it.
The figures in the table (~80 ms validator, 0.165 s for the full
pnpmscript) were measured on an idle container. The #9299 sweep re-measured on the same container while a cold monorepo install was running in parallel and got ~0.12–0.18 s for the validator and ~2.9 s wall forpnpm check:platform-checklist— thepnpmwrapper's own startup dominating under load.Both readings are honest measurements of different machine states, which is the useful conclusion: a precise millisecond figure does not survive a different machine, so no ruling should rest on one. What survives:
node:fs,node:path) — no install, no build, nothing to cache;pnpmmeasures the wrapper, not the check.The decision framing is unchanged, and if anything sharpened: cost was never the real axis. Even the loaded-container figure is noise next to a CI job's runner spin-up, and a path-filtered trigger (option B) would charge it only to PRs that can actually turn it red. The axis that decides this is PR independence versus enforcing a declared invariant — options A vs B in the body above.
The evidence I said this card should wait for has since landed: #9299 / PR #9309 reports the ledger DID drift across the window — 8 items authored, and both surviving coverage waivers (
book,doc) turned out factually stale, making it 6 of 6 waivers ever written that aged into falsehood.But read what that drift was before letting it decide this card: the window added ~156 non-test source files and zero new metadata kinds, so every one of those 8 gaps was new behavior inside an already-mapped kind — invisible to the coverage ratchet (no new kind) and to the
enumSourceratchet (no new enum member). None of it would have been caught bycheck:platform-checklisthowever often it ran. That cuts directly against option B's value: the drift that actually happened is not the drift a gate detects. The measured pull for putting this in CI is weaker after the sweep than it looked before it, not stronger — the honest reading now leans toward A (status quo), with the sweep, not the gate, as the mechanism that works.Still a maintainer call; ⛔ no agent acts on this either way.
Generated by Claude Code
os-zhuang commentedon Aug 17, 2026
Premise resolved — final ruling: A (status quo). Maintainer, 2026-08-17, forwarding the QA-wave seat's revised recommendation into the PM decision channel, verbatim:
Recorded under the maintainer's standing delegation for this card (「帮我决策 #9306」, same day) plus this explicit forward. Provenance: PM session
session_01NYgmGheCzM6NrHZN436Cxf. Verified against the primary source, not the relay: #9299's report and its review both state the window added ~156 non-test source files with zero new metadata kinds and zero new enum members — all 8 authored gaps are new behavior inside already-mapped kinds.How the premise resolved
The premised ruling above named the fork: drift ⇒ B, zero drift ⇒ A, ambiguous ⇒ report back. What actually happened is the instructive third case: drift occurred, but of a class the gate cannot see by construction. The premise's letter ("did drift") is satisfied; its reason — that a CI trigger would have caught the drift — is falsified. A premise inherits with its reason, and the reason is dead:
check:platform-checklistwould have stayed green through every one of the 8 real gaps however often it ran. Wiring it into CI would buy coupling and a false sense of enforcement — declared≠enforced in a subtler costume, exactly what ADR-0049 exists to refuse.Final ruling
check:platform-checkliststays out of CI. The recorded posture note at.github/workflows/lint.ymlL426 remains authoritative;SWEEP.md's corrected text (PR docs(qa): R4 coverage sweep — retire both stale waivers, author 8 items for the post-2026-08-08 window #9309) now states both the fact and the reason.check:platform-checklistis red onmain— the newqaliveness ledger is neither mapped nor waived in coverage.json #7347 (the one real escape) and all 8 of this round's gaps were found by sweeps. The periodicchecklist-authorcadence — after a large surface lands, before a release — is the enforcement instrument of record for this invariant class.mainunmapped — the B question is live again with real measured pull. File a fresh decision card citing this one; do not reuse it.Closing as not planned: the decision is made and its outcome is "change nothing".
Generated by Claude Code