e08d49c3eb65a0a8d188d2801b379b6f620cf5a7
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 JesseMarkowitzandClaude Opus 5
|
d27ee34901 |
Docs: consolidate active planning and archive historical material
The planning package had grown to where a new agent could not tell what was authoritative. Phase 0 execution prompts sat beside the specification; four completed milestone reports sat beside the current one; and upstream AI-DnD's own `plan/` build log and `docs/` project site still described a hosted, scripted, multi-user product with accounts — every screenshot in it showed a Scripts tab and a Sign up button, none of which has existed since M2. `planning/archive/` now holds the history and says so in its own README: `phase0/` for the research that chose AI-DnD, `milestone-reports/` for M1 and M2, `decisions/` for ADR 008, the Phase-0-before-build gate Phase 0 satisfied. `planning/reports/` holds only the current milestone's report, because that is the one M4 planning has to read; it moves to the archive when M4's replaces it. Deleted rather than archived: the Phase 0B execution prompts and the handoff/status/summary documents, the Phase 0A discovery and triage reports, upstream's `plan/` and `docs/` trees, and `frontend/README.md`, which was Vite's template boilerplate. All of it is in Git history, and the two recommendation reports carry every conclusion the deleted research reached. Archived documents are kept verbatim. Paths written inside them point at where those files were when the document was written, which is the point: an evidence record that has been quietly edited is no longer evidence. Active documentation is corrected where it pointed at the removed trees or described removed capability as present. `DEVELOPMENT.md`'s "things M1 did not touch" list had gone stale at M2 and claimed QuickJS scripting was still tested; its test count was 604 against an actual 638. `README.md` loses the upstream CI badge, which reported upstream's pipeline rather than this fork's, and a reference to `backend/app/worldstate/engine.py`, a file that does not exist. `planning/README.md` is rewritten as the documentation index. New: `planning/PROJECT-SOURCES.md` and `planning/project-sources.txt`, the manifest of what belongs in the ChatGPT project's Sources. Source comments referring to the deleted trees are reworded; no behaviour changes. 638 backend tests pass, frontend lints and builds, and a reference scan over all 48 tracked Markdown files reports no unresolved path in active documentation. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NCbwH7yLGKsj1rhXXzKSCu |
||
|
JesseMarkowitzandClaude Opus 5
|
c8755c21c2 |
Planning: close M3 and record active-head architecture
M3's review recommended planning changes and, following the M2 pattern, reported rather than applied them. This applies them, and adds the ADR the review asked for. ADR 012 records the architecture rather than the requirement. ADR 005 already says that going backward must preserve abandoned history and that the user sees Undo/Redo/Retry rather than branch management; it names a movable active head as the direction and stops. What M3 settled is the shape: the head is stored rather than derived, every read of the story is capped at it in one place, one mechanism moves it, the state of a position comes off the node rather than from a replay, the first write below a moved-back head is the divergence, and whether Redo exists is decided by the lineage rather than by a flag that could be stale. The last of those is the property worth keeping — a flag can be wrong and make the story wrong; a lineage cannot. Two semantics are ratified in STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS.md, both of them reversals or narrowings that a reader would otherwise take for bugs. Undo now crosses fork points and continues to the campaign opening, because refusing at the fork was a consequence of deleting rows the parent line was also reading, and nothing is deleted any more. And the system refuses to switch which take is live while a later story is off screen, because doing it quietly would leave retained history continuing from words the story no longer says. A new §14A covers editing in place. §14-15 describe the finished behaviour — the edit becomes authoritative, the state it implies is re-evaluated, a new continuation is created, the original is retained — and that requirement is intact and explicitly not weakened here. It is also not built, because re-evaluating state from prose a user typed needs M5's extraction pass. §14A says what exists in the meantime and why refusing is the minimum that holds the invariant rather than the destination. TECHNICAL-DESIGN.md gains §8.7 and §9.1, recording the implemented model and the bundle behaviour as fact in the way §5.2 records M1 and M2. §10.4 gains a constraint that is easy to lose: the snapshot half of the hybrid state model is a requirement, not an optimization. Head movement is a row lookup plus a restore, which is why Undo, Redo and Save Point restore cost the same at any distance into a campaign; a state model recoverable only by replaying from the opening would make all three proportional to campaign length, on exactly the long campaigns this product is for. DATA-MODEL.md records the head as stored on the campaign rather than derived from its newest turn — two campaigns holding identical turns can be read at different places, and nothing about the turns can tell them apart — and the branch disposition as implemented: the depth a divergent write left the branch at, deliberately advisory, and carried through export because every row of an abandoned line is exported either way. BUILD-MILESTONES.md marks M3 complete and states the one condition still open. M4 is told a Save Point is a durable pointer and that restoring one is head movement with a bounds check, not a restore system: a second mover is the specific failure to avoid, because the two paths would silently disagree about what restore means. M5 gets three constraints — keep state efficiently recoverable, move the test instrumentation rather than the assertions when the world-state protocol goes, and finish the narrator edit §14A defers. V1-ACCEPTANCE-TESTS.md clarifies ownership without lowering a bar. D10 keeps all three pass conditions and is explicitly recorded as *not* satisfied at the end of M3; what changed is that the document now says which milestone delivers which condition. D03's result is recorded as a full pass rather than the partial the text allowed for, I07 gains the pre-M3 bundle clause, and L01 gains the note that resolves its apparent conflict with A05 — a failed turn does advance the head by one, onto the player's retained input, and that is A05 working rather than L01 failing. README.md described a different application: a hosted demo, guest accounts, cloud providers, Postgres, a Render blueprint, an analytics dashboard, a QuickJS scripting engine, and 549 tests. M2 removed all of that and the README was never updated — a gap M2's own debt table missed. It now describes what this fork is, including the endpoint policy and the TLS behaviour, and the numbers in it are the current ones. M3's report is included here as its own evidence record: no separate baseline report was produced, so it carries the raw counts and runtime observations as well as the review, and §W records this closeout. SPECIFICATION.md and SECURITY-THREAT-MODEL.md are unchanged. M3 altered no product requirement and touched no path in the threat model. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QF5TcoB86QADgjHz1GZe8u |
||
|
JesseMarkowitzandClaude Opus 5
|
2fdd2547f0 |
Planning: record M2 closeout decisions
M2's review reported six planning recommendations rather than applying them, three marked before M3. All six are applied here, plus three additions drawn from the same evidence. No implementation file is touched. The endpoint policy was the gap that mattered. It is the most consequential setting in the application — the storyteller sends the player's prose, the context, the memories and the embedding inputs to whatever address it names — and it existed only as a module docstring. It is now ADR 011 and a new §10A in the threat model, which also retires the assumption in §71A that the inherited guard was a starting point. It was not: AI-DnD's SSRF guard blocked private addresses to stop a hosted server reaching its own internal network, which is the exact opposite of what a local storyteller needs. It was removed, not adapted. Both documents state the rule as implemented — an allowlist of explicit local-network CIDRs, every resolved address checked, enforced on save and again before every outbound request, TLS never traded against it — and both state the two residual limits plainly rather than implying they are covered: a hostile host already on the trusted LAN is inside the permitted boundary, and a rebinding interval exists between the policy's resolution and the client's connection. Accepted risks, not M3 work. The CIDRs are spelled out rather than derived from is_private/is_reserved, and the ADR records why: is_private is true of the documentation ranges and 0.0.0.0/8, and is_reserved is true of IPv6 loopback, so a rule built on it refuses an ordinary same-host Ollama on [::1]. TECHNICAL-DESIGN §5.1 items 3 and 4 are marked done, closing all five hardening items. A new §5.2 records the M1/M2 architecture as fact rather than intention, so later milestones inherit what the code does. A new §18.1 carries the lesson of M2's two regressions: when removing a setting, test a real consumer construction path; when adding one, prove it reaches the component that uses it. Both defects hid behind a green suite because the tests at that boundary were mocks. BUILD-MILESTONES records M2 complete, with the capabilities later milestones inherit and the debt carried forward. Two notes go to milestones that would otherwise misread what M2 left them. M5 is told that eight rollback tests now use the world-state engine as instrumentation and not as endorsement — the instrumentation moves when the protocol does, and those tests are reworked rather than deleted. M6 is told that the memory bank died silently under a green suite, so background failure must be observable and at least one real provider-construction path must be tested. The security contract gains what M2 demonstrated. H10 now names the two conditions that were defects during M2: a wildcard origin must be refused at startup, and an unknown /api path must 404 rather than returning the SPA with 200. New H12 covers endpoint enforcement, and its fourth pass condition is the one that matters — a public endpoint written into the database behind the settings API must still be refused at the wire. A build passing the first three and failing that one has configuration validation only. SPECIFICATION.md is deliberately unchanged. M2 altered no product requirement; it removed capability the specification never asked for. The two M2 reports gain appended closeout notes rather than edits. Their original wording about an uncommitted working tree was true when written, and the note records what happened afterwards: the six-file correction is |
||
|
JesseMarkowitz
|
1a28a9a708 | Apply post-M1 corrections to the planning package | ||
|
JesseMarkowitz
|
717670afe0 | Update planning package after Phase 0B | ||
|
JesseMarkowitz
|
f011362494 | Add initial planning files from ChatGPT research here |