Development record
intent Reconcile ships planned intents into shipped/ without stamping impact, so a no-impact seed passes plan and reconcile then trips the intent_impact_valid blocker on a record produced entirely by the tool's own verbs; a plan-or-ship verb must be able to stamp impact (sibling of the iss-117 class, found by its review)
issueresolvedmajoriss-126
intent Reconcile ships planned intents into shipped/ without stamping impact, so a no-impact seed passes plan and reconcile then trips the intent_impact_valid blocker on a record produced entirely by the tool's own verbs; a plan-or-ship verb must be able to stamp impact (sibling of the iss-117 class, found by its review)
Grounds
- pursued: an intent record produced by abcd's own verbs alone should satisfy abcd's own record-lint, and the ship verb is the only place the missing judgement can be supplied without inventing it; if authors routinely reach for --impact to get past a refusal rather than to record a judgement they had made, the gate is ceremony and the value belongs earlier, at plan
Frontmatter
| id | iss-126 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | resolved |
| severity | major |
.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-126-intent-reconcile-cannot-stamp-impact.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions4
- adr-2609151513118583An intent owns one or more specs, and it ships when its last spec closes
- iss-117abcd capture resolve and intent seedDraft cannot set impact, so the tool's own path produces a record the new issue_impact_valid and intent_impact_valid blockers reject
- iss-2609120452071388Reported from a downstream repository using abcd, where `abcd capture` (bare,
- iss-2609170726457256No verb stamps impact or builds_on on an existing intent draft. --impact exists only on the filing call (abcd intent "<text>" --impact) and again at the close that ships the intent (spec close --impact); between those two points a draft that was filed without a judgement has no verb that adds one, and builds_on, a schema-known frontmatter field the readers walk, has no flag on any verb at all. Relayed from the Gropius managed-repo session gropiusllm-56 on 2026-09-17, where two sessions hand-edited the frontmatter of five drafts with sed to set both fields, which bypasses every validator the verbs carry (ParseImpact, the never-internal rule for intents, the record-id shape of a builds_on target). Confirmed against the v0.9.0 command tree: intent plan takes only --production-mode, intent link writes spec_id only, and no verb names builds_on. Sibling records: iss-126 (resolved) gave impact a home at the close, and iss-2609091256264547 (open) covers the three typed relations the schema lacks; this finding is about the one relation it has and the one judgement it accepts, neither of which a verb can write onto a draft. Intent-shaped by the itd-84 four-piece table (a capability: a draft's judged fields are settable through a verb after filing), so the routing to an intent draft is the human's to confirm; recorded here first.