Development record
Brief self-contradiction on abcd lint's exit grammar: 05-internals/06-lint.md:174 states "Exit code follows the standalone grammar (blocker -> 1, warn -> 2, clean -> 0)", which inverts the two non-zero codes. internal/core/repolint/repolint.go:147 exitCode() returns 2 on any blocker, 1 on warnings only, 0 clean, and its own comment names the Conftest tri-state; 04-surfaces/16-lint.md:41 agrees with the code. Observed: this tree at 19 errors and 3 warnings exits 2. The consequence is worse than count drift, because an exit code is a number a CI job branches on: a job written against 06-lint.md would treat 1 as its failure condition and pass green on a tree full of blockers, a gate that runs and never fires. Same class as iss-142 (the iss-37 phantom-enforcement class) and the same file, different line; iss-181 and iss-251 also sit on this file and cover neither. Brief-tier, so under adr-28 it ships in no release artefact and reaches no installed surface, which is the standing disposition for brief drift and the argument for a lower severity. Refines iss-2608261029074763, which records the wider defect this is one symptom of: 06-lint.md section 3 documents an architecture that was never built, verified as internal/core/lint having no package main so the documented invocation cannot run, --codes-filter, --promote-check, --touched-line and --display-path having zero hits across internal/ and cmd/, no .pre-commit-config.yaml, and IntentLinter, _classify_and_filter, _parse_hunk_lines and _detect_location present in no source file. That record cites this one for the exit grammar rather than restating it. Adjacent and distinct: iss-2608231000561060 covers the gates-CI claim and gate-readiness. Detector: enforcement-claims-are-facts sweep over the brief's exit-code and gating claims. Acceptance corpus: the three lines above.
issueresolvedmajoriss-2608260944055780
Brief self-contradiction on abcd lint's exit grammar: 05-internals/06-lint.md:174 states "Exit code follows the standalone grammar (blocker -> 1, warn -> 2, clean -> 0)", which inverts the two non-zero codes. internal/core/repolint/repolint.go:147 exitCode() returns 2 on any blocker, 1 on warnings only, 0 clean, and its own comment names the Conftest tri-state; 04-surfaces/16-lint.md:41 agrees with the code. Observed: this tree at 19 errors and 3 warnings exits 2. The consequence is worse than count drift, because an exit code is a number a CI job branches on: a job written against 06-lint.md would treat 1 as its failure condition and pass green on a tree full of blockers, a gate that runs and never fires. Same class as iss-142 (the iss-37 phantom-enforcement class) and the same file, different line; iss-181 and iss-251 also sit on this file and cover neither. Brief-tier, so under adr-28 it ships in no release artefact and reaches no installed surface, which is the standing disposition for brief drift and the argument for a lower severity. Refines iss-2608261029074763, which records the wider defect this is one symptom of: 06-lint.md section 3 documents an architecture that was never built, verified as internal/core/lint having no package main so the documented invocation cannot run, --codes-filter, --promote-check, --touched-line and --display-path having zero hits across internal/ and cmd/, no .pre-commit-config.yaml, and IntentLinter, _classify_and_filter, _parse_hunk_lines and _detect_location present in no source file. That record cites this one for the exit grammar rather than restating it. Adjacent and distinct: iss-2608231000561060 covers the gates-CI claim and gate-readiness. Detector: enforcement-claims-are-facts sweep over the brief's exit-code and gating claims. Acceptance corpus: the three lines above.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2608260944055780 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | resolved |
| severity | major |
.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2608260944055780-brief-inverts-abcd-lint-exit-grammar.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions7
- adr-28One repository, a curated release artifact — no dev→public mirror
- iss-37Phantom enforcement claims: developer docs describe gates that do not run as described. Re-scoped by the 2026-08-03 maintainer disposition to three doc-claim instances, each a claim about the local pre-push gate or CI:
- iss-142prompt-quality brief self-contradiction: 05-prompt-quality.md states PQ001-PQ006 are shipped by spc-8, while 06-lint.md declares the PQ family a design target with no PromptLinter in internal/core/lint — the code sides with 06-lint. An instance of the iss-37 phantom-enforcement class, surfaced by the itd-100 docs-currency review when the crosswalk nearly repeated the phantom claim. Detector: enforcement-claims-are-facts sweep over the brief's Shipped-by annotations; acceptance corpus: the two contradicting lines.
- iss-18106-lint.md section 1 (the lint-code namespace) is a catalogue of a predecessor project's Python-era implementation — the `IL001`–`RC007` code families and the class names they cite (`IntentLinter`, `BundleLinter`, `PromptLinter`, `SpecLinter`) describe code this repo does not carry. Re-filed here from iss-37 (2026-08-03 maintainer disposition), which is re-scoped to its three doc-claim instances.
- iss-251Two lint engines under one vocabulary: internal/core/repolint (post-itd-6 rename; Rule/Evaluate/tri-state exit) and internal/core/lint (RuleConfig/Finding stream) are separate engines with separate rule models and config schemas, already entangled (repolint's rule_docs.go wraps docs-lint as a conformance rule). Every new rule author must pick an engine. Consolidating the rule models is a deliberate future intent - deliberately kept out of the itd-123-era rename sweep after adversarial review of merge-now vs rename-only.
- iss-2608231000561060The repo-conformance lint runs in no gate while the record says it gates CI, and it is not currently gate-ready, which are two problems needing separate decisions. Verified 2026-08-23 on origin/main. brief/04-surfaces/README.md row 16 describes /abcd:lint as checking the three-tier layout, AGENTS.md router, durable decisions, docs currency, privacy hygiene and identity positioning, and states it 'backs prepare-this-repo and gates CI (itd-85)'. It does not gate CI. The Makefile's preflight target is lint-reviews record-lint docs-lint plus build, vet, test and race, with no abcd lint, and the Makefile has no abcd lint or repolint target at all. Searching .github/workflows for an invocation of the repo-conformance lint, excluding the unrelated 'abcd docs lint', returns nothing in ci.yml or release.yml, whose only lint steps are go run ./cmd/record-lint and go run ./cmd/abcd docs lint. The surface runs only when a human types it. The second problem is why simply wiring it up does not work. On current main the lint emits 19 privacy-hygiene findings, 17 at blocker severity, and the sampled ones are not leaks. Nine of the 19 are in the scanner's own source or in ledger entries about the scanner, where the patterns appear as subject matter. Three sampled outside that set are documentation examples: a Linuxbrew prefix in a spec table and again in [dcn-2608200000000006](../../decisions/dcn-2608200000000006-homebrew-distribution-recorded-and.md), and a CHANGELOG entry recording that certain path shapes stopped being read as usernames. So gating it today would fail every build on content that is correct. iss-305, resolved, records the mechanism -- hasAbsHomePath lacks the leading-boundary predicate its scanner twin has -- and iss-307, iss-308 and iss-324 are adjacent boundary defects in the same family. A waiver marker exists, abcd-lint:allow with the legacy spelling abcd-audit:allow, and the rule's own source uses it on two lines, so the mechanism is available but is not applied across the corpus. What makes this worth deciding rather than filing and forgetting: the rule is right about the case that actually bit. An absolute home path written into a ledger issue body is exactly what its pattern catches, and on 2026-08-23 two sessions independently wrote one. Neither was caught by an instrument. record-lint did not see them because its roots are ['.abcd/development'] and the ledger is in .abcd/work; the lint that would have seen them does not run. Note the two are not interchangeable, since record-lint is scoped to the durable record while privacy-hygiene scans every tracked file, so widening record-lint's roots is a different fix from running the lint. Decide in order: whether the record's gates-CI claim is corrected or made true, and if made true, whether the false-positive rate is addressed by waivers, by the iss-305 boundary fix, or by narrowing what blocks. Leaving the claim standing while the surface runs nowhere is the shape enforcement-claims-are-facts names, and iss-2608230847432286 records the class.
- iss-2608261029074763brief/05-internals/06-lint.md section 3 documents a lint architecture that does not exist, in flat present tense. Verified 2026-08-26 on main. It describes four CI trigger points for a program invoked as 'internal/core/lint --stdin --display-path <canonical> --json --touched-line <N>'; internal/core/lint is a library package with no package main, so that invocation cannot run at all, and cmd/ holds only abcd, abcd-gen-cli-ref, abcd-gen-surface, record-lint and scaffold-sync. Four flags it specifies are absent from the whole codebase: --codes-filter, --promote-check, --touched-line and --display-path each return zero hits across internal/ and cmd/, and --corpus's only three hits are an unrelated ahoy config key and two guard test fixtures. The shipped verb takes exactly two flags, --root and --json. Trigger point 1 asserts a pre-commit hook configured by .pre-commit-config.yaml with pass_filenames: false; no such file exists. The named orchestrator internals -- _classify_and_filter, _parse_hunk_lines, _lint_terminology_files, IntentLinter, _detect_location -- are Python-shaped and appear in no source file outside the record itself. Note points 3 and 4 of the same section DO hedge correctly ('design target for CI', 'not among ci.yml's jobs today'), which is what makes points 1 and 2 read as shipped rather than planned; the fix is to mark them the same way or delete what was never built, not to build it. The exit-grammar inversion at line 174 of the same file is the same defect surfacing at one line, and is already captured separately and more precisely as iss-2608260944055780, which names repolint.go:147 exitCode() as the authority; that issue is not superseded here, it is the narrow instance of this general one. This is also the same shape as iss-2608231000561060, which records the surfaces README claiming abcd lint gates CI when it gates nothing, and the enforcement-claims-are-facts principle names the class.