itd-33 (draft, written 2026-07-06) runs against three later rulings, which its planning interview has to settle. (1) adr-2609091248200336 (2026-09-09): agent and session state is machine-scoped under ~/.abcd/ keyed on the root commit, and the checkout holds only its declared tiers; itd-33 puts per-machine live state and locks (active-work.json, *.lock) in a new .abcd/coordination/ directory inside the checkout, which is no declared tier, beside a committed audit/ log. The shipped claim of itd-2609221656373558 already keeps its run store outside the repository. (2) The basics-plus-adapter principle (principles/basics-built-in-adapters-bring-power.md, 2026-09-15): every capability ships a basic form and offers an opt-in adapter for the full form; itd-33 is always on with no opt-out and rules out any external route, so it offers no adapter. This one is a tension in spirit: the principle's letter does not forbid an always-on basic. (3) itd-2609221656361680 Decision 4, identity in the inbox and a fingerprint in the record: anything committed carries the root-commit key and a generic description; itd-33's committed audit log names the person from git config on every agent_registered event and in resolved_by_human. Decision 4's letter governs the managed-repository reports; applying it here is by extension. The register ruling (itd-2609150819440345 Decision 1, the register is where claims live) overlaps its claim model too. Distinct from iss-2608230943533581, which asks for the coordination SOTA sweep.

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/issues/open/iss-2609240227595724-itd-33-runs-against-three-later-rulings.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions6

• adr-2609091248200336A tool never creates directories in user-owned project space; the store's location binds now and its verbs bind when the store ships
• iss-2608230943533581itd-33's revisit triggers have fired and the coordination question owes a SOTA sweep that no record currently asks for. On 2026-08-23 several sessions ran in parallel in this repo and spent real effort coordinating rather than working: three of them landed writes in the wrong checkout when a shell cwd silently reverted from a per-agent worktree to the shared tree, and what stood between that and a bad commit was the AGENTS.md convention that a diff you did not make is a peer's work, not any mechanical property of the setup. That is itd-33's fifth revisit trigger — two consecutive successful multi-agent runs, after which the absence of coordination becomes the next bottleneck — and the intent asks in terms for exactly this texture to be recorded in the ledger so its design proceeds against real evidence rather than guesses. The accumulated evidence is now iss-213 (2026-08-11, a shared worktree and a false-green preflight spanning branch switches), iss-2608220750029992 (two sessions in one checkout, a branch switch unstaging a peer's index), iss-2608220750029993 (the session-presence lease, the armed-detector rung of the AGENTS.md conventions), iss-2608230847432285 (per-agent worktrees do not isolate a session whose cwd reverts), and the parallel-mint collisions iss-2608220150157512 and iss-2608221126066632. The gap this capture exists to close is the research one. .abcd/development/research/notes/ holds sixteen SOTA notes and not one covers multi-agent orchestration or coordination; itd-15 audits agent prompts against their research baselines, which is a different question. itd-33's own narrowing pass dropped LangGraph, CrewAI and AutoGen from its References when it cut file-level claims and substrate selection — right for that scope, but it leaves no record anywhere that a state-of-the-art sweep is owed on the topic at all, so without this entry the ask exists only in one session's transcript. The sweep should run under the protocol in .abcd/development/research/notes/2026-08-22-sota-research-protocol.md and cover at minimum what coordination substrates the field actually uses for same-machine multi-agent work on one repository, whether a claim-and-yield contract of itd-33's shape is state of the art or a local invention, how other systems make a session's tree unambiguous rather than remembered, and what the evidence says about coordination overhead against parallel throughput — the cost today's sessions paid in full. Promoting itd-33 out of drafts/ is a maintainer decision and is deliberately not taken here.
• itd-33Multiple Agents Coordinate On Intent And Spec Work Without Duplicating Effort Or Producing Competing Artefacts
• itd-2609150819440345Which session holds which worktree, branch or record is coordinated entirely by conversation, so every new session repeats a handshake that nothing records. A session joining work in progress has no way to ask what is already claimed: it messages the peers it can see, waits for replies, and rebuilds a picture that the sessions before it had already built and did not write down. One measured encounter cost four messages and about fifteen minutes before any work began, and the picture it produced is not durable, so the session after that pays again. The convention that a diff you did not make is a peer's work depends on knowing who the peers are and what they hold, which is precisely the thing no artefact carries. The repository already records this gap for the narrow case of detecting a peer session before mutating git state; the wider case is claim rather than presence, and the two want the same substrate. Whatever holds it should be as cheap to write as it is to read, because a coordination record nobody updates is worse than the chat it replaced.
• itd-2609221656361680A managed repository reports back to abcd, and abcd says so at its next start
• itd-2609221656373558Two sessions share one run, and the run measures which way of dividing the work is best