Development record
The CONCURRENCY rule in .abcd/rules.json (and its AGENTS.md short form, if it repeats it) says the worktree store's own verbs are itd-2609091014076309, in drafts/, but that intent is in planned/; its link already points at planned/, so the prose contradicts the link beside it.
issueresolvednitpickiss-2610090744073409
The CONCURRENCY rule in .abcd/rules.json (and its AGENTS.md short form, if it repeats it) says the worktree store's own verbs are itd-2609091014076309, in drafts/, but that intent is in planned/; its link already points at planned/, so the prose contradicts the link beside it.
Grounds
- pursued: every present-state sentence naming itd-2609091014076309 as the reason the store has no verbs matches the folder the record sits in; shown wrong if any of the rule, 34-build.md or lane.go calls it a draft while it is in planned/, or the rule stops saying it has not shipped, which TestWorktreeStoreRuleNamesTheIntentsActualState would report
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610090744073409 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | resolved |
| severity | nitpick |
.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2610090744073409-the-concurrency-rule-in-abcd-rules-json.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions2
- iss-2610111926302792Present-state planning prose still calls itd-2609091014076309 'the store draft' although the intent is in planned/: itd-148 (lines 64 and 188), spc-42 (lines 27 and 112) and iss-213 (line 11). The drift fix for iss-2610090744073409 corrected the CONCURRENCY rule, the build brief page and lane.go, and left these planning records as out of its remedy's scope; its ruthless review recorded them.
- itd-2609091014076309Session and agent worktrees live in a machine-scoped store that abcd lists and reclaims, never beside the user's own projects