Development record
itd-94 has the agent run `abcd intent plan` as the person's sign-off; the plan entry has the human run it and says it is never inferred from consent.
itd-94 has the agent run abcd intent plan as the person's sign-off; the plan entry has the human run it and says it is never inferred from consent.
A premise contradiction (severity major) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-94-an-intent-that-is-not-planned-cannot-be.md:23— "Only then does the agent runabcd intent plan— your sign-off act" - End B:
.abcd/development/brief/glossary/core/plan.md:63— "offer the planning interview and let the human runplan"
itd-94 says that once the person has confirmed the interview, the agent runs abcd intent plan as their sign-off act. The plan entry says the invocation itself is the product thinker's sign-off, is never run unattended and is never inferred from consent. Its worked example is to offer the planning interview and let the human run plan. The two documents disagree on who carries out the sign-off.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1065.
Deferral 2026-10-27
Deferred past v0.15.1: Deferred by the product thinker on 2026-10-27 (dcn-2610271112330536): the brief's single-home rewrite (dcn-2610271112339516, dcn-2610271112330235) rewrites or removes most of the passages this record quotes.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262042222565 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | open |
| severity | major |
.abcd/work/issues/open/iss-2610262042222565-itd-94-has-the-agent-run-abcd-intent.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
References1
- itd-94An intent that is not planned cannot be implemented: abcd gains a machine-checkable implement-readiness gate that refuses with a remedy and offers the planning interviewrelated
mentions3
- dcn-26102711123302352026-10-27 — The product thinker ruled on 2026-10-27 that the design brief shows the target design, in the present tense, with a status tag where a part is built, rather than the shipped state. With the ruling that behaviour lives in the command pages, the brief holds the product as aimed for and why, and the command pages hold what abcd does today. This reverses itd-147's currency rule, so a superseding ADR is owed, and the brief's checks are rebuilt around the status overlay.
- dcn-26102711123305362026-10-27 — The product thinker accepted on 2026-10-27 the triage of the 1301 records the 2026-10-26 consistency pass filed. The duplicates, the records a later record already settles, the ones that are no contradiction and the one already fixed are closed with each reader's reason. Every other record gets its fix as its remedy, the rulings' accepted answers included, so a drain can take it. The 45 major records left open are deferred past v0.15.1, because the brief's single-home rewrite rewrites or removes most of the passages they quote. The person ruled the major rulings one at a time; the minor rulings take their recommended answers.
- dcn-26102711123395162026-10-27 — The product thinker ruled on 2026-10-27 that each abcd command's behaviour is written once, in its command page, which agents follow when they run it. The brief's chapter for the command keeps why the command exists, its trade-offs and why it refuses what it does, with its sub-verb table and generated appendix, and points to the command page for behaviour. The documentation-fidelity check moves to the command pages. This reverses the behaviour half of adr-2609231028044006 and invariant 18, so a superseding ADR is owed.