This is the record of an abcd-managed repository

abcdBetav0.16.2 · 2026-11-06

Development record

itd-34 routes a standalone intent to a flow-next spec, while itd-37 places the spec template in abcd's native Go binary

issuewontfixminoriss-2610262043232891

itd-34 routes a standalone intent to a flow-next spec, while itd-37 places the spec template in abcd's native Go binary

A premise contradiction (severity minor) found by the cross-document consistency pass.

  • End A: .abcd/development/intents/disciplines/itd-37-modification-grammar.md:55 — "carried by the native spec template in the Go binary"
  • End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-34-three-intent-kinds.md:21 — "A standalone intent maps 1:1 to a flow-next spec"

itd-34 states that a standalone intent maps 1:1 to a flow-next spec and is planned through /flow-next:plan and plan-review; itd-37 says every spec carries its Modification Grammar section through the native spec template in the Go binary. The two name different spec stores and planning paths for the same promotion, so a builder cannot tell which one intent plan mints into or which template carries the inherited gates.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1134.

Grounds

  • declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. itd-34 was written when a standalone intent mapped to a flow-next spec; adr-26 later made the native minimal spec layer the default, and itd-37's native spec template follows it. A shipped record keeps its period wording.

Frontmatter

idiss-2610262043232891
typeissue
lifecyclewontfix
severityminor

References2

mentions2