Development record
The worktree-block intent assigns typed claims to itd-33, but the shipped reservation intent delivered the claim
issueopenminoriss-2610262044322326
The worktree-block intent assigns typed claims to itd-33, but the shipped reservation intent delivered the claim
A scope leakage (severity minor) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/intents/planned/itd-148-every-change-starts-in-its-own-worktree.md:101— "The coordination mechanism — typed claims, take or yield or escalate — remains itd-33's" - End B:
.abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2609091034175565-nothing-tells-an-agent-that-a-record-it.md:239— "the record keeps "claim" as the internal name"
itd-148 says the coordination mechanism of typed claims remains itd-33's and puts claims out of scope as itd-33's. itd-2609091034175565 shipped exactly that claim, under the person-facing name 'reservation' with 'claim' kept as the internal name. Ownership of the claim is assigned to two records.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1213.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262044322326 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | open |
| severity | minor |
.abcd/work/issues/open/iss-2610262044322326-the-worktree-block-intent-assigns-typed.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
References2
- itd-148Every change starts in its own worktree in abcd's store: the primary checkout is a read-only surface, and abcd blocks mutations there for every session but a declared coordinatorrelated
- itd-2609091034175565Before an agent starts on an item, it reserves it on the shared remote, and everyone who works on the project sees the reservationrelated
mentions1
- itd-33Multiple Agents Coordinate On Intent And Spec Work Without Duplicating Effort Or Producing Competing Artefacts