Development record
itd-102 records a canonical project title that surfaces derive from; itd-2610031348087517 says nothing in a project derives a title reliably
itd-102 records a canonical project title that surfaces derive from; itd-2610031348087517 says nothing in a project derives a title reliably
A premise contradiction (severity minor) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-102-your-repo-says-the-same-thing-about.md:17— "interviews the maintainer for the project's identity — its title, its tagline, and a short elevator pitch" - End B:
.abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2610031348087517-when-abcd-sets-up-a-project-it-asks-the.md:44— "abcd never writes a title (nothing in a project derives one reliably)"
itd-102 interviews for the project's title, tagline and pitch, records them in one canonical home in the development record, and derives every rendered surface (README strapline included) from it. itd-2610031348087517 leaves the title out of the README parts abcd keeps, on the ground that nothing in a project derives one reliably. The identity block itd-102 establishes is exactly such a source inside the project. The second record's ground contradicts the first record's premise.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1246.
Grounds
- declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): the two ends do not conflict when read in full. internal/core/ahoy README derivation uses no identity title, and itd-102 states abcd never rewrites a surface on its own; the later intent's 'nothing derives a title' concerns a project that has not answered the identity interview.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262045017395 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | wontfix |
| severity | minor |
.abcd/work/issues/wontfix/iss-2610262045017395-itd-102-records-a-canonical-project.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
References2
- itd-102**Your repo says the same thing about itself everywhere — because abcd asked you once and holds every surface to it.** A project's positioning fragments silently: the README strapline, the package or plugin manifest description, and the agent conventions file are each edited at different moments, and soon three surfaces tell three stories about what the project is. When abcd prepares a repo it interviews the user for the project's identity — title, tagline, and a short elevator pitch — and records the answers in one canonical home in the development record. Every surface rendering derives from that home, and a deterministic positioning check compares the surfaces against it on every audit: a mismatch is highlighted with the exact drifted line, and the fix is either re-render from the record or a deliberate, recorded identity change — never a silent extra variant, and never a silent rewrite by abcd. "I changed my tagline once, in one place, and abcd chased it everywhere else," said Alice, a solo founder. "When a stray edit crept into the README, the next audit pointed at the exact line instead of letting the drift settle in."related
- itd-2610031348087517Setup asks whether abcd keeps parts of the README current, and whichrelated
mentions1
- 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.