abcd build refused the terminal interview fix (iss-2611011402496418) at 03:05 on 2026-11-02: 'is handback under adr-2609291342092738 (severity): severity major is above the drain's (nitpick, minor); remedy: the issue is a person's'. The product thinker had directed that fix the evening before and ruled that agent work runs on the API key, but the only route for a major issue is a host session, which bills the subscription the person asked to spare. Nothing lets a person admit one issue they have decided on to the loop, so a directed major fix waits for the person or runs on the route they ruled out.

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/issues/open/iss-2611020305525945-abcd-build-refused-the-terminal.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions3

• adr-2609291342092738A drain takes an issue alone only when its fields say it needs no decision
• dcn-26110207154919282026-11-02 — The product thinker ruled on the morning of 2026-11-02, in an interview another session relayed and one question put here: the test stages run from one fixed check directory per repository, ~/.abcd.noindex/tests/<root-sha>/, used by one check at a time, so results carry over between worktrees and criterion 1 of itd-2611011325421304 holds for tests that read the tree; a key's budget caps count the whole key, every session on that key pauses together at a cap, and spend never passes it, which replaces the 2026-11-01 reading in dcn-2611012123470476 that a limit stops only the session that hit it; what happens at a cap is a per-repository setting, pausing by default, with moving to a second key the person named for that purpose as the alternative and the subscription never; the terminal interview fix iss-2611011402496418 is lowered to minor so the build loop takes it on the API key, a ruling the product thinker gave directly to the session that records it, in answer to a question it put, which that session's transcript in the person's transcript store carries; and a command agents cannot run that admits one named issue above minor to the build loop is to be built next (iss-2611020305525945). The same morning they confirmed the edited wording of itd-2611011325421304's press release, that a test declared as reading what abcd cannot see always runs, in place of the wording confirmed at its interview.
• iss-2611011402496418A planning interview run in a plain terminal on the API-key runner ended at its first question on 2026-11-01. The interviewer wrote a sound question, but abcd's question check refused it at 39 rows against a 32-row limit, and the refusal was treated as the runner's invalid answer: with no host fallback in a terminal the interview stopped, printing 'runner: claude invalid for planning-interviewer ... the contract's validator refused its answer: the question breaks 1 rule(s): tab 1, whole tab (rows)'. The person was left with an internal message and no next step. The brief tells the role 'abcd refuses a receipt ... whose question breaks a rule below, and the interview stops', and only a refused done outcome is ever handed back for another turn. A host session's own question check shows an over-long question with a warning and has the agent redraft refused ones silently, so the terminal route is stricter than the host route for the one rule a model cannot count exactly. The product thinker ruled the same day (dcn-2611011402510346) that an interview must never stop on a question abcd's check refuses, and that anything which does end an interview tells the person in plain words what happened and what to do.