the-conformance-check-calls-itself-lint-abcd-audit-becomes-a

Frontmatter

.abcd/development/specs/closed/spc-29-the-conformance-check-calls-itself-lint.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

References1

• itd-124The Conformance Check Calls Itself Lintimplements

mentions14

• adr-40Review, audit, lint, and gate are four buckets, separated by what each compares
• dcn-26081600000000032026-08-16 — the assessment vocabulary settled at a maintainer grill and filed as adr-40 (proposed): **four buckets — lint / review / audit / gate — separated by what each compares**, not by determinism, not by trigger. The rule was already half-recorded (05-internals/01-agents.md rules the two verdict families disjoint: "reviews assess a change, criterion verdicts assess a promise vs reality") and three shipped surfaces contradict it — `intent review` emits family 2 so it is an audit, `abcd audit` is deterministic rule-checking so it is a lint (and it consumed the `/abcd:audit` name 02-constraints/04-naming.md reserves for itd-16), and `disembark oracle` emits family 1 while the brief calls its output an audit. Grill rulings: **one surface performs exactly one act** (multi-act surfaces split at design time — cheap, because every multi-act surface abcd has is unbuilt, so they are specified rather than refactored); the buckets are a **closed list extended by PR, not a criterion** (an autonomous run given a criterion interprets it; a table lookup matches or fails); `intent ready` survives as the fourth bucket **gate** because it names a decision rather than a comparison, preserving itd-94's exit-code contract; determinism is orthogonal (itd-16's hash-chain check is a deterministic *audit*; itd-85's conformance check is a *lint* however built); automatic-vs-manual never enters a verb name (the trigger is the facilitator's, per itd-97); the oracle is the model-access seam beneath review and audit, never a bucket. **Clean break, no aliases** — pre-1.0.0, `--impact breaking` drives version derivation (iss-171 precedent), users re-download; an alias would additionally collide with the documentation discipline's ban on change-narration, leaving an undocumented silent forward. The role mapping is the operational reason the split earns its cost: product thinker reads `audit` and essentially nothing else, which makes itd-99's "never hand a product thinker a technical decision" mechanically checkable. Same grill corrected a wrong finding: iss-246 was filed claiming abcd's record documents a surface far larger than the binary with no gate catching it; **false** — the `Status` column in 04-surfaces/README.md is machine-checked by `surface_coverage` (iss-35), the brief carries ~100 inline `design target` markers, and adr-5 makes the brief aspirational by design. The real defect is narrower: `surface_coverage` is blind *inside* a row, so six of twenty rows read `shipped` then qualify themselves in prose, and documents outside the registry cite those sub-verbs as live (all three citing **predecessor-store** spec ids spc-29/spc-30, whose prose survived the migration to the native store). Fix per adr-40 §6: sub-verb tables carrying two facts per verb — bucket and existence — with `surface_coverage` extended to registered cobra sub-commands, one table serving both disciplines. Also established: the twelve-step record walk completes at ten steps; step 2 (`capture promote`) has no verb and step 12 (`capture resolve`) cannot write `resolved_by`, so **walkability is sequenced before coherence** — renaming ~90 files across a process nobody can walk is polish before function. Plan at plans/2026-08-16-process-coherence-and-walkability.md; six intents to plan, none plannable unattended. Rejected: one polymorphic `review <id>` verb (merges the disjoint families, erases the role signal), classifying acts rather than surfaces (makes the bucket a statement of intent rather than a guarantee, and hands product thinkers lint findings), three buckets without `gate` (forces `intent ready` to become `intent lint`), and adding `verify`/`validate` (itd-109's verification suite is a packaging of lints and audits, not a fifth kind).
• iss-246`surface_coverage` is blind inside a row, so `shipped` means "the top-level verb exists" and every unbuilt sub-verb hides behind it.
• iss-251Two lint engines under one vocabulary: internal/core/repolint (post-itd-6 rename; Rule/Evaluate/tri-state exit) and internal/core/lint (RuleConfig/Finding stream) are separate engines with separate rule models and config schemas, already entangled (repolint's rule_docs.go wraps docs-lint as a conformance rule). Every new rule author must pick an engine. Consolidating the rule models is a deliberate future intent - deliberately kept out of the itd-123-era rename sweep after adversarial review of merge-now vs rename-only.
• iss-2609020833531987docs/reference/writing-style.md gained a Structure-table row for harness_leak at v0.7.1 but its Escapes section (lines 81 to 90) still lists the docs-lint allow families as present_tense, punctuation, spelling, harness and names, and says the other machine-enforced rules have no line escape; harness_leak is in neither list, and it does take a line escape under a different token: checkHarnessLeak skips a line carrying abcd-lint:allow (or the pre-spc-29 abcd-audit:allow) and does not honour the docs-lint allow comment, and a fenced block is never flagged. A reader applies the wrong escape token or believes none exists. One sentence after line 88 closes it. Found by the v0.7.1 docs-currency pass on the release content commit; deferred from the receipt to this record.
• iss-2609260234039115The brief's press release carries the Forward-looking discipline bullet twice under What's In Scope, and the two copies contradict each other: the first (re-added by c4fc433e) says /abcd:intent grill is a sibling sub-verb of refine and that /abcd:intent consistency shipped in spc-29, while the second (from 7c3fe74c) says grill, consistency and shape are designed and not yet built. Neither refine nor grill is a registered sub-verb, and spc-29 is a predecessor-store id. Which bullet stands is the product thinker's call, since the page is the headline product in the product thinker's words; the stale copy should then be removed.
• iss-2609261536147903Planned intents and disciplines still cite specs of the retired predecessor store unqualified, and such an id at or below spc-70 resolves to a live spec on another subject (spc-12, for one, is live as the disembark grounding spec): itd-48, itd-50 and itd-53 name spc-12, spc-28, spc-29, spc-31, spc-33, spc-43 and spc-52 for the fidelity reviewer, lifecycle hook and cleanup work (which of these are predecessor ids is itself the reading this record owes); itd-24 names spc-66 as the phase-audit receipt; itd-1 and itd-37 name spc-12 as the manual reviewer. The specs charter (Two spc-N Namespaces) rules that every predecessor citation carries the '(predecessor store)' qualifier; iss-239 applied it to the draft corpus only. Each site needs a reading to tell a predecessor citation from a live one, which is why the sweep was not folded into iss-239.
• iss-2609290448510918The predecessor-store qualifier sweep reaches past the six intents iss-2609261536147903 named: outside drafts/ and those six, 192 citation sites across about forty intents name a spc-N at or below spc-70 that is not the citing intent's own spec, with no '(predecessor store)' on the line. Some are live cross-references (the cold-reading family's intents cite each other's live specs), and some are the predecessor store's (itd-4, itd-6, itd-29, itd-47 and itd-49 describe pre-rebuild work in its terms), so each site needs the same reading against the live spec it collides with; the specs charter's Two spc-N Namespaces section is the rule. Found while sweeping the pattern of iss-2609261536147903 in lane drainDrift3; a census script over intents/{planned,shipped,disciplines} reproduces the count.
• itd-16`/abcd:audit` Is the Umbrella; Conversation/Edit Chain Is Its Default Application
• itd-29Domain Experts Run A Spec Autonomously And Recover From Anything Without Touching Git
• itd-48`intent-fidelity-reviewer` Gains Its Cross-Doc And Kind-Classification Roles
• itd-85A Read-Only Repo-Conformance Audit
• itd-125The Lifeboat Verdict Says What It Is
• spc-27the-registry-cannot-wave-its-hands-every-surface-file-carrie