Maintainer guide
The review gate, ground truth, and keeping the wiki honest.
The review gate
Every change is reviewed as a skeptical maintainer before it is pushed. The
role card in .agents/agents/reviewer.md describes the gate for an agent
session; the criteria are the same for a person.
- Does the change satisfy its stated scope, and is it the smallest clean change that does so?
- Does it respect the invariants: one engine, wrap AgentFS rather than reimplement it, one writer per session file, no automatic expiry, no chat, and engine-native search?
- Is every committed file and commit message free of internal process, tracking, task, or scratch-area references?
- Do the tests assert real behaviour, and does the wiki reflect what the code
now does? Was
docs/log.mdupdated for wiki changes?
A review returns either a pass or a list of concrete issues with a proposed fix. The human holds the final decision to push.
Ground truth
The wiki reflects status quo. When the code and a page disagree, the code wins, and the correction is recorded in the log. Pages that describe an intended design say so in plain words, so a reader never mistakes a plan for a shipped feature.
The internal progress log is not part of the wiki. It lives in the gitignored scratch area.