didericis-claude
e53104d5c1
tracker-policy-pr / check-pr (pull_request) Successful in 7s
test / integration-docker (pull_request) Successful in 15s
test / unit (pull_request) Successful in 39s
test / integration-firecracker (pull_request) Successful in 3m55s
test / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 22s
test / publish-infra (pull_request) Has been skipped
prd-number / assign-numbers (push) Failing after 21s
test / integration-docker (push) Successful in 22s
lint / lint (push) Successful in 56s
Update Quality Badges / update-badges (push) Successful in 53s
test / unit (push) Successful in 1m52s
test / integration-firecracker (push) Successful in 5m2s
test / coverage (push) Successful in 16s
test / publish-infra (push) Successful in 1m56s
Remove the empty-key opt-out codex flagged: ControlPlaneProvisioning no longer lets the orchestrator start without a signing key when a backend declares an "isolated" topology. Host separation is not the safety condition — the gateway (and any other caller) must reach the control-plane listener for /resolve, so an open orchestrator would still grant them full `cli`. The signing key is now mandatory for every backend. Drops the now-purposeless Topology/COLOCATED machinery (no backend declared a non-default topology) and the contractual test_orchestrator_key_allows_empty_when_isolated. Updates the PRD's invariant 4 and lifecycle docstring accordingly. Docs/behaviour only otherwise. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Product requirement docs
One PRD per feature: what to build, why, and how it's scoped. The PRD
is the durable spec — it should stand on its own without a Gitea issue
thread (see ../README.md for when a PRD is the right
document vs. a research note or a decision record).
Naming and numbering
New PRDs use a prd-new-<kebab-title>.md placeholder name while the PR
is open. On merge to main a CI workflow assigns the next sequential
number (0024-…, 0025-…), renames the file, and updates the title
header. Numbers are never reused; gaps are fine.
Once numbered, the filename stays fixed for the life of the doc.
Status
The Status: line near the top tracks the PRD's lifecycle:
- Draft — proposed, not yet shipped.
- Active — the design has shipped to
mainand is in effect. - Superseded by PRD NNNN — replaced by a later PRD; kept for history.
- Retargeted by PRD NNNN — folded into a later PRD's scope.
Format
# PRD prd-new: <short title> ← placeholder; CI fills in the number on merge
- **Status:** Draft
- **Author:** <who>
- **Created:** YYYY-MM-DD
- **Issue:** #<n> # optional — convenience pointer only
## Summary
One paragraph: what this builds and the pain it solves.
## Problem
The current state and why it's inadequate.
## Goals / Success Criteria
Bullets a reviewer can check the finished work against.
## Non-goals
What this explicitly does not do — and won't, to head off scope creep.
## Scope
In scope / out of scope, when the boundary needs spelling out.
## Design
How it works: schema, data flow, diagrams, algorithms as needed.
## Implementation chunks
Ordered, mergeable steps (optional; for multi-PR features).
## Open questions
Unresolved decisions — resolve or fold into Design before shipping.
Sections are a guide, not a straitjacket: drop the ones a given PRD doesn't need (a small change rarely needs Scope or Implementation chunks) and add others where they help (e.g. Testing strategy, Alternatives considered, References). Keep the rationale self-contained — inline the reasoning rather than linking out to an issue thread, so the PRD survives a move off Gitea.