didericis
e847d51a71
`test` chains up -> run -> status -> down, which is the loop you actually want when verifying a clean install. Three things make it more than a convenience wrapper: * It refuses to start against an existing account. A reused home is not a clean install, so testing one silently would defeat the harness. * It tears the account down from an EXIT/INT trap armed the moment the account exists, so a failed run — or a Ctrl-C mid-install — still leaves the machine clean. BB_TEST_KEEP=1 opts out to poke at a failure. * Its verdict is stricter than the installer's. install.sh exits 0 when it finishes but `doctor` reports unmet prerequisites, so "the installer succeeded" is not a useful assertion; `test` fails if the install fails, if bot-bottle never reached the new user's PATH, or if doctor is unhappy. That meant giving cmd_status a real exit status instead of swallowing doctor's. Also fixes two bugs in `run`'s installer staging, by removing the staging entirely and feeding install.sh in on stdin: * `mktemp /tmp/bb-install.XXXXXX.sh` did not do what it looks like. BSD mktemp only substitutes trailing Xs, so every run wrote the *same* predictable path, as root, mode 644, in a world-writable directory. * The cleanup only ran on the normal and failure returns, so an interrupted run leaked the file. Piping on stdin sidesteps both: root opens the redirect before sudo drops privileges, so the mode-700 home that motivated the staging is a non-issue, there is no file to leak, and `sh -s` matches the documented `curl … | sh` shape more closely than executing a staged copy did. The command-level `exit 1`s become `return 1` so the steps compose under the trap, and the "next, run this" hints are suppressed inside `test`. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WEfZZhakx13bxTfXcZCoS5
Research notes
Investigations into a question or a design space — landscape surveys,
tradeoff analyses, "should we do X or Y," assessments of an approach
before (or instead of) committing it to a PRD. A research note is where
the thinking lives; a PRD is where a decided feature lives, and a
decision record is where a settled choice lives (see
../README.md for picking between them).
Notes are opinionated. They reach a conclusion rather than dumping a neutral survey — the point is to move a decision forward and leave a durable record of why it went the way it did.
Naming
kebab-case-topic.md, named by subject and not numbered (unlike
PRDs and decision records). Pick a name that says what was
investigated: bash-vs-python-vs-go.md, pipelock-assessment.md,
issue-tracking-vs-in-repo-decision-history.md.
Shape (freeform)
There's no fixed template — use whatever structure fits the question. In practice most notes share a loose shape:
- Open with the question — a sentence or two on what's being investigated and why it came up.
- Lead with the verdict — a
## Summarynear the top stating the conclusion, so a reader gets the answer without reading the whole thing. - Then the analysis — whatever the argument needs: comparison tables, per-option sections, failure-mode walkthroughs, the axes that actually matter.
- End with a recommendation when the note exists to drive a decision.
Keep the reasoning self-contained and grounded: cite sources, link files and PRDs, and prefer concrete evidence from this repo over generic claims — a note should stand on its own without a chat log or a Gitea thread. When a note's recommendation gets acted on, capture the resulting decision in a PRD or a decision record; the note stays as the "why we looked into it," not the system of record for the choice.