didericis
034f774529
test / integration (pull_request) Successful in 10s
tracker-policy-pr / check-pr (pull_request) Successful in 11s
test / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 39s
test / unit (pull_request) Successful in 1m30s
prd-number / assign-numbers (push) Failing after 10s
test / integration (push) Successful in 7s
test / unit (push) Successful in 30s
lint / lint (push) Successful in 42s
test / coverage (push) Successful in 35s
Update Quality Badges / update-badges (push) Successful in 34s
Closes #412. The supervise MCP server blocked the agent's tool call polling for the operator's decision, and on timeout returned `status: pending` with no proposal id and no way to poll a specific proposal — so the only way to learn a late decision was to re-propose (a duplicate). - `handle_tools_call` pending timeout now returns the `proposal_id` and points the agent at `check-proposal`. - New `check-proposal` MCP tool: non-blocking status lookup by proposal id (pending | approved | modified | rejected | unknown). Reuses the queue's FileNotFoundError semantics; archives a decided proposal exactly like the synchronous path, so a pending proposal stays visible to the operator until it's both decided and polled. - `TOOL_CHECK_PROPOSAL` constant, re-exported from supervise; kept out of TOOLS since it never becomes a Proposal.tool. Enforcement is unchanged — the tools only propose policy; the egress proxy and git-gate still enforce — so returning early opens no hole. Follow-ups (git-gate reject-requeue, backpressure, notifications, web console) are in the PRD. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YBCHap11yGAKuKfsehNPaD
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 - Superseded by PRD NNNN — replaced by a later PRD; kept for history.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.