didericis
cd9f023f3d
prd-number-check / require-numbered-prds (pull_request) Successful in 11s
tracker-policy-pr / check-pr (pull_request) Successful in 14s
test / unit (pull_request) Successful in 59s
test / integration-docker (pull_request) Successful in 1m6s
test / coverage (push) Successful in 21s
test / image-input-builds (push) Successful in 44s
test / image-input-builds (pull_request) Successful in 1m15s
test / unit (push) Successful in 57s
test / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 20s
lint / lint (push) Successful in 1m3s
Update Quality Badges / update-badges (push) Successful in 1m12s
test / integration-docker (push) Successful in 1m0s
`doctor` told users to run `./cli.py backend setup`. cli.py is a four-line wrapper at the repo root that calls bot_bottle.cli:main, and it does not ship — [tool.setuptools.packages.find] includes only bot_bottle*, so anyone who installed rather than cloned has no such file. Confirmed against a real install: the user's tree contains exactly one executable, `bot-bottle`, and no cli.py anywhere, while doctor recommended `./cli.py` three times. Invisible in development, where ./cli.py works fine from a checkout, which is why only a clean-install test surfaced it. The two entry points are the same code, so the fix is to name the one that always exists. 141 replacements across 45 files: the runtime messages that caused this, plus README, docs, PRDs, research notes and test prose, so nothing teaches the invocation a user cannot run. scripts/demo.sh is deliberately untouched — it *executes* ./cli.py from a checkout, where that is the correct and available path. Verified end to end: a sandbox install now reports "Run: bot-bottle backend setup --backend=firecracker", and bot-bottle is on that user's PATH. Unit suite unchanged against the pre-existing baseline. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WEfZZhakx13bxTfXcZCoS5
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 may use a prd-new-<kebab-title>.md placeholder name while the
design is being drafted. Before merge, assign the next sequential number
after the highest-numbered PRD on main, rename the file to
NNNN-<kebab-title>.md, and update the title header. CI blocks merging
while any prd-new-*.md placeholder remains. If concurrent PRs select the
same number, the later PR must take the next available number before it
merges. 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> ← replace with the final number before 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.