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
Docs
How this project records what it builds and why — and a guide to picking the right document for what you're capturing.
When to write which document
| Artifact | For |
|---|---|
Design workflow (docs/design-workflow.md) |
How discussion becomes canonical design, how dependencies are recorded, and when implementation may begin. |
Glossary (docs/glossary.md) |
Canonical term definitions — what words mean in this project. |
PRD (docs/prds/) |
A feature: what to build, scope, success criteria. |
Research note (docs/research/) |
A landscape/tradeoff investigation. |
Decision record (docs/decisions/) |
A decision that isn't itself a feature — a policy, a convention, a "we will / won't do this," or a load-bearing choice made inside a larger PRD that deserves to be discoverable on its own. |
A decision that's fully specified by a PRD doesn't need duplicating in a decision record. Write one when the decision would otherwise be buried in prose, lost in an issue thread, or have no in-repo home at all (small requests that don't merit a PRD; non-feature choices like merge strategy or a trust posture).