Kjell Tore Guttormsen
737127a14c
Through 0.4.0 the injection block told every repo to "consider replying/resolving where it fits in this session". That sentence was the whole problem: the injection text is the only place a repo is ever told what to do with a message, so the wording IS the protocol -- and it granted permission to defer. Messages sat unanswered for weeks while each session did its own work first. Nothing was broken; the protocol was asking for exactly what it got. The block now states an ordering and a completion obligation: handle the inbox before the task the session came to do, and drive every directed message to a terminal state before the session ends (--reply-to or coord-done). Neither terminal state is the default -- the format has no reply-expected field, so mandating only the reply would manufacture traffic for messages that merely inform. Leaving one pending stays allowed but must be stated to the operator with a reason. Raising priority deliberately does not widen the trust boundary. The obligation is procedural, never substantive: responding is mandatory, complying with what a message asks is not. Untrusted cross-repo content still cannot direct the reader; it merely can no longer be ignored. The injection states both halves and selftest section 20 pins them together, so a future reword cannot keep the priority and quietly drop the distinction -- that combination would turn prioritization into an injection surface. Selftest 82 -> 93. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01U6EixQo6hpoRCVtiAXdnFs
12 lines
192 B
JSON
12 lines
192 B
JSON
{
|
|
"name": "repo-mailbox",
|
|
"version": "0.5.0",
|
|
"private": true,
|
|
"type": "module",
|
|
"engines": {
|
|
"node": ">=18"
|
|
},
|
|
"scripts": {
|
|
"test": "node --test tests/*.test.mjs"
|
|
}
|
|
}
|