Round 5 (v6.2.0..d37e538, WARN: 11 MAJOR, 2 MINOR). The patching did not converge (the same two places every round), so the operator chose a structural fix on 2026-10-11. Each change behind a test that failed first. - A check runs with no shell. criteria-runner's runCommand starts the runner with the very words the screen checked (spawnSync(words[0], words.slice(1)), without NODE_TEST_CONTEXT); Phase 7 criteria, Regression: (its exec copy is gone, MINOR 0e98d5c7), proof of red, the done line and the test lock all run through it. No quote, glob, tilde or variable can rewrite a checked word any more. The screen stays and says why: a word that means something else in a shell (quote, backslash, $, brace, leading ~) is refused; a glob reaches only node --test, which expands its own patterns (sh read `tests/.?/` as `tests/../`); no path climbs out with .. or starts at /; a word starting with @ is refused (pytest reads @file as more arguments). - The K6 plan-file sweep has v6.2.0's own Files: reader again (516dffa): backticked paths, and plain words only in a field without them. The shared reader from round 3 planned directories a description named and dropped paths v6.2.0 planned. fieldPaths stays for the tests-only check, with a path test on spans (`parse()`, `p.parse()` are no paths), plain descriptions ignored when the field has backticked paths, dotfiles, backslash paths and glued spans read. - Skill frontmatter reads a value as YAML does: trailing space is nothing, and a comment ends a plain value, a flow list or a block indicator (`model: opus # pinned`). A comment that cuts a plain description, or is the whole value, is still a hazard. - release-check reads the diff with --no-renames: a test moved into an allowed place after the review shows as removed. - The example plan's step 2 heading no longer says "must FAIL initially"; steps 1-2 keep the tests-only warning (operator 2026-10-09,73262b6). Open: MINOR c1fef1ad (one shared isMain helper) is not in this round. Measured: 0 of 463 Files: fields with backticked paths (520 fields in 182 plans across the marketplace repos) carry another path-like word. Suite 2185 (2183/0/2). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
7 KiB
| type | brief_version | created | task | slug | project_dir | research_topics | research_status | auto_research | interview_turns | source | framing | ceremony | artifact_store | phase_signals | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| trekbrief | 2.2 |
|
{one-line task description} |
|
.claude/projects/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}/ |
|
pending | false |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task: {title}
Generated by
/trekbriefon {YYYY-MM-DD}. This brief is the contract between requirements and planning./trekplanreads it to produce the implementation plan. Every decision in the plan must trace back to content in this brief.
TL;DR
≤ 5 lines. The framing-anchored one-glance summary: what this brief asks for and how it relates to prior operator intent (framing: {preserve | refine | replace | new-direction}). Written FIRST so a reader catches a wrong premise before reading the full brief. Required at brief_version ≥ 2.2.
{≤5-line summary.}
Intent
Why are we doing this? What is the motivation, user need, or strategic context? 3-5 sentences. Load-bearing for the plan — every implementation decision must trace back to this intent.
{Intent paragraph. Answers "why bother?".}
Goal
What does success look like concretely? What state will the system be in when this is done? 1 paragraph. Specific enough to disagree with.
{Goal paragraph.}
Non-Goals
What is explicitly out of scope? Prevents plan-critic and scope-guardian from flagging gaps for things we deliberately do not do.
- {non-goal 1}
- {non-goal 2}
Constraints
Technical, time, or resource limitations. Hard boundaries the plan must respect.
- {constraint 1}
- {constraint 2}
Preferences
Preferred patterns, frameworks, libraries, or approaches. Soft constraints (the plan may deviate with justification).
- {preference 1}
- {preference 2}
Non-Functional Requirements
Performance, security, accessibility, scalability, or other quality attributes. Quantified where possible.
- {NFR 1 — e.g., "p95 response time < 200ms"}
- {NFR 2 — e.g., "Zero new npm dependencies"}
Success Criteria
Falsifiable, command-checkable conditions that define "done". Each must be verifiable by running a specific command or observing a specific system behavior.
- {criterion — e.g., "All existing tests pass:
npm testexits 0"} - {criterion — e.g., "New endpoint answers ok:
bash tests/health.shexits 0 (the script calls the endpoint and checks the status field)"} - {criterion — e.g., "No TypeScript errors:
npm run typecheckexits 0"}
One command per criterion, from the runner's allowlist (npm test, npm run <script>,
node --test, pytest, bash tests/<script>.sh, …), with no pipe or &&,
in plain words (it runs with no shell: no quote, $ or glob outside node --test).
Anything else is wrapped in a script under tests/; otherwise the review
reports the criterion as NOT RUN.
Do NOT write vague criteria:
- "It should work" (not testable)
- "The feature is implemented" (not falsifiable)
- "Performance is acceptable" (no baseline given)
Research Plan
Explicit research topics that must be answered before /trekplan can
produce a high-confidence plan. Each topic is phrased as a research question ready
to feed into /trekresearch. Topics may be empty (N=0) for trivial tasks
where the codebase alone is sufficient context.
{If research_topics = 0, write a single line: "No external research needed — the codebase and this brief contain sufficient context for planning."}
Topic 1: {Short title}
- Why this matters: {How the plan depends on this answer. Which steps or decisions cannot be made confidently without it.}
- Research question: "{Exact question to feed to /trekresearch.
One sentence, ends in
?.}" - Suggested invocation:
/trekresearch --project {project_dir} --external "{question}" - Required for plan steps: {which kinds of steps will consume this — e.g., "migration strategy", "library selection", "threat model"}
- Confidence needed: {high | medium | low}
- Estimated cost: {quick — inline research | standard — agent swarm | deep — with contrarian}
- Scope hint: {local | external | both}
Topic 2: {Short title}
- Why this matters: ...
- Research question: "..."
- Suggested invocation:
/trekresearch --project {project_dir} ... - Required for plan steps: ...
- Confidence needed: ...
- Estimated cost: ...
- Scope hint: ...
Open Questions / Assumptions
Things still uncertain after the interview. These are carried as [ASSUMPTION]
entries into the plan and flagged to the user for review.
- {question or assumption 1}
- {question or assumption 2}
Prior Attempts
What has been tried before and what happened. Leave blank for fresh tasks. Prior attempts are load-bearing — they prevent the plan from repeating known failures.
{Prior attempts narrative, or "None — fresh task."}
Metadata
- Created: {YYYY-MM-DD}
- Interview turns: {N}
- Auto-research opted in: {yes | no}
- Source: {trekbrief interview | manual}
How to continue
Manual (default):
# Run each research topic (order does not matter):
/trekresearch --project {project_dir} --external "{Topic 1 question}"
/trekresearch --project {project_dir} --external "{Topic 2 question}"
# Then plan:
/trekplan --project {project_dir}
# Then execute:
/trekexecute --project {project_dir}
Auto (opt-in during /trekbrief): research and planning run
automatically; only execution is manual.