go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs #100

Closed
#104
Closed
go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs#100
#104

Description

@Shashankss1205
Shashankss1205
opened on Aug 8, 2026

Found by dogfooding the first-run path (grapharc init → plan → go).

What happens

grapharc go <run-dir> executes the saved plan and stamps executed_run_id into plan.json. Running it again on the same directory executes it again — and overwrites the stamp, rather than recording that this plan has now run more than once.

grapharc init
grapharc plan "look into the outage" --scripted --trace r5/p.jsonl --run-id p5
grapharc go r5 # exit 0
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, runs the whole graph again
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, and again
plan.json executed_run_id : f81e7318e9dc
runs in the trace : ['b563daf1c7db', '1f792472a215', 'f81e7318e9dc']
3 executions happened; plan.json names 1

Why it matters

Two separate things, and the second is the one I care about.

  1. The plan record disagrees with the trace. The trace is the audit trail and it is correct — three runs are in it. plan.json is what show_graph / graph_status and the MCP path read to answer "did this plan run, and as what?", and it now points at the third run as though it were the only one. A reader of the record cannot discover that the first two happened.

  2. One approval, N executions. The approval gate binds a decision to a proposal fingerprint, which does not change between these runs — so a plan approved once can be executed repeatedly by re-issuing go <dir>, with no further gate, as long as --approve is not passed again. For a mutating: true plan that is an agent editing the tree once per invocation on the strength of a single human yes. Bare grapharc go already declines to re-run an executed plan (find_unexecuted_plan skips them); the explicitly-named-directory form does not make the same check.

What to consider

  • go <dir> on a plan that already carries an executed_run_id: refuse by default with the id and timestamp of the previous run, and require --again (or --force) to proceed. Explicit re-runs stay possible; silent ones stop.
  • Make the record accumulate: executed_run_ids: [...] rather than a scalar that the next run clobbers. The scalar can stay as the newest for compatibility.
  • Consider whether a re-run of a mutating plan should re-park even without --approve, since the earlier approval was given for one execution.

Out of scope

The fingerprint protocol — it is doing its job. This is about the plan record, not the decision.

Acceptance criteria

A second go <dir> on an executed plan is refused unless the re-run is asked for explicitly; the plan record can name every run that executed it; bare grapharc go behaves as it does today.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

      Skip to content
      go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs #100
      Closed
      #104
      Closed
      go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs#100
      #104
      Description
      @Shashankss1205
      Shashankss1205
      opened on Aug 8, 2026
      Found by dogfooding the first-run path (grapharc init → plan → go).
      What happens
      grapharc go <run-dir> executes the saved plan and stamps executed_run_id into plan.json. Running it again on the same directory executes it again — and overwrites the stamp, rather than recording that this plan has now run more than once.
      grapharc init
grapharc plan "look into the outage" --scripted --trace r5/p.jsonl --run-id p5
grapharc go r5 # exit 0
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, runs the whole graph again
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, and again
      plan.json executed_run_id : f81e7318e9dc
runs in the trace : ['b563daf1c7db', '1f792472a215', 'f81e7318e9dc']
3 executions happened; plan.json names 1

      Why it matters
      Two separate things, and the second is the one I care about.
      1. The plan record disagrees with the trace. The trace is the audit trail and it is correct — three runs are in it. plan.json is what show_graph / graph_status and the MCP path read to answer "did this plan run, and as what?", and it now points at the third run as though it were the only one. A reader of the record cannot discover that the first two happened.
      2. One approval, N executions. The approval gate binds a decision to a proposal fingerprint, which does not change between these runs — so a plan approved once can be executed repeatedly by re-issuing go <dir>, with no further gate, as long as --approve is not passed again. For a mutating: true plan that is an agent editing the tree once per invocation on the strength of a single human yes. Bare grapharc go already declines to re-run an executed plan (find_unexecuted_plan skips them); the explicitly-named-directory form does not make the same check.
      What to consider
      • go <dir> on a plan that already carries an executed_run_id: refuse by default with the id and timestamp of the previous run, and require --again (or --force) to proceed. Explicit re-runs stay possible; silent ones stop.
      • Make the record accumulate: executed_run_ids: [...] rather than a scalar that the next run clobbers. The scalar can stay as the newest for compatibility.
      • Consider whether a re-run of a mutating plan should re-park even without --approve, since the earlier approval was given for one execution.
      Out of scope
      The fingerprint protocol — it is doing its job. This is about the plan record, not the decision.
      Acceptance criteria
      A second go <dir> on an executed plan is refused unless the re-run is asked for explicitly; the plan record can name every run that executed it; bare grapharc go behaves as it does today.
      🤖 Generated with Claude Code
      Activity
      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

          Skip to content
          go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs #100
          Closed
          #104
          Closed
          go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs#100
          #104
          Description
          @Shashankss1205
          Shashankss1205
          opened on Aug 8, 2026
          Found by dogfooding the first-run path (grapharc init → plan → go).
          What happens
          grapharc go <run-dir> executes the saved plan and stamps executed_run_id into plan.json. Running it again on the same directory executes it again — and overwrites the stamp, rather than recording that this plan has now run more than once.
          grapharc init
grapharc plan "look into the outage" --scripted --trace r5/p.jsonl --run-id p5
grapharc go r5 # exit 0
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, runs the whole graph again
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, and again
          plan.json executed_run_id : f81e7318e9dc
runs in the trace : ['b563daf1c7db', '1f792472a215', 'f81e7318e9dc']
3 executions happened; plan.json names 1

          Why it matters
          Two separate things, and the second is the one I care about.
          1. The plan record disagrees with the trace. The trace is the audit trail and it is correct — three runs are in it. plan.json is what show_graph / graph_status and the MCP path read to answer "did this plan run, and as what?", and it now points at the third run as though it were the only one. A reader of the record cannot discover that the first two happened.
          2. One approval, N executions. The approval gate binds a decision to a proposal fingerprint, which does not change between these runs — so a plan approved once can be executed repeatedly by re-issuing go <dir>, with no further gate, as long as --approve is not passed again. For a mutating: true plan that is an agent editing the tree once per invocation on the strength of a single human yes. Bare grapharc go already declines to re-run an executed plan (find_unexecuted_plan skips them); the explicitly-named-directory form does not make the same check.
          What to consider
          • go <dir> on a plan that already carries an executed_run_id: refuse by default with the id and timestamp of the previous run, and require --again (or --force) to proceed. Explicit re-runs stay possible; silent ones stop.
          • Make the record accumulate: executed_run_ids: [...] rather than a scalar that the next run clobbers. The scalar can stay as the newest for compatibility.
          • Consider whether a re-run of a mutating plan should re-park even without --approve, since the earlier approval was given for one execution.
          Out of scope
          The fingerprint protocol — it is doing its job. This is about the plan record, not the decision.
          Acceptance criteria
          A second go <dir> on an executed plan is refused unless the re-run is asked for explicitly; the plan record can name every run that executed it; bare grapharc go behaves as it does today.
          🤖 Generated with Claude Code
          Activity
          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs #100
              Closed
              #104
              Closed
              go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs#100
              #104
              Description
              @Shashankss1205
              Shashankss1205
              opened on Aug 8, 2026
              Found by dogfooding the first-run path (grapharc init → plan → go).
              What happens
              grapharc go <run-dir> executes the saved plan and stamps executed_run_id into plan.json. Running it again on the same directory executes it again — and overwrites the stamp, rather than recording that this plan has now run more than once.
              grapharc init
grapharc plan "look into the outage" --scripted --trace r5/p.jsonl --run-id p5
grapharc go r5 # exit 0
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, runs the whole graph again
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, and again
              plan.json executed_run_id : f81e7318e9dc
runs in the trace : ['b563daf1c7db', '1f792472a215', 'f81e7318e9dc']
3 executions happened; plan.json names 1

              Why it matters
              Two separate things, and the second is the one I care about.
              1. The plan record disagrees with the trace. The trace is the audit trail and it is correct — three runs are in it. plan.json is what show_graph / graph_status and the MCP path read to answer "did this plan run, and as what?", and it now points at the third run as though it were the only one. A reader of the record cannot discover that the first two happened.
              2. One approval, N executions. The approval gate binds a decision to a proposal fingerprint, which does not change between these runs — so a plan approved once can be executed repeatedly by re-issuing go <dir>, with no further gate, as long as --approve is not passed again. For a mutating: true plan that is an agent editing the tree once per invocation on the strength of a single human yes. Bare grapharc go already declines to re-run an executed plan (find_unexecuted_plan skips them); the explicitly-named-directory form does not make the same check.
              What to consider
              • go <dir> on a plan that already carries an executed_run_id: refuse by default with the id and timestamp of the previous run, and require --again (or --force) to proceed. Explicit re-runs stay possible; silent ones stop.
              • Make the record accumulate: executed_run_ids: [...] rather than a scalar that the next run clobbers. The scalar can stay as the newest for compatibility.
              • Consider whether a re-run of a mutating plan should re-park even without --approve, since the earlier approval was given for one execution.
              Out of scope
              The fingerprint protocol — it is doing its job. This is about the plan record, not the decision.
              Acceptance criteria
              A second go <dir> on an executed plan is refused unless the re-run is asked for explicitly; the plan record can name every run that executed it; bare grapharc go behaves as it does today.
              🤖 Generated with Claude Code
              Activity
              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

                  Skip to content
                  go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs #100
                  Closed
                  #104
                  Closed
                  go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs#100
                  #104
                  Description
                  @Shashankss1205
                  Shashankss1205
                  opened on Aug 8, 2026
                  Found by dogfooding the first-run path (grapharc init → plan → go).
                  What happens
                  grapharc go <run-dir> executes the saved plan and stamps executed_run_id into plan.json. Running it again on the same directory executes it again — and overwrites the stamp, rather than recording that this plan has now run more than once.
                  grapharc init
grapharc plan "look into the outage" --scripted --trace r5/p.jsonl --run-id p5
grapharc go r5 # exit 0
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, runs the whole graph again
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, and again
                  plan.json executed_run_id : f81e7318e9dc
runs in the trace : ['b563daf1c7db', '1f792472a215', 'f81e7318e9dc']
3 executions happened; plan.json names 1

                  Why it matters
                  Two separate things, and the second is the one I care about.
                  1. The plan record disagrees with the trace. The trace is the audit trail and it is correct — three runs are in it. plan.json is what show_graph / graph_status and the MCP path read to answer "did this plan run, and as what?", and it now points at the third run as though it were the only one. A reader of the record cannot discover that the first two happened.
                  2. One approval, N executions. The approval gate binds a decision to a proposal fingerprint, which does not change between these runs — so a plan approved once can be executed repeatedly by re-issuing go <dir>, with no further gate, as long as --approve is not passed again. For a mutating: true plan that is an agent editing the tree once per invocation on the strength of a single human yes. Bare grapharc go already declines to re-run an executed plan (find_unexecuted_plan skips them); the explicitly-named-directory form does not make the same check.
                  What to consider
                  • go <dir> on a plan that already carries an executed_run_id: refuse by default with the id and timestamp of the previous run, and require --again (or --force) to proceed. Explicit re-runs stay possible; silent ones stop.
                  • Make the record accumulate: executed_run_ids: [...] rather than a scalar that the next run clobbers. The scalar can stay as the newest for compatibility.
                  • Consider whether a re-run of a mutating plan should re-park even without --approve, since the earlier approval was given for one execution.
                  Out of scope
                  The fingerprint protocol — it is doing its job. This is about the plan record, not the decision.
                  Acceptance criteria
                  A second go <dir> on an executed plan is refused unless the re-run is asked for explicitly; the plan record can name every run that executed it; bare grapharc go behaves as it does today.
                  🤖 Generated with Claude Code
                  Activity
                  Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    No labels
                    No labels
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                      Skip to content
                      go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs #100
                      Closed
                      #104
                      Closed
                      go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs#100
                      #104
                      Description
                      @Shashankss1205
                      Shashankss1205
                      opened on Aug 8, 2026
                      Found by dogfooding the first-run path (grapharc init → plan → go).
                      What happens
                      grapharc go <run-dir> executes the saved plan and stamps executed_run_id into plan.json. Running it again on the same directory executes it again — and overwrites the stamp, rather than recording that this plan has now run more than once.
                      grapharc init
grapharc plan "look into the outage" --scripted --trace r5/p.jsonl --run-id p5
grapharc go r5 # exit 0
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, runs the whole graph again
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, and again
                      plan.json executed_run_id : f81e7318e9dc
runs in the trace : ['b563daf1c7db', '1f792472a215', 'f81e7318e9dc']
3 executions happened; plan.json names 1

                      Why it matters
                      Two separate things, and the second is the one I care about.
                      1. The plan record disagrees with the trace. The trace is the audit trail and it is correct — three runs are in it. plan.json is what show_graph / graph_status and the MCP path read to answer "did this plan run, and as what?", and it now points at the third run as though it were the only one. A reader of the record cannot discover that the first two happened.
                      2. One approval, N executions. The approval gate binds a decision to a proposal fingerprint, which does not change between these runs — so a plan approved once can be executed repeatedly by re-issuing go <dir>, with no further gate, as long as --approve is not passed again. For a mutating: true plan that is an agent editing the tree once per invocation on the strength of a single human yes. Bare grapharc go already declines to re-run an executed plan (find_unexecuted_plan skips them); the explicitly-named-directory form does not make the same check.
                      What to consider
                      • go <dir> on a plan that already carries an executed_run_id: refuse by default with the id and timestamp of the previous run, and require --again (or --force) to proceed. Explicit re-runs stay possible; silent ones stop.
                      • Make the record accumulate: executed_run_ids: [...] rather than a scalar that the next run clobbers. The scalar can stay as the newest for compatibility.
                      • Consider whether a re-run of a mutating plan should re-park even without --approve, since the earlier approval was given for one execution.
                      Out of scope
                      The fingerprint protocol — it is doing its job. This is about the plan record, not the decision.
                      Acceptance criteria
                      A second go <dir> on an executed plan is refused unless the re-run is asked for explicitly; the plan record can name every run that executed it; bare grapharc go behaves as it does today.
                      🤖 Generated with Claude Code
                      Activity
                      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        No labels
                        No labels
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                          Skip to content
                          go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs #100
                          Closed
                          #104
                          Closed
                          go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs#100
                          #104
                          Description
                          @Shashankss1205
                          Shashankss1205
                          opened on Aug 8, 2026
                          Found by dogfooding the first-run path (grapharc init → plan → go).
                          What happens
                          grapharc go <run-dir> executes the saved plan and stamps executed_run_id into plan.json. Running it again on the same directory executes it again — and overwrites the stamp, rather than recording that this plan has now run more than once.
                          grapharc init
grapharc plan "look into the outage" --scripted --trace r5/p.jsonl --run-id p5
grapharc go r5 # exit 0
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, runs the whole graph again
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, and again
                          plan.json executed_run_id : f81e7318e9dc
runs in the trace : ['b563daf1c7db', '1f792472a215', 'f81e7318e9dc']
3 executions happened; plan.json names 1

                          Why it matters
                          Two separate things, and the second is the one I care about.
                          1. The plan record disagrees with the trace. The trace is the audit trail and it is correct — three runs are in it. plan.json is what show_graph / graph_status and the MCP path read to answer "did this plan run, and as what?", and it now points at the third run as though it were the only one. A reader of the record cannot discover that the first two happened.
                          2. One approval, N executions. The approval gate binds a decision to a proposal fingerprint, which does not change between these runs — so a plan approved once can be executed repeatedly by re-issuing go <dir>, with no further gate, as long as --approve is not passed again. For a mutating: true plan that is an agent editing the tree once per invocation on the strength of a single human yes. Bare grapharc go already declines to re-run an executed plan (find_unexecuted_plan skips them); the explicitly-named-directory form does not make the same check.
                          What to consider
                          • go <dir> on a plan that already carries an executed_run_id: refuse by default with the id and timestamp of the previous run, and require --again (or --force) to proceed. Explicit re-runs stay possible; silent ones stop.
                          • Make the record accumulate: executed_run_ids: [...] rather than a scalar that the next run clobbers. The scalar can stay as the newest for compatibility.
                          • Consider whether a re-run of a mutating plan should re-park even without --approve, since the earlier approval was given for one execution.
                          Out of scope
                          The fingerprint protocol — it is doing its job. This is about the plan record, not the decision.
                          Acceptance criteria
                          A second go <dir> on an executed plan is refused unless the re-run is asked for explicitly; the plan record can name every run that executed it; bare grapharc go behaves as it does today.
                          🤖 Generated with Claude Code
                          Activity
                          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            No labels
                            No labels
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                              Skip to content
                              go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs #100
                              Closed
                              #104
                              Closed
                              go <dir> re-executes an already-executed plan silently, and plan.json forgets the earlier runs#100
                              #104
                              Description
                              @Shashankss1205
                              Shashankss1205
                              opened on Aug 8, 2026
                              Found by dogfooding the first-run path (grapharc init → plan → go).
                              What happens
                              grapharc go <run-dir> executes the saved plan and stamps executed_run_id into plan.json. Running it again on the same directory executes it again — and overwrites the stamp, rather than recording that this plan has now run more than once.
                              grapharc init
grapharc plan "look into the outage" --scripted --trace r5/p.jsonl --run-id p5
grapharc go r5 # exit 0
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, runs the whole graph again
grapharc go r5 # exit 0, and again
                              plan.json executed_run_id : f81e7318e9dc
runs in the trace : ['b563daf1c7db', '1f792472a215', 'f81e7318e9dc']
3 executions happened; plan.json names 1

                              Why it matters
                              Two separate things, and the second is the one I care about.
                              1. The plan record disagrees with the trace. The trace is the audit trail and it is correct — three runs are in it. plan.json is what show_graph / graph_status and the MCP path read to answer "did this plan run, and as what?", and it now points at the third run as though it were the only one. A reader of the record cannot discover that the first two happened.
                              2. One approval, N executions. The approval gate binds a decision to a proposal fingerprint, which does not change between these runs — so a plan approved once can be executed repeatedly by re-issuing go <dir>, with no further gate, as long as --approve is not passed again. For a mutating: true plan that is an agent editing the tree once per invocation on the strength of a single human yes. Bare grapharc go already declines to re-run an executed plan (find_unexecuted_plan skips them); the explicitly-named-directory form does not make the same check.
                              What to consider
                              • go <dir> on a plan that already carries an executed_run_id: refuse by default with the id and timestamp of the previous run, and require --again (or --force) to proceed. Explicit re-runs stay possible; silent ones stop.
                              • Make the record accumulate: executed_run_ids: [...] rather than a scalar that the next run clobbers. The scalar can stay as the newest for compatibility.
                              • Consider whether a re-run of a mutating plan should re-park even without --approve, since the earlier approval was given for one execution.
                              Out of scope
                              The fingerprint protocol — it is doing its job. This is about the plan record, not the decision.
                              Acceptance criteria
                              A second go <dir> on an executed plan is refused unless the re-run is asked for explicitly; the plan record can name every run that executed it; bare grapharc go behaves as it does today.
                              🤖 Generated with Claude Code
                              Activity
                              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                No labels
                                No labels
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions