Skip to content

openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint #154

Closed
Closed
openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint#154
Labels
bugSomething isn't working

Description

@cfdude
cfdude
opened on Aug 29, 2026

Reproduced in this repository, just now

$ openspec validate --archived
✗ change/2026-08-25-conductor-tells-the-truth
✗ 1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)

pm reports the same file as 114/114 · 1 lifecycle, outstandingWork: 0, and the archive gate passes. The epic is archived · delivered.

Both are right about the checkboxes and disagree about what they mean.

The collision

pm ships a <!-- pm:lifecycle --> marker for a task that is bookkeeping about a change's own lifecycle — above all the task that archives the change itself, which is unticked at archive time by construction: it cannot be ticked before the thing that ticks it. outstandingWork()'s own docstring names this exactly — "a guard counting raw checkboxes would refuse every correctly finished change."

openspec validate --archivedis that guard. It counts raw checkboxes and has no knowledge of the marker. That file carries 8 lifecycle-marked tasks.

Why this is a live hazard rather than a curiosity

openspec validate --archived's own help text describes it as "for pre-commit linting." So any pm-managed repository that follows that advice gets a pre-commit hook which fails on every correctly-archived change — permanently, with no action that clears it, because ticking the archive task would be a false record and removing the marker would break pm's own gate.

That is not hypothetical: this repository would hit it today if it wired that command in, and the archive workflow pm documents produces the offending shape every time.

Found while

Investigating #123 (adopt the OpenSpec CLI surface for progress). That investigation concluded the CLI should not be adopted as a progress source, and this is the sharpest single reason: the two tools compute different quantities from the same file, and pm's is the one that makes its archive gate correct.

Options, none obviously right

  • Upstream: OpenSpec could ignore a task line carrying an HTML comment marker, or expose an exclusion mechanism. That is the clean fix and it is not ours to make.
  • pm side: document the incompatibility so nobody wires that command into a pm-managed repo expecting it to pass. Cheap, honest, and does not pretend to fix someone else's lint.
  • Neither: accept that the two disagree and say so where the marker is documented.

Recommend the pm-side documentation now and an upstream report separately — this issue exists so the collision is on the record either way, since the failure mode is confusing precisely when it appears (a green repo suddenly failing a lint on a change that shipped correctly).

Note on the counts

The count arrives only as prose inside a human-readable message ("1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)"), so it cannot be consumed programmatically without parsing English — which is why #123 also could not use it as a progress source even setting the semantics aside.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    bugSomething isn't working

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
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;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint · Issue #154 · cfdude/pm · GitHub
      Skip to content
      openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint #154
      Closed
      Closed
      openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint#154
      Labels
      bugSomething isn't working
      Description
      @cfdude
      cfdude
      opened on Aug 29, 2026
      Reproduced in this repository, just now
      $ openspec validate --archived
✗ change/2026-08-25-conductor-tells-the-truth
✗ 1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)

      pm reports the same file as 114/114 · 1 lifecycle, outstandingWork: 0, and the archive gate passes. The epic is archived · delivered.
      Both are right about the checkboxes and disagree about what they mean.
      The collision
      pm ships a <!-- pm:lifecycle --> marker for a task that is bookkeeping about a change's own lifecycle — above all the task that archives the change itself, which is unticked at archive time by construction: it cannot be ticked before the thing that ticks it. outstandingWork()'s own docstring names this exactly — "a guard counting raw checkboxes would refuse every correctly finished change."
      openspec validate --archivedis that guard. It counts raw checkboxes and has no knowledge of the marker. That file carries 8 lifecycle-marked tasks.
      Why this is a live hazard rather than a curiosity
      openspec validate --archived's own help text describes it as "for pre-commit linting." So any pm-managed repository that follows that advice gets a pre-commit hook which fails on every correctly-archived change — permanently, with no action that clears it, because ticking the archive task would be a false record and removing the marker would break pm's own gate.
      That is not hypothetical: this repository would hit it today if it wired that command in, and the archive workflow pm documents produces the offending shape every time.
      Found while
      Investigating #123 (adopt the OpenSpec CLI surface for progress). That investigation concluded the CLI should not be adopted as a progress source, and this is the sharpest single reason: the two tools compute different quantities from the same file, and pm's is the one that makes its archive gate correct.
      Options, none obviously right
      • Upstream: OpenSpec could ignore a task line carrying an HTML comment marker, or expose an exclusion mechanism. That is the clean fix and it is not ours to make.
      • pm side: document the incompatibility so nobody wires that command into a pm-managed repo expecting it to pass. Cheap, honest, and does not pretend to fix someone else's lint.
      • Neither: accept that the two disagree and say so where the marker is documented.
      Recommend the pm-side documentation now and an upstream report separately — this issue exists so the collision is on the record either way, since the failure mode is confusing precisely when it appears (a green repo suddenly failing a lint on a change that shipped correctly).
      Note on the counts
      The count arrives only as prose inside a human-readable message ("1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)"), so it cannot be consumed programmatically without parsing English — which is why #123 also could not use it as a progress source even setting the semantics aside.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        bugSomething isn't working
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint · Issue #154 · cfdude/pm · GitHub
          Skip to content
          openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint #154
          Closed
          Closed
          openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint#154
          Labels
          bugSomething isn't working
          Description
          @cfdude
          cfdude
          opened on Aug 29, 2026
          Reproduced in this repository, just now
          $ openspec validate --archived
✗ change/2026-08-25-conductor-tells-the-truth
✗ 1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)

          pm reports the same file as 114/114 · 1 lifecycle, outstandingWork: 0, and the archive gate passes. The epic is archived · delivered.
          Both are right about the checkboxes and disagree about what they mean.
          The collision
          pm ships a <!-- pm:lifecycle --> marker for a task that is bookkeeping about a change's own lifecycle — above all the task that archives the change itself, which is unticked at archive time by construction: it cannot be ticked before the thing that ticks it. outstandingWork()'s own docstring names this exactly — "a guard counting raw checkboxes would refuse every correctly finished change."
          openspec validate --archivedis that guard. It counts raw checkboxes and has no knowledge of the marker. That file carries 8 lifecycle-marked tasks.
          Why this is a live hazard rather than a curiosity
          openspec validate --archived's own help text describes it as "for pre-commit linting." So any pm-managed repository that follows that advice gets a pre-commit hook which fails on every correctly-archived change — permanently, with no action that clears it, because ticking the archive task would be a false record and removing the marker would break pm's own gate.
          That is not hypothetical: this repository would hit it today if it wired that command in, and the archive workflow pm documents produces the offending shape every time.
          Found while
          Investigating #123 (adopt the OpenSpec CLI surface for progress). That investigation concluded the CLI should not be adopted as a progress source, and this is the sharpest single reason: the two tools compute different quantities from the same file, and pm's is the one that makes its archive gate correct.
          Options, none obviously right
          • Upstream: OpenSpec could ignore a task line carrying an HTML comment marker, or expose an exclusion mechanism. That is the clean fix and it is not ours to make.
          • pm side: document the incompatibility so nobody wires that command into a pm-managed repo expecting it to pass. Cheap, honest, and does not pretend to fix someone else's lint.
          • Neither: accept that the two disagree and say so where the marker is documented.
          Recommend the pm-side documentation now and an upstream report separately — this issue exists so the collision is on the record either way, since the failure mode is confusing precisely when it appears (a green repo suddenly failing a lint on a change that shipped correctly).
          Note on the counts
          The count arrives only as prose inside a human-readable message ("1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)"), so it cannot be consumed programmatically without parsing English — which is why #123 also could not use it as a progress source even setting the semantics aside.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            bugSomething isn't working
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint · Issue #154 · cfdude/pm · GitHub
              Skip to content
              openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint #154
              Closed
              Closed
              openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint#154
              Labels
              bugSomething isn't working
              Description
              @cfdude
              cfdude
              opened on Aug 29, 2026
              Reproduced in this repository, just now
              $ openspec validate --archived
✗ change/2026-08-25-conductor-tells-the-truth
✗ 1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)

              pm reports the same file as 114/114 · 1 lifecycle, outstandingWork: 0, and the archive gate passes. The epic is archived · delivered.
              Both are right about the checkboxes and disagree about what they mean.
              The collision
              pm ships a <!-- pm:lifecycle --> marker for a task that is bookkeeping about a change's own lifecycle — above all the task that archives the change itself, which is unticked at archive time by construction: it cannot be ticked before the thing that ticks it. outstandingWork()'s own docstring names this exactly — "a guard counting raw checkboxes would refuse every correctly finished change."
              openspec validate --archivedis that guard. It counts raw checkboxes and has no knowledge of the marker. That file carries 8 lifecycle-marked tasks.
              Why this is a live hazard rather than a curiosity
              openspec validate --archived's own help text describes it as "for pre-commit linting." So any pm-managed repository that follows that advice gets a pre-commit hook which fails on every correctly-archived change — permanently, with no action that clears it, because ticking the archive task would be a false record and removing the marker would break pm's own gate.
              That is not hypothetical: this repository would hit it today if it wired that command in, and the archive workflow pm documents produces the offending shape every time.
              Found while
              Investigating #123 (adopt the OpenSpec CLI surface for progress). That investigation concluded the CLI should not be adopted as a progress source, and this is the sharpest single reason: the two tools compute different quantities from the same file, and pm's is the one that makes its archive gate correct.
              Options, none obviously right
              • Upstream: OpenSpec could ignore a task line carrying an HTML comment marker, or expose an exclusion mechanism. That is the clean fix and it is not ours to make.
              • pm side: document the incompatibility so nobody wires that command into a pm-managed repo expecting it to pass. Cheap, honest, and does not pretend to fix someone else's lint.
              • Neither: accept that the two disagree and say so where the marker is documented.
              Recommend the pm-side documentation now and an upstream report separately — this issue exists so the collision is on the record either way, since the failure mode is confusing precisely when it appears (a green repo suddenly failing a lint on a change that shipped correctly).
              Note on the counts
              The count arrives only as prose inside a human-readable message ("1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)"), so it cannot be consumed programmatically without parsing English — which is why #123 also could not use it as a progress source even setting the semantics aside.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                bugSomething isn't working
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint · Issue #154 · cfdude/pm · GitHub
                  Skip to content
                  openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint #154
                  Closed
                  Closed
                  openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint#154
                  Labels
                  bugSomething isn't working
                  Description
                  @cfdude
                  cfdude
                  opened on Aug 29, 2026
                  Reproduced in this repository, just now
                  $ openspec validate --archived
✗ change/2026-08-25-conductor-tells-the-truth
✗ 1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)

                  pm reports the same file as 114/114 · 1 lifecycle, outstandingWork: 0, and the archive gate passes. The epic is archived · delivered.
                  Both are right about the checkboxes and disagree about what they mean.
                  The collision
                  pm ships a <!-- pm:lifecycle --> marker for a task that is bookkeeping about a change's own lifecycle — above all the task that archives the change itself, which is unticked at archive time by construction: it cannot be ticked before the thing that ticks it. outstandingWork()'s own docstring names this exactly — "a guard counting raw checkboxes would refuse every correctly finished change."
                  openspec validate --archivedis that guard. It counts raw checkboxes and has no knowledge of the marker. That file carries 8 lifecycle-marked tasks.
                  Why this is a live hazard rather than a curiosity
                  openspec validate --archived's own help text describes it as "for pre-commit linting." So any pm-managed repository that follows that advice gets a pre-commit hook which fails on every correctly-archived change — permanently, with no action that clears it, because ticking the archive task would be a false record and removing the marker would break pm's own gate.
                  That is not hypothetical: this repository would hit it today if it wired that command in, and the archive workflow pm documents produces the offending shape every time.
                  Found while
                  Investigating #123 (adopt the OpenSpec CLI surface for progress). That investigation concluded the CLI should not be adopted as a progress source, and this is the sharpest single reason: the two tools compute different quantities from the same file, and pm's is the one that makes its archive gate correct.
                  Options, none obviously right
                  • Upstream: OpenSpec could ignore a task line carrying an HTML comment marker, or expose an exclusion mechanism. That is the clean fix and it is not ours to make.
                  • pm side: document the incompatibility so nobody wires that command into a pm-managed repo expecting it to pass. Cheap, honest, and does not pretend to fix someone else's lint.
                  • Neither: accept that the two disagree and say so where the marker is documented.
                  Recommend the pm-side documentation now and an upstream report separately — this issue exists so the collision is on the record either way, since the failure mode is confusing precisely when it appears (a green repo suddenly failing a lint on a change that shipped correctly).
                  Note on the counts
                  The count arrives only as prose inside a human-readable message ("1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)"), so it cannot be consumed programmatically without parsing English — which is why #123 also could not use it as a progress source even setting the semantics aside.
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    bugSomething isn't working
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint · Issue #154 · cfdude/pm · GitHub
                      Skip to content
                      openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint #154
                      Closed
                      Closed
                      openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint#154
                      Labels
                      bugSomething isn't working
                      Description
                      @cfdude
                      cfdude
                      opened on Aug 29, 2026
                      Reproduced in this repository, just now
                      $ openspec validate --archived
✗ change/2026-08-25-conductor-tells-the-truth
✗ 1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)

                      pm reports the same file as 114/114 · 1 lifecycle, outstandingWork: 0, and the archive gate passes. The epic is archived · delivered.
                      Both are right about the checkboxes and disagree about what they mean.
                      The collision
                      pm ships a <!-- pm:lifecycle --> marker for a task that is bookkeeping about a change's own lifecycle — above all the task that archives the change itself, which is unticked at archive time by construction: it cannot be ticked before the thing that ticks it. outstandingWork()'s own docstring names this exactly — "a guard counting raw checkboxes would refuse every correctly finished change."
                      openspec validate --archivedis that guard. It counts raw checkboxes and has no knowledge of the marker. That file carries 8 lifecycle-marked tasks.
                      Why this is a live hazard rather than a curiosity
                      openspec validate --archived's own help text describes it as "for pre-commit linting." So any pm-managed repository that follows that advice gets a pre-commit hook which fails on every correctly-archived change — permanently, with no action that clears it, because ticking the archive task would be a false record and removing the marker would break pm's own gate.
                      That is not hypothetical: this repository would hit it today if it wired that command in, and the archive workflow pm documents produces the offending shape every time.
                      Found while
                      Investigating #123 (adopt the OpenSpec CLI surface for progress). That investigation concluded the CLI should not be adopted as a progress source, and this is the sharpest single reason: the two tools compute different quantities from the same file, and pm's is the one that makes its archive gate correct.
                      Options, none obviously right
                      • Upstream: OpenSpec could ignore a task line carrying an HTML comment marker, or expose an exclusion mechanism. That is the clean fix and it is not ours to make.
                      • pm side: document the incompatibility so nobody wires that command into a pm-managed repo expecting it to pass. Cheap, honest, and does not pretend to fix someone else's lint.
                      • Neither: accept that the two disagree and say so where the marker is documented.
                      Recommend the pm-side documentation now and an upstream report separately — this issue exists so the collision is on the record either way, since the failure mode is confusing precisely when it appears (a green repo suddenly failing a lint on a change that shipped correctly).
                      Note on the counts
                      The count arrives only as prose inside a human-readable message ("1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)"), so it cannot be consumed programmatically without parsing English — which is why #123 also could not use it as a progress source even setting the semantics aside.
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        bugSomething isn't working
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint · Issue #154 · cfdude/pm · GitHub
                          Skip to content
                          openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint #154
                          Closed
                          Closed
                          openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint#154
                          Labels
                          bugSomething isn't working
                          Description
                          @cfdude
                          cfdude
                          opened on Aug 29, 2026
                          Reproduced in this repository, just now
                          $ openspec validate --archived
✗ change/2026-08-25-conductor-tells-the-truth
✗ 1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)

                          pm reports the same file as 114/114 · 1 lifecycle, outstandingWork: 0, and the archive gate passes. The epic is archived · delivered.
                          Both are right about the checkboxes and disagree about what they mean.
                          The collision
                          pm ships a <!-- pm:lifecycle --> marker for a task that is bookkeeping about a change's own lifecycle — above all the task that archives the change itself, which is unticked at archive time by construction: it cannot be ticked before the thing that ticks it. outstandingWork()'s own docstring names this exactly — "a guard counting raw checkboxes would refuse every correctly finished change."
                          openspec validate --archivedis that guard. It counts raw checkboxes and has no knowledge of the marker. That file carries 8 lifecycle-marked tasks.
                          Why this is a live hazard rather than a curiosity
                          openspec validate --archived's own help text describes it as "for pre-commit linting." So any pm-managed repository that follows that advice gets a pre-commit hook which fails on every correctly-archived change — permanently, with no action that clears it, because ticking the archive task would be a false record and removing the marker would break pm's own gate.
                          That is not hypothetical: this repository would hit it today if it wired that command in, and the archive workflow pm documents produces the offending shape every time.
                          Found while
                          Investigating #123 (adopt the OpenSpec CLI surface for progress). That investigation concluded the CLI should not be adopted as a progress source, and this is the sharpest single reason: the two tools compute different quantities from the same file, and pm's is the one that makes its archive gate correct.
                          Options, none obviously right
                          • Upstream: OpenSpec could ignore a task line carrying an HTML comment marker, or expose an exclusion mechanism. That is the clean fix and it is not ours to make.
                          • pm side: document the incompatibility so nobody wires that command into a pm-managed repo expecting it to pass. Cheap, honest, and does not pretend to fix someone else's lint.
                          • Neither: accept that the two disagree and say so where the marker is documented.
                          Recommend the pm-side documentation now and an upstream report separately — this issue exists so the collision is on the record either way, since the failure mode is confusing precisely when it appears (a green repo suddenly failing a lint on a change that shipped correctly).
                          Note on the counts
                          The count arrives only as prose inside a human-readable message ("1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)"), so it cannot be consumed programmatically without parsing English — which is why #123 also could not use it as a progress source even setting the semantics aside.
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            bugSomething isn't working
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint · Issue #154 · cfdude/pm · GitHub
                              Skip to content
                              openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint #154
                              Closed
                              Closed
                              openspec validate --archived fails every correctly-archived pm change — the pm:lifecycle marker collides with an upstream lint#154
                              Labels
                              bugSomething isn't working
                              Description
                              @cfdude
                              cfdude
                              opened on Aug 29, 2026
                              Reproduced in this repository, just now
                              $ openspec validate --archived
✗ change/2026-08-25-conductor-tells-the-truth
✗ 1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)

                              pm reports the same file as 114/114 · 1 lifecycle, outstandingWork: 0, and the archive gate passes. The epic is archived · delivered.
                              Both are right about the checkboxes and disagree about what they mean.
                              The collision
                              pm ships a <!-- pm:lifecycle --> marker for a task that is bookkeeping about a change's own lifecycle — above all the task that archives the change itself, which is unticked at archive time by construction: it cannot be ticked before the thing that ticks it. outstandingWork()'s own docstring names this exactly — "a guard counting raw checkboxes would refuse every correctly finished change."
                              openspec validate --archivedis that guard. It counts raw checkboxes and has no knowledge of the marker. That file carries 8 lifecycle-marked tasks.
                              Why this is a live hazard rather than a curiosity
                              openspec validate --archived's own help text describes it as "for pre-commit linting." So any pm-managed repository that follows that advice gets a pre-commit hook which fails on every correctly-archived change — permanently, with no action that clears it, because ticking the archive task would be a false record and removing the marker would break pm's own gate.
                              That is not hypothetical: this repository would hit it today if it wired that command in, and the archive workflow pm documents produces the offending shape every time.
                              Found while
                              Investigating #123 (adopt the OpenSpec CLI surface for progress). That investigation concluded the CLI should not be adopted as a progress source, and this is the sharpest single reason: the two tools compute different quantities from the same file, and pm's is the one that makes its archive gate correct.
                              Options, none obviously right
                              • Upstream: OpenSpec could ignore a task line carrying an HTML comment marker, or expose an exclusion mechanism. That is the clean fix and it is not ours to make.
                              • pm side: document the incompatibility so nobody wires that command into a pm-managed repo expecting it to pass. Cheap, honest, and does not pretend to fix someone else's lint.
                              • Neither: accept that the two disagree and say so where the marker is documented.
                              Recommend the pm-side documentation now and an upstream report separately — this issue exists so the collision is on the record either way, since the failure mode is confusing precisely when it appears (a green repo suddenly failing a lint on a change that shipped correctly).
                              Note on the counts
                              The count arrives only as prose inside a human-readable message ("1 incomplete task (114/115 completed)"), so it cannot be consumed programmatically without parsing English — which is why #123 also could not use it as a progress source even setting the semantics aside.
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                bugSomething isn't working
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions