You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Found while running the gate over an unrelated edit to the same file (#10917). Pre-existing on origin/main, not introduced by that branch — reproduced against a pristine checkout of main at 2866d5f97e.
Reproduce
pnpm check:platform-checklist
check-platform-checklist: 1 problem(s)
✗ cli.json · cli.migrate-duplicates-inventory: "revision" (3) must equal the last history entry's revision (2) — a semantic edit bumps both
Read straight out of docs/qa/platform-checklist/areas/cli.json at origin/main:
its history array has entries for revisions [1, 2] only
So the item was semantically edited to revision 3 and the matching history entry was never appended. The invariant exists precisely so a revision bump cannot silently re-validate old run results against changed clauses — with no revision-3 entry, nothing records what changed at that revision.
Where it came from
git log on that file names the last two commits that touched it:
2866d5f97e feat(cli): `os migrate duplicates` reports the rows blocking the kernel:ready index tightenings (#11031)
3a7ec2d3bb fix(cli): a raw-SQL seam that cannot answer is absent, not empty (#10677) (#10788)
2866d5f97e (#11031) is the current tip of main, and the item is that PR's subject, so that is the likely origin — worth confirming before fixing.
Why it went unnoticed
check:platform-checklist is not CI-wired (maintainer decision, recorded under "Operating cadence" in docs/qa/platform-checklist/README.md), so nothing runs it on a pull request. It is only ever run by a seat that happens to edit the ledger. That is the more interesting half of this report: the gate cannot regress-detect anything it is never invoked on, and this is what that looks like in practice.
Whether the cadence should change is a separate question and deliberately not proposed here.
drop revision back to 2 (if the bump was accidental and no clause changed).
Only someone who can say what #11031 changed about the item should pick between them — assigning a revision a description after the fact is exactly the kind of estimate later gates read as fact.
⛔ Filed unassigned, and deliberately not fixed in #10917's PR: unrelated to that card's subject, and a checklist ledger repair should be judged on its own.
Found while running the gate over an unrelated edit to the same file (#10917). Pre-existing on
origin/main, not introduced by that branch — reproduced against a pristine checkout ofmainat2866d5f97e.Reproduce
Read straight out of
docs/qa/platform-checklist/areas/cli.jsonatorigin/main:cli.migrate-duplicates-inventorycarries"revision": 3historyarray has entries for revisions[1, 2]onlySo the item was semantically edited to revision 3 and the matching
historyentry was never appended. The invariant exists precisely so a revision bump cannot silently re-validate old run results against changed clauses — with no revision-3 entry, nothing records what changed at that revision.Where it came from
git logon that file names the last two commits that touched it:2866d5f97e(#11031) is the current tip ofmain, and the item is that PR's subject, so that is the likely origin — worth confirming before fixing.Why it went unnoticed
check:platform-checklistis not CI-wired (maintainer decision, recorded under "Operating cadence" indocs/qa/platform-checklist/README.md), so nothing runs it on a pull request. It is only ever run by a seat that happens to edit the ledger. That is the more interesting half of this report: the gate cannot regress-detect anything it is never invoked on, and this is what that looks like in practice.Whether the cadence should change is a separate question and deliberately not proposed here.
Fix
Presumed one of:
historyentry describing the feat(cli):os migrate duplicatesreports the rows blocking the kernel:ready index tightenings #11031 edit (if the item really was edited semantically), orrevisionback to 2 (if the bump was accidental and no clause changed).Only someone who can say what #11031 changed about the item should pick between them — assigning a revision a description after the fact is exactly the kind of estimate later gates read as fact.
⛔ Filed unassigned, and deliberately not fixed in #10917's PR: unrelated to that card's subject, and a checklist ledger repair should be judged on its own.
Generated by Claude Code