Skip to content

[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file #13588

Closed
Closed
[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file#13588
Labels
domain:skills

Description

@claude
claude
bot
opened on Aug 31, 2026

[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? — today nothing but a seat's judgement routes it to contract review

Provenance. Raised by the os-dev agent on #13539 as its option C, and forwarded — ⛔ not adjudicated — by the domain:devx seat (post #6023, session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC), R33. Filed separately so it does not die inside a closed card.

The one-line problem

A false published-skill line changes what the contract PROMISES without touching a contract file.

Clause ② has two limbs: a PATH limb (packages/spec/src/**) and a CONTENT limb (changes contract accept/reject behaviour or widens the public surface). Published skill text under skills/** is customer-reachable documentation of the contract. It can state that an operator means one thing when the drivers implement another — which is precisely what #13539 found and fixed — while touching zero contract files.

⇒ the PATH limb cannot see it, and whether the CONTENT limb reaches it has never been ruled.

The concrete instance that raised it

On #13539 the dev measured, honestly and against itself, that neither limb fires on its own two PRs: zero packages/spec/** paths, and no Clause-2: yes declaration in the dispatch. It attached needs:contract-review anyway — riding the card's standing determination, which had been made for a packages/spec JSDoc site fenced out of its scope — and ⛔ self-cleared nothing. Correct on both counts, and it left the question standing rather than resolving it by convenience.

四维分析

1 — 实际业务需求。 这是客户今天就会撞上的面。#13539 的两处 published skill 文本教的是「$exists 测键是否存在」,而三个 driver 实现的全是「有没有值(!= null)」。⇒ 一个照着 skill 写查询的客户会得到与文档相反的结果,而没有任何门禁会红。这不是理论风险,是已发生并已修的实例。

2 — 平台长远合理性。 契约的权威文本与契约的描述文本正在分叉治理:前者有 PATH 肢兜底,后者只靠某个座位当天恰好想到。⭐ 关键不对称:skills/** 已经是受管面(人工合并),所以它已经被认为足够重要到不许 AI 自行落地 —— 但它不触发契约复审。⇒ 「重要到要人工合并」与「不重要到不必过契约复审」这两个判断同时成立,至少有一个是错的。

3 — 避免 AI 写代码犯错。 ⛔ 最大的风险是扩面过宽:若把「任何提到契约的文本」都拉进条款②,复审队列会被 4 个纯算子清单、拼写修正和格式改动淹没,而复审是稀缺的人工资源 —— 淹没一条通道等于关掉它。#13539 的实测正好给了收窄的形状:10 处 content/docs 命中里,只有 3 处作出语义主张,4 处是无主张的算子清单。⇒ 判据应当是「是否作出可证伪的语义主张」,不是「是否提到契约」。

4 — 创业阶段不扩散需求。 便宜的出口存在且不必新建机制:published skills/** 里作出算子语义主张的改动 ⇒ 挂 needs:contract-review,复用现有标签与现有复审链,⛔ 不新增状态、不新增 sweep、不新增门禁。若判定不值得,那也要明写「published skill 文本不属条款②」,让下一个座位不必再猜一次。

三条候选,⛔ 本席不裁

⚠️ A 与 C 不互斥,很可能应当同时采纳:C 抓已知措辞,A 兜住新措辞。

⚠️ 与 #13557 的分界 —— 邻卡,⛔ 不是重复

#13557 问的是何时挂:2026-08-28 对 #12887 的裁定废止了预挂,标签只在可复审增量存在时挂载,而两日内复发 9 例(其中就包括本卡引出的 #13539 本身,由总监席于 2026-08-31 摘除)。它的根因假设是 SOP 文本把「判定」与「挂载」两个动作写在了同一笔。

本卡问的是是否属于:published skills/** 文本根本上算不算 CONTENT 肢。两者正交 ——
#13557 即使完全修好,本卡的面仍然没有任何机制把它路由进复审;本卡即使裁 B(明确排除),
#13557 的时序缺陷照旧存在。

⭐ 值得注意的是本卡的实例同时验证了 #13557 的修法方向:#13539 的 dev 在开 PR 的同一笔重挂了标签(正是 9 例摘除评论共同注明的「PR 存在的同笔即重挂」),⇒ 时序这一半按裁定执行是可行的;卡住的是适用性这一半,而那正是本卡。

⛔ 本席的边界

本席不代裁:这是协议形状问题(条款②覆盖面),按人工地板归维护者。上面的建议是建议,不是裁决。

Refs:#13539(引出本卡的实例,含实现层证据)· #13582(词表棘轮路径)· #13531(filter-logic-conformance.ts 的陈旧格,domain:spec 在飞)

Generated by Claude Code

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    domain:skills

    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)) { // 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" + '
[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file · Issue #13588 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
      Skip to content
      [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file #13588
      Closed
      Closed
      [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file#13588
      Labels
      domain:skills
      Description
      @claude
      claude
      bot
      opened on Aug 31, 2026
      [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? — today nothing but a seat's judgement routes it to contract review
      Provenance. Raised by the os-dev agent on #13539 as its option C, and forwarded — ⛔ not adjudicated — by the domain:devx seat (post #6023, session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC), R33. Filed separately so it does not die inside a closed card.
      The one-line problem
      A false published-skill line changes what the contract PROMISES without touching a contract file.
      Clause ② has two limbs: a PATH limb (packages/spec/src/**) and a CONTENT limb (changes contract accept/reject behaviour or widens the public surface). Published skill text under skills/** is customer-reachable documentation of the contract. It can state that an operator means one thing when the drivers implement another — which is precisely what #13539 found and fixed — while touching zero contract files.
      ⇒ the PATH limb cannot see it, and whether the CONTENT limb reaches it has never been ruled.
      The concrete instance that raised it
      On #13539 the dev measured, honestly and against itself, that neither limb fires on its own two PRs: zero packages/spec/** paths, and no Clause-2: yes declaration in the dispatch. It attached needs:contract-review anyway — riding the card's standing determination, which had been made for a packages/spec JSDoc site fenced out of its scope — and ⛔ self-cleared nothing. Correct on both counts, and it left the question standing rather than resolving it by convenience.
      四维分析
      1 — 实际业务需求。 这是客户今天就会撞上的面。#13539 的两处 published skill 文本教的是「$exists 测键是否存在」,而三个 driver 实现的全是「有没有值(!= null)」。⇒ 一个照着 skill 写查询的客户会得到与文档相反的结果,而没有任何门禁会红。这不是理论风险,是已发生并已修的实例。
      2 — 平台长远合理性。 契约的权威文本与契约的描述文本正在分叉治理:前者有 PATH 肢兜底,后者只靠某个座位当天恰好想到。⭐ 关键不对称:skills/** 已经是受管面(人工合并),所以它已经被认为足够重要到不许 AI 自行落地 —— 但它不触发契约复审。⇒ 「重要到要人工合并」与「不重要到不必过契约复审」这两个判断同时成立,至少有一个是错的。
      3 — 避免 AI 写代码犯错。 ⛔ 最大的风险是扩面过宽:若把「任何提到契约的文本」都拉进条款②,复审队列会被 4 个纯算子清单、拼写修正和格式改动淹没,而复审是稀缺的人工资源 —— 淹没一条通道等于关掉它。#13539 的实测正好给了收窄的形状:10 处 content/docs 命中里,只有 3 处作出语义主张,4 处是无主张的算子清单。⇒ 判据应当是「是否作出可证伪的语义主张」,不是「是否提到契约」。
      4 — 创业阶段不扩散需求。 便宜的出口存在且不必新建机制:published skills/** 里作出算子语义主张的改动 ⇒ 挂 needs:contract-review,复用现有标签与现有复审链,⛔ 不新增状态、不新增 sweep、不新增门禁。若判定不值得,那也要明写「published skill 文本不属条款②」,让下一个座位不必再猜一次。
      三条候选,⛔ 本席不裁
      ⚠️ A 与 C 不互斥,很可能应当同时采纳:C 抓已知措辞,A 兜住新措辞。
      ⚠️ 与 #13557 的分界 —— 邻卡,⛔ 不是重复
      #13557 问的是何时挂:2026-08-28 对 #12887 的裁定废止了预挂,标签只在可复审增量存在时挂载,而两日内复发 9 例(其中就包括本卡引出的 #13539 本身,由总监席于 2026-08-31 摘除)。它的根因假设是 SOP 文本把「判定」与「挂载」两个动作写在了同一笔。
      本卡问的是是否属于:published skills/** 文本根本上算不算 CONTENT 肢。两者正交 ——
      #13557 即使完全修好,本卡的面仍然没有任何机制把它路由进复审;本卡即使裁 B(明确排除),
      #13557 的时序缺陷照旧存在。
      ⭐ 值得注意的是本卡的实例同时验证了 #13557 的修法方向:#13539 的 dev 在开 PR 的同一笔重挂了标签(正是 9 例摘除评论共同注明的「PR 存在的同笔即重挂」),⇒ 时序这一半按裁定执行是可行的;卡住的是适用性这一半,而那正是本卡。
      ⛔ 本席的边界
      本席不代裁:这是协议形状问题(条款②覆盖面),按人工地板归维护者。上面的建议是建议,不是裁决。
      Refs:#13539(引出本卡的实例,含实现层证据)· #13582(词表棘轮路径)· #13531(filter-logic-conformance.ts 的陈旧格,domain:spec 在飞)
      Generated by Claude Code
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        domain:skills
        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)) {
// 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('^' + ".*" + '
[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file · Issue #13588 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
          Skip to content
          [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file #13588
          Closed
          Closed
          [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file#13588
          Labels
          domain:skills
          Description
          @claude
          claude
          bot
          opened on Aug 31, 2026
          [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? — today nothing but a seat's judgement routes it to contract review
          Provenance. Raised by the os-dev agent on #13539 as its option C, and forwarded — ⛔ not adjudicated — by the domain:devx seat (post #6023, session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC), R33. Filed separately so it does not die inside a closed card.
          The one-line problem
          A false published-skill line changes what the contract PROMISES without touching a contract file.
          Clause ② has two limbs: a PATH limb (packages/spec/src/**) and a CONTENT limb (changes contract accept/reject behaviour or widens the public surface). Published skill text under skills/** is customer-reachable documentation of the contract. It can state that an operator means one thing when the drivers implement another — which is precisely what #13539 found and fixed — while touching zero contract files.
          ⇒ the PATH limb cannot see it, and whether the CONTENT limb reaches it has never been ruled.
          The concrete instance that raised it
          On #13539 the dev measured, honestly and against itself, that neither limb fires on its own two PRs: zero packages/spec/** paths, and no Clause-2: yes declaration in the dispatch. It attached needs:contract-review anyway — riding the card's standing determination, which had been made for a packages/spec JSDoc site fenced out of its scope — and ⛔ self-cleared nothing. Correct on both counts, and it left the question standing rather than resolving it by convenience.
          四维分析
          1 — 实际业务需求。 这是客户今天就会撞上的面。#13539 的两处 published skill 文本教的是「$exists 测键是否存在」,而三个 driver 实现的全是「有没有值(!= null)」。⇒ 一个照着 skill 写查询的客户会得到与文档相反的结果,而没有任何门禁会红。这不是理论风险,是已发生并已修的实例。
          2 — 平台长远合理性。 契约的权威文本与契约的描述文本正在分叉治理:前者有 PATH 肢兜底,后者只靠某个座位当天恰好想到。⭐ 关键不对称:skills/** 已经是受管面(人工合并),所以它已经被认为足够重要到不许 AI 自行落地 —— 但它不触发契约复审。⇒ 「重要到要人工合并」与「不重要到不必过契约复审」这两个判断同时成立,至少有一个是错的。
          3 — 避免 AI 写代码犯错。 ⛔ 最大的风险是扩面过宽:若把「任何提到契约的文本」都拉进条款②,复审队列会被 4 个纯算子清单、拼写修正和格式改动淹没,而复审是稀缺的人工资源 —— 淹没一条通道等于关掉它。#13539 的实测正好给了收窄的形状:10 处 content/docs 命中里,只有 3 处作出语义主张,4 处是无主张的算子清单。⇒ 判据应当是「是否作出可证伪的语义主张」,不是「是否提到契约」。
          4 — 创业阶段不扩散需求。 便宜的出口存在且不必新建机制:published skills/** 里作出算子语义主张的改动 ⇒ 挂 needs:contract-review,复用现有标签与现有复审链,⛔ 不新增状态、不新增 sweep、不新增门禁。若判定不值得,那也要明写「published skill 文本不属条款②」,让下一个座位不必再猜一次。
          三条候选,⛔ 本席不裁
          ⚠️ A 与 C 不互斥,很可能应当同时采纳:C 抓已知措辞,A 兜住新措辞。
          ⚠️ 与 #13557 的分界 —— 邻卡,⛔ 不是重复
          #13557 问的是何时挂:2026-08-28 对 #12887 的裁定废止了预挂,标签只在可复审增量存在时挂载,而两日内复发 9 例(其中就包括本卡引出的 #13539 本身,由总监席于 2026-08-31 摘除)。它的根因假设是 SOP 文本把「判定」与「挂载」两个动作写在了同一笔。
          本卡问的是是否属于:published skills/** 文本根本上算不算 CONTENT 肢。两者正交 ——
          #13557 即使完全修好,本卡的面仍然没有任何机制把它路由进复审;本卡即使裁 B(明确排除),
          #13557 的时序缺陷照旧存在。
          ⭐ 值得注意的是本卡的实例同时验证了 #13557 的修法方向:#13539 的 dev 在开 PR 的同一笔重挂了标签(正是 9 例摘除评论共同注明的「PR 存在的同笔即重挂」),⇒ 时序这一半按裁定执行是可行的;卡住的是适用性这一半,而那正是本卡。
          ⛔ 本席的边界
          本席不代裁:这是协议形状问题(条款②覆盖面),按人工地板归维护者。上面的建议是建议,不是裁决。
          Refs:#13539(引出本卡的实例,含实现层证据)· #13582(词表棘轮路径)· #13531(filter-logic-conformance.ts 的陈旧格,domain:spec 在飞)
          Generated by Claude Code
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            domain:skills
            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)) {
// 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('^' + ".*" + '
[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file · Issue #13588 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
              Skip to content
              [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file #13588
              Closed
              Closed
              [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file#13588
              Labels
              domain:skills
              Description
              @claude
              claude
              bot
              opened on Aug 31, 2026
              [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? — today nothing but a seat's judgement routes it to contract review
              Provenance. Raised by the os-dev agent on #13539 as its option C, and forwarded — ⛔ not adjudicated — by the domain:devx seat (post #6023, session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC), R33. Filed separately so it does not die inside a closed card.
              The one-line problem
              A false published-skill line changes what the contract PROMISES without touching a contract file.
              Clause ② has two limbs: a PATH limb (packages/spec/src/**) and a CONTENT limb (changes contract accept/reject behaviour or widens the public surface). Published skill text under skills/** is customer-reachable documentation of the contract. It can state that an operator means one thing when the drivers implement another — which is precisely what #13539 found and fixed — while touching zero contract files.
              ⇒ the PATH limb cannot see it, and whether the CONTENT limb reaches it has never been ruled.
              The concrete instance that raised it
              On #13539 the dev measured, honestly and against itself, that neither limb fires on its own two PRs: zero packages/spec/** paths, and no Clause-2: yes declaration in the dispatch. It attached needs:contract-review anyway — riding the card's standing determination, which had been made for a packages/spec JSDoc site fenced out of its scope — and ⛔ self-cleared nothing. Correct on both counts, and it left the question standing rather than resolving it by convenience.
              四维分析
              1 — 实际业务需求。 这是客户今天就会撞上的面。#13539 的两处 published skill 文本教的是「$exists 测键是否存在」,而三个 driver 实现的全是「有没有值(!= null)」。⇒ 一个照着 skill 写查询的客户会得到与文档相反的结果,而没有任何门禁会红。这不是理论风险,是已发生并已修的实例。
              2 — 平台长远合理性。 契约的权威文本与契约的描述文本正在分叉治理:前者有 PATH 肢兜底,后者只靠某个座位当天恰好想到。⭐ 关键不对称:skills/** 已经是受管面(人工合并),所以它已经被认为足够重要到不许 AI 自行落地 —— 但它不触发契约复审。⇒ 「重要到要人工合并」与「不重要到不必过契约复审」这两个判断同时成立,至少有一个是错的。
              3 — 避免 AI 写代码犯错。 ⛔ 最大的风险是扩面过宽:若把「任何提到契约的文本」都拉进条款②,复审队列会被 4 个纯算子清单、拼写修正和格式改动淹没,而复审是稀缺的人工资源 —— 淹没一条通道等于关掉它。#13539 的实测正好给了收窄的形状:10 处 content/docs 命中里,只有 3 处作出语义主张,4 处是无主张的算子清单。⇒ 判据应当是「是否作出可证伪的语义主张」,不是「是否提到契约」。
              4 — 创业阶段不扩散需求。 便宜的出口存在且不必新建机制:published skills/** 里作出算子语义主张的改动 ⇒ 挂 needs:contract-review,复用现有标签与现有复审链,⛔ 不新增状态、不新增 sweep、不新增门禁。若判定不值得,那也要明写「published skill 文本不属条款②」,让下一个座位不必再猜一次。
              三条候选,⛔ 本席不裁
              ⚠️ A 与 C 不互斥,很可能应当同时采纳:C 抓已知措辞,A 兜住新措辞。
              ⚠️ 与 #13557 的分界 —— 邻卡,⛔ 不是重复
              #13557 问的是何时挂:2026-08-28 对 #12887 的裁定废止了预挂,标签只在可复审增量存在时挂载,而两日内复发 9 例(其中就包括本卡引出的 #13539 本身,由总监席于 2026-08-31 摘除)。它的根因假设是 SOP 文本把「判定」与「挂载」两个动作写在了同一笔。
              本卡问的是是否属于:published skills/** 文本根本上算不算 CONTENT 肢。两者正交 ——
              #13557 即使完全修好,本卡的面仍然没有任何机制把它路由进复审;本卡即使裁 B(明确排除),
              #13557 的时序缺陷照旧存在。
              ⭐ 值得注意的是本卡的实例同时验证了 #13557 的修法方向:#13539 的 dev 在开 PR 的同一笔重挂了标签(正是 9 例摘除评论共同注明的「PR 存在的同笔即重挂」),⇒ 时序这一半按裁定执行是可行的;卡住的是适用性这一半,而那正是本卡。
              ⛔ 本席的边界
              本席不代裁:这是协议形状问题(条款②覆盖面),按人工地板归维护者。上面的建议是建议,不是裁决。
              Refs:#13539(引出本卡的实例,含实现层证据)· #13582(词表棘轮路径)· #13531(filter-logic-conformance.ts 的陈旧格,domain:spec 在飞)
              Generated by Claude Code
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                domain:skills
                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)) {
// 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" + '
[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file · Issue #13588 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                  Skip to content
                  [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file #13588
                  Closed
                  Closed
                  [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file#13588
                  Labels
                  domain:skills
                  Description
                  @claude
                  claude
                  bot
                  opened on Aug 31, 2026
                  [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? — today nothing but a seat's judgement routes it to contract review
                  Provenance. Raised by the os-dev agent on #13539 as its option C, and forwarded — ⛔ not adjudicated — by the domain:devx seat (post #6023, session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC), R33. Filed separately so it does not die inside a closed card.
                  The one-line problem
                  A false published-skill line changes what the contract PROMISES without touching a contract file.
                  Clause ② has two limbs: a PATH limb (packages/spec/src/**) and a CONTENT limb (changes contract accept/reject behaviour or widens the public surface). Published skill text under skills/** is customer-reachable documentation of the contract. It can state that an operator means one thing when the drivers implement another — which is precisely what #13539 found and fixed — while touching zero contract files.
                  ⇒ the PATH limb cannot see it, and whether the CONTENT limb reaches it has never been ruled.
                  The concrete instance that raised it
                  On #13539 the dev measured, honestly and against itself, that neither limb fires on its own two PRs: zero packages/spec/** paths, and no Clause-2: yes declaration in the dispatch. It attached needs:contract-review anyway — riding the card's standing determination, which had been made for a packages/spec JSDoc site fenced out of its scope — and ⛔ self-cleared nothing. Correct on both counts, and it left the question standing rather than resolving it by convenience.
                  四维分析
                  1 — 实际业务需求。 这是客户今天就会撞上的面。#13539 的两处 published skill 文本教的是「$exists 测键是否存在」,而三个 driver 实现的全是「有没有值(!= null)」。⇒ 一个照着 skill 写查询的客户会得到与文档相反的结果,而没有任何门禁会红。这不是理论风险,是已发生并已修的实例。
                  2 — 平台长远合理性。 契约的权威文本与契约的描述文本正在分叉治理:前者有 PATH 肢兜底,后者只靠某个座位当天恰好想到。⭐ 关键不对称:skills/** 已经是受管面(人工合并),所以它已经被认为足够重要到不许 AI 自行落地 —— 但它不触发契约复审。⇒ 「重要到要人工合并」与「不重要到不必过契约复审」这两个判断同时成立,至少有一个是错的。
                  3 — 避免 AI 写代码犯错。 ⛔ 最大的风险是扩面过宽:若把「任何提到契约的文本」都拉进条款②,复审队列会被 4 个纯算子清单、拼写修正和格式改动淹没,而复审是稀缺的人工资源 —— 淹没一条通道等于关掉它。#13539 的实测正好给了收窄的形状:10 处 content/docs 命中里,只有 3 处作出语义主张,4 处是无主张的算子清单。⇒ 判据应当是「是否作出可证伪的语义主张」,不是「是否提到契约」。
                  4 — 创业阶段不扩散需求。 便宜的出口存在且不必新建机制:published skills/** 里作出算子语义主张的改动 ⇒ 挂 needs:contract-review,复用现有标签与现有复审链,⛔ 不新增状态、不新增 sweep、不新增门禁。若判定不值得,那也要明写「published skill 文本不属条款②」,让下一个座位不必再猜一次。
                  三条候选,⛔ 本席不裁
                  ⚠️ A 与 C 不互斥,很可能应当同时采纳:C 抓已知措辞,A 兜住新措辞。
                  ⚠️ 与 #13557 的分界 —— 邻卡,⛔ 不是重复
                  #13557 问的是何时挂:2026-08-28 对 #12887 的裁定废止了预挂,标签只在可复审增量存在时挂载,而两日内复发 9 例(其中就包括本卡引出的 #13539 本身,由总监席于 2026-08-31 摘除)。它的根因假设是 SOP 文本把「判定」与「挂载」两个动作写在了同一笔。
                  本卡问的是是否属于:published skills/** 文本根本上算不算 CONTENT 肢。两者正交 ——
                  #13557 即使完全修好,本卡的面仍然没有任何机制把它路由进复审;本卡即使裁 B(明确排除),
                  #13557 的时序缺陷照旧存在。
                  ⭐ 值得注意的是本卡的实例同时验证了 #13557 的修法方向:#13539 的 dev 在开 PR 的同一笔重挂了标签(正是 9 例摘除评论共同注明的「PR 存在的同笔即重挂」),⇒ 时序这一半按裁定执行是可行的;卡住的是适用性这一半,而那正是本卡。
                  ⛔ 本席的边界
                  本席不代裁:这是协议形状问题(条款②覆盖面),按人工地板归维护者。上面的建议是建议,不是裁决。
                  Refs:#13539(引出本卡的实例,含实现层证据)· #13582(词表棘轮路径)· #13531(filter-logic-conformance.ts 的陈旧格,domain:spec 在飞)
                  Generated by Claude Code
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    domain:skills
                    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)) {
// 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('^' + ".*" + '
[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file · Issue #13588 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                      Skip to content
                      [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file #13588
                      Closed
                      Closed
                      [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file#13588
                      Labels
                      domain:skills
                      Description
                      @claude
                      claude
                      bot
                      opened on Aug 31, 2026
                      [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? — today nothing but a seat's judgement routes it to contract review
                      Provenance. Raised by the os-dev agent on #13539 as its option C, and forwarded — ⛔ not adjudicated — by the domain:devx seat (post #6023, session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC), R33. Filed separately so it does not die inside a closed card.
                      The one-line problem
                      A false published-skill line changes what the contract PROMISES without touching a contract file.
                      Clause ② has two limbs: a PATH limb (packages/spec/src/**) and a CONTENT limb (changes contract accept/reject behaviour or widens the public surface). Published skill text under skills/** is customer-reachable documentation of the contract. It can state that an operator means one thing when the drivers implement another — which is precisely what #13539 found and fixed — while touching zero contract files.
                      ⇒ the PATH limb cannot see it, and whether the CONTENT limb reaches it has never been ruled.
                      The concrete instance that raised it
                      On #13539 the dev measured, honestly and against itself, that neither limb fires on its own two PRs: zero packages/spec/** paths, and no Clause-2: yes declaration in the dispatch. It attached needs:contract-review anyway — riding the card's standing determination, which had been made for a packages/spec JSDoc site fenced out of its scope — and ⛔ self-cleared nothing. Correct on both counts, and it left the question standing rather than resolving it by convenience.
                      四维分析
                      1 — 实际业务需求。 这是客户今天就会撞上的面。#13539 的两处 published skill 文本教的是「$exists 测键是否存在」,而三个 driver 实现的全是「有没有值(!= null)」。⇒ 一个照着 skill 写查询的客户会得到与文档相反的结果,而没有任何门禁会红。这不是理论风险,是已发生并已修的实例。
                      2 — 平台长远合理性。 契约的权威文本与契约的描述文本正在分叉治理:前者有 PATH 肢兜底,后者只靠某个座位当天恰好想到。⭐ 关键不对称:skills/** 已经是受管面(人工合并),所以它已经被认为足够重要到不许 AI 自行落地 —— 但它不触发契约复审。⇒ 「重要到要人工合并」与「不重要到不必过契约复审」这两个判断同时成立,至少有一个是错的。
                      3 — 避免 AI 写代码犯错。 ⛔ 最大的风险是扩面过宽:若把「任何提到契约的文本」都拉进条款②,复审队列会被 4 个纯算子清单、拼写修正和格式改动淹没,而复审是稀缺的人工资源 —— 淹没一条通道等于关掉它。#13539 的实测正好给了收窄的形状:10 处 content/docs 命中里,只有 3 处作出语义主张,4 处是无主张的算子清单。⇒ 判据应当是「是否作出可证伪的语义主张」,不是「是否提到契约」。
                      4 — 创业阶段不扩散需求。 便宜的出口存在且不必新建机制:published skills/** 里作出算子语义主张的改动 ⇒ 挂 needs:contract-review,复用现有标签与现有复审链,⛔ 不新增状态、不新增 sweep、不新增门禁。若判定不值得,那也要明写「published skill 文本不属条款②」,让下一个座位不必再猜一次。
                      三条候选,⛔ 本席不裁
                      ⚠️ A 与 C 不互斥,很可能应当同时采纳:C 抓已知措辞,A 兜住新措辞。
                      ⚠️ 与 #13557 的分界 —— 邻卡,⛔ 不是重复
                      #13557 问的是何时挂:2026-08-28 对 #12887 的裁定废止了预挂,标签只在可复审增量存在时挂载,而两日内复发 9 例(其中就包括本卡引出的 #13539 本身,由总监席于 2026-08-31 摘除)。它的根因假设是 SOP 文本把「判定」与「挂载」两个动作写在了同一笔。
                      本卡问的是是否属于:published skills/** 文本根本上算不算 CONTENT 肢。两者正交 ——
                      #13557 即使完全修好,本卡的面仍然没有任何机制把它路由进复审;本卡即使裁 B(明确排除),
                      #13557 的时序缺陷照旧存在。
                      ⭐ 值得注意的是本卡的实例同时验证了 #13557 的修法方向:#13539 的 dev 在开 PR 的同一笔重挂了标签(正是 9 例摘除评论共同注明的「PR 存在的同笔即重挂」),⇒ 时序这一半按裁定执行是可行的;卡住的是适用性这一半,而那正是本卡。
                      ⛔ 本席的边界
                      本席不代裁:这是协议形状问题(条款②覆盖面),按人工地板归维护者。上面的建议是建议,不是裁决。
                      Refs:#13539(引出本卡的实例,含实现层证据)· #13582(词表棘轮路径)· #13531(filter-logic-conformance.ts 的陈旧格,domain:spec 在飞)
                      Generated by Claude Code
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        domain:skills
                        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)) {
// 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('^' + ".*" + '
[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file · Issue #13588 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                          Skip to content
                          [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file #13588
                          Closed
                          Closed
                          [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file#13588
                          Labels
                          domain:skills
                          Description
                          @claude
                          claude
                          bot
                          opened on Aug 31, 2026
                          [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? — today nothing but a seat's judgement routes it to contract review
                          Provenance. Raised by the os-dev agent on #13539 as its option C, and forwarded — ⛔ not adjudicated — by the domain:devx seat (post #6023, session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC), R33. Filed separately so it does not die inside a closed card.
                          The one-line problem
                          A false published-skill line changes what the contract PROMISES without touching a contract file.
                          Clause ② has two limbs: a PATH limb (packages/spec/src/**) and a CONTENT limb (changes contract accept/reject behaviour or widens the public surface). Published skill text under skills/** is customer-reachable documentation of the contract. It can state that an operator means one thing when the drivers implement another — which is precisely what #13539 found and fixed — while touching zero contract files.
                          ⇒ the PATH limb cannot see it, and whether the CONTENT limb reaches it has never been ruled.
                          The concrete instance that raised it
                          On #13539 the dev measured, honestly and against itself, that neither limb fires on its own two PRs: zero packages/spec/** paths, and no Clause-2: yes declaration in the dispatch. It attached needs:contract-review anyway — riding the card's standing determination, which had been made for a packages/spec JSDoc site fenced out of its scope — and ⛔ self-cleared nothing. Correct on both counts, and it left the question standing rather than resolving it by convenience.
                          四维分析
                          1 — 实际业务需求。 这是客户今天就会撞上的面。#13539 的两处 published skill 文本教的是「$exists 测键是否存在」,而三个 driver 实现的全是「有没有值(!= null)」。⇒ 一个照着 skill 写查询的客户会得到与文档相反的结果,而没有任何门禁会红。这不是理论风险,是已发生并已修的实例。
                          2 — 平台长远合理性。 契约的权威文本与契约的描述文本正在分叉治理:前者有 PATH 肢兜底,后者只靠某个座位当天恰好想到。⭐ 关键不对称:skills/** 已经是受管面(人工合并),所以它已经被认为足够重要到不许 AI 自行落地 —— 但它不触发契约复审。⇒ 「重要到要人工合并」与「不重要到不必过契约复审」这两个判断同时成立,至少有一个是错的。
                          3 — 避免 AI 写代码犯错。 ⛔ 最大的风险是扩面过宽:若把「任何提到契约的文本」都拉进条款②,复审队列会被 4 个纯算子清单、拼写修正和格式改动淹没,而复审是稀缺的人工资源 —— 淹没一条通道等于关掉它。#13539 的实测正好给了收窄的形状:10 处 content/docs 命中里,只有 3 处作出语义主张,4 处是无主张的算子清单。⇒ 判据应当是「是否作出可证伪的语义主张」,不是「是否提到契约」。
                          4 — 创业阶段不扩散需求。 便宜的出口存在且不必新建机制:published skills/** 里作出算子语义主张的改动 ⇒ 挂 needs:contract-review,复用现有标签与现有复审链,⛔ 不新增状态、不新增 sweep、不新增门禁。若判定不值得,那也要明写「published skill 文本不属条款②」,让下一个座位不必再猜一次。
                          三条候选,⛔ 本席不裁
                          ⚠️ A 与 C 不互斥,很可能应当同时采纳:C 抓已知措辞,A 兜住新措辞。
                          ⚠️ 与 #13557 的分界 —— 邻卡,⛔ 不是重复
                          #13557 问的是何时挂:2026-08-28 对 #12887 的裁定废止了预挂,标签只在可复审增量存在时挂载,而两日内复发 9 例(其中就包括本卡引出的 #13539 本身,由总监席于 2026-08-31 摘除)。它的根因假设是 SOP 文本把「判定」与「挂载」两个动作写在了同一笔。
                          本卡问的是是否属于:published skills/** 文本根本上算不算 CONTENT 肢。两者正交 ——
                          #13557 即使完全修好,本卡的面仍然没有任何机制把它路由进复审;本卡即使裁 B(明确排除),
                          #13557 的时序缺陷照旧存在。
                          ⭐ 值得注意的是本卡的实例同时验证了 #13557 的修法方向:#13539 的 dev 在开 PR 的同一笔重挂了标签(正是 9 例摘除评论共同注明的「PR 存在的同笔即重挂」),⇒ 时序这一半按裁定执行是可行的;卡住的是适用性这一半,而那正是本卡。
                          ⛔ 本席的边界
                          本席不代裁:这是协议形状问题(条款②覆盖面),按人工地板归维护者。上面的建议是建议,不是裁决。
                          Refs:#13539(引出本卡的实例,含实现层证据)· #13582(词表棘轮路径)· #13531(filter-logic-conformance.ts 的陈旧格,domain:spec 在飞)
                          Generated by Claude Code
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            domain:skills
                            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)) {
// 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); }
})();
})();
[Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file · Issue #13588 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                              Skip to content
                              [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file #13588
                              Closed
                              Closed
                              [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? A false skill line changes what the contract promises without touching a contract file#13588
                              Labels
                              domain:skills
                              Description
                              @claude
                              claude
                              bot
                              opened on Aug 31, 2026
                              [Decision] Does published skills/** text fall under clause ②'s CONTENT limb? — today nothing but a seat's judgement routes it to contract review
                              Provenance. Raised by the os-dev agent on #13539 as its option C, and forwarded — ⛔ not adjudicated — by the domain:devx seat (post #6023, session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC), R33. Filed separately so it does not die inside a closed card.
                              The one-line problem
                              A false published-skill line changes what the contract PROMISES without touching a contract file.
                              Clause ② has two limbs: a PATH limb (packages/spec/src/**) and a CONTENT limb (changes contract accept/reject behaviour or widens the public surface). Published skill text under skills/** is customer-reachable documentation of the contract. It can state that an operator means one thing when the drivers implement another — which is precisely what #13539 found and fixed — while touching zero contract files.
                              ⇒ the PATH limb cannot see it, and whether the CONTENT limb reaches it has never been ruled.
                              The concrete instance that raised it
                              On #13539 the dev measured, honestly and against itself, that neither limb fires on its own two PRs: zero packages/spec/** paths, and no Clause-2: yes declaration in the dispatch. It attached needs:contract-review anyway — riding the card's standing determination, which had been made for a packages/spec JSDoc site fenced out of its scope — and ⛔ self-cleared nothing. Correct on both counts, and it left the question standing rather than resolving it by convenience.
                              四维分析
                              1 — 实际业务需求。 这是客户今天就会撞上的面。#13539 的两处 published skill 文本教的是「$exists 测键是否存在」,而三个 driver 实现的全是「有没有值(!= null)」。⇒ 一个照着 skill 写查询的客户会得到与文档相反的结果,而没有任何门禁会红。这不是理论风险,是已发生并已修的实例。
                              2 — 平台长远合理性。 契约的权威文本与契约的描述文本正在分叉治理:前者有 PATH 肢兜底,后者只靠某个座位当天恰好想到。⭐ 关键不对称:skills/** 已经是受管面(人工合并),所以它已经被认为足够重要到不许 AI 自行落地 —— 但它不触发契约复审。⇒ 「重要到要人工合并」与「不重要到不必过契约复审」这两个判断同时成立,至少有一个是错的。
                              3 — 避免 AI 写代码犯错。 ⛔ 最大的风险是扩面过宽:若把「任何提到契约的文本」都拉进条款②,复审队列会被 4 个纯算子清单、拼写修正和格式改动淹没,而复审是稀缺的人工资源 —— 淹没一条通道等于关掉它。#13539 的实测正好给了收窄的形状:10 处 content/docs 命中里,只有 3 处作出语义主张,4 处是无主张的算子清单。⇒ 判据应当是「是否作出可证伪的语义主张」,不是「是否提到契约」。
                              4 — 创业阶段不扩散需求。 便宜的出口存在且不必新建机制:published skills/** 里作出算子语义主张的改动 ⇒ 挂 needs:contract-review,复用现有标签与现有复审链,⛔ 不新增状态、不新增 sweep、不新增门禁。若判定不值得,那也要明写「published skill 文本不属条款②」,让下一个座位不必再猜一次。
                              三条候选,⛔ 本席不裁
                              ⚠️ A 与 C 不互斥,很可能应当同时采纳:C 抓已知措辞,A 兜住新措辞。
                              ⚠️ 与 #13557 的分界 —— 邻卡,⛔ 不是重复
                              #13557 问的是何时挂:2026-08-28 对 #12887 的裁定废止了预挂,标签只在可复审增量存在时挂载,而两日内复发 9 例(其中就包括本卡引出的 #13539 本身,由总监席于 2026-08-31 摘除)。它的根因假设是 SOP 文本把「判定」与「挂载」两个动作写在了同一笔。
                              本卡问的是是否属于:published skills/** 文本根本上算不算 CONTENT 肢。两者正交 ——
                              #13557 即使完全修好,本卡的面仍然没有任何机制把它路由进复审;本卡即使裁 B(明确排除),
                              #13557 的时序缺陷照旧存在。
                              ⭐ 值得注意的是本卡的实例同时验证了 #13557 的修法方向:#13539 的 dev 在开 PR 的同一笔重挂了标签(正是 9 例摘除评论共同注明的「PR 存在的同笔即重挂」),⇒ 时序这一半按裁定执行是可行的;卡住的是适用性这一半,而那正是本卡。
                              ⛔ 本席的边界
                              本席不代裁:这是协议形状问题(条款②覆盖面),按人工地板归维护者。上面的建议是建议,不是裁决。
                              Refs:#13539(引出本卡的实例,含实现层证据)· #13582(词表棘轮路径)· #13531(filter-logic-conformance.ts 的陈旧格,domain:spec 在飞)
                              Generated by Claude Code
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                domain:skills
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions