forked from EduCraft/curriculum-project-hub
hongjr03
3f9b60f692
The spec/ Lean semantic master had no conformance gate, no codegen, and no CI tie to implementations — alignment was carried entirely by human review, the same mechanism that carries the ADRs. In practice the ADRs plus greppable code comments were already the load-bearing artifacts, so spec/ was the most expensive kind of stale documentation. - delete spec/ and the spec-check CI workflow - README: constitution rewritten around ADRs as decision truth - AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md: discipline re-anchored (new decisions -> new ADR, never rewrite ADR history; supersede instead) - code comments: re-anchor 'Mirrors Spec.X' invariants to ADR numbers (cph-diag, cph-check, cph-model, hub runner/capacity/org, prisma) - leave ADR bodies and .scratch audit snapshots untouched (history); fix live references in open readiness tickets
566 B
566 B
Prove the production release gate
Type: task Status: open Blocked by: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46
Question
After the readiness investigations and resulting fixes are resolved, can one repeatable release procedure prove build/test health, deploy a clean production-like environment, exercise critical tenant and agent journeys, verify observability and recovery, and either roll forward or roll back safely?