Add repo classification and record workplan review context

- .repo-classification.yaml: experimental / agents (secondary infotech),
  validated against canon repo-classification.allowed.yaml v1.1. Clears
  consistency checks C-24 and C-35.
- CANP-WP-0002: status proposed (not ready) with reviewed_at/reviewed_by and
  context_paths. The promoted open questions carry stated leanings that want
  your sign-off before the workplan claims DoR-Ok; clears C-34.
- WORK-RECORDS.md and workplan state_hub ids as written by fix-consistency.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Bjefh8NUiEiahN4JLwoSKM

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 388925@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 3507023f-e0fd-4a1e-9d90-a0d4217d1502
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-06 00:47:23 +02:00
parent 1963e4b335
commit 7d278e28b7
4 changed files with 62 additions and 1 deletions

20
.repo-classification.yaml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
repo_classification:
standard: Repo Classification Standard
version: '1.1'
classified_at: '2026-09-06'
classified_by: claude
category: experimental
domain: agents
secondary_domains:
- infotech
capability_tags:
- documentation
- lifecycle
- traceability
- configuration
business_stake:
- technology
- product
business_mechanics:
- intention
- adaptation

22
WORK-RECORDS.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
# Work Records — canned-prompts
> Generated by `statehub fix-consistency` (CUST-WP-0061-T04, work-record
> stage 3). Do not edit by hand — edit the source file/block listed for
> each record and re-run fix-consistency to refresh this index. Archived
> workplans are omitted; closed decisions/intakes/engagements stay listed
> so recently-resolved work is still visible. [auto]
| Kind | ID | Status | Lane | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| workplan | CANP-WP-0001 | finished | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md |
| workplan | CANP-WP-0002 | ready | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0001-T01 | done | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0001-T02 | done | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0001-T03 | done | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0002-T01 | todo | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0002-T02 | todo | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0002-T03 | todo | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0002-T04 | todo | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0002-T05 | todo | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0002-T06 | todo | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md |
| task | CANP-WP-0002-T07 | todo | — | workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md |

View file

@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ owner: codex
topic_slug: practice
created: "2026-09-06"
updated: "2026-09-06"
state_hub_workstream_id: "721dffbd-d0dd-531e-ae08-253da6d08562"
---
# Bootstrap State Hub integration
@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ Portable package format, spec and reference CLI for reusable prompt artifacts (C
id: CANP-WP-0001-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "5ae59afa-917b-5d56-8393-d8cc60b41066"
```
Review `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, and `.custodian-brief.md`.
@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ Replace generated placeholders with repo-specific facts where needed.
id: CANP-WP-0001-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "5d3ed4f5-7d72-5058-ae71-606ee69ee32a"
```
Identify the repo's install, test, lint, build, and run commands. Add or refine
@ -44,6 +47,7 @@ changes confidently.
id: CANP-WP-0001-T03
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "6342c0c9-d15e-5675-bf35-1b7c9f6850ff"
```
Done: `workplans/CANP-WP-0002-format-open-questions.md`.

View file

@ -4,11 +4,19 @@ type: workplan
title: "Resolve CPF v0.1 open questions promoted for v0.2"
domain: agents
repo: canned-prompts
status: ready
status: proposed
owner: codex
topic_slug: practice
created: "2026-09-06"
updated: "2026-09-06"
reviewed_at: "2026-09-06"
reviewed_by: "claude"
context_paths:
- "INTENT.md"
- "CannedPromptFormat-v0.1.md"
- "reference/canned_prompts.py"
- "examples/pqrst-estimate/"
state_hub_workstream_id: "c87c8e27-8b11-5306-b687-86779ef3f1be"
---
# Resolve CPF v0.1 open questions promoted for v0.2
@ -34,6 +42,7 @@ or execution engine that satisfies it.
id: CANP-WP-0002-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "e49bf036-0aee-5bb2-abbd-3d3f683df298"
```
**Gap found in review.** Rendering rule § 5.1(4) makes any unresolved
@ -76,6 +85,7 @@ Work:
id: CANP-WP-0002-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "a52cd41e-2bcc-50ee-96a1-d645a06df922"
```
An id like `practice/pqrst-estimate` has a namespace prefix with no owner. Two
@ -95,6 +105,7 @@ Signing and trust scoring stay out of scope (§ 23, INTENT non-goals).
id: CANP-WP-0002-T03
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "0505c790-e57e-568c-9c8c-376957c9b08e"
```
Largest gap between `INTENT.md` and the spec. Principle 9 ("composition without
@ -114,6 +125,7 @@ the INTENT boundary. Do not introduce range resolution (INTENT non-goal).
id: CANP-WP-0002-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "0daf1097-6599-563f-8965-739cbc874ddf"
```
Cheapest item to pin down. `evals/` is a reserved path and `evals:` is a
@ -133,6 +145,7 @@ eval files that declare the schema, and add one eval to
id: CANP-WP-0002-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "5beec7ba-e6c9-58b1-a065-b06aba015034"
```
`dependencies.context` and `dependencies.capabilities` appear in the § 4
@ -151,6 +164,7 @@ the two mechanisms must not describe the same thing twice.
id: CANP-WP-0002-T06
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "06032689-fc19-5fcd-a76e-5dbc87d02cd4"
```
After T01T05 land, replace § 23's flat twelve-item list with two sections:
@ -165,6 +179,7 @@ the format revision warrants it.
id: CANP-WP-0002-T07
status: todo
priority: low
state_hub_task_id: "f642abe6-8222-5958-88ee-7a53454f2344"
```
Two defects found in the same review, independent of the format questions: