tegwick
b3280df742
CANP-WP-0004. The operator asked canned-prompts to build a database of versioned prompts recording where each came from and when — the first step toward a platform for collaborative prompting. The format had nowhere to put that. `provenance` records who wrote a prompt and where the idea came from; nothing recorded how a copy arrived in a particular store. Section 20.3 now specifies an `index.yaml` as store metadata rather than package data: how a copy arrived differs for every consumer, and recording an arrival must never rewrite the package that arrived. `add`, `install` and `publish` record registry, id, version, name, source, method, first-inclusion date, and the package's declared author, source and licence — the last three copied so a listing is readable without opening every package. A new `index` verb lists it. `included_at` is never overwritten; a re-run updates `last_seen_at`, because when a package first entered a collection is a fact about history rather than about the last command run. Tests 84 -> 90. Also records two findings from actually using the format: CANP-WP-0004-T03 — inclusion has no deduplication, so a diamond dependency renders shared content once per path. Found by composing a real collection. Not fixed here: deduplicating means choosing which occurrence survives and deciding what happens when two paths resolve different versions, which is resolver behaviour that section 10.4 deliberately avoids. Handed to CANP-WP-0005 with a leaning: document it, warn at validation time, do not deduplicate. The add_ons workaround in practice/pqrst-estimate is evidence about section 23's deferred "richer template syntax" — an optional appendix has to be an input with an empty default, because CPF has no conditionals. 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
47 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
47 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
id: CANP-WP-0005
|
|
type: workplan
|
|
title: "Document and detect inclusion diamonds"
|
|
domain: agents
|
|
repo: canned-prompts
|
|
status: proposed
|
|
owner: codex
|
|
topic_slug: practice
|
|
created: "2026-09-06"
|
|
updated: "2026-09-06"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Document and detect inclusion diamonds
|
|
|
|
Residual from `CANP-WP-0004` (`origin: residual`, `origin_ref: CANP-WP-0004`).
|
|
|
|
## Warn about repeated inclusion
|
|
|
|
```task
|
|
id: CANP-WP-0005-T01
|
|
status: todo
|
|
priority: medium
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
CPF inclusion (§ 10.4) does not deduplicate: when one package reaches the same
|
|
dependency by two paths, the included text renders once per path. This was found
|
|
by building a real collection — `helix/repo-advance` rendered its conventions
|
|
block twice — and worked around downstream by factoring the shared routine into
|
|
its own fragment.
|
|
|
|
§ 10.4 says nothing about it, so an author meets the behaviour only by reading
|
|
the output carefully. That silence is the defect.
|
|
|
|
Two questions, and the second depends on the first:
|
|
|
|
1. **Document it.** State in § 10.4 that inclusion is textual and repeated,
|
|
not deduplicated, and give the factoring pattern that avoids a diamond.
|
|
2. **Detect it.** Decide whether validation should warn when a package reaches
|
|
the same dependency by more than one path. A warning is cheap and catches the
|
|
mistake at `add` time. Silently deduplicating is a different proposition
|
|
entirely — it would mean choosing which occurrence survives, and deciding what
|
|
happens when two paths resolve *different versions* of the same dependency.
|
|
That is resolver behaviour, and § 10.4 keeps composition declarative on
|
|
purpose.
|
|
|
|
Leaning: document it now, warn at validation time, and do not deduplicate.
|