flex-auth/internal/layer/survey.go

320 lines
11 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
package layer
import (
"fmt"
"os"
"path/filepath"
"sort"
"strings"
"gopkg.in/yaml.v3"
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
)
// Form is one of the two shapes §11 accepts for a declaration: a layer: key in
// INTENT.md frontmatter, or an equivalent declaration file.
type Form struct {
Source string // path relative to the survey root, "" when the form is absent
Layer string // the layer: value exactly as written
Role string
Found bool
// InVocabulary reports whether Layer is in the §3 vocabulary after ASCII
// case folding. GH-DEC-2026-017 §2 ruled comparison case-insensitive and
// requires a run to fold before comparing, so a lowercase declaration is
// conforming rather than tolerated. The earlier field was deliberately
// case-sensitive while that was the open question; it is now answered.
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
InVocabulary bool
// Canonical is the §4 column spelling of Layer, empty when out of vocabulary.
Canonical string
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
}
// SurveyRow is one repository's declaration as observed from outside. It holds
// BOTH forms, because §11 permits either and does not say which is
// authoritative when a repository carries both and they disagree.
type SurveyRow struct {
Repo string
Intent Form // INTENT.md frontmatter
File Form // layer.yaml or equivalent
// InCatalog reports whether this repository is a §4 row. §11 binds §4, so a
// row that is false can be a volunteer but cannot be a §11 non-conformance.
InCatalog bool
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
}
// Declared reports whether any machine-readable form was found.
func (r SurveyRow) Declared() bool { return r.Intent.Found || r.File.Found }
// SelfDisagrees reports a repository whose two §11 forms state different layer
// values as written. Under GH-DEC-2026-017 §1 a disagreement between the two
// forms is a finding IN ITS OWN RIGHT and MUST be reported rather than resolved
// away by precedence: precedence says which value is the repository's answer,
// it does not say the disagreement did not happen. So case still counts here.
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
func (r SurveyRow) SelfDisagrees() bool {
return r.Intent.Found && r.File.Found && r.Intent.Layer != r.File.Layer
}
// DisagreesOnLayer reports the stronger case: the two forms name different
// LAYERS, not merely different spellings of one. Case-folded per A9. Nine of
// the estate's nine self-disagreements are spelling only, and none of them is
// this.
func (r SurveyRow) DisagreesOnLayer() bool {
return r.Intent.Found && r.File.Found && r.Intent.Canonical != r.File.Canonical
}
// Layer returns the repository's answer. INTENT.md governs: GH-DEC-2026-017 §1
// rules that a layer.yaml or equivalent is a DERIVED artifact under §11's own
// derived-artifact rule — marked derived, naming INTENT.md, required to agree —
// and that the declaration-form paragraph gave the declaration a machine-readable
// FORM, not a second AUTHORITY. That is now a ruling, no longer this survey's
// preference.
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
func (r SurveyRow) Layer() string {
if r.Intent.Found {
return r.Intent.Layer
}
return r.File.Layer
}
var declarationFiles = []string{"layer.yaml", "layer.yml"}
// catalogRows are §4's layer-catalog repositories. §11's obligations attach to
// estate-authored repositories IN §4; a repository outside it may declare
// voluntarily, and a run that grades a volunteer is over-scoped
// (GH-DEC-2026-017 §4, amendment A11). `OpenBao` is a §4 row but is not
// estate-authored, so no declaration is owed there.
var catalogRows = map[string]bool{
"info-tech-canon": true, "net-kingdom": true, "key-cape": true,
"user-engine": true, "tenant-engine": true, "zone-engine": true,
"secrets-engine": true, "audit-core": true, "access-engine": true,
"approval-engine": true, "maturity-engine": true, "gate-house": true,
"ops-mason": true, "ops-warden": true, "kings-guard": true,
"whitehat-security": true,
}
// catalogAliases maps a checkout directory to the §4 row it is. The rename to
// access-engine is ruled and sequenced (FLEX-DEC-2026-013, FLEX-WP-0020) and
// has not landed; §4's own note says both names denote the same authority until
// it does.
var catalogAliases = map[string]string{"flex-auth": "access-engine"}
// InCatalog reports whether a checkout directory is a §4 catalog row.
func InCatalog(repo string) bool {
if alias, ok := catalogAliases[repo]; ok {
repo = alias
}
return catalogRows[repo]
}
// Scope is what a conformance run ranged over.
//
// §11 as amended by A11 requires a run to STATE its scope: a run over §4 and a
// run over every repository carrying a declaration answer different questions,
// and a report that does not say which it did cannot be acted on. That is the
// same defect as a survey that did not record which file a value came from —
// the defect this survey was built to remove — one level up.
type Scope struct {
Name string
Statement string
Repos []string
}
// CatalogScope is a run over the §4 catalog: the set §11's obligations bind.
func CatalogScope(repos []string) Scope {
var in []string
for _, r := range repos {
if InCatalog(r) {
in = append(in, r)
}
}
return Scope{
Name: "§4 catalog",
Statement: "estate-authored repositories catalogued in §4. §11's obligations attach here, and only here.",
Repos: in,
}
}
// EstateScope is a run over every repository asked, catalogued or not. It
// answers a different question from CatalogScope and says so: a repository
// outside §4 that declares is reported as a volunteer, never as a §11
// non-conformance.
func EstateScope(repos []string) Scope {
return Scope{
Name: "estate-wide",
Statement: "every repository surveyed, catalogued or not. Repositories outside §4 are reported as declared voluntarily, outside catalog scope — never as §11 non-conformances.",
Repos: append([]string(nil), repos...),
}
}
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
// SurveyDeclarations reads both §11 forms for every repository under root.
//
// It checks ONE property: whether each layer: value sits in the §3 vocabulary
// as written. It deliberately does not apply flex-auth's own declaration rules
// — pep_stance, tooling_contacts, conformance_record — to any other repository.
// Those are flex-auth's invariants for flex-auth, and §11 is explicit that a
// layer stated about a repository by another repository is not a declaration.
// A survey that graded peers by the surveyor's house rules would be that defect
// wearing a tool for a hat.
func SurveyDeclarations(root string, repos []string) ([]SurveyRow, error) {
var rows []SurveyRow
for _, repo := range repos {
row := SurveyRow{Repo: repo}
row.Intent = readForm(root, filepath.Join(repo, "INTENT.md"))
for _, name := range declarationFiles {
if f := readForm(root, filepath.Join(repo, name)); f.Found {
row.File = f
break
}
}
row.InCatalog = InCatalog(repo)
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
rows = append(rows, row)
}
sort.Slice(rows, func(i, j int) bool { return rows[i].Repo < rows[j].Repo })
return rows, nil
}
func readForm(root, rel string) Form {
path := filepath.Join(root, rel)
if _, err := os.Stat(path); err != nil {
return Form{}
}
decl, err := loadAnyDeclaration(path)
if err != nil || strings.TrimSpace(decl.Layer) == "" {
return Form{}
}
canon, ok := CanonicalLayer(decl.Layer)
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
return Form{
Source: rel,
Layer: decl.Layer,
Role: decl.Role,
Found: true,
InVocabulary: ok,
Canonical: canon,
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
}
}
// peerDeclaration is the ONLY shape the survey reads from another repository:
// layer and role. Decoding a peer into flex-auth's own Declaration applied
// flex-auth's field types to someone else's file — and when flex-auth's
// emission_guarantee became a path string, audit-core's list-shaped
// emission_guarantee failed to decode and its layer.yaml silently vanished
// from the survey. A surveyor's schema is a house rule too.
type peerDeclaration struct {
Layer string `yaml:"layer"`
Role string `yaml:"role"`
}
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
// loadAnyDeclaration reads INTENT.md frontmatter or a bare declaration file.
func loadAnyDeclaration(path string) (peerDeclaration, error) {
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
body, err := os.ReadFile(path)
if err != nil {
return peerDeclaration{}, err
}
doc := string(body)
if strings.HasSuffix(path, ".md") {
if doc, err = splitFrontmatter(doc); err != nil {
return peerDeclaration{}, err
}
}
var decl peerDeclaration
if err := yaml.Unmarshal([]byte(doc), &decl); err != nil {
return peerDeclaration{}, fmt.Errorf("parse layer declaration %s: %w", path, err)
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
}
return decl, nil
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
}
// Spellings groups every observed layer: value across both forms, so the spread
// is a result rather than a claim.
func Spellings(rows []SurveyRow) map[string][]string {
out := map[string][]string{}
add := func(v, where string) {
if v != "" {
out[v] = append(out[v], where)
}
}
for _, r := range rows {
if r.Intent.Found {
add(r.Intent.Layer, r.Repo+"/INTENT.md")
}
if r.File.Found {
add(r.File.Layer, r.File.Source)
}
}
return out
}
// Undeclared lists repositories with no machine-readable declaration in either form.
func Undeclared(rows []SurveyRow) []string {
var out []string
for _, r := range rows {
if !r.Declared() {
out = append(out, r.Repo)
}
}
return out
}
// SelfDisagreeing lists repositories whose two §11 forms disagree.
func SelfDisagreeing(rows []SurveyRow) []SurveyRow {
var out []SurveyRow
for _, r := range rows {
if r.SelfDisagrees() {
out = append(out, r)
}
}
return out
}
// VolunteerDeclarations lists repositories outside §4 that declared anyway. The
// correct report for them is "declared voluntarily, outside catalog scope"
// (GH-DEC-2026-017 §4): treating a volunteer's declaration as a non-conformance
// is both wrong about who §11 binds and the fastest way to stop getting
// volunteers.
func VolunteerDeclarations(rows []SurveyRow) []string {
var out []string
for _, r := range rows {
if !r.InCatalog && r.Declared() {
out = append(out, r.Repo)
}
}
return out
}
// FormatSurvey renders the survey as a stable, diffable report. It leads with
// the scope because §11 requires a run to state what it ranged over.
func FormatSurvey(scope Scope, rows []SurveyRow) string {
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
var b strings.Builder
fmt.Fprintf(&b, "Scope: %s — %s\n\n", scope.Name, scope.Statement)
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
fmt.Fprintf(&b, "%-18s %-16s %-16s %s\n", "REPO", "INTENT.md", "DECL FILE", "NOTE")
for _, r := range rows {
note := ""
switch {
case !r.Declared() && !r.InCatalog:
note = "no declaration; outside §4 — none owed"
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
case !r.Declared():
note = "NO DECLARATION (§11)"
case r.DisagreesOnLayer():
note = "forms name DIFFERENT LAYERS; INTENT.md governs"
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
case r.SelfDisagrees():
note = "forms disagree on spelling only; INTENT.md governs, still a finding"
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
case !r.Intent.Found:
note = "declaration file only"
case !r.File.Found:
note = "INTENT.md only"
}
for _, f := range []Form{r.Intent, r.File} {
if f.Found && !f.InVocabulary {
note += "; " + f.Layer + " is outside the closed §3 vocabulary"
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
}
}
if r.Declared() && !r.InCatalog {
note += "; declared voluntarily, outside §4 catalog scope"
}
Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1. B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1 unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it. tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were two. The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else. That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file. The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no exception for the reviewer. Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement. The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house rules to peers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
fmt.Fprintf(&b, "%-18s %-16s %-16s %s\n", r.Repo, dash(r.Intent.Layer), dash(r.File.Layer), note)
}
return b.String()
}
func dash(s string) string {
if strings.TrimSpace(s) == "" {
return "—"
}
return s
}