docs: align issue-core with work-record connector role (ISSUE-WP-0004)
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 2s

Retarget INTENT, SCOPE, README, ROADMAP, and agent docs from "task landing
zone" to external-tracker connector per work-record canon and architecture
draft §4.2. Add UUID↔external-id mapping design; mark ISSUE-WP-0004 finished
and cross-file activity-core ACTIVITY-WP-0022 for IssueSink policy.
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-07-21 04:22:12 +02:00
parent 5e556028ab
commit d60175c354
9 changed files with 760 additions and 226 deletions

View file

@ -4,7 +4,9 @@
## Purpose
The **Issue Core** capability provides a standardized interface for autonomous coding agents to coordinate project implementation through issue tracking. Instead of agents directly interfacing with platform-specific APIs (GitHub, GitLab, Gitea), they use a unified abstraction that works consistently across backends.
The **Issue Core** capability provides a standardized interface for autonomous coding agents to operate on **external issue trackers** (GitHub, GitLab, Gitea/Forgejo). Instead of agents learning platform-specific APIs, they use a unified abstraction.
**Fleet note (2026-07-20):** Internal work originates as repo work records (ADR-001 / work-record canon), not as issue-core issues. Use this guide when an agent must project to or work inside a third-party tracker. See `INTENT.md` and `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`.
### Why Issue Tracking for Agent Coordination?

194
INTENT.md
View file

@ -2,57 +2,105 @@
## Why it exists
The Coulomb org needs a **single, observable place where tasks land** — regardless
of whether they were created by a human typing a CLI command, by an automation
like activity-core acting on a rule, or by an agent acting on instructions.
The Coulomb org collaborates through **external issue trackers** (Forgejo /
Gitea, GitHub, Jira, …) when a human counterparty, open-source workflow, or
third-party process requires it. Those systems are not the fleet's internal
coordination substrate — that role belongs to **work records** authored as
repo files (ADR-001) and indexed by state-hub.
Without a single landing zone, task creation fragments across:
- Per-repo Gitea issue trackers (siloed, no cross-repo view)
- Ad hoc files and TODO comments (invisible, unaudited)
- Agent-local memory and notebooks (lost when the agent ends)
- External SaaS trackers (rate-limited, off-network)
issue-core exists so that, **when an external tracker is actually in use**,
every actor can project, query, and update issues through one backend-agnostic
interface — and so the fleet can keep a stable **mapping** between internal
work-record identity (UUIDs) and external issue ids.
issue-core gives every actor — human or machine — one stable, observable place
to file work, and one stable surface to consume work from.
Without a connector layer, external-tracker access fragments across:
- Per-repo Gitea / Forgejo API clients (siloed, no shared mapping)
- Ad hoc `gh` / `glab` / curl scripts (untyped, unaudited)
- Agent-local integrations (lost when the agent ends)
- Direct SaaS API calls (rate-limited, off-network, no UUID back-reference)
issue-core gives humans and machines one stable surface to talk to external
trackers, and (target shape) one place that records which internal work record
projects to which external issue.
## Honest history (pivot, 2026-07-20)
issue-core was originally built and documented as a **task landing zone**: a
single observable place where humans, activity-core, and agents filed work via
CLI / REST / future NATS, with Gitea as the default store. That framing
contradicted the fleet decision that work originates as **repo files** and
that Forgejo issues are not the coordination mechanism.
The pivot was ratified while reviewing a live incident: activity-core's
`daily-todo-md-stale-review` ActivityDefinition routed findings through
`IssueSink` → issue-core → Forgejo, producing issues nobody was meant to see
as fleet work. Founder-reviewed architecture draft §4.2
(`the-custodian/research/WorkOrchestrationArchitectureDraft.md` v0.2,
2026-07-20) and the work-record canon
(`the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md`, CUST-WP-0060)
settled the role below. Capability (CRUD, backends, REST, sync) stays; the
*purpose* is retargeted to connector, not origin.
## What it is
A **task lifecycle manager** with a pluggable-backend architecture.
A **connector framework to external issue-tracking systems**, with a
pluggable-backend architecture.
Responsibilities:
- **Ingestion**: accept new tasks via CLI, REST (`POST /issues/`), and — in the
future — NATS subscriptions.
- **Storage**: route each task to the configured backend (Gitea, SQLite, GitHub).
- **Lifecycle**: create → assign → update → close, with state transitions that
hold regardless of backend.
- **Querying**: list, search, filter across the active backend.
- **Synchronization**: bidirectional sync between local SQLite (source of truth
for offline work) and remote backends.
- **Projection / CRUD**: create, read, update, close, and comment on issues in
the configured backend (Gitea/Forgejo, SQLite offline cache, planned GitHub /
GitLab / Jira).
- **Mapping (target)**: maintain internal work-record UUID ↔ external issue id
so a work record can carry a back-reference to its tracker projection
(design: `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`).
- **Boundary sync**: two-way, transclusion-like sync *at the boundary* when
collaboration runs through a third-party tracker — not as the internal
execution loop.
- **CLI + REST**: human and automation surfaces for direct backend use when a
tracker is intentionally switched on.
- **Optional ingestion**: `POST /issues/` remains for authenticated clients that
deliberately create tracker issues; it is **not** the primary fleet path for
internal findings or work origin.
Backends today: **local SQLite**, **Gitea**. Planned: **GitHub**, **GitLab**, **JIRA**.
The CLI entry points are `issue` (primary) and `issue-core` (explicit alias).
Until an external integration is actually switched on for a given workflow, the
connector layer should add **zero load** to the internal coordination loop.
## What it is NOT
issue-core is intentionally narrow. The following live elsewhere:
- **Not a project manager.** Phases, campaigns, milestones spanning multiple tasks,
dependency graphs across tasks, gantt-style scheduling — that is the domain of
`project-core` (planned). issue-core deals in individual tasks, not in plans
composed of tasks.
- **Not the origin of work records.** Work records originate as repo files per
ADR-001 (`the-custodian/canon/architecture/adr-001-workplans-as-repo-artefacts.md`
and the work-record types standard). issue-core provides the
**external-tracker projection** when one is in use. Internal tasks, intake
items, workplans, and decisions are not created here.
- **Not a spawn audit trail.** When activity-core fires a rule that creates a task,
the *spawn event* (who fired, what rule, what triggering event) is recorded in
activity-core's `task_spawn_log`. issue-core only stores the resulting task and
its `triggering_event_id` reference back. The audit-of-creation belongs to the
emitter.
- **Not the internal execution / coordination loop.** Claiming and execution
run on work records directly (harness intake via NATS/activity-core per its
stated target). Fleet orientation is state-hub + repo files, not Forgejo
issue lists.
- **Not a project manager.** Phases, campaigns, milestones spanning multiple
tasks, dependency graphs across tasks, gantt-style scheduling — that is the
domain of workplans / project tooling. issue-core deals in individual
external issues, not in plans composed of tasks.
- **Not a spawn audit trail.** When an upstream service deliberately emits an
issue here, the *spawn event* belongs to the emitter (e.g. activity-core's
`task_spawn_log`). issue-core stores the resulting issue and optional
traceability fields (`triggering_event_id`, future work-record UUID) — not
the audit-of-creation.
- **Not an event bus.** Communication between services flows over NATS (and
state-hub progress events). issue-core consumes events, but does not relay them.
state-hub progress events). issue-core consumes or serves specific
boundaries; it does not relay events between other services.
- **Not a notification system.** Surfacing "your task changed" to humans is the
job of the relevant UI / digest / chatbot layer, not issue-core.
- **Not a notification system.** Surfacing "your task changed" to humans is
the job of the relevant UI / digest / chatbot layer, not issue-core.
- **Not a workflow engine.** State transitions are simple (open → closed, with
a few in-between states). Conditional routing, approvals, multi-step
@ -61,19 +109,17 @@ issue-core is intentionally narrow. The following live elsewhere:
## How it fits
```
+-------------------+
| activity-core |
| IssueSink (REST) |
+---------+---------+
|
POST /issues/ (TaskSpec payload)
|
v
+------------+ +-------+--------+ +-----------------+
| Humans +----->| |<-----+ Agents |
| CLI: | | issue-core | | (CLI or REST) |
| $ issue | | | | |
+------------+ +-------+--------+ +-----------------+
Work records (repo files, ADR-001) External collaboration
───────────────────────────────── ──────────────────────
workplan / task / intake / … Counterparty, OSS, Jira, …
│ │
│ optional project when │
│ a tracker is switched on │
v v
+------------------+ UUID ↔ issue id +------------------+
| state-hub | <---- mapping ------> | issue-core |
| (read model) | | (connector) |
+------------------+ +--------+---------+
|
+---------+----------+
| Backend router |
@ -82,35 +128,53 @@ issue-core is intentionally narrow. The following live elsewhere:
v v v
+------+ +-----+ +------+
|Gitea | |SQLite| |GitHub|
|Forgejo| |cache| | … |
+------+ +-----+ +------+
Direct use (human CLI / intentional REST) still goes to issue-core
without creating a work-record origin — useful for tracker admin and
collaboration, not for fleet task birth.
```
**Upstream of issue-core (emitters):**
- **activity-core** — emits tasks via `IssueSink` when a rule fires or an
instruction declares one. Payload: `TaskSpec` over `POST /issues/`.
- **Humans**`$ issue create ...` from terminals; future web UI.
- **Agents** — same REST surface or CLI.
**Primary fleet path (coordination):**
1. A work record exists in a repo file (or is registered from one).
2. Humans/agents claim and execute against that record (and state-hub views).
3. **Optionally**, issue-core projects the record to an external tracker and
records the UUID ↔ external-id mapping.
**Downstream of issue-core (consumers):**
- **Humans and agents** assigned tasks consume them via `$ issue list`, web UI,
or per-backend native UIs (Gitea web, GitHub PR view, etc.).
- **state-hub** receives progress events as tasks move through their lifecycle.
- **Status updates** flow back to issue-core, not to the original emitter —
activity-core does not track what happened to the task it spawned.
**Secondary path (direct tracker use):**
- **Humans**`$ issue create ...` when deliberately working in a backend.
- **Authenticated automation**`POST /issues/` only when the product decision
is "create an external issue," not "spawn fleet work."
- **activity-core IssueSink** — must not be the default always-on path for
internal findings (see ISSUE-WP-0004-T05 / activity-core follow-up).
**Downstream:**
- Backend native UIs (Gitea web, GitHub, …) for external collaboration.
- state-hub for fleet lifecycle visibility of *work records*, not of every
issue-core row.
## Success looks like
- Every task in the Coulomb org is discoverable from one query surface.
- activity-core can fire a rule and have the resulting task land in the right
backend with the right metadata, with no human in the loop.
- The CLI experience is identical across SQLite-only laptops and full Gitea-
backed servers.
- Offline work syncs back cleanly when connectivity returns.
- External trackers are usable through one CLI/API without each agent learning
platform-specific clients.
- When a work record is projected outward, the UUID ↔ external-id mapping is
durable and inspectable (once implemented per the design note).
- Internal automation does **not** silently open Forgejo issues for findings
that belong in repo work records.
- Offline SQLite work syncs cleanly to a remote backend when connectivity
returns.
- With no external integration switched on, issue-core adds no load to the
internal loop.
## See also
- `SCOPE.md` — concrete in/out-of-scope decisions and integration boundaries.
- `ROADMAP.md` — feature trajectory.
- `workplans/` — active workplans.
- activity-core `docs/adr/adr-001-event-bridge-architecture.md` — the IssueSink
contract that issue-core honors at `POST /issues/`.
- `ROADMAP.md` — feature trajectory (connector-aligned).
- `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md` — design for the mapping surface.
- `workplans/ISSUE-WP-0004-align-with-work-record-canon.md` — this pivot.
- `the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md` — work-record canon.
- `the-custodian/research/WorkOrchestrationArchitectureDraft.md` §4.2 —
founder-reviewed connector role.
- activity-core `docs/adr/adr-001-event-bridge-architecture.md` — IssueSink
contract at `POST /issues/` (optional, intentional use only).

153
README.md
View file

@ -1,20 +1,30 @@
# Issue Core - Agent Coordination via Issue Tracking
# Issue Core — External Tracker Connector
**A unified interface for autonomous coding agents to coordinate project implementation through issue tracking systems.**
**A backend-agnostic connector to third-party issue trackers (Gitea/Forgejo, GitHub, …), not the fleet's internal work-origin or coordination substrate.**
## Purpose
The **Issue Core** provides a standardized abstraction layer for coding agents to interact with issue tracking backends (Gitea, GitHub, GitLab, local SQLite). Instead of each agent implementing platform-specific API integrations, they use one consistent interface that works across all backends.
**issue-core** is a standardized abstraction layer for talking to external issue-tracking backends (Gitea, GitHub, GitLab, local SQLite cache). Instead of each agent or automation implementing platform-specific APIs, they use one consistent CLI and Python interface — and, going forward, a durable **work-record UUID ↔ external issue id** mapping when a tracker projection is switched on.
### Why Issue Tracking for Agent Coordination?
### Fleet coordination vs external trackers
Issue tracking provides natural coordination primitives for multi-agent software development:
Internal fleet work is **not** originated here. Work records (workplans, tasks, intake, decisions, …) live as **repo files** (ADR-001) and are indexed by state-hub under the work-record types canon — see `the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md` and `the-custodian/research/WorkOrchestrationArchitectureDraft.md` §4.2.
- **Task Distribution**: Issues represent discrete work units agents can claim and execute
- **Progress Tracking**: States (open → in_progress → closed) track work across the team
- **Communication**: Comments enable agent-to-agent and agent-to-human communication
- **Visibility**: Labels, assignees, and milestones provide real-time project status
- **Human Integration**: Humans can seamlessly participate in agent-driven development
issue-core's role (founder-reviewed, 2026-07-20):
- **Connector** to external issue-tracking systems when collaboration requires them
- **Mapping** between internal work-record UUIDs and external issue ids (design: `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`)
- **Two-way boundary sync** when a third-party tracker is actually in use
- **Zero load** on the internal loop until an external integration is switched on
External trackers remain useful for:
- **Human / open-source collaboration** on GitHub, Forgejo, Jira, etc.
- **Communication** via comments when the counterparty lives in that UI
- **Visibility** for people who only watch the tracker, not the fleet hub
- **Optional projection** of a work record outward (not birth of the work record)
For agent coordination *inside* the Coulomb fleet, use work records + state-hub, not Forgejo as the default task board. See `INTENT.md` and `SCOPE.md`.
## Current Status
@ -45,10 +55,13 @@ pip install -e . # CLI only
pip install -e ".[api]" # CLI + REST ingestion server
```
### REST Ingestion Server
### REST Server (intentional external issues)
issue-core exposes `POST /issues/` for upstream emitters (primarily
activity-core's `IssueSink`). Launch with:
issue-core exposes `POST /issues/` for **authenticated clients that deliberately
create external tracker issues**. This is not the primary fleet path for
originating work (work records start as repo files). activity-core's
`IssueSink` may call this only when an external issue is intentional policy —
not as an always-on landing zone for internal findings.
```bash
export ISSUE_CORE_API_KEY="$(python -c 'import secrets; print(secrets.token_urlsafe(32))')"
@ -109,14 +122,16 @@ issue close 42 --comment="Ready for review"
## Agent Integration
**For autonomous coding agents**, see **[AGENT_INTEGRATION.md](AGENT_INTEGRATION.md)** for:
**Prefer work records + state-hub for fleet task lifecycle.** Use issue-core when
an agent must operate on an **external tracker** (project a task, update a
Forgejo/GitHub issue, sync comments at the boundary).
See **[AGENT_INTEGRATION.md](AGENT_INTEGRATION.md)** for:
- Programmatic Python API usage
- Multi-agent coordination patterns
- Agent workflow examples
- Label-based role assignment
- State machine workflows
- Comment-based communication protocols
- Multi-agent patterns **against tracker backends** (not as the fleet board)
- Label-based filters and state machine workflows on external issues
- Comment-based communication when the counterparty is in the tracker UI
- Workarounds for current limitations
- Performance optimization tips
@ -192,42 +207,31 @@ for issue in issues:
## Use Cases
### 1. Multi-Agent Project Implementation
### 1. External tracker ops (when a backend is in use)
Multiple specialized agents coordinate via issues:
Agents or humans work issues that already live in Gitea/GitHub (e.g. OSS
inbound, customer Jira, or an intentional projection):
```bash
# Agent 1 (Coder): Claims and implements features
issue list --label=needs-implementation --format=json | \
jq -r '.[0].number' | \
xargs -I {} issue edit {} --assignee=agent-coder --state=in_progress
# List open external issues for a label
issue list --label=needs-implementation --format=json
# Agent 2 (Reviewer): Reviews completed work
issue list --label=needs-review --format=json | \
jq -r '.[0].number' | \
xargs -I {} issue comment {} "Code review: Approved"
# Agent 3 (Tester): Runs tests
issue list --label=reviewed --format=json | \
jq -r '.[0].number' | \
xargs -I {} issue comment {} "Tests passing: 100%"
# Claim and update state on the tracker
issue edit 42 --assignee=agent-coder --state=in_progress
issue comment 42 "Implementation complete, tests passing"
issue close 42 --comment="Ready for review"
```
### 2. Agent-Human Collaboration
Fleet-internal task claim/execute should use workplan task status in the repo
+ state-hub, not Forgejo by default.
Agents propose implementations, humans approve:
### 2. Human collaboration through a tracker UI
```python
# Agent creates subtasks from human requirements
feature = backend.get_issue_by_number(100)
for subtask in agent.break_down_feature(feature):
backend.create_issue(subtask)
When the counterparty only uses GitHub/Gitea, project or update the external
issue and keep comments there. Mapping design (UUID ↔ external id) will tie
that projection back to the work record — see `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`.
# Human reviews and approves via comments
# Agent monitors and proceeds with implementation
```
### 3. Offline Development with Sync
### 3. Offline development with sync
Work offline with local backend, sync when online:
@ -238,7 +242,7 @@ issue sync pull gitea-production backup
# Work offline
issue backend set-default backup
issue create "Offline implementation" --label=offline
issue create "Offline tracker note" --label=offline
# Sync back
issue sync push backup gitea-production
@ -329,40 +333,35 @@ issue-core/
## Documentation
- **[AGENT_INTEGRATION.md](AGENT_INTEGRATION.md)** - Comprehensive guide for autonomous agents
- Programmatic API usage
- Multi-agent coordination patterns
- Workflow examples and strategies
- Performance optimization
- Current workarounds
- **[INTENT.md](INTENT.md)** — why issue-core exists (connector, not landing zone)
- **[SCOPE.md](SCOPE.md)** — in/out of scope and integration boundaries
- **[docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md](docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md)** — mapping design (not implemented yet)
- **[AGENT_INTEGRATION.md](AGENT_INTEGRATION.md)** — programmatic API for tracker backends
- **[ROADMAP.md](ROADMAP.md)** — feature trajectory (connector-aligned)
- Work-record canon: `the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md`
- Architecture §4.2: `the-custodian/research/WorkOrchestrationArchitectureDraft.md`
- **[CLAUDE.md](CLAUDE.md)** - Development guide for working on this codebase
- Architecture deep-dive
- Testing strategy
- Adding new backends
- Common development tasks
## Roadmap (summary)
- **[ROADMAP.md](ROADMAP.md)** - Planned features and implementation timeline
### Connector alignment (docs — ISSUE-WP-0004)
- INTENT / SCOPE / README framing as external connector
- UUID ↔ external-id mapping design
## Roadmap
### v1.1 - Auto-Configuration (Next)
### v1.1 - Auto-Configuration
- Automatic git remote detection
- Environment-variable-only setup
- Per-repository configuration files
- `issue config detect` command
### v1.2 - Agent Features
- Agent identity management
- Issue claiming/locking API
- Webhook support for reactive agents
- Structured metadata for agent state
### Mapping + boundary sync (stage-3 work-record architecture)
- Persist work-record UUID ↔ backend issue id
- Optional two-way sync when a tracker is switched on
- No load when integrations are off
### v2.0 - Advanced Coordination
- Issue dependency tracking
- Query DSL for complex filters
- Activity streams and event logs
- Distributed locking for concurrent operations
### Further backends / agent helpers
- GitHub, GitLab, Jira backends
- Claiming helpers for external issues
- Webhooks for tracker-side events
## Comparison with Platform CLIs
@ -396,19 +395,15 @@ The Issue Core is designed to be extensible:
See existing backends (Gitea, Local) as reference implementations.
## Why "Facade"?
## Why "Facade" / connector?
The **Facade Pattern** describes this tool's purpose:
The **Facade Pattern** still describes the *implementation* style:
> *"Provide a unified interface to a set of interfaces in a subsystem."*
> — Gang of Four, Design Patterns
Instead of coding agents learning different APIs for GitHub (`gh`), GitLab (`glab`), Gitea, JIRA, etc., they use one consistent interface. The facade doesn't replace issue trackers—it makes them easier to use uniformly.
Instead of agents learning different APIs for GitHub (`gh`), GitLab (`glab`), Gitea, JIRA, etc., they use one consistent interface. The facade does not replace issue trackers — and it does **not** replace work records as the origin of fleet work. It connects the fleet to trackers at the boundary.
## License
MIT License - See LICENSE file
## Part of MarkiTect
This capability is part of the [MarkiTect Project](https://github.com/markitect), a collection of tools for agent-driven software development.

View file

@ -1,8 +1,30 @@
# Issue Core Roadmap
**Long-term vision and implementation plan for agent-driven software development coordination.**
**Long-term vision for issue-core as an external issue-tracker connector** —
not as the fleet's work-origin or internal coordination substrate.
## Current Status: v1.0 (Production-Ready Core)
## Framing (updated 2026-07-20)
Fleet coordination runs on **work records** (repo files + state-hub), per:
- `the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md`
- `the-custodian/research/WorkOrchestrationArchitectureDraft.md` §4.2
- `INTENT.md` / `SCOPE.md` / ISSUE-WP-0004
issue-core's trajectory is therefore:
1. **Keep** multi-backend CRUD, CLI, REST, and sync as a solid connector.
2. **Add** durable **work-record UUID ↔ external issue id** mapping and
boundary sync (design: `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`).
3. **Stop** treating "everything lands in issue-core" as the product north star.
Agent claim/execute for *fleet* work belongs on work records; tracker
claim/locking remains useful for *external* issues.
Phases below that talk about multi-agent coordination should be read as
**coordination through an external tracker when one is in use**, not as
replacing workplans/tasks.
## Current Status: v1.0 (Production-Ready Connector Core)
✅ **Complete:**
- Core CRUD operations (100%)
@ -11,19 +33,40 @@
- CLI with JSON output
- Python programmatic API
- Basic synchronization
- Comprehensive test suite (109 tests, 61% coverage)
- REST `POST/GET/PATCH /issues/` (intentional external issues)
- Comprehensive test suite
⚠️ **Limitations:**
- Manual backend configuration
- No auto-detection
- Basic conflict resolution
- Hardcoded user context
- No work-record UUID mapping yet (design only)
- Docs historically framed issue-core as a landing zone (corrected in ISSUE-WP-0004)
---
## Phase 1: Auto-Configuration (v1.1) - **Next Priority**
## Phase 0: Work-record canon alignment (docs) — ISSUE-WP-0004
**Goal:** Enable agents to work in any repository without manual setup.
**Goal:** Align product framing with the connector decision; design mapping.
| Item | Status |
| --- | --- |
| Rewrite INTENT.md | this workplan |
| Rewrite SCOPE.md (mapping table concept) | this workplan |
| README / ROADMAP framing | this workplan |
| Design note: UUID ↔ external-id mapping | `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md` |
| File activity-core IssueSink policy follow-up | cross-repo task |
**Implementation of the mapping store is stage-3 in the-custodian work-record
architecture — not blocked on inventing a parallel coordination system here.**
---
## Phase 1: Auto-Configuration (v1.1) - **Next engineering priority**
**Goal:** Enable agents and operators to attach issue-core to any repo's
external tracker without painful manual setup.
### 1.1.1 Git Remote Detection
@ -245,9 +288,26 @@ fi
---
## Phase 2: Agent Features (v1.2)
## Phase 1.5: UUID ↔ external-id mapping (stage-3 work-record arch)
**Goal:** Native support for multi-agent coordination.
**Goal:** Persist and query the association between internal work-record
UUIDs and backend issue ids so projections are first-class.
See **`docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`** for the design (no code in
ISSUE-WP-0004). Expected deliverables when scheduled:
- Mapping table / store (local SQLite + optional remote annotation)
- API/CLI: project work record → create or link external issue; resolve either way
- Optional fields on `TaskSpec` / project request for `work_record_uuid`
- Two-way status/comment sync *at the boundary* only when enabled
- Idle cost zero when no mapping/integration is configured
---
## Phase 2: Agent Features for external trackers (v1.2)
**Goal:** Native helpers when agents operate **on external issues** (not a
replacement for work-record execution).
### 1.2.1 Agent Identity Management
@ -473,9 +533,12 @@ issue webhook remove <id>
---
## Phase 3: Advanced Coordination (v2.0)
## Phase 3: Advanced tracker features (v2.0)
**Goal:** Enterprise-grade multi-agent system coordination.
**Goal:** Richer connector behavior for large external-tracker deployments
(dependencies between *external* issues, query DSL, webhooks already partly
in Phase 2). Fleet dependency graphs for work records remain out of scope
here (workplan tooling / hub).
### 2.0.1 Issue Dependency Tracking
@ -718,20 +781,30 @@ def sync_with_strategy(
## Success Metrics
### Phase 0 Success (canon alignment)
- [x] INTENT/SCOPE/README describe connector, not landing zone
- [x] Mapping surface designed (`docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`)
- [ ] activity-core IssueSink default no longer dumps internal findings to Forgejo
### Phase 1 Success
- [ ] Agent can work in any repo with zero manual config
- [ ] Agent can attach to any repo's tracker with zero manual config
- [ ] Environment-only setup works: `GITEA_TOKEN=xxx issue list`
- [ ] Auto-detection accuracy: >95% for common platforms
### Phase 1.5 Success (mapping)
- [ ] Project work-record UUID → external issue id is durable and queryable
- [ ] Reverse lookup (external issue → UUID) works for linked issues
- [ ] No mapping configured ⇒ no extra load / no accidental Forgejo spam
### Phase 2 Success
- [ ] Multiple agents can coordinate without race conditions
- [ ] Agent identity propagates to all operations
- [ ] Claim/lock prevents concurrent work on same issue
- [ ] Multiple agents can operate on external issues without race conditions
- [ ] Agent identity propagates to tracker operations
- [ ] Claim/lock prevents concurrent work on the same external issue
### Phase 3 Success
- [ ] Complex dependency chains work correctly
- [ ] Query DSL covers 90% of common queries
- [ ] Real-time event processing with <1s latency
- [ ] External-issue dependency helpers work where backends support them
- [ ] Query DSL covers 90% of common tracker queries
- [ ] Real-time tracker event processing with <1s latency when webhooks enabled
---

154
SCOPE.md
View file

@ -3,12 +3,18 @@
Concrete in-scope / out-of-scope decisions for issue-core. Paired with `INTENT.md`,
which explains *why*; this file states *what* and *what not*.
**Fleet framing (2026-07-20):** issue-core is a **connector** to external
issue trackers and the home of the **UUID ↔ external-id mapping** concept.
Work records originate as repo files (ADR-001 / work-record canon). See
`INTENT.md` and `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`.
## In scope
### Task CRUD across backends
### External-issue CRUD across backends
- **Create** issues with title, description, labels, priority, type, milestone,
assignee, due date.
assignee, due date — when a tracker projection or direct tracker use is
intentional.
- **Read** individual issues and lists with filters (state, labels, priority,
assignee, text search).
- **Update** any mutable field on existing issues.
@ -25,8 +31,8 @@ which explains *why*; this file states *what* and *what not*.
### Backends shipped today
- **Local SQLite** — offline source of truth.
- **Gitea** — REST API integration.
- **Local SQLite** — offline cache / source of truth for disconnected work.
- **Gitea** — REST API integration (Forgejo-compatible in deployment).
### Backends planned
@ -34,15 +40,34 @@ which explains *why*; this file states *what* and *what not*.
- **GitLab** — Issues.
- **JIRA** — issues with story-points.
### Ingestion surfaces
### UUID ↔ external-id mapping (target shape)
- **CLI** (`issue` / `issue-core`) for humans and agents on a shell.
- **REST** (`POST /issues/`) for automation — primarily activity-core's
`IssueSink`, but open to any well-authenticated client.
- **REST worker surface** (`GET/PATCH /issues/`) for executors (agent-harness):
list open issues by label/state, claim (`in_progress` + assignee), close.
- **NATS subscriber** (design stub only — implementation deferred until
activity-core migrates from REST to NATS, see `docs/nats-task-ingestion.md`).
Primary *fleet* responsibility of issue-core going forward — design only in
this repo until stage-3 work-record architecture lands; see
`docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md`.
| Concept | Meaning |
| --- | --- |
| Internal id | Work-record UUID (UUIDv7, hub-assigned / written back to source file as `state_hub_*_id`-style fields) |
| External id | Backend issue id / number + backend identity (`gitea`, `github`, …) |
| Mapping row | Durable association: which work record projects to which external issue |
| Direction | Create projection outward; optional two-way sync of status/comments at the boundary |
Named here so scope and design agree before implementation.
### Operator / automation surfaces
- **CLI** (`issue` / `issue-core`) for humans and agents on a shell — direct
backend use.
- **REST** (`POST /issues/`) for **intentional** external-issue creation by
authenticated clients. Remains useful; is **not** the primary fleet path for
originating work.
- **REST worker surface** (`GET/PATCH /issues/`) for executors that operate on
external issues when a tracker is in the loop: list, claim
(`in_progress` + assignee), close.
- **NATS subscriber** (design stub only — see `docs/nats-task-ingestion.md`).
Any NATS path must respect the same rule: external projection only when
explicitly configured, never silent origin of fleet work.
### Synchronization
@ -53,29 +78,47 @@ which explains *why*; this file states *what* and *what not*.
### State Hub integration
- Registered as a custodian-domain repo.
- Emits `add_progress_event()` calls on significant task lifecycle moments.
- Surfaces blocked tasks via the hub's `list_blocked_tasks()` view.
- Registered as a custodian-domain / infotech repo.
- May emit `add_progress_event()` on significant *connector* lifecycle moments
(e.g. projection created, mapping updated) when wired.
- Does **not** replace work-record indexing; state-hub remains the fleet read
model for work records.
## Out of scope
### Origin of fleet work
Creating workplans, tasks, intake items, decisions, or engagements. Those
originate as repo files (or schema-valid blocks in context) and are indexed by
`fix-consistency` / state-hub. issue-core may **project** an existing work
record to a tracker; it does not birth the work record.
### Default sink for internal automation findings
activity-core (and similar) must not treat `POST /issues/` as the always-on
default for every matched rule. That product decision lives in the emitter;
issue-core will keep accepting authenticated POSTs but will not redefine itself
as the landing zone. Follow-up: activity-core IssueSink policy (filed from
ISSUE-WP-0004-T05).
### Project management
Phases, campaigns, milestones-as-plans, dependency graphs between tasks,
gantt-style scheduling, OKR linkage. **That is `project-core` (planned).**
issue-core operates on individual tasks. A milestone field exists for
gantt-style scheduling, OKR linkage. **That is workplan / project tooling.**
issue-core operates on individual external issues. A milestone field exists for
flat grouping, not for multi-stage plans.
### Spawn audit trail
When activity-core's IssueSink files a task here, the *spawn event* (who fired
the rule, against which activity definition, on which triggering event) is
recorded in **activity-core's `task_spawn_log`**. issue-core stores the resulting
task and a back-reference (`triggering_event_id`) — nothing more.
When an emitter files an issue here, the *spawn event* (who fired, which rule,
which triggering event) is recorded by the **emitter** (e.g. activity-core's
`task_spawn_log`). issue-core stores the resulting issue and traceability
fields (`triggering_event_id` today; work-record UUID in the mapping design) —
nothing more.
Symmetrically: issue-core does not push status updates back to activity-core.
Lifecycle updates stay here; activity-core does not care what happens to a task
it spawned.
Symmetrically: issue-core does not push fleet work-record status updates back
to activity-core. Lifecycle of external issues stays here; lifecycle of work
records stays in repo files + hub.
### Event bus / message broker
@ -86,8 +129,7 @@ between other services.
### Notifications
Telling a human "your task changed" is the job of the relevant UI, digest,
chatbot, or notification service — not issue-core. issue-core emits progress
events; downstream consumers decide what to do with them.
chatbot, or notification service — not issue-core.
### Workflow / approval engine
@ -104,28 +146,40 @@ itself is not on the roadmap.
### Identity / access management
Authentication relies on backend credentials (Gitea tokens, GitHub tokens) and
on a service-level API key for the REST ingestion endpoint. issue-core is not a
on a service-level API key for the REST endpoint. issue-core is not a
user directory.
## Integration boundaries
### Upstream emitters
### Fleet primary path (work records)
| Emitter | Transport | Payload | Notes |
|----------------|----------------------|--------------------------|-------|
| Human CLI | local process call | CLI args | The classic path. |
| activity-core | REST `POST /issues/` | `TaskSpec` (see below) | Primary integration; planned NATS migration. |
| Agents | REST or CLI | `TaskSpec` or CLI args | Same surfaces as humans/automation. |
| Step | Owner | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Author / promote work record | Repo files + tools | ADR-001 / work-record canon |
| Index + UUID write-back | state-hub `fix-consistency` | Hub is read model |
| Claim / execute | Humans, agents, harness | On work records, not on Forgejo by default |
| Optional external projection | **issue-core** | Mapping table + backend CRUD |
### Surfaces into issue-core
| Client | Transport | Payload | Role |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Human CLI | local process | CLI args | Direct tracker use / admin |
| Agents | REST or CLI | issue fields or CLI args | Tracker ops when in the loop |
| activity-core IssueSink | REST `POST /issues/` | `TaskSpec` | **Optional, intentional** external issues only — not default for internal findings |
| Future mapping API | REST/CLI (TBD) | work_record_uuid + project request | Primary fleet connector path once designed |
### Downstream consumers
| Consumer | Mechanism | Notes |
|----------------------|------------------------------------|-------|
| Humans / agents | `issue list`, web UI, backend UI | Standard task pickup. |
| state-hub | `add_progress_event()` calls | Lifecycle visibility. |
| Backend remote (e.g. Gitea) | direct backend write | Pass-through for the storage layer. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Humans / external collab | backend UI, `issue list` | Third-party tracker collaboration |
| state-hub | work-record index; optional progress events | Fleet orientation |
| Backend remote (e.g. Gitea) | direct backend write | Storage / projection layer |
### `TaskSpec` payload (from activity-core's IssueSink)
### `TaskSpec` payload (activity-core IssueSink — retained contract)
Still accepted for backward compatibility and intentional emits:
```json
{
@ -148,6 +202,12 @@ emissions that do not have a concrete event row may send a stable source key
such as `scheduled`; issue-core stores the value verbatim in ingestion
metadata for traceability.
**Relation to mapping design:** `triggering_event_id` is emitter-side
traceability, not a work-record UUID. The mapping surface will add an explicit
work-record identity field (and durable mapping rows). See
`docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md` — extend rather than overload
`triggering_event_id`.
### `POST /issues/` response
```json
@ -158,15 +218,17 @@ metadata for traceability.
}
```
The `issue_id` is the canonical back-reference activity-core stores in its
`task_spawn_log`. It is owned and managed by issue-core; activity-core does not
mutate it.
The `issue_id` is the external-issue back-reference an intentional emitter may
store (e.g. activity-core `task_spawn_log`). It is owned by issue-core's
backend; it is not a work-record UUID.
## See also
- `INTENT.md` — why issue-core exists and how it fits in the Coulomb org.
- `INTENT.md` — why issue-core exists and the connector pivot.
- `ROADMAP.md` — feature trajectory.
- `workplans/ISSC-WP-0001-rename-and-task-ingestion.md` — current rename +
ingestion workplan.
- activity-core `docs/adr/adr-001-event-bridge-architecture.md` — the upstream
side of the IssueSink contract.
- `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md` — mapping design (not yet implemented).
- `workplans/ISSUE-WP-0004-align-with-work-record-canon.md` — alignment work.
- `the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md` — work-record kinds;
task kind notes that issue-core issues are external projections only.
- activity-core `docs/adr/adr-001-event-bridge-architecture.md` — IssueSink
contract (emitter side; policy follow-up separate).

33
WORK-RECORDS.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
# Work Records — issue-core
> 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 | ISSC-WP-0001 | done | — | workplans/ISSC-WP-0001-rename-and-task-ingestion.md |
| workplan | ISSUE-WP-0002 | finished | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0002-gitea-pypi-publication.md |
| workplan | ISSUE-WP-0003 | finished | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0003-railiance01-deployment.md |
| workplan | ISSUE-WP-0004 | finished | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0004-align-with-work-record-canon.md |
| task | T01 | done | — | workplans/ISSC-WP-0001-rename-and-task-ingestion.md |
| task | T02 | done | — | workplans/ISSC-WP-0001-rename-and-task-ingestion.md |
| task | T03 | done | — | workplans/ISSC-WP-0001-rename-and-task-ingestion.md |
| task | T04 | done | — | workplans/ISSC-WP-0001-rename-and-task-ingestion.md |
| task | T05 | done | — | workplans/ISSC-WP-0001-rename-and-task-ingestion.md |
| task | T06 | done | — | workplans/ISSC-WP-0001-rename-and-task-ingestion.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0002-T01 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0002-gitea-pypi-publication.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0003-T01 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0003-railiance01-deployment.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0003-T02 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0003-railiance01-deployment.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0003-T03 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0003-railiance01-deployment.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0003-T04 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0003-railiance01-deployment.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0003-T05 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0003-railiance01-deployment.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0003-T06 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0003-railiance01-deployment.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0003-T07 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0003-railiance01-deployment.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0004-T01 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0004-align-with-work-record-canon.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0004-T02 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0004-align-with-work-record-canon.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0004-T03 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0004-align-with-work-record-canon.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0004-T04 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0004-align-with-work-record-canon.md |
| task | ISSUE-WP-0004-T05 | done | — | workplans/ISSUE-WP-0004-align-with-work-record-canon.md |

View file

@ -0,0 +1,287 @@
# Design: UUID ↔ external-id mapping
**Status:** design only (ISSUE-WP-0004-T04)
**Date:** 2026-07-21
**Implementation:** deferred to stage-3 work-record architecture in
the-custodian (not this workplan).
**Normative product role:** `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md`; founder decision
`the-custodian/research/WorkOrchestrationArchitectureDraft.md` §4.2;
kinds in `the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md`
(task kind: *issue-core issues become external projections only*).
## Problem
When collaboration requires a third-party tracker (Forgejo/Gitea, GitHub,
Jira, …), the fleet still needs a stable link between:
| Side | Identity today | Owner |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Internal work record | UUIDv7 written back as `state_hub_*_id` (workplan/task/intake/…) | repo file + state-hub |
| External issue | Backend issue id / number (+ URL) | Gitea, GitHub, … via issue-core |
Without an explicit mapping:
1. Projections are fire-and-forget — no reverse lookup from issue → work record.
2. Emitters invent ad hoc back-references (`task_spawn_log.external_id`,
labels, description footers).
3. `TaskSpec.triggering_event_id` is overloaded as "some upstream id" and
cannot represent work-record identity cleanly.
4. Two-way sync at the boundary has nothing durable to key on.
## Goals
1. **One mapping row per projection:** work-record UUID ↔ (backend, external id).
2. **Mirror the hub write-back pattern:** optional field on the work-record
source (or generated index) pointing at the external projection, similar
to `state_hub_task_id`.
3. **Extend, do not overload, `triggering_event_id`.**
4. **Zero load** when no external integration / mapping is configured.
5. **Idempotent project:** re-projecting the same UUID does not create
duplicate issues.
## Non-goals (this design)
- Replacing work records as origin of work.
- Making Forgejo the fleet task board.
- Implementing the store, CLI, or API in ISSUE-WP-0004.
- Full CRDT merge of comments/body (v1 can be status + simple comment
push/pull; advanced merge is later).
## Current traceability (as-is)
### Ingestion metadata
`POST /issues/` stores emitter fields under `Issue.sync_metadata.ingestion`:
```text
triggering_event_id # activity event UUID or stable key e.g. "scheduled"
source_type # rule | instruction
source_id
activity_definition_id
target_repo
```
See `issue_core/api/ingest.py` and `issue_core/api/schemas.py`.
### What `triggering_event_id` is
| Property | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Purpose | Emitter-side traceability / idempotency key for **activity** spawns |
| Type | non-empty string (UUID or stable key) |
| Scope | Links to activity-core event or schedule, **not** to a work-record UUID |
| Stored on | `sync_metadata.ingestion` of the created issue |
### What it is not
- Not a work-record UUID
- Not a substitute for `state_hub_task_id` / intake UUID
- Not sufficient for "this Forgejo issue projects task X"
**Decision:** keep `triggering_event_id` for activity-core emit lineage.
Add a **separate** identity channel for work records (`work_record_uuid`
and durable mapping rows). Do not overload the existing field.
## Target shape
### Mapping record
Conceptual schema (storage TBD — local SQLite table is the natural first
home; remote backends may only get labels/footers):
```yaml
mapping:
id: <mapping-uuid> # optional row id
work_record_uuid: <uuidv7> # primary internal key
work_record_id: "ISSUE-WP-0004-T01" # canonical name, optional denorm
work_record_kind: task # task | intake | workplan | …
backend: gitea # gitea | github | gitlab | jira | sqlite
external_id: "176" # backend-native issue id/number
external_url: "https://…/issues/176"
target_repo: "coulomb/example" # optional routing hint
direction: outward # outward | linked (pre-existing issue)
status: active # active | detached | superseded
created_at: …
updated_at: …
# optional sync cursors
last_pushed_at: …
last_pulled_at: …
```
Uniqueness:
- Unique on `(backend, external_id)` while `status=active`
- Unique on `(work_record_uuid, backend)` while `status=active`
(one active projection per tracker per work record; multi-tracker later
can relax to one per backend type)
### Work-record side back-reference (optional denorm)
Mirror hub write-back style so humans/agents see the link without querying
issue-core only:
```yaml
# on a task / intake YAML block (illustrative — exact key names TBD with canon)
external_tracker:
backend: gitea
issue_id: "176"
issue_url: "https://…"
mapped_by: issue-core
```
Alternatively a single string field if canon prefers flat keys:
```text
issue_core_external_ref: "gitea:coulomb/example#176"
```
Canon PR owns the field name; issue-core owns the mapping authority.
### issue-core side storage
Recommended v1:
1. **Local SQLite** table `work_record_issue_map` (even when primary CRUD
backend is Gitea) — mapping is fleet bookkeeping, not a Gitea concept.
2. **Issue.sync_metadata.mapping** (or top-level) echo for convenience when
the issue is loaded:
```json
{
"mapping": {
"work_record_uuid": "…",
"work_record_id": "…",
"work_record_kind": "task"
}
}
```
3. Optional Gitea label / body footer for human visibility in the tracker UI
(non-authoritative).
### API / CLI (sketch only)
```text
# Project an existing work record outward
issue project <work_record_uuid> [--backend gitea] [--title …]
# Link an existing external issue to a work record (no create)
issue map link <work_record_uuid> <external_id>
# Resolve
issue map show --uuid <work_record_uuid>
issue map show --external <external_id> [--backend gitea]
# Detach
issue map detach <work_record_uuid>
```
REST sketch:
```text
POST /mappings/ { work_record_uuid, kind?, create_issue? | external_id? }
GET /mappings/?work_record_uuid=…
GET /mappings/?backend=gitea&external_id=…
DELETE /mappings/{id} # or POST detach
```
`POST /issues/` remains for **intentional** issue creation without a work
record. When a work record is known, prefer `POST /mappings/` (or
`POST /issues/` with required `work_record_uuid` in a later schema version).
## Intersection with `TaskSpec` / ingestion
### Today
```json
{
"title": "…",
"triggering_event_id": "…",
"activity_definition_id": "…",
}
```
### Proposed extension (backward compatible)
```json
{
"title": "…",
"triggering_event_id": "…",
"work_record_uuid": "optional-uuidv7",
"work_record_id": "optional-canonical-name",
"work_record_kind": "optional-kind",
}
```
Rules:
| Case | Behavior |
| --- | --- |
| No `work_record_uuid` | Current behavior: create issue; store ingestion meta; **no mapping row** |
| With `work_record_uuid` | Create or reuse issue; **upsert mapping row**; echo UUID in `sync_metadata` |
| Same UUID + active mapping | Idempotent: return existing `issue_id`, do not create duplicate |
| `triggering_event_id` only | Unchanged meaning (activity lineage) |
**Supersede vs extend:** **extend**. `triggering_event_id` stays for
activity-core. Work-record identity is additive. Long term, emitters that
only need fleet work should not call issue-core at all; emitters that
project a known work record pass `work_record_uuid`.
### activity-core implications (out of band)
- Default sink must not always POST for internal findings (see follow-up
workplan filed under ISSUE-WP-0004-T05).
- When a rule *does* intentionally project, pass the work-record UUID once
intake/task promotion exists — not only the activity event id.
## Sync semantics (boundary only)
| Direction | Trigger | Writes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Outward | `project` / status change on work record when sync enabled | Update external issue state/labels/comment |
| Inward | Tracker webhook or poll when enabled | Update mapping cursors; **optionally** suggest work-record status change via hub/file write tools — never silent mutation of ADR-001 files without a defined writer |
v1 can implement outward-only + mapping durability; inward sync is a later
increment. Until enabled, connector load is zero beyond idle process cost.
## Failure and edge cases
- **Unknown UUID:** reject project with 4xx; do not create orphan mapping.
- **Backend down:** no mapping row until create succeeds (or store
`pending` if a queue is introduced later — not required for v1).
- **Issue deleted remotely:** mark mapping `detached`; leave work record
intact.
- **Multiple backends:** one active mapping per `(uuid, backend)`;
documenting multi-tracker projection is future work.
- **SQLite-only offline:** mapping table lives with local DB; sync of
issues and mappings to remote is coordinated (mapping rows are not
pushed as Gitea native objects).
## Implementation sketch (later workplan)
1. Schema: `work_record_issue_map` in local backend (+ migration path).
2. Domain service: `MappingService` independent of HTTP.
3. Wire `project` / `map` CLI + REST.
4. Extend `TaskIngestionRequest` with optional work-record fields; tests for
idempotent mapping.
5. Canon PR for optional back-reference field on work-record YAML.
6. activity-core: only emit with UUID when intentional; default sink policy
already fixed by its follow-up.
## Open questions (for implementers)
1. Exact work-record back-reference key names (canon vs issue-core-owned).
2. Whether mapping table is *only* SQLite or also dual-written to state-hub.
3. Inward sync writer: who may edit work-record files (agent harness vs
fix-consistency-only).
4. Whether `kind: intake` projections are allowed before promotion, or only
after `intake → task|workplan`.
## See also
- `INTENT.md` — connector role
- `SCOPE.md` — mapping in scope as target shape
- `issue_core/api/schemas.py` — current TaskSpec fields
- `issue_core/api/ingest.py` — current ingestion metadata storage
- ISSUE-WP-0004 — alignment workplan
- activity-core IssueSink follow-up (filed from ISSUE-WP-0004-T05)

View file

@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ schema_version: open-reuse.integration.v0.1
id: issue-core-gitea
name: issue-core Gitea Backend
description: >
Pluggable remote backend that maps the issue-core unified task model onto the
Gitea issues API for cross-repo task landing and synchronization.
Pluggable remote backend that maps the issue-core unified issue model onto the
Gitea issues API for external-tracker projection and synchronization.
status: registered
owner: issue-core

View file

@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ type: workplan
title: "Align issue-core with the work-record canon (connector, not landing zone)"
domain: infotech
repo: issue-core
status: ready
status: finished
owner: codex
topic_slug: infotech
created: "2026-07-20"
updated: "2026-07-20"
updated: "2026-07-21"
state_hub_workstream_id: "ee47385f-aadb-4dba-b39f-148ac1444c3d"
---
@ -64,11 +64,14 @@ external-tracker projection when one is in use.* Green lane (docs only).
```task
id: ISSUE-WP-0004-T01
status: todo
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "ae1e2a1e-8127-46bb-b7d7-be5c647f61ef"
```
**Done 2026-07-21:** `INTENT.md` rewritten with connector framing, dated
pivot, and expanded "What it is NOT".
## Task: Rewrite SCOPE.md — mapping table, not ingestion primary path
Current SCOPE.md lists activity-core's `POST /issues/` `TaskSpec` path as
@ -82,11 +85,14 @@ implemented — name the target shape before building it. Green lane.
```task
id: ISSUE-WP-0004-T02
status: todo
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "cd0422f6-6921-4ac6-a484-19b6777d99bc"
```
**Done 2026-07-21:** `SCOPE.md` reframed; mapping table concept named;
TaskSpec retained as optional intentional path.
## Task: Audit and update README / ROADMAP for the same framing
`README.md`'s "Why Issue Tracking for Agent Coordination?" section and
@ -98,11 +104,14 @@ and the architecture draft. Green lane.
```task
id: ISSUE-WP-0004-T03
status: todo
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "746d090d-ebed-4328-bcd8-d531706ae795"
```
**Done 2026-07-21:** README + ROADMAP updated; Phase 0 + Phase 1.5 mapping
called out.
## Task: Design the UUID ↔ external-id mapping surface (design only)
Specify (not implement) how issue-core will record the internal work-record
@ -118,11 +127,14 @@ Green lane.
```task
id: ISSUE-WP-0004-T04
status: todo
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "61ba9b84-a2cc-4b20-b8d3-9fc8487f7acf"
```
**Done 2026-07-21:** `docs/uuid-external-id-mapping.md` — extend
`triggering_event_id`, add `work_record_uuid` + mapping rows; no code.
## Task: Fix activity-core's IssueSink call site to match
`activity-core`'s `issue_sink.py` (`IssueCoreRestSink`) currently treats
@ -136,7 +148,13 @@ implement the activity-core change itself. Green lane.
```task
id: ISSUE-WP-0004-T05
status: todo
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "944e0510-42c3-48f3-a7d2-86853468f816"
```
**Done 2026-07-21:** Filed
`activity-core/workplans/ACTIVITY-WP-0022-issuesink-no-default-forgejo.md`
(`status: proposed`) with tasks for default sink policy, implementation,
definition reroute, and deploy docs. Cross-links ISSUE-WP-0004 and
CUST-WP-0060 item 6. Implementation remains in activity-core.