docs(specs): high-value implementation proposal from .specs/ review#334
Draft
glassBead-tc wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
docs(specs): high-value implementation proposal from .specs/ review#334glassBead-tc wants to merge 1 commit into
glassBead-tc wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Co-authored-by: glassBead <glassBead-tc@proton.me>
Contributor
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
This pull request has been ignored for the connected project Preview Branches by Supabase. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Adds
.specs/HIGH-VALUE-IMPLEMENTATION-PROPOSAL.md— a review of the entire.specs/corpus (171 files, 33 directories) and a prioritized plan for the ideas I judge highest value, with explicit reasoning for each choice.How it was produced
.specs/, digested by six parallel exploration passes grouped by cluster (peer-notebooks/code-mode, auditability/observatory, cognitive-harness/gateway, autonomy/eval/QD, governance/DGM/security, infra/ops/finalstretch).src/,apps/web/,supabase/migrations/,infra/, and.github/workflows/— not spec text alone. This matters because much of the corpus is stale or superseded (e.g. gateway specs vs the shipped Code Mode surface; Letta DGM specs targeting a codebase not in this monorepo).The ranked plan
runstable, reconciliation, web OTEL query fix) is ~80% built; remaining gap is the legibility/failure-state layer.src/audit/, no UI/query API).identity-binding-auditdeferred items (A1 OAuth open redirect, latent C2) + MCP service-role sister audit.Includes a "deliberately deprioritized" table (superseded gateway specs, wrong-target Letta DGM, long-horizon rewrites) and cheap spec-hygiene closures, each with reasoning.
Notes
Documentation-only change. Verification was factual grounding of every code citation against the repo; key claims (no
/knowledgeroute, nobinding_missingstates,runsmigration present, KG tables present,src/audit/manifest-generator.ts, hub routes mounted only when!isMultiTenant) were directly confirmed. No runtime/build behavior changes.