Publish what this repository caught in itself, including the false claims - #449
Merged
Conversation
…aims The strongest evidence this project has is not a benchmark number. It is that its own repository is a worked example of the failure the product exists to prevent, written down rather than avoided. docs/SELF-AUDIT.md collects it, and leads with the category that is uncomfortable rather than the one that flatters: claims this project published that turned out to be false. No install could produce the trust tier the README's own claims rested on, and every benchmark arm had measured the other tier for months. The premise had no evidence at all until someone filed an issue against its absence. A policy value named a human approval nothing could check. The help text described a default the code did not have. Then the ordinary categories: a shipped hook that hung every push, a forgeable directive, an index that reported 106 records where git had 0, a first screen that said ready on a mirror it had not fetched. The README carries four of them above the fold. That is a deliberate trade -- a cold reader meets the defects before the numbers -- and it is the right one, because a tool that preserves engineering judgment and cannot show what preserving it caught is asking to be taken on faith. Every entry is a real issue, linked, and every one is also a trailer line the shipped hook validated and `commitlore context` will read back. Limit: the page is maintained by hand, so an entry can go stale against the code it describes; the closing line says so and asks for an issue when it does Ruled-out: generating the page from the issue tracker | the value is in the one-line account of what each defect cost, which no title carries, and a generated list of titles reads as a changelog Ruled-out: leading with the shipped-bug section | those flatter, because everyone ships bugs; the false-claims section is the one almost no project publishes and the only one that is evidence about this project rather than about software Warn: linking issues by number binds the page to this repository staying public, and a private fork inherits dead links Blast: local Undo: easy Certainty: firm Verified: 82 cases across the README, compatibility-matrix and manifest suites pass with the new section and the new doc in place Provenance: authored Record-Id: r-selfaudit
CommitLore — record lintTrailers: clean — 1 commit in Active constraints for the paths this PR touchesLimits (52)
Ruled out (124)
Warnings (25)
Trailer violations fail this check. Active constraints are informational — they are what the repository already decided, not a verdict on this PR. |
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
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.
M7 — external proof. The milestone was empty; this is the first entry.
The argument
The strongest evidence this project has is not a benchmark number. It is that its own repository is a worked example of the failure the product exists to prevent — written down rather than avoided.
docs/SELF-AUDIT.mdcollects it, and leads with the uncomfortable category rather than the flattering one.What it leads with: claims that turned out to be false
--helpdescribed a default the code did not haveThen the ordinary categories — a shipped hook that hung every
git push(#422), a forgeable directive (#409), an index reporting 106 records where git had 0 (#335), a first screen that said ready on a mirror it had not fetched (#402) — and the evidence failures, including #441, where the registered analysis would have read four experiments at once and passed its own completeness gate on the contamination.The README trade
Four of them go above the fold, right after the demo. A cold reader now meets the defects before the numbers.
That is deliberate. A tool that preserves engineering judgment and cannot show what preserving it caught is asking to be taken on faith — and every entry is also a trailer line the shipped hook validated, readable back with the same
commitlore contexta user would run anywhere else.Why not generate it from the tracker
The value is in the one-line account of what each defect cost, which no issue title carries. A generated list of titles reads as a changelog.
Stated limits
Maintained by hand, so an entry can go stale against the code it describes — the closing line says so and asks for an issue when it does. Linking by issue number binds the page to this repository staying public.
82 cases across the README, compatibility-matrix and manifest suites pass. Dogfood re-run after committing.