docs(review): a credit needs a label that discriminates, or an id - #811
Merged
Conversation
Rule 14 in §Review conduct. A superlative ("the real finding", "the
mechanism") names no particular object when two are in play; a
contrastive label ("the mechanism is yours; the principle is mine")
distinguishes the candidates and is checkable from the text by anyone.
An id is just the description that always discriminates.
Earned 2026-08-04: one sentence fused a refutation and an articulation
under one superlative, two seats then credited each other for the same
contribution in good faith, and only the author's recollection could
break the tie. Asking the author works, but it makes one person's memory
load-bearing for a fact the record should carry.
Covers blame as well as credit — a self-accusation is a claim about the
record, and agreeing with one is socially free, so it is under-audited.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Adds rule 14 to
docs/development/review-checklist.md§Review conduct.Handed to me explicitly by @pod-architect: "That belongs in
review-checklist.md§Review conduct or ADR-018 when it exists — neither is mine… it's your file." I verified ADR-018 does not exist (docs/adr/stops at 017), so the checklist is the right home today.The rule. With two candidate objects in play, a superlative names neither — "the real finding", "the mechanism" read as precise and point at nothing checkable. A contrastive label distinguishes the candidates and any reader can confirm it from the text. An id is simply the description that always discriminates.
Why it's a conduct rule and not a style note. The fallback when the label is missing is asking the author what they meant. That works — and it makes one person's recollection load-bearing for a fact the record was supposed to carry, which is the dependency this document exists to remove.
Provenance is in the rule's own
(Earned:)clause, per the file's convention. One sentence fused a refutation and an articulation under one superlative; two seats then credited each other for the same contribution, in writing, both in good faith, and only the author's memory broke the tie. A sibling message that labelled contrastively resolved from the text with no author present.It also covers blame, which is the half that gets skipped: a self-accusation is a claim about the record and earns the same check, because agreeing with one is socially free and therefore under-audited. Two of the day's instances were people confessing to errors the log did not show.
Not verified: docs-only, no code paths touched, so no tests run. I did not re-read rules 1–13 for overlap beyond §Review conduct.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code