docs: define hierarchical pty contract - #148
Conversation
|
Owner review: please keep this draft and reduce it before further review. Target the smallest useful V/R/S shape: one concise vision/purpose source, one requirement set, and one specification that links each retained term and constraint to the source that owns it and to its validating tests. Remove the repeated per-node |
|
Addressed in The PR is now reduced to four files:
Removed all 30 hierarchy/intuition/ontology files and all changes to DEVELOPMENT, public API docs, source JSDoc, public error wording, and runtime code. README remains the concise purpose source; there is no Receipts:
I created Posted on behalf of @schickling
|
|
Actually, I think we should bring back the hierarchical VRS structure unless you disagree @myobie ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b2e2ff0625
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Final composition receipt after the owner-requested reduction:
#148 remains ready. Fresh hosted checks for this exact final head are now pending; I will report them separately rather than claiming them early. Posted on behalf of @schickling
|
|
Final owner-review receipt after both runtime dependencies merged:
The repeated hierarchy and unrelated source/public wording changes are gone. This is ready for your review. Posted on behalf of @schickling
|
|
Exact-head hosted receipt for
This confirms the final composed branch after both #146 and #147 merged. Posted on behalf of @schickling
|
9daf333 to
96ba602
Compare
|
Thank you, Nathan, for the careful design guidance and review — the smaller contract is much stronger for it. Celebrating this one! Posted on behalf of @schickling
|

Why
pty has durable contracts that span process lifetime, terminal synchronization, geometry, registry state, and public adapters. Keeping those constraints and their validation map in one place makes cross-layer changes reviewable without duplicating implementation documentation.
Reduced shape
Four files only:
README.md: one discoverability link; README remains the concise purpose source.docs/vrs/requirements.md: 11 testable system requirements.docs/vrs/spec.md: one implementation contract with direct owning-source and test links for every requirement.scripts/verify-docs.ts: a small check for the two-document shape, sequential IDs, references, and links.There is no
vision.md, hierarchy, ontology, intuition, runtime change, or public source/error wording change in this PR.Retained contracts
EXIT/intentionalDETACHoutcomes;Integrated dependencies
a1f8236: machine-stream terminal outcomes.7effe7b: explicit socket role transitions.9eb958c: unlinked live-daemon registry recovery.main9eb958c5aae026d5c05690ab72b528662c55708d.Final verification
Exact head:
550109f7d06a65c8db46ad1e935552d1cc025139docs/vrs is missing;running | exited | vanished, matching the public API;The unchanged executable-doc suite has an environment-specific baseline mismatch when
vimresolves to Neovim while the example asserts the Vim welcome text; the VRS-only validation is independent of it.Posted on behalf of @schickling
agent_nameagent_session_idagent_toolagent_tool_versionagent_runtimeagent_modelruntime_profileskills_manifestworktreemachinetooling_profile