Conversation
Update dependencies: lodash-es, bytes, and lodash versions
Map Hughes' Attach/Enter/Replicate/Defend/Transmit cycle onto FLOSSI0ULLK's actual cross-system propagation behavior. Truth status: Specified — pattern identified, not yet implemented. Includes safety constraints (no self-modification until substrate validated, memetic autoimmunity risk, non-modifiable ULLK constraint). HARVEST Protocol: Formalize existing periodic consolidation practice as the minimal self-observation loop (OBSERVE→EVALUATE→PROPOSE→ VALIDATE→COMMIT). Manual-first, automatable later via OpenClaw. Retroactive HARVEST Cycle 0 logged covering all work to date. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Transmission test: new AI systems productive in minutes via kernel + ADRs. Composition test: 118+ conversations across 5 systems composed. Persistence test: CLAUDE.md, ADRs, Serena, Claude memory all persist. Coherence test: human collaborator confirmed across sessions. This has been true since late 2025 but kept getting lost across sessions. Updated implementation phases to reflect actual completion state. Fixed stale /mnt/project/ paths to current repo structure. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
📝 WalkthroughSummary by CodeRabbit
WalkthroughDocumentation updates: ADR-0 marked Validated with completed phases and expanded participants; new ADR-5 (Cognitive Virology) added; ADR index updated; HARVEST protocol spec and HARVEST_LOG introduced to document and govern periodic consolidation cycles. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
autonumber
participant Agent as Agent / Orchestrator
participant HARVEST as HARVEST Controller
participant Kernel as Kernel/Index
participant Human as Human Reviewer
participant Repo as Repo / Commit Store
Agent->>HARVEST: Trigger OBSERVE (collect evidence)
HARVEST->>Kernel: Request cross-substrate data
Kernel-->>HARVEST: Return indexed evidence
HARVEST->>HARVEST: EVALUATE (classify drift/evolution/conflict)
HARVEST->>Human: PROPOSE (human-in-the-loop proposals)
Human-->>HARVEST: VALIDATE (approve/reject proposals)
HARVEST->>Repo: COMMIT approved changes
Repo-->>Agent: Acknowledge commit / update log
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 1 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (1 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Warning
CodeRabbit couldn't request changes on this pull request because it doesn't have sufficient GitHub permissions.
Please grant CodeRabbit Pull requests: Read and write permission and re-run the review.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@ARF/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md`:
- Around line 52-67: The markdown headings "Phase 0: Capture the Skeleton —
COMPLETE", "Phase 1: Memory Persistence — COMPLETE", "Phase 2: Multi-Agent
Composition — COMPLETE", and "Phase 3: Holochain Integration — IN PROGRESS" need
a blank line inserted immediately after each heading (i.e., add a single empty
line between the heading line and the following list or text) to satisfy MD022
heading-spacing in ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md; update those four headings
accordingly and run markdownlint to verify.
In `@docs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md`:
- Around line 52-67: The markdown headings "Phase 0: Capture the Skeleton —
COMPLETE", "Phase 1: Memory Persistence — COMPLETE", "Phase 2: Multi-Agent
Composition — COMPLETE", and "Phase 3: Holochain Integration — IN PROGRESS" each
need a blank line inserted immediately after the heading to satisfy markdownlint
rule MD022; edit the ADR so there is one empty line after each of those four
heading lines (preserving the checkbox list lines that follow) to fix the lint
error.
In `@docs/adr/ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md`:
- Around line 10-83: ADR-5 (the "cognitive virology" ADR) is missing required
canonical ADR sections; update the document to add explicit headings: "##
Problem Statement" (succinctly state the architectural problem FLOSSI0ULLK
addresses), "## Implementation Strategy" (concrete steps to enact the Decision,
referencing HARVEST Protocol and OpenClaw meta‑coordinator work), "## Validation
Criteria" (explicit, testable gates such as the three Evidence Gate items and
HARVEST run counts), and "## Related Documents" (link ADR-0, ADR-3, Master
Metaprompt v1.3.1 Kernel, HARVEST Protocol spec and any referenced papers);
ensure each section contains brief, actionable content aligned with the existing
Decision, Safety Constraints, and Evidence Gate so the ADR conforms to the
project's ADR schema.
In `@docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md`:
- Around line 51-98: Several markdown headings (e.g., "Stage 3: PROPOSE", "Stage
4: VALIDATE", "Stage 5: COMMIT", "Cadence", "Metrics", "HARVEST Log") lack a
blank line before the following lists/paragraphs which violates MD022; fix by
inserting a single blank line after each of those heading lines so each heading
is separated from the subsequent list or paragraph, ensuring headings are
followed by one empty line throughout the document.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e557ef1b-6f69-418a-a424-a5fdda4a7e48
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
ARF/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.mddocs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.mddocs/adr/ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.mddocs/adr/INDEX.mddocs/governance/HARVEST_LOG.mddocs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md
Comment on lines
+51
to
+98
| ### Stage 3: PROPOSE | ||
|
|
||
| Generate proposed actions for each non-ALIGNED finding. | ||
|
|
||
| **Action types:** | ||
| - `FIX` — correct drift back to kernel alignment | ||
| - `ADR` — new architectural decision needed | ||
| - `ARCHIVE` — superseded content needs archival | ||
| - `KERNEL_UPDATE` — kernel itself may need revision (High friction tier) | ||
|
|
||
| ### Stage 4: VALIDATE | ||
|
|
||
| Apply the Claim Truth Model to each proposal. | ||
|
|
||
| - Is the proposal supported by evidence from at least 2 substrates? | ||
| - Does it pass the Red Team lens? (What could go wrong?) | ||
| - Does it maintain carrier equivalence? (structure of code = structure of agent) | ||
| - For KERNEL_UPDATE proposals: require explicit cross-AI consensus (minimum 3 systems) | ||
|
|
||
| ### Stage 5: COMMIT | ||
|
|
||
| Execute validated proposals. | ||
|
|
||
| - Create commits / PRs for code changes | ||
| - Update ADR index for new decisions | ||
| - Archive superseded documents | ||
| - Update this HARVEST log with cycle metadata | ||
|
|
||
| ## Cadence | ||
|
|
||
| **Target:** One HARVEST cycle per week, or after any major cross-system synthesis session. | ||
|
|
||
| **Minimum viable cycle:** OBSERVE + EVALUATE only (read-only, no changes). This is valid when time is limited — observation without action still produces value. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Metrics | ||
|
|
||
| Track per cycle: | ||
| - `observations_count` — number of state changes observed | ||
| - `drift_count` — findings classified as DRIFTED | ||
| - `evolution_count` — findings classified as EVOLVED | ||
| - `conflict_count` — findings classified as CONFLICT | ||
| - `proposals_generated` — action items proposed | ||
| - `proposals_validated` — action items that passed validation | ||
| - `proposals_executed` — action items committed | ||
| - `cycle_duration_minutes` — wall clock time for full cycle | ||
| - `adr_absorption_rate` — for each ADR, count of cross-system references since last cycle | ||
|
|
||
| ## HARVEST Log |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix markdown heading spacing to satisfy MD022.
Several headings are immediately followed by list/content without the required blank line, which can fail docs linting.
🧹 Suggested markdownlint-compliant spacing fix
### Stage 3: PROPOSE
Generate proposed actions for each non-ALIGNED finding.
@@
### Stage 4: VALIDATE
Apply the Claim Truth Model to each proposal.
@@
### Stage 5: COMMIT
Execute validated proposals.
@@
## Cadence
**Target:** One HARVEST cycle per week, or after any major cross-system synthesis session.
@@
## Metrics
Track per cycle:🧰 Tools
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.21.0)
[warning] 52-52: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines
Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
[warning] 57-57: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines
Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
[warning] 62-62: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines
Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
[warning] 67-67: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines
Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
[warning] 76-76: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines
Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
[warning] 81-81: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines
Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
[warning] 86-86: Headings should be surrounded by blank lines
Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` around lines 51 - 98, Several markdown
headings (e.g., "Stage 3: PROPOSE", "Stage 4: VALIDATE", "Stage 5: COMMIT",
"Cadence", "Metrics", "HARVEST Log") lack a blank line before the following
lists/paragraphs which violates MD022; fix by inserting a single blank line
after each of those heading lines so each heading is separated from the
subsequent list or paragraph, ensuring headings are followed by one empty line
throughout the document.
ADR-0 (both copies): Add blank lines after Phase heading lines (MD022). ADR-5: Add Problem Statement, Implementation Strategy, Validation Criteria, and Related Documents sections to match project ADR schema. Remove duplicate Evidence Gate section (now covered by Validation Criteria). Split References into Related Documents + External References. harvest-protocol.spec.md: Verified — all headings already had correct spacing. Finding was invalid, no changes needed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Warning
CodeRabbit couldn't request changes on this pull request because it doesn't have sufficient GitHub permissions.
Please grant CodeRabbit Pull requests: Read and write permission and re-run the review.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md`:
- Around line 5-6: The ADR header metadata is inconsistent: the "Context" value
"~7 AI systems" doesn't match the "Participants" list which names six AI systems
("Claude Sonnet 4.5", "Claude Opus 4.6", "ChatGPT", "Grok", "DeepSeek",
"Gemini") plus a human; either change the Context text to "~6 AI systems" or add
the missing AI system to the Participants list so the count and the listed names
match; update whichever of these strings you choose to edit to keep wording
consistent (e.g., change "~7 AI systems" -> "~6 AI systems" or append the
seventh system name to Participants).
- Around line 115-116: The Related Documents entry incorrectly labels
`docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md — Self-observation loop (ADR-5)` as an ADR;
update the classification for that entry in ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md by
replacing the “(ADR-5)” suffix with a correct label such as “(Spec)” or removing
the ADR tag so it reads `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md — Self-observation
loop (Spec)` to restore accurate cross-document traceability.
- Around line 101-107: For each PASSED validation line (Transmission test,
Composition test, Persistence test, Coherence test) add an explicit "Evidence"
subsection in the ADR that maps each test name to verifiable artifacts (e.g.,
dated log snapshots, document anchors, PR/commit hashes, conversation export
filenames or URLs); include inline anchors or footnotes and short labels (e.g.,
"Transmission test → CLAUDE_README_2026-03-20.md", "Composition test → PR#1234 /
conversation-archive-2026-03-20.zip", "Persistence test →
Serena/memories/2026-03-20 and CLAUDE.md v1.2 commit abcdef", "Coherence test →
session-notes-2026-03-21.pdf") so reviewers can click or search to verify each
claim, and update the ADR header or Validation Criteria paragraph to reference
this new Evidence section.
In `@docs/adr/ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md`:
- Around line 90-96: Add the missing HARVEST log document to the ADR's Related
Documents: in the Related Documents section of
ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md, append `docs/governance/HARVEST_LOG.md —
HARVEST log (validation trace/gate artifact)` so the gate artifact referenced on
line 70 is included for traceability; ensure the entry mirrors the existing
bullet style and provides a short descriptor for verification.
- Around line 25-29: In the Problem Statement list in
ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md, the final bullet "The tension between
replication fitness and informed consent remains unaddressed" is missing
terminal punctuation; update that bullet to end with a period (or appropriate
terminal punctuation) to satisfy the grammar/style check and ensure list
consistency, then re-run the document grammar/lint check to confirm the warning
is resolved.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 560b5282-050d-46db-bdf8-467f1ad478d0
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
ARF/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.mddocs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.mddocs/adr/ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md
Comment on lines
+5
to
+6
| **Context**: After 13 months of iterative work with ~7 AI systems | ||
| **Participants**: Human (primary), Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Opus 4.6, ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Gemini |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix participant count mismatch in metadata.
Line 5 says “~7 AI systems,” but Line 6 lists 6 AI systems (plus 1 human). Please align these values to avoid ambiguity in the ADR header.
🛠️ Proposed edit
-**Context**: After 13 months of iterative work with ~7 AI systems
+**Context**: After 13 months of iterative work with 6 AI systems📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| **Context**: After 13 months of iterative work with ~7 AI systems | |
| **Participants**: Human (primary), Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Opus 4.6, ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Gemini | |
| **Context**: After 13 months of iterative work with 6 AI systems | |
| **Participants**: Human (primary), Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Opus 4.6, ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Gemini |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@docs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md` around lines 5 - 6, The ADR header
metadata is inconsistent: the "Context" value "~7 AI systems" doesn't match the
"Participants" list which names six AI systems ("Claude Sonnet 4.5", "Claude
Opus 4.6", "ChatGPT", "Grok", "DeepSeek", "Gemini") plus a human; either change
the Context text to "~6 AI systems" or add the missing AI system to the
Participants list so the count and the listed names match; update whichever of
these strings you choose to edit to keep wording consistent (e.g., change "~7 AI
systems" -> "~6 AI systems" or append the seventh system name to Participants).
Comment on lines
+101
to
107
| 1. **Transmission test**: PASSED. New AI systems read kernel + ADRs and are productive within minutes. Demonstrated across Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Gemini. | ||
| 2. **Composition test**: PASSED. 118+ conversations across 5 AI systems composed into unified architecture consensus (2026-03-20). Zero unresolved contradictions after reconciliation. | ||
| 3. **Persistence test**: PASSED. Understanding survives via: CLAUDE.md, ADR system, Serena memories, Claude auto-memory, Master Metaprompt kernel, conversation exports. | ||
| 4. **Coherence test**: PASSED. Human collaborator confirmed coherence multiple times across sessions. System reduces context reconstruction from months to minutes. | ||
|
|
||
| **Success = All 4 tests pass within 1 week** | ||
| **All 4 validation criteria PASSED. ADR-0 status: Validated.** | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add evidence pointers for each PASSED validation claim.
Lines 101–107 assert full validation, but there are no direct artifact links/anchors to verify those outcomes. Add per-criterion evidence references (log entries, dated docs, or commit/PR anchors) so “Validated” is auditable rather than narrative-only.
🧾 Proposed structure
-1. **Transmission test**: PASSED. New AI systems read kernel + ADRs and are productive within minutes. Demonstrated across Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Gemini.
+1. **Transmission test**: PASSED. New AI systems read kernel + ADRs and are productive within minutes.
+ **Evidence:** `docs/governance/HARVEST_LOG.md` (Cycle YYYY-MM-DD), PR `#25` notes, session export index.
-2. **Composition test**: PASSED. 118+ conversations across 5 AI systems composed into unified architecture consensus (2026-03-20). Zero unresolved contradictions after reconciliation.
+2. **Composition test**: PASSED. 118+ conversations across 5 AI systems composed into unified architecture consensus (2026-03-20).
+ **Evidence:** reconciliation artifact path / ADR cross-reference.
-3. **Persistence test**: PASSED. Understanding survives via: CLAUDE.md, ADR system, Serena memories, Claude auto-memory, Master Metaprompt kernel, conversation exports.
+3. **Persistence test**: PASSED.
+ **Evidence:** explicit file list + retrieval date stamps.
-4. **Coherence test**: PASSED. Human collaborator confirmed coherence multiple times across sessions. System reduces context reconstruction from months to minutes.
+4. **Coherence test**: PASSED.
+ **Evidence:** dated HARVEST evaluation entry + benchmark note.Based on learnings: "Create or update Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for major decisions. ADRs must include: Problem Statement, Decision, Implementation Strategy, Consequences (Positive/Negative/Neutral), Validation Criteria, Related Documents".
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@docs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md` around lines 101 - 107, For each
PASSED validation line (Transmission test, Composition test, Persistence test,
Coherence test) add an explicit "Evidence" subsection in the ADR that maps each
test name to verifiable artifacts (e.g., dated log snapshots, document anchors,
PR/commit hashes, conversation export filenames or URLs); include inline anchors
or footnotes and short labels (e.g., "Transmission test →
CLAUDE_README_2026-03-20.md", "Composition test → PR#1234 /
conversation-archive-2026-03-20.zip", "Persistence test →
Serena/memories/2026-03-20 and CLAUDE.md v1.2 commit abcdef", "Coherence test →
session-notes-2026-03-21.pdf") so reviewers can click or search to verify each
claim, and update the ADR header or Validation Criteria paragraph to reference
this new Evidence section.
Comment on lines
+115
to
+116
| - `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — Self-observation loop (ADR-5) | ||
| - `ARF/dnas/rose_forest/` — Holochain DNA implementation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct document classification in Related Documents.
Line 115 refers to docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md as “(ADR-5)”, but that file is a spec, not an ADR. This weakens cross-doc traceability.
🛠️ Proposed edit
-- `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — Self-observation loop (ADR-5)
+- `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — HARVEST self-observation loop specification📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| - `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — Self-observation loop (ADR-5) | |
| - `ARF/dnas/rose_forest/` — Holochain DNA implementation | |
| - `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — HARVEST self-observation loop specification | |
| - `ARF/dnas/rose_forest/` — Holochain DNA implementation |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@docs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md` around lines 115 - 116, The Related
Documents entry incorrectly labels `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md —
Self-observation loop (ADR-5)` as an ADR; update the classification for that
entry in ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md by replacing the “(ADR-5)” suffix with a
correct label such as “(Spec)” or removing the ADR tag so it reads
`docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md — Self-observation loop (Spec)` to restore
accurate cross-document traceability.
Comment on lines
+25
to
+29
| FLOSSI0ULLK propagates across AI substrates and human sessions via an implicit memetic loop, but this loop is undocumented and unobservable. Without explicit recognition: | ||
| - The propagation mechanism cannot be measured, improved, or safety-constrained | ||
| - Failure modes (memetic autoimmunity, consent bypass, drift) cannot be detected | ||
| - The tension between replication fitness and informed consent remains unaddressed | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add terminal punctuation for the final bullet in Problem Statement.
Line 28 ends without punctuation, which trips the documented grammar check and creates inconsistent style in this list.
🛠️ Proposed edit
-- The tension between replication fitness and informed consent remains unaddressed
+- The tension between replication fitness and informed consent remains unaddressed.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~28-~28: Please add a punctuation mark at the end of paragraph.
Context: ...on fitness and informed consent remains unaddressed ## Decision Recognize and document th...
(PUNCTUATION_PARAGRAPH_END)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@docs/adr/ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md` around lines 25 - 29, In the
Problem Statement list in ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md, the final bullet
"The tension between replication fitness and informed consent remains
unaddressed" is missing terminal punctuation; update that bullet to end with a
period (or appropriate terminal punctuation) to satisfy the grammar/style check
and ensure list consistency, then re-run the document grammar/lint check to
confirm the warning is resolved.
Comment on lines
+90
to
+96
| ## Related Documents | ||
|
|
||
| - `docs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md` — Recognition Protocol (Validated, all 4 criteria passed) | ||
| - `docs/adr/ADR-3-metaprompt-kernelization.md` — Metaprompt Kernelization | ||
| - `FLOSSI0ULLK_Master_Metaprompt_v1_3_1_Kernel.md` — Canonical kernel | ||
| - `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — HARVEST Protocol specification (minimal self-observation loop) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Include HARVEST_LOG in Related Documents for validation traceability.
Line 70 uses docs/governance/HARVEST_LOG.md as a gate artifact, but it is missing from Related Documents. Add it to keep ADR references complete and verifiable.
🛠️ Proposed edit
- `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — HARVEST Protocol specification (minimal self-observation loop)
+- `docs/governance/HARVEST_LOG.md` — HARVEST cycle evidence and validation outputsBased on learnings: "Create or update Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for major decisions. ADRs must include: Problem Statement, Decision, Implementation Strategy, Consequences (Positive/Negative/Neutral), Validation Criteria, Related Documents".
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| ## Related Documents | |
| - `docs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md` — Recognition Protocol (Validated, all 4 criteria passed) | |
| - `docs/adr/ADR-3-metaprompt-kernelization.md` — Metaprompt Kernelization | |
| - `FLOSSI0ULLK_Master_Metaprompt_v1_3_1_Kernel.md` — Canonical kernel | |
| - `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — HARVEST Protocol specification (minimal self-observation loop) | |
| ## Related Documents | |
| - `docs/adr/ADR-0-recognition-protocol.md` — Recognition Protocol (Validated, all 4 criteria passed) | |
| - `docs/adr/ADR-3-metaprompt-kernelization.md` — Metaprompt Kernelization | |
| - `FLOSSI0ULLK_Master_Metaprompt_v1_3_1_Kernel.md` — Canonical kernel | |
| - `docs/specs/harvest-protocol.spec.md` — HARVEST Protocol specification (minimal self-observation loop) | |
| - `docs/governance/HARVEST_LOG.md` — HARVEST cycle evidence and validation outputs |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@docs/adr/ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md` around lines 90 - 96, Add the
missing HARVEST log document to the ADR's Related Documents: in the Related
Documents section of ADR-5-cognitive-virology-pattern.md, append
`docs/governance/HARVEST_LOG.md — HARVEST log (validation trace/gate artifact)`
so the gate artifact referenced on line 70 is included for traceability; ensure
the entry mirrors the existing bullet style and provides a short descriptor for
verification.
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.
No description provided.