Ran the humanizer rules over 79 prose files in the active specs (brief,
design, requirements, research and narrative docs). Removed em dashes,
significance inflation, forced rule-of-three, bold-label list items and
filler. Skipped tasks.md checklists and the retired specs (harnessx-*,
openrouter-sast-harness, unseen-repo-evaluation).
Every number, path, command, hash and identifier was preserved: checked
each file against HEAD for drift in numbers, inline code and code fences,
zero drift across all 79 files.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>
A4: roadmap-2026-09-04.md moves to .kiro/archive/steering/ so it no longer
loads as steering (roadmap.md and safety-net.md replaced it); roadmap.md's
pointer follows it. overview.md's spec table is recounted from tasks.md and
spec.json (adds ai-service-plane, harnessx-removal, learned-decision-engine,
pre-push-safety-net; drops the stale "active one"), and the module line now
cites the regenerated audit: 150 modules, 145 load-bearing, 5 standalone,
0 orphaned; 1,964 tests collected.
A5: a dated status note at the top of the requirements (or brief) of 16
specs: retired, superseded, dormant or complete, and for
model-grounded-detection the removal of judge/calibrate/execution (closing
the Req 10 execution-tier option). spec.json phase corrected to
implementation-complete where every task is checked (model-grounded-
detection, propose-adjudicate-prove, tree-sitter-overlay-extra,
corpus-seeded-mechanisms, pair-corpus-honesty); openrouter-sast-harness gets
a spec.json with status retired. Nothing deleted, no spec moved.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EmM1j46qgKMh3zqD1QMwEo
Renamed from detector-optimizer: the brief's own conclusion is that the
optimizer is not the next thing to build, and a spec should be named for what
it delivers.
Seven requirements, 37 criteria. The load-bearing ones:
Req 1 -- candidates come from the semantic IR, never the pattern ruleset,
and the enumerator's ceiling is published as the limit on recall. Measured
before building: ruleset 12.1%, IR 96.6%.
Req 2 -- one bounded typed question per candidate, no tools, no choice of
what to look at, and a test asserts two runs make an identical sequence of
model calls.
Req 3 is the maintainer's emphasis and it decides acceptance. The slices
harvested from real projects decide; hand-written vibe-py is a development
slice that cannot on its own justify a change; a change that improves vibe-py
and regresses a deciding slice is rejected by name; and the overfitting gap
-- 83.3% against 44.4% at baseline -- is published beside every headline
number. The candidate ceiling is measured separately on real-world slices,
because their functions are larger and the enumerator's behaviour there is
not implied by its behaviour on teaching code.
Req 5 -- the K-run and noise-floor machinery is re-measured against the
constrained detector and deleted if the floor collapses, naming the
learning-harness requirements that would be amended.
Not approved; design not started.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
