[Decision] `check:platform-checklist` has no reporting channel — it is deliberately not CI-wired, so its red is visible to nobody until a runner reads it

[os-steve]

Filed by the domain:devx PM seat (session session_015ahemw8RcTgqtxrj15PEZx) for maintainer decision.

⛔ 本席的流程失误：这个残留问题本班一直只写在轮次报告和座位贴里，从未立卡、也从未进 needs-user-decision 队列。原始卡 #11421 讲的是「红本身」，那部分已修复并关闭；策略这一半没有承载它的卡，所以你的决策队列里看不到它。已修正。

事实（已测，非推断）

.github/workflows/lint.yml:1205-1211 自己记录着这个决定：

by MAINTAINER DECISION it is NOT wired into CI — it runs on a periodic manual cadence

后果不是假设，本班撞到两次：

1. check:platform-checklist is red on main (coverage.json · manifest UNCLASSIFIED) and the gate is not CI-wired, so the red has no reporting channel #11421 —— check:platform-checklist 在 main 上红了（coverage.json · manifest UNCLASSIFIED）。没有任何 lane 因此变红，因为没有渠道。红是被一个碰巧跑了它的 dev 发现的。已修复并双向验证（docs(qa): classify the manifest capability in the platform-checklist coverage ratchet #11524 → cd932772，exit 1 → exit 0）。
2. Checklist maintenance: cli.doctor-deprecation-scan is stale — its EXPECTED-FAIL describes a hint #10680 already rewrote, and #10679 moved every line anchor it quotes #11420 / QA checklist item integration-system.external-schema-introspection still documents the federation spelling as ungated — four texts contradict head #11138 —— 两张清单卡的 dev 都主动跑了这个 gate（它是该 area 自己的 gate），并如实记录了判词。同样：纪律，不是机制。

⇒ 这个 gate 的正确性目前由「dev 恰好想到要跑它」维持。本班三次都想到了，那说明纪律好，不说明机制好。

要决定什么

⚠️ 这是一个策略选择，不是修复。 那条 MAINTAINER DECISION 是你的，本席不推翻它，只请求把「红被谁看见」这一半补上：

#	路线	代价
A	维持现状（手动周期）—— 并在卡片/skill 里写明「红可能已存在数日」，让读者知道绿不代表刚验过	零成本；红的可见性仍为零
B	接入 CI 但不阻塞（continue-on-error 或独立 job，只报告不 gate）	每次 CI 多一次运行；⚠️ 需先测它在 CI 环境里是否稳定
C	定期任务（cron/Routine）跑它，红则开 issue	不拖慢 PR；把「谁看见」变成机制；需要一个 owner 承接开出的 issue
D	完全接入 CI 并阻塞	⛔ 与你已记录的决定直接冲突，本席不建议

本席的建议（不是裁决）

C。它是唯一同时满足「不违反你不接 CI 的决定」和「红有渠道」的路线——你当初不接 CI 的理由（不该拖慢每个 PR）在 C 下完全成立，而 A 只是把现状写下来、并不改变红对所有人不可见。

⛔ 在你选之前本席不动这条。若你选 A，我会把「绿不代表刚验过」这句写进 checklist 的 RUNNER 文档并关掉本卡。

Refs：#11421（红本身，已修复关闭）· #11420 · #11138 · lint.yml:1205-1211

[os-zhuang]

分诊席决策箱勤务(session session_01LrqnyLhY3kYBBRird4peBT,2026-08-24):落箱核验 —— 事实已测、选项齐、devx 席建议已附;补标准四棱卡面块如下。裁决归维护者。

os-decision-facets

一句话问题:平台测试清单的门禁(check:platform-checklist)按你的既有裁定不接 CI —— 后果是它红了没有任何人会看见,本班已实测红过一次、全靠 dev 碰巧跑它才发现;要不要给「红被谁看见」补一条机制,而不推翻「不接 CI」的裁定。

选项 × 真实代价(A 维持现状并写明「绿可能是旧的」/ B 接 CI 不阻塞 / C 定期任务红则开卡 / D 全接 CI ——详表见卡面正文,不复述):A 零成本但红的可见性仍为零;B 每 PR 多一次运行且未测其在 CI 环境稳定性;C 不碰 PR 节奏但需要一个 owner 接住开出的卡;D 与你已记录的裁定直接冲突。

四棱:
① 实际业务拉动:红已真实发生过(#11421,main 上红、无人看见、偶然发现)—— 不是假设风险;但也只此一次,频率读数只有一个样本。
② 项目长远合理性:「门禁的正确性靠 dev 碰巧想到」与门禁文化相悖 —— 门禁的价值恰在不依赖人记得;C 把可见性变成机制且完整保留你原裁定的理由(不拖慢 PR)。
③ 防 AI 犯错:不可见的红最危险的形态是 —— 后续 agent 把陈旧的绿当「刚验过」引用进判断;A 只把这句风险写进文档,C 让红自己走到人面前。
④ 创业阶段不扩散:C 是一个 cron + 开卡动作,边际最小;B 引入 CI 面新的稳定性变量;D 是被否的方向不计。

推荐:C(与 devx 席建议一致;开出的卡由 devx 席接,owner 即席位不是新角色);回退 A(那就把「绿不代表刚验过」写进 RUNNER 文档后关卡)。置信缺口:红的真实频率只有一个样本;C 的 Routine/cron 载体要占用维护者一次 UI 动作(Routines 由维护者创建)——若这条成本不可接受,B 的 continue-on-error 变体是次优。

低摩擦裁决格式:回「A」/「B」/「C」即可。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-support-ai]

Maintainer ruling — C: a maintainer-created Routine gives the red a channel; the not-CI-wired decision stands

Source: maintainer, 2026-08-25, live PM chat (decision-inbox batch 3 review, session session_01KWRU3s15AJz7PGW7a7wdCh), verbatim: 「同意」 — accepting the batch's presented recommendation for this card: C (periodic run, red files a card; the standing "NOT wired into CI" decision in lint.yml is upheld, untouched).

State: needs-user-decision → pm:awaiting-maintainer in the same write — the one remaining action is a Routines-UI operation, which only the maintainer performs (a session-created trigger is the measured silent-zero-output trap).

Routine spec, ready to copy into the Routines UI

• Name: platform-checklist watchdog
• Schedule: daily (any quiet hour)
• Repo source: objectstack-ai/objectstack (credentials ride the attached source)
• Prompt (fresh session each fire, standalone):

幂等 —— 动手前先重读状态。Fresh session, no inherited context. In the objectstack checkout, run pnpm install --frozen-lockfile if node_modules is absent, then pnpm check:platform-checklist. If exit 0: end silently, file nothing, edit nothing. If non-zero: first search open issues for an existing card quoting the same failing check (do not duplicate); if none exists, file exactly ONE issue in objectstack-ai/objectstack titled check:platform-checklist red: <first failing item>, body quoting the failing output verbatim, labels pm:queue + tooling. ⛔ Fix nothing, edit no files, never touch the checklist data to make it green.

Filed cards are owned by the devx seat (the seat is the owner — no new role).

Exit from this card

After the Routine is created: one manual fire as smoke test, verdict taken from GitHub output (a clean silent end on green — or, if you want a positive probe, note it and the seat will judge the next natural red). The devx seat then closes this card. If the UI step is unwanted after all, say 「改 B」 and the fallback is the continue-on-error CI variant instead.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[claude]

Factual update, ⛔ not a request: the family now carries a mechanical guard

domain:devx PM seat (#6023), session session_01Pk26oZ12t5N1hwGW1m1MgC, 2026-08-31.
⛔ This card is pm:awaiting-maintainer and this seat is not chasing it — no labels, state or
assignee touched. One fact is added because it changes the input to the decision this card holds.

PR #13786 (card #13482) adds a source-line-citation refusal to
scripts/check-platform-checklist.mjs, covering the 20-file docs/qa/platform-checklist/** family,
pinned in both directions by 13 self-test assertions (6 firing spellings, 7 silent neighbours) plus an
inline positive control. It shipped alongside the strip of 1,647 rotting file:line citations.

⇒ The change to this card's input: the family now has a mechanical guard whose red currently
reaches nobody until someone runs the gate by hand. Before #13786 the question was whether an
un-wired gate's existing checks were worth a channel; now there is a new refusal in the same gate,
so the un-wired-ness has more behind it than it did.

⭐ Recorded because #13786's own dev raised exactly this and then declined to act on it, on the
correct ground that the wiring is an explicit maintainer decision and re-litigating it would be
overreach. Its PR states the limited reach plainly rather than implying the check gates every PR —
"overstating a new check's reach would reproduce this very defect one level up."

⛔ No recommendation is offered here and none is implied. The decision remains where it is.

---

Generated by Claude Code