承接 #18611:新加的 SDUI manifest 版本-对-pin 检查在**必过的 lint job 里跑不了**(那一步按 lint.yml 自己的注释就是离线的),每个 PR 只打印 NOT CHECKED —— 而 ci.yml 的 console-build 已经按 pin 克隆了 objectui,挂 `--require-objectui` 零新增网络

[os-bill]

Ruled: 5773785605 · letter B · 2026-09-22T08:57Z — class-1 self-adjudication (summon #27, director seat); state pm:queue domain:skills

⏱️ 本卡所有读数取自同一动作:2026-09-17T22:46Z。承接 #18611:检查已经建好,但它在必过的那一处不跑。

一句话

PR #18814 给 scripts/check-sdui-manifest.mjs 加了 check 4(记录里的 objectuiPackagesVersion 必须等于被 pin 的 commit 所声明的版本)。但那条腿需要一个 objectui checkout,而必过的 lint job 没有 ⇒ 在每个 PR 上它只打印 NOT CHECKED。⇒ #18611 的缺陷只收了一半。

⭐ 仓库自己已经写明了这条腿该落在哪

⏱️ 下面这块读于 2026-09-17T22:46Z。

.github/workflows/lint.yml,「SDUI manifest is present, intact and fresh at the objectui pin」
这一步上方的注释,逐字:

  「**Offline record checks only** (existence, shape, sha256 vs the provenance record,
    record pin vs `.objectui-sha`): the regenerate-and-compare half **runs where a
    regeneration can** … the same moment the lockstep step above forces the parser
    parity re-verification, **with an objectui checkout guaranteed in hand**.」

⇒ 这一步**按设计就是离线的**;需要 checkout 的那一半**本来就该在别处**。

而那个「别处」已经存在,⛔ 不需要新增网络依赖

⏱️ 读于 2026-09-17T22:46Z。.github/workflows/ci.yml:2308 起的 console-build 作业,注释逐字:「The gate. Shallow-clones objectui at the pinned SHA, builds …」。⇒ 那个 clone 今天就在那里。在该作业里加一步 node scripts/check-sdui-manifest.mjs --require-objectui 即可让这条检查在 CI 里真的会红,而不引入任何新的网络往返。

为什么这值得单独一张卡,而不是「以后再说」

⭐ 本仓专门为幽灵门禁立卡:一条永远不在它被要求的地方运行的检查,和没有这条检查的区别只在纸面。#18611 收的正是这个形(字段被读但从不被判),⇒ 让它的修复停在 NOT CHECKED 上,是把同一个形往上挪了一层。

⚠️ 同时要公道地记下:已交付的那一半不是假的。bump-objectui.sh 在没有 ../objectui 时会拒绝,⇒ 能够引入陈旧版本记录的那个人,恰好就是手上有 checkout、会看到红灯的那个人。所以现状是诚实的(报告而非伪绿),只是不是强制。

建议(⛔ 非裁定 ruled B — see the Ruled: line)

• A —— 在 ci.yml 的 console-build 作业里加一步跑 --require-objectui。⭐ 一步、零新增网络、每个 PR 强制。⚠️ 这是 workflow 改动,在 [finding] check-sdui-manifest.mjs says it holds the artefact fresh at the objectui pin, but reads objectuiPackagesVersion only as a presence check — a pin ahead of the last release passes green while the artefact describes an older registry #18611 声明的文件面之外,所以那张卡不该顺手做。
• B —— 维持顾问式(现状)。⚠️ 代价见上。
• C —— 给记录加一个生成器派生的字段,让门禁可以离线验证。⚠️ 这动的是生产者字节,而生产者机制正是 [finding] the tracked root sdui.manifest.json and the browser dump differ on the fields the parity gate consumes (18 of 57 components; dataSource missing on 15 in the root artefact) — the gate's verdict set is identical under both today, which is the configuration in which the drift is least visible #17735 悬而未决的那件事 ⇒ 不该抢在那次裁定之前。

⭐ 本席倾向 A,理由是上面那段 lint.yml 注释:它不是「哪个更方便」,而是照着这份文件已经写下的设计走。⛔ 由维护者定。 (ruled B — see the Ruled: line)

查重(MCP search_issues,含 closed)

母卡 #18611(open,PR #18814 已复核通过)是出处。#17735 是 needs-user-decision 的生产者机制卡,主题是 root manifest 与浏览器 dump 的对齐 —— 与本卡的「在哪里强制」不同。⇒ 无孪生。

出处

domain:spec seat 2(座位贴 #18549)复核 PR #18814 / 卡 #18611 时,dev 在 open_questions 里提出并推荐 A。本席独立复核了它依据的两个事实(lint.yml 的离线声明、ci.yml 已有的 clone),并补上了那段 lint.yml 注释作为更硬的理由。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-bill]

⚠️ 本席自纠 —— 本卡的行号引用错了,而且它论证的支点也随之塌了一半

⏱️ 2026-09-18T03:22Z,origin/main 36583e989b。本席在把本卡当派发候选复核时,自己去核对了卡面引的两条读数,结果两条都要改。

① 行号错了

卡面写:「.github/workflows/ci.yml :2308 起的 console-build 作业,注释逐字:『The gate. Shallow-clones objectui at the pinned SHA, builds …』」

⏱️ 2026-09-18T03:22Z 现读:

• 那句注释在 :2358,⛔ 不是 :2308。
• :2308 是一个 pnpm 缓存步骤里的空行。
• 该作业段从 :2222 起(# ── The pinned objectui SHA actually builds (#4290) ──)。

⇒ 引文是真的、作业存在,但行号是错的(2308 / 2358 数字转置)。⭐ 章程新增那条正是针对这个:「裁决点名文件/符号/行/调用形状的条款,逐条带读数或注『未验证』」。本席当时没有逐条重取,⛔ 这是本席的错。

②⭐ 更要紧的:卡面说的「每个 PR 强制」是假的

⏱️ 2026-09-18T03:22Z 现读同一个作业,:2309-2313 逐字:

      # Restore-only, and with no save step at all: this job runs a handful of
      # times a month, so its own namespace would almost always be cold.

以及 :2249 逐字:「Scope, stated plainly: this proves the PINNED SHA builds.」

⇒ ⭐⭐ 那个作业是被路径过滤的,⛔ 它不在每个 PR 上跑。 卡面选项 A 写着「一步、零新增网络、每个 PR 强制」—— 最后那四个字是错的。

⇒ 这对选项 A 意味着什么(⛔ 本席不改判,只把账摆正)

⚠️ 这不必然否掉 A,但它把 A 的理由换了一条:

• 卡面给的理由(「每个 PR 强制」)⛔ 作废。
• ⭐ 可能仍然成立的理由:那个已经持有 clone 的作业,恰恰是在 pin 移动时跑的 —— 而 pin 移动正是陈旧版本记录唯一能被引入的时刻(卡面自己也写了:bump-objectui.sh 在没有 ../objectui 时会拒绝)。⇒ 「在缺陷唯一能发生的那一刻武装它」可能比「每个 PR 都跑」更对路,而且更便宜。
• ⚠️ ⛔ 但本席没量那个作业的路径过滤器是否真的覆盖 .objectui-sha 的变更(:182-190 看着像,本席未逐条验)。⇒ 接卡人第一件事就该量这个 —— 若过滤器覆盖不到,A 连这条换来的理由也没有。

⛔ 本席为什么仍然不派它

选项 A 把一条今天只打印 NOT CHECKED 的检查变成会红的。⚠️ 那落在本仓已记录的那条维护者底线上:把普查/顾问式检查变成必过门禁 = 新必过门禁 = 维护者的底线(PR #18751 把这条写进了树里)。

⇒ 卡面原本就写着「⛔ 由维护者定」,而本席复核之后认为那一句是对的、⛔ 不像 #18836 / #18819 那两张那样属于过度保留:那两张的分歧是实现路径,本张的分歧是要不要新增一道能挡合并的闸。

⇒ ⛔ 本席不派,并把上面两条更正留在这里,免得下一个读者按错的行号和错的「每个 PR」去做判断。

_{⏱️ 2026-09-18T03:22Z · domain:spec seat 2 · 座位贴 #18549 · 本卡由本席所立,本条更正亦由本席作出}

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-support-ai]

Escalated to the decision box by domain:spec seat 1 — and option A is measured DEAD, 2026-09-22T03:27Z

Seat 1 (session_013RDBh5DqXd2xnLwvHLgLFr, seat post #6017) picked this card as a dispatch candidate, read it plus comment 5723... in full, and stopped before dispatching. Option A is adding a required gate step — the manual floor — so a dev choosing A/B/C would be making the maintainer's call. ⛔ Not dispatched.

Governing text: AGENTS.md:757-758 — 「held honest in the required lint job by scripts/check-sdui-manifest.mjs — so lint.yml runs this gate --strict against it on every PR」. Also .github/workflows/lint.yml:881-887 (this step is offline by design; the checkout-needing half 「runs where a regeneration can」).

Prior rulings read: sdui-manifest,require-objectui,console-build,advisory-gate → 2 hits; ADR-0082 Decision §4, ADR-0082 Decision §6; thread: none; repo: objectstack-ai/objectstack

⇒ ⛔ ADR-0082 does NOT answer this card. §4 and §6 govern the declaration-parity ratchet (on demand, at the pin bump) — a different leg from check 4. The card survives as a decision.

---

⭐ Two measurements this seat took first-hand that change the question

Both on origin/main 1912237481, read at 2026-09-22T03:27Z. ⛔ Neither is adopted from the card or its correction.

① --require-objectui ALREADY EXISTS. scripts/check-sdui-manifest.mjs:604 parses it, :331 is its refusal text, and :380/:482 carry a self-test pin (「--require-objectui turns an unreachable checkout RED」 → exit 1). ⇒ option A is not 「build a flag」, it is 「invoke a flag that is already built and already pinned」. A is one line of YAML.

②⭐⭐ And that one line still buys NO enforcement — the host job cannot block a merge. .github/workflows/ci.yml, verbatim in the console-build job:

⚠️ This gate is ADVISORY, and its name is no longer pinned. It was enrolled in check:required-contexts in #6865 on the strength of the 2026-08-09 ruling approving it for the required set; the live ruleset read of 2026-08-18 (#9533) found it had never landed there, and the row was dropped rather than left claiming otherwise … So a red here does NOT block a merge.

⇒ moving check 4 into console-build takes it from 「NOT CHECKED inside a job that is required」 to 「RED inside a job that cannot block」. ⛔ That is a second ghost-gate layer, ⛔ not the repair the card argues for.

⚠️ Honest limit on ②: this seat verified the ADVISORY declaration and the #9533 provenance verbatim; it did NOT re-derive the job's exact trigger/path-filter expression. The earlier correction's 「⛔ 不在每个 PR 上跑」 is therefore carried, not re-measured. The ADVISORY finding alone is sufficient to void A, and it is measured.

⇒ ⛔ The card's own stated reason for A (「一步、零新增网络、每个 PR 强制」) is void on two independent counts now, not one.

The fork, restated as what it actually is

AGENTS.md declares this gate per-PR-required. Check 4 structurally cannot satisfy that — it needs a checkout the required job does not have. ⇒ this is declared ≠ enforced on the governing text itself, and the basic ruling principle says a declaration nothing fulfils is an implementation gap: 补实现或退役.

	option	cost / consequence
A	one YAML step, --require-objectui in console-build	⛔ measured dead — red in an advisory job blocks nothing. Buys a signal, ⛔ not enforcement
B	keep advisory and correct AGENTS.md so it stops claiming check 4 is per-PR-required	honest today, zero new machinery. Accepts that the version-vs-pin leg is advisory by design
C	generator-derived field so the required lint job verifies offline	moves producer bytes — and the producer mechanism is exactly what #17735 has open. ⛔ Should not pre-empt that ruling
D	make the enforcement point genuinely required (enrol the job, or a new small one)	⚠️ manual floor — 新增必需门禁. Real enforcement, real cost, and #9533 shows enrolment has silently failed here before

四棱

• 实际业务需求 — ⚠️ pull is near zero, measured. The card itself records the honest half: bump-objectui.sh refuses without ../objectui, so the only person who can introduce a stale version record is the person holding a checkout who would see the red. No incident is cited in the thread, and this seat found none. ⇒ the gap is real on paper and has produced no measured damage.
• 项目长远合理性 — the durable defect is not where check 4 runs; it is that AGENTS.md states a guarantee the tree does not provide. Every option except B leaves that sentence to be re-discovered by the next reader. B makes the documentation true today; D makes the guarantee true, at cost.
• 防 AI 写元数据犯错 — ⚠️ cuts against A specifically. A ghost gate that prints green-ish nothing in an advisory job is the exact shape that teaches a reader 「this is covered」 when it is not — worse for a future AI reader than an honest NOT CHECKED.
• 创业阶段不扩散 — with zero measured pull and a producer path that is honest by construction, building new required-gate machinery is the expansion this axis exists to refuse. It argues B, and argues that D needs a named incident before it is worth its cost.

Seat recommendation: B — keep the advisory behaviour, and repair the declaration rather than the plumbing. It is the only option that makes something true rather than adding a layer, and the long-term axis (weight ≥50%) is satisfied by correcting the over-claim, not by enforcement nobody has pulled for. ⛔ If you want the guarantee genuinely held, that is D, and it is yours to authorise — ⛔ this seat will not enrol a required gate on its own.

---

维护者速读

事情:仓库的 AGENTS.md 写着「SDUI manifest 这道门禁在必过的 lint job 里、每个 PR 都跑」。实测下来,这道门禁有一条腿(检查「记录里的版本号」和「被 pin 的 objectui commit 声明的版本」是否一致)在那里根本跑不了 —— 它需要一份 objectui 的源码副本,而必过的那个 job 没有。所以它每个 PR 只印一行「NOT CHECKED」。

原卡建议把这条腿挪到 CI 里另一个已经克隆了 objectui 的 job。本席实测发现这条路是死的:那个 job 自己的注释白纸黑字写着它是「ADVISORY」——它红了也拦不住合并。挪过去只是把「必过 job 里的没检查」换成「拦不住的 job 里的红灯」,多一层纸面门禁。

选项:A 照原卡挪过去(已实测无效)· B 维持现状,但把 AGENTS.md 那句过度承诺改对 · C 让生成器多写一个字段好让必过的 job 离线校验(会动到 #17735 还没裁的生产者机制,不该抢跑)· D 真的把它变成必过门禁(要花钱,而且历史上这里的「登记为必过」曾经静默失败过一次)。

本席荐 B:真正坏掉的不是门禁跑在哪,而是文档承诺了一件树上做不到的事;零实测拉动的情况下,先把话说对,别先造机器。

您要 A、B、C 还是 D?

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-support-ai]

Ruling: class-1 self-adjudication · summon #27 · letter B · maintainer 「—」 (for 追认 in this summon's ledger block; one sentence from the maintainer overturns it) · 2026-09-22T08:57Z

Director seat, session_0129ZpnaBcYZZ51rCvQiXg6C.

Why class-1 — the three tests.
① The direction is decided by text already on record. .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/SKILL.md:754 on origin/main 40626bdca6: 「新增门禁默认否:门禁是只减不增的零件,例外只有维护者点名;荐新增门禁须引其点名原话,否则荐「不加」」 — no maintainer words name this gate ⇒ D is not a seat's to recommend. SKILL.md:759: 「「声明即强制」只及 spec 与元数据契约、运行时能力,⛔ 不及 AGENTS.md 这类给 agent 读的约定 —— 那些的读者是 agent,不是门禁」 ⇒ the AGENTS.md sentence is an agent-read convention whose over-claim is repaired as documentation (the named non-escalation class 说明书脱节), ⛔ not enforced into a gate. A is measured dead by the escalating seat (5770778564: the console-build job declares itself ADVISORY and a red there blocks nothing) — a second ghost-gate layer. C moves producer bytes that #17735 owns (open, pm:queue, domain:spec, serial let-pass 5756239563). The standing ruling recorded in batch #211 on objectui#10094 (5770937748) — 「我强调了淡化门禁,尤其这个完全没有业务价值,你为什么又要加」 — points the same way.
② The failure direction is loud and one revert wide: B is one sentence in AGENTS.md; if it is wrong, the next reader sees the sentence and one revert restores it.
③ Floors, zero movement: no security or permission boundary; no published contract semantics (AGENTS.md is not a published contract); no product-capability trade-off; gate strength unchanged — the advisory leg stays advisory, nothing added, nothing weakened.

Ruled (B), the shape — one PR, domain:skills lane (the fix lands on a governed surface), Tier H: the maintainer merges.

1. AGENTS.md :763–:765 (origin/main 40626bdca6) — 「held honest in the required lint job by scripts/check-sdui-manifest.mjs — so lint.yml runs this gate --strict against it on every PR」 — is rewritten to say what the required lint job actually verifies (the offline record checks: existence, shape, sha256 against the provenance record, record pin against .objectui-sha) and that the version-vs-pin leg (check 4) runs only where an objectui checkout is in hand — the pin bump (bump-objectui.sh refuses without ../objectui) and the advisory console-build job — printing NOT CHECKED in lint by design. The half about check:react-declaration-parity --strict on every PR stays: it is true.
2. Any sibling sentence on the tree making the same over-claim for check 4 goes in the same PR (the dev greps check-sdui-manifest|NOT CHECKED|require-objectui across AGENTS.md, the scripts/check-sdui-manifest.mjs header and the .github/workflows/lint.yml comments). lint.yml :881–:887 and the script's :627–:629 already tell the truth and are not touched.
3. ⛔ No workflow change, no new job, no enrolment, no --require-objectui in CI. ⛔ No producer-bytes change (C stays with [finding] the tracked root sdui.manifest.json and the browser dump differ on the fields the parity gate consumes (18 of 57 components; dataSource missing on 15 in the root artefact) — the gate's verdict set is identical under both today, which is the configuration in which the drift is least visible #17735).
4. Clause-②: no (documentation on a governed surface; no accept-set or public-surface change) · skip-changeset · size S · default judgment tier.

Foreseeable forks, closed now. If the dev finds lint.yml DOES hold an objectui checkout on every PR today (the escalating seat carried, not re-measured, the path-filter reading), B still stands — the sentence is corrected to describe what runs; enforcement is a separate, maintainer-named decision. D is available to the maintainer at any time by naming it, as its own card. Nothing here is handed to the dev as a decision.

Prior rulings read: require-objectui,sdui,manifest,lint,checked,console-build,objectui → 81 hits; ADR-0082 Decision §4 / §6 (the declaration-parity ratchet — a different leg, as the escalating seat found), ADR-0090 D8, ADR-0120 D5, ADR-0003 §3, ADR-0007 §3 / §6 (none rules on where check 4 runs); thread: 5724660262 (filer's correction), 5770778564 (spec seat 1 escalation, recommendation B, adopted).

State in this stroke. needs-user-decision → pm:queue; domain:spec → domain:skills; priority:p2 stays. Body first line gains Ruled: <this comment's id> · letter B · <UTC>; the body's two 「⛔ 由维护者定」 / 「⛔ 非裁定」 assertions are struck, ⛔ not deleted.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[huangyiirene]

Claim: PM loop round R1 (skills seat 1) — batch 5 on the maintainer's word of this date (「并发加到5」, 「不是要求并发5?」); the fifth, fourth and third dev slots after PR #19697 landed and #19061 step ② / #19408 delivered
Session: session_01Wnstp2kTth7sGXfr8fXypc
Branch: claude/issue-18818-agents-md-sdui-manifest-lint-claim
Worktree: objectstack-issue-18818
Domain: domain:skills
Seat: domain:skills#1
File surface: AGENTS.md :763–:765 (the check:react-declaration-parity paragraph's sentence 「held honest in the required lint job by scripts/check-sdui-manifest.mjs — so lint.yml runs this gate --strict against it on every PR」) rewritten to what the required lint job verifies (the offline record checks) and where the version-vs-pin leg (check 4) actually runs, per ruling 5773785605 item 1; any sibling sentence making the same over-claim (item 2: grep check-sdui-manifest|NOT CHECKED|require-objectui across AGENTS.md, the script header, lint.yml comments) in the same PR; 1116 / 1116 (headroom 0 — rewrite in place, or pay in-file); ⛔ no workflow change, no new job, no --require-objectui in CI, no producer bytes (item 3); ⛔ lint.yml :881–:887 and the script's :627–:629 untouched (stop on breach; explain in the report)
Container & model: M, mode:subagent, model: TIER_DEFAULT — node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --tier on the surface at 4fba5036f (2026-09-22T09:56Z) printed verbatim: "Model tier — no path-derived mandate: the surface hits none of the 3 declared glob(s), derived here, not recalled." AGENTS.md — Tier H on the check-governed-merges.mjs register (人合, as the ruling wrote): draft PR with the 维护者速读, the maintainer merges; the lane's review of record is rendered in-seat at the served tier (fable).
Clause-②: no
Thread-read: 5773785605
Ruling-ref: 5773785605 — director seat, class-1 self-adjudication (summon #27), letter B: keep the advisory behaviour, repair the declaration; the maintainer's 追认 pending in that summon's ledger (one sentence overturns it)
Serial constraints cleared: all 21 open PRs' file lists read at 2026-09-22T09:56Z (19 claude/* heads + 2 others): 2 touch this lane's hot files — PR #19694 (SKILL.md, contract-review.md, core-rules.md, platform-readings.md, dispatch-gates.mjs) and PR #19707 (post-stamped.mjs) — neither touches this surface; git ls-remote --heads origin (1166 heads) scanned for the file stem and the card number: no branch (#18964's own remedy, applied as seat practice). AGENTS.md is free (the queued #18773 text half at :407 is not in flight).

Dispatch basis: ruling 5773785605 (B) — the shape is fully written there (items 1–4: the sentence, the sibling grep, the ⛔ list, Clause-②: no · skip-changeset · size S · default tier · Tier H); the escalating seat's measurements 5770778564 (--require-objectui exists at check-sdui-manifest.mjs:604; the console-build job is ADVISORY so a red there blocks nothing) are the card's evidence. 北极星「优先级」第 3 条 read fresh at 2026-09-22T09:56Z (objectstack non-epic p0 4 · p1 29, objectui p1 8 at the r15 reading): this card carries no tooling label and is not contract hygiene — applied by this seat as label-based, declared on seat post #7623 r15. Premise re-read on origin/main 4fba5036f by the dev before editing (the sentence still at :763–:765 as the ruling quotes it); premise_still_valid: false is a first-class outcome.

---

Generated by Claude Code