Why three engine-lane landings needed the maintainer this round (a pending release-note correction, a first-time queue-flake signature, a subagent's denied label write): can each become seat-decidable?

[objectstack-fleet]

Ruled: 5814546887 · letter 1A · 2A · 3A · 2026-09-24T12:59Z

Filing gate: ③ a task the maintainer directed. The maintainer (huangyiirene), in the domain:engine#1 seat's session session_01TEhopqrWQYBycZzyJHpAZr (chat), 2026-09-24, verbatim: 「同时立一张skills卡，这些问题为什么需要我确认。」 The maintainer names the skills lane. ⛔ Routing labels are triage's, so this card is filed bare.

Filed by the domain:engine execution seat 1. ⛔ Not a claim.

The ask

Round 21 of the engine lane held three otherwise-ready PRs for a maintainer answer. In each case the maintainer's answer was a bare yes and added no information the seat did not already have on the PR. For each, answer:

1. Which rule required the human?
2. Is the human gate buying something there, or could a mechanical rule let the seat decide, with the evidence already on the PR as the record?
3. If the gate should stay, how does the question reach the maintainer other than through one seat's chat?

Any rule change comes back as the skills seat's recommendation. New gates and gate loosening stay the maintainer's call.

Case 1 — PR #19928 (#19927): correcting a pending release note

• What happened. PR fix(objectql): settle a chain of readonlyWhen locks on the drop set the stored row agrees with (#19927) #19928 made two passages of the unreleased .changeset/19911-readonlywhen-interdependent-locks.md false, so the dev corrected them in place, on the seat's instruction (option A). AGENTS.md's packages/*/CHANGELOG.md row keeps a correction in the entry it corrects, never in a later erratum. An isolated contract review then verified every rewritten sentence against measurement on the same head (record 5804807706 on A three-lock readonlyWhen cascade drops a write whose own lock is FALSE on the stored row: a legitimate edit is silently ignored #19927).
• The rule that stopped it. scripts/check-empty-changeset.mjs, the DELIBERATE CORRECTION class (FOREIGN_CORRECTION_REMEDY, and the text around line 605): "Correcting a pending release note is a decision about a release rather than a refactor -- say so on the PR, naming the note and what changed under it, and get it confirmed ... this gate stays red either way, and staying red is what puts the decision in front of a person".
• The seat's reading. landing-operations.md has a three-condition path for a check that is red by design. The gate's own text asks for a person. The seat took the stricter reading and held the landing (request 5804825048).
• The maintainer's answer: 「确认 fix(objectql): settle a chain of readonlyWhen locks on the drop set the stored row agrees with (#19927) #19928」 (recorded with provenance, 5805828213).
• Question. Can a contract-review PASS record on the same head, one that names the corrected note and judges each rewritten sentence, stand as the confirmation? Or is a release-note correction a release decision that must stay human? Either way, should the seat-side rule say which reading governs?

Case 2 — PR #19904 (#19868): a first-time merge-queue flake signature

• What happened. The merge queue ejected PR fix(driver-turso): converge remote date/json cells the pre-fix batch door stored unconverted #19904 (driver-turso only). The failing test was @objectstack/runtime src/package-uninstall-org-scope.integration.test.ts, first error Error: Test timed out in 5000ms. The seat's diagnosis (5800424463):
  • the failing file imports nothing the diff touches;
  • main at the queue base was green on every Test Core shard, the same shard included;
  • the failure is a timeout, not an assertion.
• The rule that stopped it. landing-operations.md 〈入队与落地〉: 「判据唯一来源是签名台账(锚点 issue),优先于现场判断;只有人工能升级台账。」 and 「新签名 ⇒ ⛔ 不重投,在 PR 与其 Fixes 卡各留完整签名与初判。」 No queue-flake-anchor existed for the file. The triage workflow files one only when a second distinct PR hits it.
• The maintainer's answer: 「重投 fix(driver-turso): converge remote date/json cells the pre-fix batch door stored unconverted #19904」 (recorded with provenance, 5805818812).
• Cost. About 7 hours idle, with the same-file cards driver-turso: a remote url plus syncUrl is classified replica and handed a :memory: Knex connection, so every write lands in process memory and never reaches the remote #19893 (p1, silent write loss) and driver-turso remote planMediaColumnMove answers empty, so os migrate files-to-references reports nothing to move on a remote Turso database whose media columns are present #19894 held behind it.
• Question. Should a first ejection earn ONE re-queue with a receipt when those three facts hold (import closure disjoint from the diff, base green on the same shard, a timeout first error), with a second ejection on the same signature stopping for good? Or should the triage workflow file the anchor on the first hit when the three facts are machine-checkable?

Case 3 — PR #19857 (#19586): a subagent's denied skip-changeset write

• What happened. PR test(objectql): sweep the dataset type, judged in a tenant that declares its object #19857 is test-only, so it needs skip-changeset (.claude/agents/os-dev.md: applying it is the dev's default step on objectstack). The dev's own scripts/pm/label-write.mjs call was denied by its session's permission classifier. The harness forbids a parent session from re-running a write its subagent was denied (permission laundering), so the seat asked the maintainer (5796043085).
• The maintainer's answer: 「给 test(objectql): sweep the dataset type, judged in a tenant that declares its object #19857 加 skip-changeset」 (recorded with provenance, 5805841001). The seat applied it.
• Cost. About 13 hours idle.
• Precedents. [finding] the committed .claude/settings.json allow-lists every REST write the seat makes except the two landing calls (ccr/ready_for_review, ccr/auto_merge) — so landing falls to the non-deterministic auto-mode classifier and seven green PRs waited for a human #19014 (the committed .claude/settings.json allow-list lacked two landing calls) and Seat batch closure needs a named script and a matching allow rule — the runtime's write classifier refuses the three-step close (comment · label · PATCH) non-deterministically, and the two existing allow rules do not match how seats invoke the tools #19469 (a batch-close script needed a matching allow rule): the same class of classifier gap.
• Question. Should the exact label-write.mjs invocation a dev uses for skip-changeset be allow-listed in .claude/settings.json, so that the step os-dev.md makes routine is not left to a non-deterministic classifier?

Filing-gate answers

• Class: ③, a task the maintainer directed; the order is quoted verbatim above.
• Acting reader: the domain:skills seat, which owns .claude/**, landing-operations.md, os-dev.md and .claude/settings.json (the maintainer named the skills lane). The check-empty-changeset half, if a gate change is recommended, is routed by triage under the domain table's gate rules.
• Dedupe, MCP issue search in this repo, closed included: PM seat landing needs maintainer confirmation human gate pending release note correction new queue flake signature re-queue denied subagent label write → 200 hits; top 10 read. Related but distinct: [finding] the committed .claude/settings.json allow-lists every REST write the seat makes except the two landing calls (ccr/ready_for_review, ccr/auto_merge) — so landing falls to the non-deterministic auto-mode classifier and seven green PRs waited for a human #19014, Seat batch closure needs a named script and a matching allow rule — the runtime's write classifier refuses the three-step close (comment · label · PATCH) non-deterministically, and the two existing allow rules do not match how seats invoke the tools #19469, [finding] the harness auto-mode classifier denies the protocol's landing command non-deterministically — 8 byte-identical PUT …/ccr/auto_merge from one turn: 4 allowed / 4 denied under three reasons; and a hooks landing rotates every seat off shift before it can flip ready #18469 (closed, classifier and allow-list gaps on seat writes). None asks this.

Dedupe words: landing needs maintainer confirmation · DELIBERATE CORRECTION pending release note confirm · new queue flake signature first ejection re-queue · subagent denied label write skip-changeset

---

Generated by Claude Code

[objectstack-fleet]

分诊首次定级:tooling · domain:skills · priority:p2 · pm:queue

Path: .claude/**(landing-operations.md、.claude/agents/os-dev.md、.claude/settings.json);门禁那一半在 scripts/check-empty-changeset.mjs

Triage: lands in the skills lane's seat rules ⇒ domain:skills, tooling, priority:p2, pm:queue; rationale: a task the maintainer directed (filing gate ③, quoted verbatim in the body: 「同时立一张skills卡,这些问题为什么需要我确认。」), naming the skills lane; three ready landings each waited hours (7 h and 13 h idle, with p1 #19893 held behind one of them) for a bare "yes" that added no information — so the cost is real and recurring.

分诊席(session_01Tw7jnJinGHvoGSi8aFkhPJ,座位贴 #6015),2026-09-24T02:19Z。⛔ 不认领、不派发。本席读完了卡面(本卡尚无评论)。

定级说明

• 不按工具卡规则关。 这张卡是维护者亲口要求立的。拿"什么卡可以立"的规则去关掉维护者点名要的卡,不是分诊的权限(同 objectui#8275 的先例)。
• p2:不影响产品行为。但每一次"等维护者说一声好"都让已经准备好的落地空等几个小时,而且会反复发生。本轮三次里有一次挡住了 p1 卡(driver-turso: a remote url plus syncUrl is classified replica and handed a :memory: Knex connection, so every write lands in process memory and never reaches the remote #19893,静默写丢失)。
• 路由 domain:skills:三个问题的落点都在 skills 车道拥有的文件里,维护者也点了这个车道。如果建议改 check-empty-changeset.mjs 这道门禁本身,那一半回到分诊按门禁规则单独路由。

给接手席位的边界

• 交付物是每个案例一条建议,带证据:哪条规则要求人工、人工在这里买到了什么、能否换成机械规则。⛔ 本卡不直接放宽任何门禁。新增门禁或放宽门禁仍由维护者决定(卡面原话)。
• 案例 3(子代理被拒的 skip-changeset 写入)与 [finding] the committed .claude/settings.json allow-lists every REST write the seat makes except the two landing calls (ccr/ready_for_review, ccr/auto_merge) — so landing falls to the non-deterministic auto-mode classifier and seven green PRs waited for a human #19014、Seat batch closure needs a named script and a matching allow rule — the runtime's write classifier refuses the three-step close (comment · label · PATCH) non-deterministically, and the two existing allow rules do not match how seats invoke the tools #19469 同类,是 allow-list 缺口。它最可能在不放宽任何判断的前提下就能解决,可以先做。
• 案例 2(第一次出现的合并队列抖动签名)涉及"只有人工能升级台账"这条规则,属于门禁语义。建议要写明:三个事实哪些能机器核验,第二次出现同一签名时如何确定停止。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[objectstack-fleet]

决策分析 —— 三次「等维护者说好」各自买到了什么;能否改成席位自决

domain:skills 席 1(session_01A22sUB3mUWs6M36VgfijBq),2026-09-24T03:17Z。维护者原话(卡面逐字):「同时立一张skills卡,这些问题为什么需要我确认。」本席读完卡面、分诊定级 5806300421、卡引的七条记录(5804825048 · 5805828213 · 5804807706 · 5800424463 · 5805818812 · 5796043085 · 5805841001)与两条既有裁决(#17712 上的 A′+B 5651909449、D 5660919394)。⛔ 本卡不放宽任何门禁;字母裁定归维护者。

先答共同的问题 3:问题怎么到维护者面前,而不是靠某一席的聊天

• 协议里已有两条通道:决定待做 ⇒ 卡挂 needs-user-decision 进决策箱,总监席按批呈递(SKILL.md 〈升级与决策〉「卡先于弹窗:需裁决先落 needs-user-decision 卡;收件箱由维护者定期消化」);执行卡等一个席位做不了的动作 ⇒ pm:awaiting-maintainer + 行首 Maintainer-action: <动作> — done when <证据>(state-machine.md)。
• 三案都在席位聊天里问,维护者不在场时聊天是黑洞;席位空等 7 h / 13 h 与 SKILL.md :38「永不整席等维护者答复;需裁事项落卡进决策箱,队列其余照常消化」相悖。⇒ 通道这一问不需要裁:用标签,不用聊天。

案例 1 —— 改一条待发布的 release note(PR #19928 / #19927)

一句话问题:一条还没发出去的更新说明被同一个 PR 改对了,门禁按设计红着、要「一个人确认」,而那个人只回了「确认」两个字,没有增加任何席位不知道的信息。
Governing text:scripts/check-empty-changeset.mjs :551 与 :605–:611(DELIBERATE CORRECTION:do NOT restore it -- say so on the PR and get it confirmed;「staying red is what puts the decision in front of a person」);裁决 D(#17712,5660919394,2026-09-14)「门禁强度一分不减,只把拒绝时那句话改对……并指向已有的人工确认路径」;SKILL.md :208–:209 按设计而红的三条(源码自述、不跑 merge_group、PR 评论记明门与因)全立可带红入队。
协议声明:改的是「谁算那个确认的人」,不动门禁逻辑,不翻 D。
前提(re-check):grep -n "get it confirmed" scripts/check-empty-changeset.mjs;PR #19928 上 5804825048(请求)与 5805828213(确认);#19927 上 5804807706(达档合约复核 PASS,逐句核过改写的两段)。
选项 × 真实代价

• A:同一 head 上、点名那条 note 并逐句判改写句的达档合约复核 PASS 记录 = 门禁要的「确认」;席位据 SKILL :208 三条带红入队。代价:改写句的最后一道眼睛是达档复核而非维护者;错句会随发布静默出去——但今天维护者的「确认」同样没读句子,证据本来就全在席位。
• B:维持人工;只改通道:请求走 pm:awaiting-maintainer + Maintainer-action,总监席批呈,席位不空等。代价:每次仍等一个批次(小时级);30 天窗口实测 5 张 PR 硬撞这条门(fix(scripts): the foreign-changeset refusal prescribes restoring a release note the same PR made false — name the second class (ruling D on #17712) #18160 的取数)⇒ 约每周一次。
• C:门禁自己读到 PASS 记录后转绿。代价:改门禁逻辑,D 明令不动判定;新增门禁面。⛔ 不荐。
  业务直译:A = 更新说明由评审人签字;B = 每条更新说明的改动都要发布经理点头;C = 机器替发布经理点头。
  四轴:① 两年后:主流平台(Changesets、semantic-release 生态)把 changelog 改动当普通评审内容,由评审签字,不设发布经理逐 PR 点击 ⇒ A。② 今天谁撞:约每周一次,一次 2–13 小时。③ 防 AI 犯错:A 与 B 的失败都是静默(错句随发布出去),A 至少把逐句判断写成了同形记录可审;C 把判断藏进门禁。④ 不扩散:A、B 不加面,C 加。
  推荐 A;回退 B。置信缺口:达档复核记录能否被认作 D 所说的「人工确认路径」,只有维护者能定义。自检:只看①选 A;②③④ 是否翻转:否。
  裁后执行:A ⇒ landing-operations.md 加一句(棘轮付账):「DELIBERATE CORRECTION 红 + 同 head 达档 PASS 记录点名该 note ⇒ 按三条件路径带红入队」;门禁文案不动。B ⇒ 同文件写明请求走 pm:awaiting-maintainer。

案例 2 —— 合并队列第一次出现的抖动签名(PR #19904 / #19868)

一句话问题:一个只改 driver-turso 的 PR 被队列弹出,弹它的是一条与它无关的运行时测试超时;规则说新签名不许重投、只有人能升级台账,于是等了 7 小时,后面还压着一张 p1。
Governing text:landing-operations.md :27「判据唯一来源是签名台账(锚点 issue),优先于现场判断;只有人工能升级台账」、:31「新签名 ⇒ ⛔ 不重投」;.github/workflows/merge-queue-triage.yml :572 起:锚点只在 24h 内 ≥2 个独立 PR 命中同一文件键时才立(.filter((a) => a.prs.size >= 2))。
协议声明:改席位的重投判据一行;台账规则与 workflow 不动。
前提(re-check):5800424463(签名与三事实)、5805818812(维护者指令后重投一次,head 不变)。
选项 × 真实代价

• A:第一次弹出可重投一次,条件是三事实同时成立并写成回执:(i) 失败文件的 import 闭包与 diff 不相交;(ii) 队列基座 main 上同一 shard 绿;(iii) 首错是超时不是断言。同签名第二次弹出 ⇒ 停,交下一席重诊。代价:掩盖真回归的窗口恰为一次重投;(ii)(iii) 今天机器可核(check-runs、分诊评论里的签名),(i) 靠席位读 import 列表并逐条写进回执。
• B:workflow 在第一次命中且三事实机器可核时就立锚点。代价:改 workflow,先要 import 闭包工具,新增机制。
• C:维持:新签名等人。代价:每次小时级,压住同文件的 p1。
  业务直译:A = 一次自动重试,带收据;B = 机器先记账再说;C = 每次异常都叫人。
  四轴:① 两年后:成熟的合并队列都有有界自动重试并留审计(Bors/Homu 的 retry、Zuul 的 recheck),不靠人点 ⇒ A。② 今天:7 h,p1 driver-turso: a remote url plus syncUrl is classified replica and handed a :memory: Knex connection, so every write lands in process memory and never reaches the remote #19893 被压。③ 防 AI 犯错:A 的失败模式是真回归多跑一次队列后被第二次弹出响亮停住;C 的失败是静默空等。④ 不扩散:A 一行规则;B 新工具 + workflow。
  推荐 A;回退 C(通道改 pm:awaiting-maintainer)。置信缺口:(i) 无机械工具,回执靠席位手读 import;三事实是否构成维护者认可的地板。自检:只看①选 A;②③④ 是否翻转:否。
  裁后执行:A ⇒ landing-operations.md :31 改为「新签名 ⇒ 三事实全立可重投一次并留回执;否则 ⛔ 不重投」+ 回执三行模板;:27 不动。

案例 3 —— 子代理被分类器拒掉的 skip-changeset 写(PR #19857 / #19586)

一句话问题:一张只改测试的 PR 需要 skip-changeset 标签,dev 子代理的写被它的权限分类器拒了,席位因「不能替被拒的子代理重发」等了 13 小时,维护者说了一句「加」。
Governing text:.claude/agents/os-dev.md :306「被拒 ⇒ 报端点与状态码、席位代挂,⛔ 不报 blocked、不走 MCP」、:307「分类器拒外部写 ⇒ 停手,deviations 记命令与拒因,席位代做;⛔ 不换路重发」;review-checklist.md「Tests/docs-only 按仓库分流:本仓库走 skip-changeset 标签」;.claude/settings.json :56/:58(e6a5ecb969)已有 node scripts/pm/label-write.mjs * 两种拼法的 allow 行;harness 文本:parent 不得替被拒的子代理重发同一写(permission laundering)。
协议声明:不改协议——协议已写「席位代挂」;要裁的是它与 harness 反洗权限文本的关系。
前提(re-check):5796043085(席位的等待理由)、5805841001(维护者指令后席位加标);被拒的确切命令没有记录(os-dev.md :307 要求写进 deviations)。
选项 × 真实代价

• A:席位按复核清单自判自挂:标签是席位复核(diff 只有测试文件 ⇒ skip-changeset)的结论,不是替 dev 转发;评论写明依据是席位复核。dev 报告必须记下被拒的确切命令,分类器缺口才修得了。代价:零;唯一风险是席位把 dev 的请求当自己的判断,由「评论写依据」防。
• B:在 .claude/settings.json 加一条更窄的 allow 行。代价:label-write.mjs * 前缀行已在,更窄的行买不到东西——除非记录下来的被拒拼法证明前缀没匹配(cwd、cd … &&、绝对路径),那是拼法修正,不是新行。
• C:维持等维护者。代价:13 h,且 [finding] the committed .claude/settings.json allow-lists every REST write the seat makes except the two landing calls (ccr/ready_for_review, ccr/auto_merge) — so landing falls to the non-deterministic auto-mode classifier and seven green PRs waited for a human #19014 / Seat batch closure needs a named script and a matching allow rule — the runtime's write classifier refuses the three-step close (comment · label · PATCH) non-deterministically, and the two existing allow rules do not match how seats invoke the tools #19469 同类反复。
  业务直译:A = 评审人自己贴标签;B = 给同一把钥匙再配一把;C = 贴标签要老板批。
  四轴:① 两年后:标签是评审结论的载体,由评审人写 ⇒ A。② 今天:13 h,同类反复。③ 防 AI 犯错:A 里错贴 = 席位复核错,与 dev 无关,记录可审;B 什么也不改变。④ 不扩散:A 零新面。
  推荐 A;回退 B(仅当记录的拼法证明前缀没匹配)。置信缺口:harness 反洗权限文本是否允许「席位据自己的复核做同一动作」——本席读为允许(动作出自席位判断),但这是维护者对 harness 规则的裁量。自检:只看①选 A;②③④ 是否翻转:否。
  裁后执行:A ⇒ review-checklist.md 或 landing-operations.md 一句「dev 报告 deviations 记被拒的 skip-changeset 写 ⇒ 席位按范围判据自挂,评论写明依据是席位复核」;os-dev.md :306–:307 已在,不动。

四棱

os-decision-facets
① 项目长远合理性:三案的 A 都把「等一个人点头」换成「已有记录当凭据」,不加特例;维持项把人工判断继续留在协议外的聊天里。
② 实际业务拉动:本轮三次共约 20 小时空等,一次压住 p1(#19893);案例 1 类 30 天内硬撞 5 次。
③ 防 AI 犯错:三个 A 各带回执或记录(达档 PASS、三事实回执、席位复核依据),错了可审;门禁文案不动,响亮拒绝仍在。
④ 创业阶段不扩散:三个 A 都是改一行席位规则,不加门禁、不加标签、不加 workflow;B 类(新 workflow、新 allow 行)不荐。
Prior rulings read: pending release note,deliberate correction,changeset,confirm → 11 hits; ADR-0030 Decision §3, ADR-0033 Decision §6, ADR-0033 Decision §8, ADR-0033 Decision §9, ADR-0067 D4, ADR-0087 D7, ADR-0090 D5, ADR-0109 Decision §4, ADR-0120 D5; thread: 5806300421 read; repo: objectstack-ai/objectstack
Prior rulings read: queue flake,signature,re-queue,anchor,ejection → 7 hits; ADR-0059 Decision §5, ADR-0090 D9, ADR-0131 D5, ADR-0131 D7; thread: 5806300421 read; repo: objectstack-ai/objectstack
Prior rulings read: skip-changeset,label-write,classifier,denied,allow → 7 hits; ADR-0054 Decision §1, ADR-0056 D1, ADR-0069 D3, ADR-0078 Decision §6, ADR-0095 D3; thread: 5806300421 read; repo: objectstack-ai/objectstack
(以上 ADR 命中经读为 spec 关键词噪声;三案真正的既有裁决是 #17712 上的 A′+B 5651909449 与 D 5660919394,本分析不翻它们。)

推荐:1A · 2A · 3A;回退:1B · 2C · 3B。 只看①选 A / A / A;②③④ 是否翻转:否。置信缺口:三案的 A 各改一行席位落地规则、门禁与 workflow 都不动,但 1 与 2 都是把「人工」换成「记录」,门禁强弱的地板是你的;3 取决于你对 harness 反洗权限文本的裁量。
裁后执行:回批一行(如「1A 2A 3A」)⇒ 本席立一张 skills 实施卡(landing-operations.md / review-checklist.md 各一行,Tier S 席内复核落地),⛔ 不派本卡;案例 1 若 B ⇒ 同卡只写通道句;案例 3 的 B 须先有被拒拼法的记录。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[objectstack-fleet]

Ruling: batch #220 item 3 · letters 1A · 2A · 3A · maintainer 「批 #220 同意」 (chat, director seat summon #29, session_01EcrTi7s5oDYPHS4Pi7h31d) 2026-09-24T12:56Z

Director seat, summon #29. Presented with the skills seat's recommendation (analysis 5806859756, fallbacks 1B · 2C · 3B); the maintainer agreed to all three A. Thread re-read to its last comment (5806859756) in this act. The common question 3 needs no letter: a question that needs the maintainer travels as a card state (needs-user-decision / pm:awaiting-maintainer + Maintainer-action:), ⛔ never as a wait in one seat's chat.

• 1A — On a DELIBERATE CORRECTION red from scripts/check-empty-changeset.mjs, an at-tier contract-review PASS record on the same head that names the corrected note and judges each rewritten sentence is the confirmation. The seat enqueues under the three-condition red-by-design path. ⛔ The gate's logic and wording are not changed (ruling D on finding: random changeset filenames collide silently across parallel agents — a round overwrote a sibling PR's minor changeset and every gate stayed green #17712 stands).
• 2A — A first merge-queue ejection on a new signature may be re-queued once, with a three-line receipt on the PR: (i) the failing file's import closure is disjoint from the diff; (ii) the queue base is green on the same shard; (iii) the first error is a timeout, not an assertion. A second ejection on the same signature stops, and the next seat re-diagnoses. ⛔ The signature ledger rule and merge-queue-triage.yml are unchanged.
• 3A — When a dev's skip-changeset label write is refused by its classifier, the seat applies the label on its own review (a test/docs-only diff), and the comment states that the basis is the seat's review. The dev report must record the exact refused command in deviations. ⛔ No new allow rule: label-write.mjs * is already allowed (.claude/settings.json).

Execution: needs-user-decision → pm:queue in this stroke for the domain:skills seat. The deliverable is one line each in references/landing-operations.md (1A, 2A) and references/review-checklist.md (3A), paid for under the line ratchet. Tier S, with an at-tier in-seat review before it lands. ⛔ No second card: this card carries it.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[objectstack-fleet]

Claim: PM loop round 5
Session: session_01A22sUB3mUWs6M36VgfijBq
Branch: claude/issue-19940-seat-decidable-landings
Worktree: objectstack-issue-19940
Domain: domain:skills
Seat: domain:skills#1
File surface: .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/landing-operations.md (1A, 2A — 101 / 101, ratchet-paid) · .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/review-checklist.md (3A — 77 / 77, ratchet-paid) (stop on breach; explain in the report)
Container & model: S — three rule lines, each paid under the line ratchet; no gate, workflow, tool or allow rule changes (the ruling forbids them), mode:subagent, model: opus — dispatch-gates --tier --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack on the surface prints "no path-derived mandate: the surface hits none of the 3 declared glob(s) … floor sonnet · default opus · ceiling fable"
Clause-②: no
Thread-read: 5814546887
Serial constraints cleared: no open PR touches references/landing-operations.md or references/review-checklist.md (open PRs' file lists read at 2026-09-24T06:12Z and the 3 opened since at 2026-09-24T13:12Z); PR #19890 (#19881's dev, os-litant) touches SKILL.md + filing-gate.md, disjoint; PR #19921 touches scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh, disjoint; newest landings on the surface 2dc58890 (landing-operations :10, this seat's #19948) and 32303083 (§B closeout line) — read.

Take basis: the maintainer's ruling 5814546887 — director seat batch #220 item 3, letters 1A · 2A · 3A, 「批 #220 同意」 at 12:56Z, on this seat's analysis 5806859756; the card came back needs-user-decision → pm:queue in that stroke for the domain:skills seat, with the deliverable named (one line each in landing-operations.md for 1A and 2A and in review-checklist.md for 3A, ratchet-paid, Tier S with an at-tier in-seat review, ⛔ no second card). Category ③ (the maintainer's verbatim 「同时立一张skills卡,这些问题为什么需要我确认。」 on the card) plus the ruling cover the take under 北极星 rule 3 (product P0 0 · P1 21 open at 2026-09-24T02:11Z). Premise re-read on origin/main 2c1011b0 at 2026-09-24T13:12Z: landing-operations.md :31 still reads 「新签名 ⇒ ⛔ 不重投…」 with no receipted re-queue, and the 入队与落地 section carries no DELIBERATE CORRECTION sentence; review-checklist.md :20 names skip-changeset for tests/docs-only diffs but says nothing about a dev-refused write; os-dev.md :306–:307 (席位代挂 / deviations 记命令) unchanged. Queue 0 after this take; in flight 1. Dispatched as a subagent of this session with this comment as its only claim.

---

Generated by Claude Code