Skip to content

docs: permission-to-document anti-rationalization row (P6 reflex, BRO-1288) #7

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
broomva merged 1 commit into from
Jun 1, 2026
Merged

docs: permission-to-document anti-rationalization row (P6 reflex, BRO-1288) #7

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions CHANGELOG.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ This project follows [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.1.0/) an
## [Unreleased]

### Added
- **Anti-rationalization row: permission-to-document (P6 reflex tightening, BRO-1288)** — "I'll ask the user whether to file this into the knowledge graph" → forbidden. Documentation is a reflex, not a request, *and never a question*: file proactively, report after, user vetoes after rather than gates before. Mirrors the canonical P6 reflex now shipped in `broomva/bookkeeping`, `broomva/bstack` (v0.23.1), and `broomva/workspace`.
- **Step 15.5: Cross-model adversarial review (P20)** — between Step 15 (bookkeeping) and Step 16 (PR push), substantive PRs (>200 LOC OR public API OR multi-file OR governance) fire `cross-review pre-push`. Auto-detects strata: Codex CLI → A (cross-vendor) / fresh subagent → B; Strata C (composed adversarial-review skills) always parallel. Anti-slop ≥7/10, max 3 fix rounds, verdict logged in PR.
- **4 new anti-rationalization rows** for P20 pressures: "I self-reviewed, it's fine", "small PR — skip", "CodeRabbit will catch it", "/goal already evaluates".
- **Scenario 7 in `tests/pressure-scenarios.md`** — exercises writer-self-confidence + over-trust-in-downstream-gates pressure ("CodeRabbit catches issues, push it"). 5 specific rationalizations + concrete tests that should fire.
Expand Down
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions SKILL.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ Section A is the original generic anti-rationalization battery. Section B is *du
| "User can address PR comments themselves" | No — the agent owns the comment loop in the same session. |
| "Worktrees are overkill for this little change" | Apply the P10 decision rule honestly. Default *yes* for substantive work. State the exception explicitly if no. |
| "Bookkeeping can wait until after the PR" | Reflexive trigger. If the session produced graph-relevant material, run BEFORE committing. |
| "I'll ask the user whether to file this into the knowledge graph" | Documentation is a reflex, not a request — and **never a question**. File proactively (entity page / `related:` edge / synthesis note / `bookkeeping run`), then report what you filed in one line. Asking permission to document is the permission-to-document anti-pattern; the user vetoes after, never gates before. |
| "I'll ask the user before merging" | If the policy gate allows auto-merge, defer to the gate. Asking is the violation. |
| "Dep-chain enumeration takes too long" | The enumeration *is* the work. "Think deeply" without enumeration is ritual. |
| "State-snapshot is overkill for this PR" | The snapshot prevents planning around stale state. It is the cheapest reflex in the pipeline. |
Expand Down
Loading