Skip to content

Check PRD, design and contract impacts against changed behavior #2677

Open

Description

@codeforester

Problem

The accepted Base governance design and implementation plan identify package 11b as a required deliverable. This issue translates that package into a reviewed, bounded issue/PR train; it does not authorize implementation before the issue reaches Ready.

Expected behavior

Add a deterministic, evidence-only checker for documentation impacts on the PRD, area designs and detailed contracts, using package 10 canonical ownership and package 11a path mapping. It reports missing destinations or stale links/schema/reference evidence; it does not decide semantics, modify docs or block merges until separate promotion evidence exists.

Scope and non-goals

Scope: Add a deterministic, evidence-only checker for documentation impacts on the PRD, area designs and detailed contracts, using package 10 canonical ownership and package 11a path mapping. It reports missing destinations or stale links/schema/reference evidence; it does not decide semantics, modify docs or block merges until separate promotion evidence exists.

Non-goals: Do not silently expand scope, activate unreviewed policy, mirror issue fields onto PRs, grant agents merge/release authority, or make changes outside the named affected areas. Any new product decision or materially new work gets a separate issue and decision record.

Affected areas

Impact and evidence

  1. Product intent: Implements only the accepted governance design and plan; any product-requirement change must be filed separately.
  2. Architecture and contracts: Destination is the package-specific section of the merged governance design/implementation plan plus the affected canonical contract named above.
  3. User guidance: The issue identifies likely guidance paths; the implementation PR must name updated user/FAQ/README paths or give a change-specific reason why none is affected.
  4. CLI/API and reference: The affected-area list determines whether CLI/API/reference docs change; the implementation PR must cite the exact reference path or justify no impact.
  5. Operations and safety: No privileged automation or merge authority is implied; the PR must list operational/security effects and any rollback.
  6. Validation and testing: The issue lists the planned tests; the PR must report executed validation and explain any unavailable test.
  7. Examples and downstream use: The implementation PR must identify affected examples/consumers or give evidence that this change has no downstream surface.
  8. Governance and contributor process: This package changes or preserves the contributor/governance contract as described in Scope; links must point to the canonical rules.
  9. Decision records: No new decision is accepted by this issue; any durable deviation requires a proposed decision record and explicit maintainer acceptance.
  10. Release notes: The PR must include a user-facing release-note line or a reasoned none; this issue does not pre-decide that disposition.

These are issue-stage dispositions to refine during Triage. Before Ready, every category must have its exact destination or evidence-based no-impact reason; the PR repeats the ten-category evidence for actual changes.

Open questions

  • None known. If implementation exposes an unresolved contract, return this issue to Triage and record the decision before implementation continues.

Plan

  • S1: One focused PR for this issue. Use Fixes #N only if no additional slice is needed; if the maintainer approves multiple PRs, name each S1…Sn here before the first is opened and use Part of #N.
  • Dependencies: the P11a issue
  • Acceptance criteria:
  • The checker reports changed mapped paths and expected canonical documents with evidence and stable identifiers.
  • Missing, renamed and unresolved mappings are warnings with actionable details, not silent pass.
  • No file is edited and no policy or Project status is changed by the checker.
  • A maintainer can record a reasoned no-impact disposition for a change that has no design/contract effect.
  • Validation:
  • Fixtures cover a contract-affecting change, a correctly documented change, a no-impact disposition and an unknown path.
  • Run in warn-only mode on a representative sample and compare findings with human review.
  • Test deterministic output and no-write behavior.
  • Risks and rollback: False confidence from heuristics; label results as evidence prompts, never as semantic approval. Disable the checker if it suppresses findings.
  • Decision impact: No decision is accepted merely by implementing the issue. Record the relevant accepted decision/ADR and file a superseding record if the maintainer approves a change.

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Nov 10, 2026
  2. added
    ciContinuous integration, tests, automation, or release workflows
    on Nov 10, 2026
  3. added this to the v1.11.0 milestone on Nov 11, 2026
  4. codeforester commented on Nov 11, 2026

    @codeforester
    CollaboratorAuthor

    Pre-Triage review against the accepted plan (#2664, tracker #2665)

    1. Gate on the pin before CI. Plan Stage D says no automated check is turned on before it can run from the pinned release in Stage E (Pin the released governance checker and promote rules from evidence #2683), and Stage F comes after E. Add Pin the released governance checker and promote rules from evidence #2683 as the gate for running this check in CI. A local or dry-run version can come first.
    2. One framework. This issue, Check user, reference, operations and example documentation impacts #2678 and Check decision and release-note records for changed contracts #2679 are three checkers over the same path map. Agree on one shared runner and output format, built once, so there aren't three frameworks.

    Dependencies text. Replace the P11a issue with #2676. The native blocked-by links are already correct; the body is what a reviewer reads.

    Contract text. The Impact, Scope and Open questions sections are still the shared template text. The Impact section is identical in 24 of #2666–#2690, and Scope repeats Expected behavior. That's fine in Backlog. Before Ready, replace each with this issue's own dispositions.

    Claude Code (Opus 5.5), reviewing from Ramesh's account at his request. This review comes before Triage, so it is not an issue-loop round.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

ciContinuous integration, tests, automation, or release workflows

Type

Projects

  • Status
    Backlog

Milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions