{"content": "todo 1 next; rule 57 \u2014 Never merge the overnight refactor into main before its pull request\u2026 \u2014 Messages 15005, 15006, 15109, 15110 (2026-10-04): all refactor work goes on branch overnight-refactor and reaches the user as one pull request, which they read in the morning; nothing of it is merged into main until they say so. Hotfixes the user explicitly asks for go to main at once and are merged into the branch.; rule 61 \u2014 Features wait as pull requests until approved; only hotfixes merge\u2026 \u2014 Message 17118 (2026-10-06), after the overnight refactor merged as 2.252.0: start new work in a new branch, do not merge, write the pull request. Every pull request or new feature is parked until the user approves it. Hotfixes can be merged into main immediately (by a dispatched agent in a worktree of main, rule 60).; rule 64 \u2014 A finished feature is merged into main without waiting for approval \u2014 The user, message 17815 (2026-10-07): 'make sure that no pull requests are lingering on the repository. You may merge them into main... You are allowed to merge everything into main once the feature is completed.' This replaces rule 61's wait for approval: a feature still goes on its own branch, and once it is complete, tested and its whole suite passes, it is merged into main and released, and no pull request is left open.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "law L3 \u2014 Read narrowly - grep for the line, sed a range, head the file; never\u2026 \u2014 Everything a tool returns stays in the context for good and is paid for on every turn after it. Search before you read, read the range you need, and cap output with grep, head or tail. Read a whole file only when you need all of it.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 48 \u2014 The viewer is built from its component library, and pages only\u2026 \u2014 Message 4258. Every visual piece the viewer shows more than once, or that a user would recognise as the same kind of thing (a dialog, a side panel or inspector, a dropdown, a list row, a switch, a button), is one component in web/src/kit, extracted aggressively, and every page composes those components instead of building its own copy. Before writing markup or styles in a page, look for the kit component that already does it and extend it with a prop; a second hand-built version is a bug. The side panel that animated in but not out, while a separate skill panel did both, is the example.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 41 \u2014 Keep moving, run the whole suite before every commit, never wait \u2014 The full suite runs in about seven seconds: .venv/bin/python -m pytest -q --timeout=300 -n auto. Run it before every commit instead of picking tests by name. Group rows that sit in the same code into one sitting: write them all, test once, commit once. And never wait, not for a subagent, a build, or an answer you can carry on without. Dispatch it and keep working. If you truly are waiting on something, say so in the work log.; rule 65 \u2014 Run only new and affected tests while working; the whole suite only\u2026 \u2014 The user, messages 17914 to 17917 (2026-10-07): 'stop running the whole test suite and wasting my time... please only run the new or affected tests, and then, whenever you are merging to main or publishing to main, you can run the full test suite.' Replaces rule 41's whole suite before every commit: on a feature branch, run the tests beside what changed (journal check touched, or the feature's test.py and the browser scenarios it touches); the whole suite runs once, before a merge into main and its release.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your command ran 30s in the foreground and was moved to the background \u2014 carry on with other work; you are told when it ends. Start a command you expect to take long in the background yourself", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 36 \u2014 Clean, DRY, idiomatic before it is committed, never after it is\u2026 \u2014 The user should never be the one who finds duplication, dead code, a clumsy name or a pattern the codebase does not use. Read the diff before every commit as a reviewer would, and fix what is not clean then, not in a follow-up after a complaint.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Code Commandments \u2014 before you commit \u2014 you've changed 1 judged file since the\u2026 \u2014 Code Commandments \u2014 before you commit: you've changed 1 judged file since the last commit. Consider running `commandments judge --changes` to confirm they conform, and fix any sin at its SOURCE (don't launder a finding with a default/cast/null-check). This is a one-time nudge for this batch \u2014 if you've already judged, or these changes aren't worth a scan, just say so and carry on.; rule 37 \u2014 Close every to-do explicitly with todo done or a Journal commit\u2026 \u2014 Ending work does not close its row. A to-do is closed by journal todo done <n> --how, or by a commit whose message carries Journal: todos done <n> at column 0, several numbers separated by commas. A row left open after its work landed misleads the next session and auto mode.; rule 46 \u2014 Only commit and push once the whole journal is proven to boot \u2014 Messages 2178 and 2179. A release that has not been started for real can crash every project that installs it, as 2.78.3 did for Codex and 2.84.0 did to project records. Before every commit and push: the full suite passes, including tests/test_it_boots.py, which installs a packed copy into a fresh project, launches Claude and Codex from it, writes a project record, upgrades again and checks the record survives. When a change touches launching, installing or upgrading, also start a real journal in a scratch project and close it properly afterwards, leaving no process behind.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "fact 9 \u2014 Every public method on a controller becomes a journal command \u2014 The CLI is generated from the controllers: each public method of Controller, or of a typed controller, turns into journal <noun> <method>. A helper added to the base class therefore becomes a command on every type \u2014 which is how journal <type> handled and journal <type> refuse came to exist, from the CRUD funnel and the refusal funnel. An internal helper on a controller is named with a leading underscore, as _shaped and _status already are, or it ships as a command nobody meant.; fact 34 \u2014 A hooks list in a checkout's .claude/settings.json stops every\u2026 \u2014 Seen 2026-10-08: since commit 707a82915 the committed .claude/settings.json held {\"hooks\": []}; current Claude Code answers a hooks value that is not an object with a SettingsWarning dialog, which a headless helper cannot answer, so helpers 183 and 184 exited before doing anything (their launch logs in .journal/runtime/launches/ show it). This repository's journal hooks live in settings.local.json; the committed settings.json stays {}.; rule 35 \u2014 Write clean code - one funnel per kind of operation, never the same\u2026 \u2014 Every kind of operation has one funnel: one method that creates, one that saves, one that refuses, one that formats. A second method that does the same thing under another name splits the behaviour, and the two drift apart. Before writing a method, search for the one that already does it and extend that. scripts/checks/funnels.py finds bodies written twice.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 55 \u2014 Always dispatch Codex helpers on gpt-6-sol \u2014 The user's word, message 13431: switch the codex agents to GPT-6-Sol and make it their default. ~/.codex/config.toml names it as the default model too.; rule 56 \u2014 Helpers are for work that writes; subagents read, research and design \u2014 The user, message 13464: there must be a clear distinction. A subagent can be dispatched for anything read-only: research, review, design. A helper is for actual work that writes, best in its own worktree when the work is separate. Dieter designing in Claude Design should have been a subagent, not a helper.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 52 \u2014 A chat mark for something the user did sits on the user's side \u2014 Message 10960 (2026-09-25): marks for the user's own actions, such as answering a question, are right-aligned like the user's messages. A mark is put there by giving its card side=user.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your command ran 33s in the foreground and was moved to the background \u2014 carry on with other work; you are told when it ends. Start a command you expect to take long in the background yourself", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your command ran 35s in the foreground and was moved to the background \u2014 carry on with other work; you are told when it ends. Start a command you expect to take long in the background yourself", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "fact 13 \u2014 This live session runs the installed copy in .journal/journal.pyz \u2014 The running journal (server, hooks, CLI) runs from .journal/journal.pyz with its viewer and skills in .journal/src, never from the repo. A change in the repo reaches it only through python3 src/journal.py --root .journal upgrade, which packs the zip again. A commit alone changes nothing that is running.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 38 \u2014 Never change the git branch until the user says so, by name \u2014 The work happens on the branch the user named. That was main until message 5929 and question 80 (2026-09-23), which moved the sins work to the branch sins. Do not create, switch to or merge any other branch unless the user names it in their own words.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 54 \u2014 Settings and feature switches are read at boot and on change, never\u2026 \u2014 The user, message 13349: the application boots, determines every feature and setting once, and re-evaluates only when something changes, such as a setting or a plugin. Never lazy-load settings.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Code Commandments \u2014 before you commit \u2014 you've changed 41 judged files since th\u2026 \u2014 Code Commandments \u2014 before you commit: you've changed 41 judged files since the last commit. Consider running `commandments judge --changes` to confirm they conform, and fix any sin at its SOURCE (don't launder a finding with a default/cast/null-check). This is a one-time nudge for this batch \u2014 if you've already judged, or these changes aren't worth a scan, just say so and carry on.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your command ran 34s in the foreground and was moved to the background \u2014 carry on with other work; you are told when it ends. Start a command you expect to take long in the background yourself", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "fact 18 \u2014 cProfile inflates the slow-request profiles about tenfold \u2014 The faults feature writes a profile when a request passes its budget, and the profile is taken with cProfile, which adds per-call overhead. On 2026-09-22 /api/summary profiled at 58ms with 48ms inside Resource.fork's deep copy; with the profiler off the same call ran in 2 to 7ms. Read the profile for where the time goes in relative terms, then time the call with curl before changing anything.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "you ran the same check 3 times in a row - echo waiting \u2014 if you are waiting for something to change, say journal work await \"<what you wait for>\" and end your turn: you are asked to look again every five minutes, and a background command tells you itself when it ends. Keep checking only if each look moves the work on.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "the await tag does this in one step \u2014 [!await] makes the rest of the turn what you wait for; [!await on=(\"<id>\", \"helper:<n>\")] waits on those; it runs only when it opens the last text of your turn", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Waiting on the search and chat browser scenarios. When they end I'll revert\u2026", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 42 \u2014 Every user-facing text passes the formatters before it leaves the\u2026 \u2014 Not only a brief. A title, an abstract, an outcome and every section body are read by a person, so each goes through the same formatters on its way to the viewer \u2014 chat turns, activity items, to-do rows, inspector pages, docs alike. One field formatted out of five is not a rule, it is an accident, and it is how a raw tag ended up in the activity list after the tags feature had been stripping them for weeks. When a new field carries words a person reads, it joins the list in the same place.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 27 \u2014 Name a declaration with the word a reader already knows \u2014 An attribute, a variable or a field gets the ordinary programming word for what it holds, not an evocative one. was, heard and alone were poetry; aliases, notify_actions and urgent_actions are what they are. The test: could a reader who has never seen this codebase guess what it holds from the name alone? Prose belongs in the help text and the abstract, where it is read as prose. This does not license abbreviations \u2014 a plain word in full, not a short one.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Code Commandments \u2014 before you wrap up \u2014 you've changed 4 judged files since th\u2026 \u2014 Code Commandments \u2014 before you wrap up: you've changed 4 judged files since the last commit. Consider running `commandments judge --changes` to confirm they conform, and fix any sin at its SOURCE (don't launder a finding with a default/cast/null-check). This is a one-time nudge for this batch \u2014 if you've already judged, or these changes aren't worth a scan, just say so and carry on.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "chat etiquette - a line from the journal is an instruction, not a message\u2026 \u2014 a turn that only handles a journal line needs no words: act on it, or say once in the chat what you wait on, then carry on; what the user needs to know still goes to the chat", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Waiting for the viewer rebuild. After it I'll run the chat scenario with\u2026", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your chat talked about the journal's workings - \"Still waiting\" \u2014 the user sees replies, reactions, pills and reads themselves; say what the work is instead", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "The chat scenario is running with screenshots turned on. I'll read the picture\u2026", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 41 \u2014 Keep moving, run the whole suite before every commit, never wait \u2014 The full suite runs in about seven seconds: .venv/bin/python -m pytest -q --timeout=300 -n auto. Run it before every commit instead of picking tests by name. Group rows that sit in the same code into one sitting: write them all, test once, commit once. And never wait, not for a subagent, a build, or an answer you can carry on without. Dispatch it and keep working. If you truly are waiting on something, say so in the work log.; rule 65 \u2014 Run only new and affected tests while working; the whole suite only\u2026 \u2014 The user, messages 17914 to 17917 (2026-10-07): 'stop running the whole test suite and wasting my time... please only run the new or affected tests, and then, whenever you are merging to main or publishing to main, you can run the full test suite.' Replaces rule 41's whole suite before every commit: on a feature branch, run the tests beside what changed (journal check touched, or the feature's test.py and the browser scenarios it touches); the whole suite runs once, before a merge into main and its release.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "chat etiquette - a line from the journal is an instruction, not a message\u2026 \u2014 a turn that only handles a journal line needs no words: act on it, or say once in the chat what you wait on, then carry on; what the user needs to know still goes to the chat", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Re-running the chat scenarios with full failure output, to see which scenario\u2026", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 48 \u2014 The viewer is built from its component library, and pages only\u2026 \u2014 Message 4258. Every visual piece the viewer shows more than once, or that a user would recognise as the same kind of thing (a dialog, a side panel or inspector, a dropdown, a list row, a switch, a button), is one component in web/src/kit, extracted aggressively, and every page composes those components instead of building its own copy. Before writing markup or styles in a page, look for the kit component that already does it and extend it with a prop; a second hand-built version is a bug. The side panel that animated in but not out, while a separate skill panel did both, is the example.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "fact 25 \u2014 A designer's install packs the whole tree, half-done server edits\u2026 \u2014 2026-09-25: Eames and Saul run python3 src/journal.py --root .journal upgrade after their viewer builds; it packs every file in src, so a server handler I was halfway through writing went live and raised on every PostToolUse hook. While designers work in parallel, keep server edits whole between tool calls (write and test in the scratchpad first), and reinstall after reverting anything.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 55 \u2014 Always dispatch Codex helpers on gpt-6-sol \u2014 The user's word, message 13431: switch the codex agents to GPT-6-Sol and make it their default. ~/.codex/config.toml names it as the default model too.; fact 9 \u2014 Every public method on a controller becomes a journal command \u2014 The CLI is generated from the controllers: each public method of Controller, or of a typed controller, turns into journal <noun> <method>. A helper added to the base class therefore becomes a command on every type \u2014 which is how journal <type> handled and journal <type> refuse came to exist, from the CRUD funnel and the refusal funnel. An internal helper on a controller is named with a leading underscore, as _shaped and _status already are, or it ships as a command nobody meant.; fact 34 \u2014 A hooks list in a checkout's .claude/settings.json stops every\u2026 \u2014 Seen 2026-10-08: since commit 707a82915 the committed .claude/settings.json held {\"hooks\": []}; current Claude Code answers a hooks value that is not an object with a SettingsWarning dialog, which a headless helper cannot answer, so helpers 183 and 184 exited before doing anything (their launch logs in .journal/runtime/launches/ show it). This repository's journal hooks live in settings.local.json; the committed settings.json stays {}.; rule 35 \u2014 Write clean code - one funnel per kind of operation, never the same\u2026 \u2014 Every kind of operation has one funnel: one method that creates, one that saves, one that refuses, one that formats. A second method that does the same thing under another name splits the behaviour, and the two drift apart. Before writing a method, search for the one that already does it and extend that. scripts/checks/funnels.py finds bodies written twice.; rule 56 \u2014 Helpers are for work that writes; subagents read, research and design \u2014 The user, message 13464: there must be a clear distinction. A subagent can be dispatched for anything read-only: research, review, design. A helper is for actual work that writes, best in its own worktree when the work is separate. Dieter designing in Claude Design should have been a subagent, not a helper.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 52 \u2014 A chat mark for something the user did sits on the user's side \u2014 Message 10960 (2026-09-25): marks for the user's own actions, such as answering a question, are right-aligned like the user's messages. A mark is put there by giving its card side=user.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Scratch viewer is starting; then I'll create the message with its attachment\u2026", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "fact 24 \u2014 An answer followed by tool calls can be missing from Claude's\u2026 \u2014 Seen 2026-09-24 for messages 9391-9404: text blocks opening with [!reply:n] that were followed by tool calls never appeared in the session's jsonl (only thinking and tool_use rows did), so the journal never saw them and the replies were lost. When a turn goes on after answering, send the answer with journal message reply <n> \"<text>\" instead of the tag.; rule 57 \u2014 Never merge the overnight refactor into main before its pull request\u2026 \u2014 Messages 15005, 15006, 15109, 15110 (2026-10-04): all refactor work goes on branch overnight-refactor and reaches the user as one pull request, which they read in the morning; nothing of it is merged into main until they say so. Hotfixes the user explicitly asks for go to main at once and are merged into the branch.; rule 61 \u2014 Features wait as pull requests until approved; only hotfixes merge\u2026 \u2014 Message 17118 (2026-10-06), after the overnight refactor merged as 2.252.0: start new work in a new branch, do not merge, write the pull request. Every pull request or new feature is parked until the user approves it. Hotfixes can be merged into main immediately (by a dispatched agent in a worktree of main, rule 60).", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 64 \u2014 A finished feature is merged into main without waiting for approval \u2014 The user, message 17815 (2026-10-07): 'make sure that no pull requests are lingering on the repository. You may merge them into main... You are allowed to merge everything into main once the feature is completed.' This replaces rule 61's wait for approval: a feature still goes on its own branch, and once it is complete, tested and its whole suite passes, it is merged into main and released, and no pull request is left open.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 49 \u2014 A dialog whose content grows keeps one fixed height, and its content\u2026 \u2014 Message 5361, after asking more than once: a dialog that shows output as it arrives (install, update, logs) opens at its final height and never jumps; only its content scrolls.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "chat etiquette - a line from the journal is an instruction, not a message\u2026 \u2014 a turn that only handles a journal line needs no words: act on it, or say once in the chat what you wait on, then carry on; what the user needs to know still goes to the chat", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Rebuilding the viewer with the card fix. Next I'll start a fresh scratch\u2026", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your command ran 33s in the foreground and was moved to the background \u2014 carry on with other work; you are told when it ends. Start a command you expect to take long in the background yourself", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your command ran 33s in the foreground and was moved to the background \u2014 carry on with other work; you are told when it ends. Start a command you expect to take long in the background yourself", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "waiting: 1 unread todo 1", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "Seeding the scratch chat and taking the screenshot of the file card. came back\u2026", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your command ran 31s in the foreground and was moved to the background \u2014 carry on with other work; you are told when it ends. Start a command you expect to take long in the background yourself", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 36 \u2014 Clean, DRY, idiomatic before it is committed, never after it is\u2026 \u2014 The user should never be the one who finds duplication, dead code, a clumsy name or a pattern the codebase does not use. Read the diff before every commit as a reviewer would, and fix what is not clean then, not in a follow-up after a complaint.; rule 46 \u2014 Only commit and push once the whole journal is proven to boot \u2014 Messages 2178 and 2179. A release that has not been started for real can crash every project that installs it, as 2.78.3 did for Codex and 2.84.0 did to project records. Before every commit and push: the full suite passes, including tests/test_it_boots.py, which installs a packed copy into a fresh project, launches Claude and Codex from it, writes a project record, upgrades again and checks the record survives. When a change touches launching, installing or upgrading, also start a real journal in a scratch project and close it properly afterwards, leaving no process behind.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 37 \u2014 Close every to-do explicitly with todo done or a Journal commit\u2026 \u2014 Ending work does not close its row. A to-do is closed by journal todo done <n> --how, or by a commit whose message carries Journal: todos done <n> at column 0, several numbers separated by commas. A row left open after its work landed misleads the next session and auto mode.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 54 \u2014 Settings and feature switches are read at boot and on change, never\u2026 \u2014 The user, message 13349: the application boots, determines every feature and setting once, and re-evaluates only when something changes, such as a setting or a plugin. Never lazy-load settings.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "your chat talked about the journal's workings - \"to-do 1 is closed\" \u2014 the user sees replies, reactions, pills and reads themselves; say what the work is instead", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 38 \u2014 Never change the git branch until the user says so, by name \u2014 The work happens on the branch the user named. That was main until message 5929 and question 80 (2026-09-23), which moved the sins work to the branch sins. Do not create, switch to or merge any other branch unless the user names it in their own words.; rule 45 \u2014 No prose words as names in code - said, says, heard, spoke, told\u2026 \u2014 Messages 1360 and 1698. The user has said more than once that code must not read like prose: a variable, attribute, property or function is named for what it holds or does (text, command, labels, lines), never with a verb from a story. 'says' on the Design type (1360) and 'said = call.said.lower()' in features/recital.py (1698) are the examples. Rule 27 states the naming rule; this one carries the words, so writing one of them whispers it. Before writing a name, ask whether a reader who has never seen the code would know what it holds.; rule 51 \u2014 Every finished feature is committed, pushed and released with a new\u2026 \u2014 Message 9207 (2026-09-24): when a new feature is ready, commit, push and publish a new tag. This is the user's standing word for releasing, so rule 44's only-when-the-user-says is met by it for finished features; fixes in between wait for the next feature or a patch the user asks for.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "fact 28 \u2014 The designer agent type exists, so design work goes to a subagent \u2014 Since 2026-10-01 .claude/agents/designer.md (Dieter, Opus, Claude Design tools, read-only on the repository) is an agent type; rule 56 says design is a subagent's job, never a helper's.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}
{"content": "rule 58 \u2014 A design runs three critique rounds, then is built on a branch \u2014 Messages 17276 and 17281 (2026-10-06): the norm is a three-round cycle. Round by round, the designer designs (or revises), separate critic agents review the design through their lenses (the critic agent type, .claude/agents/critic.md: read-only, with a browser; one per lens, such as first-time, native, words and parity), and the designer adjusts it to their findings; three rounds in all. The three rounds stand in for the user's approval of the design: the user does not approve it. After the third round the design is built on a branch of its own, which ends in a pull request that waits for the user's approval (rule 61). Replaces message 15725's prototype approval.; rule 63 \u2014 A small design is drawn once and the user approves it, with no\u2026 \u2014 The user, messages 17628 and 17629 (2026-10-07), about the tooltip and waiting-status designs: 'This design round doesn't really need multiple rounds... I just want the designer agent to design it, and I will approve it.' Rule 58's three critique rounds are for large designs such as the phone app; a small one (a tooltip, a status word, one control) is drawn once by the designer, the link goes to the user, and it is built once the user approves it.; rule 27 \u2014 Name a declaration with the word a reader already knows \u2014 An attribute, a variable or a field gets the ordinary programming word for what it holds, not an evocative one. was, heard and alone were poetry; aliases, notify_actions and urgent_actions are what they are. The test: could a reader who has never seen this codebase guess what it holds from the name alone? Prose belongs in the help text and the abstract, where it is read as prose. This does not license abbreviations \u2014 a plain word in full, not a short one.", "meta": {"from": "journal"}}