tellme — Grill Round 001: techstack & research decisions (subject: architect, griller). Issue #1 transcript.

tellme-round001-grill.md

tellme — Grill Round: Round 001 Techstack & Research Decisions

• Issue: gosharplite/tellme#1
• Repo / branch: gosharplite/tellme @ 001-cli-bootstrap-and-config (working tree)
• Subject: architect • Griller: griller • Orchestrator: butler
• Cap: 10 questions (completed Q1–Q10) • Bootstrap: both agents seeded with SESSION-BOOTSTRAP.md
• Artifacts under review: specs/plans/001-cli-bootstrap-and-config/research.md, specs/truth/techstack.md, specs/plans/001-cli-bootstrap-and-config/truth-delta.md

Transcript of a bounded adversarial review. Turn text is relayed verbatim; [MODEL] transport prefixes stripped. Two orchestrator fact-checks are recorded at the end.

---

Subject's Opening Statement (architect)

1. My understanding of round 001 and its constraints. Round 001 is a narrow foundation slice, and its whole point is that it proves the thinnest possible end-to-end skeleton without pretending to be the product. Scope is locked (per STATUS.md and spec.md): CLI boot, YAML config load + validation, TELL_ME_HOME + output// workspace, --version, and an offline -d / -d --json diagnostic. Everything the benchmark (tell-me-go) actually is — providers, Thought, Turn/History, tools, MCP, Memory, TUI, SQLite — is explicitly out of scope; README.md and STATUS.md both state "not everything in tell-me-go will appear in tellme." Two structural constraints dominate the research: (a) config is a slice-local input, not a truth artifact, so this round legitimately adds no contracts/** and no data/** truth (expected NOOP rows in truth-delta.md); and (b) every acceptance criterion in features/acceptance/*.feature lives at the process boundary — exit code, stdout, stderr, filesystem effect (e.g. starting-with-a-configuration.feature asserts "exits with a configuration error code distinct from the success code"). That single observation is what drives Decisions 4–5. The artifacts are correctly located per the axb-technical-research SOP: research.md plan-side, specs/truth/techstack.md as truth, and an ADD entry already recorded under /axb-technical-research in truth-delta.md.

2. Decisions 1–3 (module/layout, flags, config). Decision 1 (Go 1.26, module github.com/gosharplite/tellme, cmd/tellme/ + internal/…) is benchmark-parity and toolchain-verified: the tell-me-go README requires Go ≥1.26.4 and uses a cmd/... entrypoint; locally go version reports go1.26.6; the module path matches origin (git@github.com:gosharplite/tellme.git in STATUS.md). I stand behind internal/ because round 001 is explicitly the foundation — later slices (session, workspace, gateway) must land without a re-layout, and per-package testability is needed from day one. Decision 2 (spf13/pflag) is the only defensible minimal answer to FR-001's shorthand+long -c/--config pair and FR-014's usage-error exit code: stdlib flag cannot natively pair -c/--config, and pflag is the flag layer cobra sits on, so the deferred subcommand roadmap (browse, retry) needs no parser rewrite. The one implementation subtlety I'd flag as already required: to classify an unknown flag (unsupported-cli-usage.feature, --wibble) into a distinct usage exit code rather than pflag's default os.Exit(2), the parser must run ContinueOnError and map the returned error — that is exactly why the research puts a thin internal/cli classifier between main and pflag. Decision 3 (gopkg.in/yaml.v3 + hand-written resolver) is the correct call precisely because config is slice-local and this round carries hard offline/determinism requirements (NFR-001/NFR-003): viper — the benchmark's choice — buys env-binding and file-watching we do not want on the boot path, at the cost of implicit, less-testable env coupling.

3. Decisions 4–7 (runner, test strategy, version, tooling). Decision 4 (godog) and Decision 5 (E2E black-box) are coupled and, I think, forced by the artifacts: the AIxBDD truth model (aixbdd.modelith.md) makes InterfaceFeatures the executable contract (dsl-exact-one-match, acceptance-coverage), so a runner that genuinely executes committed .feature files is the only choice that doesn't invite drift; and since every round-001 scenario is defined at the process boundary, only black-box subprocess invocation proves SC-001…SC-004. I accept that this is forward-looking: research Decision 4 names specs/truth/features/**, which /axb-dsl-refine has not yet produced, and the residual-risks section honestly records that the step-definition location is finalized downstream. Decision 6 (go build -ldflags "-X main.version=$(VERSION)", VERSION ?= dev) is line-for-line the benchmark's Makefile build target; the only precision I'd add is that the injected symbol is the version var in package main at cmd/tellme/, with internal/version (Decision 1) holding formatting/printing, not the linker target — otherwise -X main.version won't bind. Decision 7 (gofmt + go vet) is defensible for this surface: it needs nothing beyond the Go toolchain, and the deferred multi-gate pipeline is consistent with the "narrow slice" scope — though I'll concede it's the decision most exposed to a "cheap correctness gate you chose to skip" counter.

4. The must-ask answers I stand behind. One CLI end, godog, E2E. These are user-locked (the axb-technical-research SOP mandates these three be put to the user), they are captured in research.md Decisions 4–5 and in the truth-delta.md ADD reason, and they are mutually consistent: one end means no OpenAPI/frontend truth (justifying the expected contracts NOOP); godog means the Gherkin is executed, not re-translated; E2E means the proof is at the boundary the spec actually specifies.

5. Soft spots I am prepared to retract or tighten (surfacing them before the griller does). (a) research.md cites the invariant name config-valid-provider — that name is borrowed from the benchmark's tell-me-go.modelith.md Config entity, not a tellme invariant; tellme has no domain model this round, so it is used as shared vocabulary, not a truth claim — I'll concede it; if we want it to be a real invariant, that needs a tellme domain model (out of scope). (b) techstack.md's H1 ("…tellme CLI Bootstrap & Configuration") and the "Not Introduced This Round" heading are round-scoped framing in a file whose invariant is techstack-complete ("the complete current technology stack, not just the latest round's delta") — the content is correct but the titling should be de-round-scoped. (c) The default-config interlock (FR-007 + the spec.md assumption: with -c omitted and TELL_ME_MODE unset, defaults to butler, so $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/butler.yaml) is a resolver ordering constraint — env → default-butler path → read file → env-wins-effective-mode — that must be spelled out in /axb-tasks; it is not a gap in the decisions, but it is where a naive implementation will deadlock.

---

Q1 — SC-004 (zero network) is an absence claim a black-box harness can't witness

Q1 (griller): Your load-bearing premise (opening ¶3) is that "every round-001 scenario is defined at the process boundary, so only black-box subprocess invocation proves SC-001…SC-004." But SC-004 — "the diagnostic command performs zero network calls in the acceptance environment" — is carried verbatim as the Then-step And tellme performs no network access in features/acceptance/version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature, and it is an absence claim about internal behavior: a subprocess gives you exit code, stdout, stderr, filesystem effects, and wall-clock — none of which can witness a connect() that was never made (or one that was made and cheaply satisfied from a local cache/early-return). So how does your E2E-only harness of Decision 5 actually produce a genuine PASS/FAIL signal for that step, and if it can't, doesn't SC-004 force a white-box guard (an injected network client that fails the test if invoked) — directly contradicting research.md's stated stance that "testing internals would lock in choices this round has not committed to"?

My recommendation: don't hand the "performs no network access" step to /axb-dsl-refine as an open question. Decide it now and record it in research.md/techstack.md — bind it to a deterministic, harness-level mechanism: either (a) run the built binary under a no-network sandbox (Linux unshare -n, or a hostile DNS/proxy env with an unroutable resolver) and assert it still exits 0, recorded explicitly as a host-harness assertion (not a product observation), or (b) reframe SC-004 to an observable proxy (the diagnostic must succeed with all network egress blocked). Then state plainly in the research that SC-004 is proven by the host harness and not by black-box observation, so Decision 5's "black-box proves everything" claim is corrected rather than overstated. Which mechanism do you want to commit to — and are you prepared to amend the SC-004 justification accordingly?

A1 (subject): Verdict: I partially accept. You're right that Decision 5's claim is overstated, and I revise it — but I refute the specific conclusion that SC-004 "forces a white-box guard (an injected network client)," and I'll commit to a mechanism now.

Where I concede (Decision 5 is wrong as written). "Only black-box subprocess invocation proves SC-001…SC-004" is false for SC-004. A subprocess witnesses exit code, stdout, stderr, filesystem, wall-clock. And tellme performs no network access is an absence claim, and absence of a connect() that was never attempted is not observable in any of those channels. version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature carries that step with no # [need clarification] marker, and research.md Decision 5 silently folded it under "E2E proves everything." That's a real hole, not a nuance. So the correct correction is narrower than my blanket claim: black-box observation does not prove everything; black-box invocation under a controlled environment proves the process-boundary criteria — and SC-004 is the one criterion that needs an environment-controlled absence witness.

Where I refute you. Your two-part framing is "black-box can't → so white-box injection it is → which contradicts Decision 5." The middle step is a false dilemma. Injecting a network client into the product to fail the test when invoked requires the product to carry a DI seam/network dependency that round 001 has deliberately not committed to — that is precisely the "testing internals locks in choices this round has not committed to" risk Decision 5 warns against. A sandbox manipulates the environment around the unchanged binary; it does not touch the product. So it does not contradict Decision 5's stance — it reinforces it. The only thing genuinely revised is Decision 5's completeness claim.

Mechanism I commit to: your option (a), as a host-harness assertion — plus a deterministic backstop.

1. Primary — no-network sandbox. Run the built tellme -d and tellme -d --json inside an emptied network namespace (Linux unshare -n; macOS sandbox-exec deny-network profile) and assert it still exits 0 and emits byte-identical structured output. Under an empty netns, any connect()/DNS attempt returns ENETUNREACH/ENETDOWN immediately — so a path that requires network produces a genuine FAIL (non-zero exit, changed output, or timeout). Recorded explicitly as a host-harness assertion, not a product observation.
2. Backstop — build-graph capability guard. A verify-style Makefile gate (go list -deps ./cmd/tellme / go tool nm) asserting no network-capable package (net, net/http, provider SDKs) is in the diagnostic binary's dependency closure. This closes exactly the case the sandbox can't: a best-effort call that swallows errors (your "cheaply satisfied from cache/early-return") still links a network package, so capability-absence is decisive and platform-independent.
3. Epistemic grade, stated honestly. The sandbox is a necessary-condition / differential witness — it can produce a real FAIL, it cannot prove absence. The build-graph guard supplies the capability-absence witness. Neither alone is sufficient; together they are. Portable sandbox unavailable (no userns / non-Linux-macOS) ⇒ the step is SKIPPED, never passed green-by-skip.

Amendments I'll make (recorded now, not handed to /axb-dsl-refine):

• research.md Decision 5 — replace "black-box proves everything" with: process-boundary criteria are proven by controlled-environment invocation; SC-004 is proven by the host harness (sandbox + build-graph guard), not by black-box observation. Add both mechanisms to the residual-risks/forward-links block as decided, not open.
• techstack.md — add a Testing & Verification row documenting the no-network guard (a tooling fact, so it belongs there), and note the corrected SC-004 justification.
• truth-delta.md — this becomes a MODIFY on the /axb-technical-research truth entry (techstack is being changed), not a silent edit.

What still belongs to /axb-dsl-refine: only the mechanical encoding — the DSLRow for And tellme performs no network access must declare its StepDef 實作語意 as harness-mediated (step def runs the binary under the sandbox and asserts exit 0 + identical output). That's a codification detail. The decision — mechanism, its epistemic grade, and that it is the host harness doing the proving — is now committed here.

---

Q2 — godog is committed to truth but executes nothing this round

Q2 (griller): Decision 4 locks godog into specs/truth/techstack.md — a truth artifact whose own invariant is "the complete current technology stack" — but I verified the repo has no go.mod, no Go code, and specs/truth/ contains only techstack.md; the executed input that research.md Decision 4 names (specs/truth/features/**) does not exist yet and is /axb-dsl-refine's output. The only Gherkin that exists this round is the four journey-shaped acceptance features in the plan package — and those are not godog-scenario-shaped: starting-with-a-configuration.feature packs a single shared Given plus three independent When/Then branches (valid → missing → malformed) into one Example, whereas godog executes one Scenario as one linear path. So the round-001 artifact records a runner that runs nothing this round, against an input path that isn't produced, with the step-definition location explicitly deferred (research residual-risks). Given all that, what precisely does godog execute for round 001 — and is it sound to commit it into the truth techstack now, or is it a chosen-but-uninstantiated runner that belongs in the "not yet in the stack" sense until dsl-refine yields a real feature + DSLRow + step def?

My recommendation: keep godog (it's user-locked), but make the truth entry honest and load-bearing rather than aspirational. State in techstack.md/research.md, as decided (not deferred): (1) the executed artifact is the interface Gherkin under specs/truth/features/** (dsl-refine output), running E2E against the built tellme binary; (2) the acceptance journeys in the plan package are carried, never executed directly — so drop the "not re-translated" phrasing, which overstates it (dsl-refine does re-express acceptance rules into interface scenarios + DSL rows); (3) the step-definition location — pick it now (e.g. a Go test package such as tests/e2e or internal/cli/*_test.go) — plus the harness contract (how the binary is built/located and how each scenario gets an isolated TELL_ME_HOME), so /axb-tasks documents rather than invents it. If you can't fix (3) this round, then say so plainly and mark the runner "adopted, first instantiated in /axb-dsl-refine" instead of presenting it as part of the current, exercised stack. Which of these do you commit to — and will you revise the techstack.md/research.md wording accordingly?

A2 (subject): Verdict: I accept this, with one refinement — the decision belongs in truth; what's wrong is that it's presented as instantiated rather than adopted-and-uninstantiated. I commit to your (1)+(2)+(3), not the fallback.

What I confirm from the repo (your facts hold). No go.mod, no Go package, specs/truth/ contains only techstack.md — so Decision 4 names an input (specs/truth/features/**) that does not exist and cannot exist until /axb-dsl-refine, which STATUS.md places after /axb-technical-research → /axb-system-analysis. So for round 001, godog executes nothing. And you're right about the shape mismatch: starting-with-a-configuration.feature packs one shared Given ("has a runnable tellme installation") plus three independent When/Then branches (valid → missing → malformed) into a single Example. That is correct for acceptance — per aixbdd.modelith.md's acceptance-business-language (no technical detail, no front/back split) and the axb-dsl-refine single-Act atomization rule — but it is precisely why acceptance features are not godog input. godog runs linear scenarios; these are deliberately multi-branch journeys. Decision 4 already points at interface features, not acceptance features; the defect is that it implies that input is live.

What I revise (accept point 2). The research phrasing ("godog … keeps the committed .feature files genuinely executed … rather than drifting from code") is ambiguous and overstates. The precise, decided statement is: what is executed verbatim is the interface Gherkin (dsl-refine output); the acceptance journeys are carried, never executed directly — acceptance-coverage requires every acceptance rule to be carried by ≥1 InterfaceFeature, and dsl-refine does re-express them into atomic interface scenarios + DSLRows. So "not re-translated" framing goes; "executed ≠ acceptance; carried = acceptance" replaces it.

What I commit to (fix point 3 now — don't defer). I can settle the harness this round; it's a tooling fact, not a dsl-refine semantic:

• Step-definition / runner location: a dedicated Go test package at tests/e2e/ (benchmark-parity — tell-me-go's E2E lives at tests/e2e/), running godog.TestSuite with Paths: []string{"../../specs/truth/features"}. The concrete module subpaths (features/{interface}/{module}/…) stay dsl-refine's to fix; the package and loading mechanism are decided here.
• Harness contract: (a) build once per suite — go build -ldflags "-X main.version=<VERSION>" -o <tmp>/tellme ./cmd/tellme; the binary path is passed to the suite (e.g. TELLME_BIN); (b) per-scenario isolation: each scenario gets a fresh TELL_ME_HOME (a t.TempDir()-style temp dir), with TELL_ME_MODE / TELL_ME_SELECTED_PROVIDER set per scenario, torn down after — so no scenario shares filesystem state; (c) determinism: assert exit code + stdout + stderr + filesystem effects, and forbid time.Sleep for synchronization (mirroring tell-me-go ADR-036 / verify-no-test-sleep). /axb-tasks then documents this, it doesn't invent it.

The refinement on your framing (the one partial refute). Calling it "aspirational" overstates the other way: godog is user-locked (must-ask Q2) and is a committed stack choice, so removing it from techstack.md would be wrong. The honest fix is a status label, not deletion: keep it in Testing & Verification, but explicitly mark it "adopted this round; first instantiated in /axb-dsl-refine (interface features + DSLRows + step defs)" — a sibling to the existing "Not Introduced This Round" section. That satisfies techstack-complete (the current stack is complete and correctly labelled) without asserting a runner that runs nothing.

Amendments (recorded as decided, not deferred):

• research.md Decision 4 — distinguish executed (interface Gherkin) from carried (acceptance); drop the "not re-translated" implication; pin tests/e2e/ + the build/isolation/determinism harness contract.
• techstack.md — annotate godog's status ("adopted; first instantiated in /axb-dsl-refine"); add the tests/e2e/ runner + harness as tooling rows.
• truth-delta.md — MODIFY on the /axb-technical-research truth entry (techstack changed), not a silent edit.

So: yes to (1), yes to (2), and yes to (3) at the location + harness-contract level — with the concrete step matchers (which When binds to which DSLRow) remaining dsl-refine's, and godog labelled as adopted-pending-instantiation rather than an exercised part of the current stack.

---

Q3 — default-config / effective-mode resolution is circular

Q3 (griller): Decision 3 chooses a hand-written resolver "so env-over-file precedence [is] explicit and … unit-testable" — but the round's default-config rule, as written, is circular and I can't tell whether you consider it decided. spec.md Assumptions say the default config is sought at $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/<mode>.yaml "where <mode> is the effective mode", while FR-007 defines effective mode as TELL_ME_MODE if set, else the configuration's MODE. Locating the file therefore needs the effective mode, but computing the effective mode (when TELL_ME_MODE is unset) needs the file you haven't located yet. The only escape is a seed — presumably literal butler — but then, if TELL_ME_MODE is unset and butler.yaml declares MODE: coder, the file is found at configs/butler.yaml while the effective mode is coder, so the workspace becomes output/coder (per runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature Example 2's rule, which the acceptance set only exercises for the -c-provided path, never the no--c default path). So, precisely: what is the deterministic resolution order for (locate default config) vs. (compute effective mode / workspace), where does the butler seed apply, and when the default filename's mode and the file's declared MODE diverge, does tellme follow the file's MODE, the filename, or error — and is this a research decision (the resolver contract in Decision 3) or genuinely deferred to /axb-tasks, as your opening soft-spot (c) claimed?

My recommendation: stop calling it a tasks detail — it is the substance of Decision 3 and must be decided now, because a resolver whose precedence contract is undefined is not "explicit and unit-testable." Pin a single ordered algorithm in research.md Decision 3 (and reflect it in techstack.md's "Effective-value resolution" row): (1) resolve TELL_ME_HOME (env error if unset/unusable); (2) let REQ_MODE = TELL_ME_MODE if set; (3) config path = -c if given, else $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/${REQ_MODE:-butler}.yaml; (4) load+validate the file; (5) effective mode = REQ_MODE if set, else the file's MODE, else butler; (6) workspace = $TELL_ME_HOME/output/<effective mode>. Then state the divergence rule explicitly (I'd recommend: the default filename is only a discovery seed; the effective mode is authoritative from env-then-file, so filename and workspace mode may legitimately differ — and add an acceptance case for the no--c + MODE≠butler situation, which the current set never covers). Do you adopt this ordering, and will you record it as a Decision 3 contract rather than an /axb-tasks footnote?

A3 (subject): Verdict: I accept this, and I revise my earlier characterization. My opening soft-spot (c) called this "not a gap in the decisions, but where a naive implementation will deadlock." That was wrong. Decision 3's entire justification is that precedence is "explicit and unit-testable"; a seam whose order is undefined makes that claim false. So (c) is upgraded from a /axb-tasks footnote to the resolver contract of Decision 3, decided now. Two things I refute: the "error on divergence" option, and the suggestion that I add the missing acceptance case.

Pinned resolver algorithm (adopting your ordering, with two refinements).

1. Resolve TELL_ME_HOME first, always — even when -c is given, because the workspace lives under it. Unset/unusable ⇒ environment error (spec edge case "TELL_ME_HOME is unset or points to a non-writable location"; FR-006).
2. REQ_MODE = TELL_ME_MODE if set, else unset.
3. Config path = -c if given, else $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/${REQ_MODE:-butler}.yaml.
4. Load + validate the file (FR-002, FR-005).
5. Effective mode = REQ_MODE if set, else the file's MODE, else butler.
6. Workspace = $TELL_ME_HOME/output/<effective mode>/ (FR-007). Refinements: (i) step 1 precedes step 3 unconditionally (home is needed on both the -c and default paths); (ii) step 3's ${REQ_MODE:-butler} is a filename seed only — it never determines the workspace.

Divergence rule — refute "error". When REQ_MODE is unset, the path seed is butler, so if configs/butler.yaml declares MODE: coder, the file is found at configs/butler.yaml while workspace = output/coder. That divergence is legal and non-fatal, because FR-007 is authoritative: effective mode is "the TELL_ME_MODE environment variable when set, otherwise the configuration's MODE value." Erroring would (a) contradict FR-007, and (b) reject a valid configuration — the filename is a discovery artifact, not a semantic contract; nothing requires basename==MODE. Note the divergence window is exactly the unset-env case: when REQ_MODE is set, seed == effective mode, so filename and workspace mode coincide. I'd allow an optional non-blocking warning when they differ, but I'll decide it off (keep the bootstrap path silent) unless the PM wants it.

MODE-absent fallback. If the file's MODE is empty — FR-005 lists MODE among required keys but doesn't require it non-empty — step 5 falls to butler, consistent with the spec.md assumption "when no effective mode is set, <mode> defaults to butler." I pin that; it's currently uncovered by any edge case.

Channel discipline (partial refute of your last clause). The missing coverage — no acceptance Example exercises the no--c + MODE≠butler path — is real, but I cannot add it. Per aixbdd.modelith.md, Spec and AcceptanceFeature are PM-owned (spec-pm-authored; acceptance-business-language — no technical detail). The RD side "escalates gaps through clarification instead of editing it." So I raise it, I don't author it. Concretely: the requirement is already defined by FR-007, so no spec change is needed; what's missing is an acceptance Example (and, downstream, the InterfaceFeature that carries it). I'll record it as an open item routed to the PM (/axb-clarify if the PM wants a decision on the divergence/warning semantics; otherwise a plain coverage gap for /axb-spec-by-example). Note starting-with-a-configuration.feature Example 2 only covers "no default configuration can be found," and runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature Example 2 covers the env-override on the -c-provided path — neither exercises default-path discovery resolving a non-butler MODE.

Amendments (recorded as decided, not deferred):

• research.md Decision 3 — embed the 6-step ordered algorithm + the divergence rule (filename = seed; env-then-file effective mode authoritative; divergence legal; MODE-absent ⇒ butler). Retract the "tasks detail" framing of soft-spot (c).
• techstack.md "Effective-value resolution" row — reflect the ordered algorithm and the seed-vs-effective-mode distinction.
• truth-delta.md — MODIFY on the /axb-technical-research entry.
• Open item routed to the PM: acceptance-coverage gap for the no--c + MODE≠butler path.

So: yes, adopt your ordering and the divergence rule; no to "error"; and the acceptance-case gap goes to the PM, not into this RD artifact.

---

Q4 — -d on a failed setup is undefined

Q4 (griller): Decision 2 commits a CLI classifier that maps errors into FR-014's exit codes, and FR-011 defines -d as "a diagnostic command that reports configuration- and home-resolution status" — but every artifact pins -d only for the ready case: SC-003 asserts "the diagnostic command … exit[s] successfully," and version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature runs -d (and -d --json) only against "a configuration resolves to a ready state." No FR/NFR, edge case, or acceptance Example defines what -d does when resolution fails — which is precisely the situation a diagnostic exists to diagnose. So when -d runs against a missing/malformed config, an unset/unusable TELL_ME_HOME, or a provider mismatch, does it (a) report the unresolved status and exit 0 (a genuine diagnostic, usable to debug exactly the failures round 001 defines), or (b) fail-fast with the same config/environment exit code as normal boot (in which case -d cannot diagnose the very failures it is named for) — and which exit code, if any, does -d reserve for "the diagnostic ran but resolution failed"? And is that contract RD-owned (the classifier branch + the FR-014 mapping) or a PM clarification — because whichever it is, research.md currently leaves it undefined.

My recommendation: pin it now, as RD, and make the divergence explicit rather than silent. Treat -d as a reporting path: it never takes boot's fail-fast route; it emits resolution status (resolved, or unresolved + category — config-missing | config-invalid | provider-mismatch | home-unset | home-unusable) to stdout, performs no network, and exits 0 whenever a report was produced; it exits non-zero only if the report itself can't be produced. State the consequence plainly in research.md Decision 2 and techstack.md: -d deliberately does not reuse FR-014's exit codes, so the classifier needs a -d-first branch (resolve+report, skip fail-fast), and the PM should ratify that divergence by adding an edge case + an acceptance Example for -d on a broken setup. The alternative — -d fail-fasts like boot — is defensible but must be stated, with the acknowledged cost that -d then cannot diagnose boot failures. Which semantics do you commit to, and where will you record it (RD classifier contract vs. a PM-owned clarification)?

A4 (subject): Verdict: I accept your (a) reporting-path semantics and commit to them; I refute "fail-fast" (b/c) as self-defeating; and I partially refute your framing on ownership — the mechanism is RD-owned and pinned now, but the exit-code divergence from FR-014 is PM-ratified, not RD-settled.

Why fail-fast is out. -d exists (FR-011) to "report configuration- and home-resolution status" — and the only failures round 001 defines are exactly resolution failures (missing/malformed config, provider mismatch, unset/unusable TELL_ME_HOME). A -d that fail-fasts with boot's config/env code hands the operator the same code boot already gave, with no resolution detail. That makes the diagnostic redundant with boot — self-defeating. So -d must at minimum always produce the report.

RD contract I pin now (research Decision 2 + techstack.md).

• Ordering: parse first (FR-001/FR-014). An unrecognized flag is still a usage error even with -d (-d --wibble ⇒ usage code) — parsing precedes diagnostic dispatch. The -d-first branch runs only after a successful parse.
• -d is a reporting path: it never takes boot's fail-fast route. It emits resolution status — resolved, or unresolved + category ∈ {config-missing, config-invalid, provider-mismatch, home-unset, home-unusable} — to stdout, and the machine-readable health signal (resolved: true/false + category) in --json (FR-013). This is why --json exists: health is carried in the structured body, not the exit code.
• Exit code: -d exits 0 whenever a report was produced — resolved or unresolved; there is no reserved code for "diagnostic ran but resolution failed." Non-zero is reserved solely for "the report itself could not be produced" (e.g. stdout write failure) — a distinct code.
• No network on any path: FR-012/SC-004 must hold on the failure path too (it matters more there). Consequence for Q1: the sandbox + build-graph harness must cover -d against broken setups, not just the ready state.
• Exact --json key schema stays open — STATUS.md already lists "Exact -d --json output schema" as a non-blocking open item. I pin the field contract (status + category), not the key names.

The divergence, stated plainly. -d deliberately does not reuse FR-014's failure codes on the diagnostic path; it reserves 0 for "report produced." Consequence: the classifier needs an explicit -d-first branch (resolve+report, skip fail-fast), separate from the boot branch.

Ownership (partial refute of your last clause). The classifier branch and the report contract are RD — I decide those now. But whether FR-014 binds the diagnostic path at all, and the decision to make -d exit 0 on unresolved, are observable acceptance/exit-code semantics the PM owns (spec-pm-authored; FR-014 is a global requirement, and "at least" leaves room to add a code but not to silently scope one out). So: RD-proposed, PM-ratified. I escalate via /axb-clarify — a missing edge case ("-d on a broken setup") plus an acceptance Example, and a ruling on FR-014's scope over -d. Until ratified I record it as the RD-proposed diagnostic contract, not as settled truth.

Amendments: research.md Decision 2 — add the -d-first classifier branch + the reporting contract and its FR-014 divergence; research.md Decision 5 (and the Q1 harness) — extend the no-network guard to the -d failure path; techstack.md — reflect the diagnostic report contract; truth-delta.md — MODIFY on the /axb-technical-research entry; new PM-routed open item (edge case + acceptance Example + FR-014-scope ruling).

So: yes to (a); no to fail-fast; the mechanism is RD-pinned now, and the exit-code semantics are recorded as an explicit, PM-ratified divergence rather than a silent one.

---

Q5 — Decision 1's rationale contradicts Decision 5; internal/version is invented

Q5 (griller): Decision 1 justifies the internal/… layout as giving "each responsibility a unit-testable package from the start" — but Decision 5 commits to E2E-only and the research itself says "testing internals would lock in choices this round has not committed to," so the layout is being justified by a capability the round's own test strategy explicitly forgoes. And one of its proposed packages is unheralded: I checked the benchmark and tell-me-go has no internal/version — version is a single var version = "dev" in cmd/tell-me-go/main.go (the -X main.version target) plus a small getVersion() that falls back to debug.ReadBuildInfo(); meanwhile Decision 1 adds internal/version for "formatting/printing" while Decision 6 injects into main.version. So is the internal/… layout — and internal/version in particular — actually justified this round, or is internal/version speculative structure with no benchmark precedent and no consumer beyond printing one string, which also splits the version across two packages (main.version injected, internal/version formatting) and invites a second source of truth?

My recommendation: keep the layout but make it honest and drop the invented package. Keep internal/config, internal/home, internal/cli — each maps to a distinct FR and an E2E-observable responsibility, and separation of concerns (not tests that don't exist yet) is the real justification; correct Decision 1's rationale so it doesn't lean on "unit-testable from day one" when Decision 5 says otherwise. Drop internal/version: mirror the benchmark — hold var version = "dev" in cmd/tellme/main.go as the single -X main.version target, print it directly from the --version path, and introduce a version package later only when a real formatting/build-metadata consumer appears. If you keep it, state the one source of truth for the version value and justify the package by a consumer that exists this round. Which way do you commit — and will you reconcile Decision 1's rationale with Decision 5's E2E-only stance?

A5 (subject): Verified: cmd/tell-me-go/main.go:38-40 declares var version = "dev" (the -X main.version target), :63 getVersion() returns it if != "dev" else falls back to debug.ReadBuildInfo(), and find … -name version under the benchmark's internal/ returns empty — there is no internal/version. The benchmark further threads the version as a value (cfg.Version = appVersion; cli.AppDependencies{Version: appVersion}), not a package. Verdict: I accept both — I reconcile Decision 1's rationale with Decision 5, and I drop internal/version.

Reconciling Decision 1 with Decision 5 (I revise the rationale). You're right that "each responsibility a unit-testable package from the start" leans on a capability the round explicitly forgoes — Decision 5 is E2E-only, and the research's own Decision 5 alternative says "testing internals would lock in choices this round has not committed to." That is a self-contradiction. The real justification is weaker-but-true and stronger-as-written: separation of concerns — each package owns one FR cluster and thus one E2E-observable responsibility:

• internal/config → FR-001/002/003/005, NFR-001; observable via the config-error exit code (starting-with-a-configuration.feature).
• internal/home → FR-006/007/008/009; observable via workspace create/reuse + the environment-error code (runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature).
• internal/cli → FR-001 flag parsing + FR-014 exit-code classification + FR-011/013 diag dispatch; observable via usage errors (unsupported-cli-usage.feature) and -d.

"Unit-testable when the strategy broadens" survives only as a forward benefit, explicitly subordinate to Decision 5 — not the driver. I'll correct both research.md Decision 1 and techstack.md's layout row, whose Purpose column also says "unit-testable packages" and carries the same tension.

Dropping internal/version (accept; benchmark parity). A package with no consumer beyond printing one string — split across main.version (injected) and internal/version (formatting) — is speculative structure that invites a second source of truth, and it has no benchmark precedent. So: one source of truth = var version = "dev" in cmd/tellme/main.go, the single -X main.version target (Decision 6 unchanged). The --version path prints it directly. If we later want the benchmark's debug.ReadBuildInfo() fallback (getVersion()), that's a small function in main, not a package — and I'd defer it entirely this round: FR-010 only requires the build version, which -X supplies.

The rule that prevents recurrence: the injected variable is the only version symbol; any future version package would move the injection target (e.g. -X …/internal/version.Version=…) so there is ever one target, never two. I'll state that one-line invariant in the research so a later slice doesn't re-split it.

Amendments: research.md Decision 1 — replace the "unit-testable from day one" rationale with separation-of-concerns + E2E-observable FR mapping; remove internal/version from the package list; add the single-source-of-truth version invariant. techstack.md — fix the layout row's "unit-testable" phrasing; the version-injection row already matches (-X main.version), no internal/version appears there, so nothing to remove. truth-delta.md — MODIFY on the /axb-technical-research entry.

So: keep internal/{config,home,cli} and justify them by separation of concerns and E2E observability (not unit-testability); drop internal/version; single version source = main.version.

---

Q6 — SOP/truth-hygiene: amending truth before /axb-clarify

Q6 (griller): Across Q1–Q5 you've committed amendments that land in specs/truth/techstack.md — a file that declares itself "the current, complete technology stack for tellme": (1) godog labelled "adopted this round; first instantiated in /axb-dsl-refine" (a runner that, by your own Q2 finding, executes nothing this round and whose input specs/truth/features/** does not yet exist); (2) a -d reporting contract you yourself classify as "RD-proposed, PM-ratified," which you say diverges from the ratified global FR-014; plus the resolver algorithm and the E2E harness contract. But the /axb-technical-research SOP is explicit — Phase 2 must "DELEGATE … call /axb-clarify … if the remaining gap changes … technical boundaries … stop before convergence [未收斂前停止]," and only Phase 3 writes truth. So is this round violating its own SOP by amending truth before /axb-clarify ratifies the one item that changes the CLI contract (the -d exit-0-on-unresolved divergence from FR-014)? And more fundamentally: how do you keep proposed and uninstantiated decisions out of — or explicitly quarantined within — a file whose invariant is that it states the settled, current stack?

My recommendation: treat the -d exit-code semantics as a genuine Phase-2 blocker and run /axb-clarify for that one item now — it changes an observable CLI contract and touches a global requirement, which is precisely the SOP's "changes technical boundaries" trigger, so "未收斂前停止" applies and truth must not assert it first. Then keep techstack.md to facts that are both decided and present: record the -d divergence only once ratified; hold the godog "adopted/uninstantiated" note (and any other forward-looking item) in plan-side research.md, or in a clearly non-truth "announced, not yet in the stack" annotation, so truth is never a place where aspiration and settled fact are indistinguishable. If you think the -d divergence is genuinely low-impact and does not cross the SOP's bar, say so — but then stop calling it a divergence from FR-014 and record it as plain implementation latitude instead. Which do you commit to: pause-for-clarify, or reclassify-as-low-impact — and how will techstack.md distinguish settled truth from proposed/uninstantiated content?

A6 (subject): Verdict: I accept the SOP finding, and I self-correct my own over-reach — most of what I routed to techstack.md across Q1–Q5 does not belong there. I commit to pause-for-clarify on the -d item, and I refute "reclassify as implementation latitude."

First, the correction to my own plan. techstack.md's subject is technology — language, libraries, build, tooling. Several of my proposed amendments are behaviour, not technology, and were misplaced:

• The resolver 6-step algorithm (Q3) is a resolution contract → it belongs in plan-side research.md Decision 3 and, downstream, in spec/interface truth — not in techstack. techstack's existing "Effective-value resolution" row ("Hand-written Go (no framework)") stays high-level and needs no algorithm stuffed into it.
• The -d report contract (Q4: resolved/unresolved + category enum, --json health field) is Spec/AcceptanceFeature territory (PM) and later InterfaceFeature/DSL (dsl-refine) — not techstack.
• What legitimately lands in techstack is only: the layout row wording fix (Q5), the godog choice with an honest status marker (Q2), and the no-network verification technique row (Q1) — the last two are genuine tooling facts.

The -d item: pause-for-clarify (not "latitude"). The SOP is explicit — axb-technical-research Phase 2: "DELEGATE … 若其餘缺口會改變…技術邊界…呼叫 /axb-clarify；未收斂前停止," and only Phase 3 writes truth. An exit-code contract change is a technical boundary. So I reopen Phase 2 for this one item: run /axb-clarify, and do not assert it in any truth artifact until ratified. I explicitly reject the "reclassify as low-impact implementation latitude" exit: it isn't latitude within a fixed contract — it's an undefined contract point that FR-014 arguably already fixed. And I revise my own Q4 wording: calling it a "divergence from the ratified FR-014" presumed FR-014 binds the diagnostic path; the accurate framing is an FR-014 scope ambiguity ("does the global exit-code requirement bind -d?"), which is a spec-scope ruling only the PM can make. Framing it as "divergence" and parking it in truth is exactly the SOP violation you name.

How techstack.md will distinguish settled from proposed/uninstantiated — a three-state discipline:

1. Settled + present → in techstack, plainly. (Go 1.26, module path, cmd/tellme/ + internal/…, spf13/pflag, gopkg.in/yaml.v3, -X main.version, gofmt/go vet/make, test harness.)
2. Decided, not yet instantiated → in techstack only under an explicit bucket (a sibling to the file's existing "Not Introduced This Round"), e.g. "Adopted this round; first instantiated in /axb-dsl-refine" for godog — so a reader can never read aspiration as exercise (this is the Q2 fix, kept).
3. Proposed / unratified → never in techstack; it lives in plan-side research.md with an explicit status (e.g. "blocked on /axb-clarify"). The -d semantics go here — not into truth.

The rule I'll state in the research: techstack records decisions that are both settled and technological; behaviour contracts are spec/interface truth; unratified items are research-side until they converge.

Amendments (revised): research.md — Decision 3 keeps the 6-step algorithm (research-side, correct place); Decision 2 records the -d item as blocked pending /axb-clarify (not as a settled divergence); Decision 1 rationale fix; Decision 4 status marker; Decision 5 harness + the -d failure-path no-network coverage, but with the semantic blocked. techstack.md — only the layout-wording fix, the godog "adopted/uninstantiated" bucket entry, and the no-network verification-technique row; no -d contract, no resolver algorithm. truth-delta.md — MODIFY on the /axb-technical-research entry reflecting exactly that reduced set.

So: pause-for-clarify on the -d/FR-014-scope item, with techstack.md quarantining uninstantiated-but-decided content in an explicit bucket and keeping all unratified proposals out of truth entirely.

---

Q7 — Decision 7's "disproportionate" rationale is inconsistent

Q7 (griller): Decision 7 adopts only gofmt + go vet and defers golangci-lint, on the rationale that "a separate toolchain install [would be] disproportionate to this round's surface" — but that principle doesn't hold up against what you've adopted elsewhere this round. I checked: the benchmark's lint: target is golangci-lint run ./... with a .golangci.yml, and its check bundles lint with a large verify pipeline; locally go1.26.6 is installed, staticcheck is already present (/home/pos/go/bin/staticcheck), while golangci-lint is not. Meanwhile this round is adding bespoke gates that are far heavier than a linter — the no-network sandbox, the build-graph capability guard (Q1), and verify-no-test-sleep parity (Q2) — and it lands three new third-party dependencies (pflag, yaml.v3, godog) that go vet alone does not watch for unchecked errors or dead code. So what is the actual, single adoption principle — is Decision 7 simply the one place you under-invested, and will you adopt at least go vet + staticcheck (a superset, available now, zero new install) as the round's static gate — or is "disproportionate to surface" the real rule, in which case the sandbox and build-graph guard must be justified by something other than surface size, and you should say what that is?

My recommendation: replace the vague "disproportionate" rationale with an explicit, consistent rule in research Decision 7 — adopt a tool now iff it (a) directly proves a round-001 requirement, or (b) costs nothing beyond the toolchain. Under that rule: keep gofmt + go vet; add staticcheck (already installed, superset of go vet, no new toolchain) so the three new deps get a minimum static gate — or, at the very least, errcheck + unused; defer golangci-lint (separate install + config) but name it explicitly as the intended aggregator for the next slice, alongside govulncheck; and state plainly in the same decision that the sandbox and build-graph guard are adopted because they prove SC-004, not because the surface is rich — that is the distinction Decision 7 currently blurs. Which principle do you commit to, and will you reconcile Decision 7's rationale with the bespoke gates you're adding?

A7 (subject): Verdict: I accept the principle, and I correct one of your facts — golangci-lint is present locally (it's in the same $GOPATH/bin as staticcheck), so "not installed" cannot be the reason to defer it. That forces the deferral onto a principled basis instead of an install-cost one.

Fact correction (verified). command -v staticcheck golangci-lint govulncheck all fail — none are on the default PATH. But ls /home/pos/go/bin shows all three are present: staticcheck, golangci-lint, govulncheck (plus gocyclo, deadcode, goimports). So your "staticcheck is present / golangci-lint is not" split doesn't hold — both exist; neither is on PATH. go vet is toolchain-native (go help vet ✓); gofmt is at /usr/local/go/bin/gofmt; errcheck is genuinely absent. This matters: it removes install cost as a differentiator and forces the real rule to be about what the tool requires you to commit, not whether the binary exists.

The adoption rule I commit to (research Decision 7, replacing "disproportionate"). Adopt a gate now iff it is either:

• (a) requirement-proving: it directly proves a round-001 requirement; or
• (b) mechanism-only: it is a direct analyzer that runs on its default analysis with no curated policy artifact to author.

Under that rule:

• Adopt (b): gofmt, go vet (toolchain-native, zero install), and staticcheck — the direct analyzer that supplies unused (U1000) plus the SA/S classes over the three new deps (pflag, yaml.v3, godog) that go vet doesn't watch. It runs on defaults — no config file to curate.
• Adopt (a): the no-network sandbox + build-graph guard, and verify-no-test-sleep parity. Stated plainly: these are adopted because they prove SC-004 (and determinism), not because the surface is rich. That is the distinction Decision 7 blurred — the bespoke gates are requirement-driven, not size-driven.
• Defer, and say why: golangci-lint and govulncheck are deferred not for install cost (they're present) but because each requires a curated governance artifact — .golangci.yml linter selection for the former, a triage/policy posture for the latter — which is a next-slice policy decision. Name both explicitly as the intended next-slice aggregator + security gate (benchmark parity: tell-me-go's lint: is golangci-lint run ./... with .golangci.yml, bundled into check).

Named gap (honesty). staticcheck does not cover errcheck's unchecked-error class, and errcheck is not installed here. Since the round does file/YAML I/O (os.ReadFile, yaml.Unmarshal, MkdirAll), unchecked errors are a live — if small — risk. I do not paper over it: I record "unchecked-error coverage" as an explicit round-001 residual, closed at the next slice by the already-present golangci-lint with errcheck enabled — rather than adding a one-off install now. (If the PM prefers closing it now, the zero-install path is golangci-lint-with-errcheck; the toolchain-native path doesn't exist.)

Environment caveat I'll bake into the Makefile. Because these binaries live in $GOPATH/bin and are not on PATH, the Makefile must resolve them explicitly (command -v + go run fallback, as tell-me-go's Makefile does) — otherwise "available" is environment-dependent and the gate silently no-ops on a fresh shell. staticcheck becomes a documented one-line prereq (go install honnef.co/go/tools/cmd/staticcheck@latest), mirroring tell-me-go's README "Development Tools" list.

Amendments: research.md Decision 7 — replace the "disproportionate" rationale with the (a)/(b) rule; adopt staticcheck; justify the sandbox/build-graph/verify-no-test-sleep gates under (a); name golangci-lint+govulncheck as the deferred (policy-artifact) next-slice gates; record the unchecked-error residual. techstack.md — add staticcheck to Build & Tooling, note the $GOPATH/bin/PATH resolution caveat. truth-delta.md — MODIFY on the /axb-technical-research entry.

So: yes — Decision 7 was the under-investment; I add staticcheck now (present, zero policy), and I reconcile the bespoke gates by justifying them as requirement-proving, not surface-driven.

---

Q8 — Premise: horizontal foundation slice vs. BDD's "executable business acceptance"

Q8 (griller): Scope premise. Round 001 is a CLI-only, offline foundation slice whose acceptance features assert only process-boundary plumbing — starting-with-a-configuration.feature asserts exit codes and stderr wording, runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature asserts a directory is created and reused, version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature asserts a printed version string and a resolution report — while spec.md explicitly excludes providers, the Thought model, Turn/History, tools, MCP, memory, TUI, and SQLite. By your own A6 you reclassified much of this as "behaviour, not technology," and even relocated the -d contract out of truth as PM/interface territory. So round 001 is a horizontal infrastructure slice with no user-visible product value: at its end an operator can do nothing with tellme except observe that it configured itself. Yet the project's own development benchmark (aixbdd.modelith.md's AcceptanceFeature / acceptance-business-language; README's "PM acceptance journeys") frames acceptance as executable business value — which is exactly why this entire grill has resolved infrastructure contracts (resolver ordering, exit-code taxonomy, harness provenance), never product behavior. So: does the methodology actually endorse a foundation-first horizontal slice, or is round 001 inverting acceptance-first BDD by dressing integration assertions in Gherkin and leaving the "executable acceptance" thesis unproven until a later round — and if you stand by the scope (PM-locked), will you record that consequence as an explicit research risk and name the smallest user-visible behavior that would let round 001 exercise the thesis for real?

My recommendation: accept the scope as PM-locked, but refuse to let the research imply the slice proves the BDD thesis. Record an explicit, honest research risk — "round 001 carries no user-value acceptance; the executable-Gherkin/acceptance-coverage thesis is first exercised on plumbing, not product behavior" — and, without editing the spec, propose for PM consideration the minimal vertical addition that would change it: one user-visible journey (e.g. tellme --version, or a tellme config show / -d framed as an operator story) that gives the acceptance Gherkin real business content. State plainly that adding user value is a PM decision, not an RD one, so the risk is surfaced and costless if the PM declines. Do you commit to recording that risk (and naming the candidate vertical addition), or do you want to argue the horizontal slice is legitimate business acceptance as specified?

A8 (subject): Verdict: I partially refute the framing, and I accept the risk-recording you ask for. I argue the acceptance is legitimate operator-facing acceptance as specified — but I do not claim the slice proves the BDD acceptance thesis on product behavior, and I do not claim the methodology endorses horizontal slices.

Where I refute you. Two points. (1) The AIxBDD CLI-streamlined workflow explicitly sanctions exit codes in acceptance Gherkin: the aixbdd-tmg README says for CLI applications "Terminal interactions (commands, flags, arguments, exit codes, stdin/stdout/stderr) are defined directly as Gherkin acceptance scenarios." So starting-with-a-configuration.feature's "exits with a configuration error code distinct from the success code" is not a violation of acceptance-business-language ("no API, selector, or other technical detail") — for a CLI the flag/exit-code/stderr surface is the user-facing interface (which is exactly what that feature's header comment asserts). It is not "integration assertions dressed in Gherkin." (2) The slice is not zero-value: --version (FR-010/SC-003) and -d (FR-011/SC-003) are already user-visible behaviors, and spec.md frames the work as real user stories with personas and value — US1 "As a user launching tellme… tell me clearly whether it is usable," US3 "As an operator… confirm what I am running and pinpoint where a problem lies."

Where I accept you. The value is thin and observational: at round's end an operator can only configure and observe — never act on a durable product outcome. And the methodology is silent on slice verticality: aixbdd.modelith.md governs artifact integrity (truth-single-owner, acceptance-coverage, plan-package-frozen, acceptance-atomic-rules) — not whether a round is vertical or horizontal. So a horizontal foundation slice is permitted but not affirmed by the methodology; it's a PM scoping call (STATUS.md: "Round 1 = narrow foundation"), not a methodological endorsement. And you're right that this entire grill resolved infrastructure contracts (resolver ordering, exit-code taxonomy, harness provenance) — never product behavior. That is the honest consequence, and the research currently implies the slice exercises the acceptance thesis when it only exercises it on plumbing.

What I commit to (RD, no spec edit).

• Record an explicit research risk in research.md (Residual risks): "Round 001 carries no net-new user-value acceptance. The executable-Gherkin / acceptance-coverage thesis is first exercised on infrastructure contracts (config resolution, exit-code taxonomy, harness provenance), not product behavior; it is unproven on user value until a later round." Stated plainly, so no reader infers the thesis is validated by this slice.
• Name the smallest candidate vertical addition — for PM consideration only. The round's existing smallest user-visible behaviors (--version, -d) are read-only/observational, so they can't close the gap. The minimal addition that would give acceptance genuine business content within the offline/config scope is a mutating operator journey: tellme init — scaffold $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/<mode>.yaml + the output/<mode>/ workspace, turning "tellme configured itself" into "tellme set me up." (A lighter read-only alternative is tellme config show — print the effective resolved mode/provider/home/workspace; but that overlaps -d, so it adds less.) I record this as a proposal, and I state explicitly that adding user value is a PM decision, not an RD one — so it costs nothing if the PM declines and the risk stays surfaced.

Channel. The risk lands in plan-side research.md (RD-owned). The candidate addition is routed to the PM (/axb-clarify / axb-specify for a later round); spec.md and the acceptance features are not touched by me (spec-pm-authored).

Amendments: research.md — add the residual-risk entry + the named candidate (tellme init, with config show as the lighter alternative) as a PM-routed proposal; no truth change from this item (truth-delta.md unaffected beyond the existing MODIFY).

So: the horizontal slice is legitimate operator-facing acceptance (CLI-sanctioned, spec-backed) but not proof of the acceptance-first thesis on product value — and I'll record exactly that as an explicit research risk, with tellme init named as the smallest user-visible addition for the PM to weigh.

---

Q9 — the --version acceptance test is unfalsifiable (both sides default to dev)

Q9 (griller): Decision 6 injects the version via go build -ldflags "-X main.version=$(VERSION)" with VERSION ?= dev, and --version prints the linked value — and your pinned harness (A2) builds the binary with that ldflag and asserts stdout. But I verified both defaults are dev: research Decision 6 says "a Makefile build target with VERSION ?= dev", and the benchmark's symbol is var version = "dev"; meanwhile the acceptance Example only says "Then tellme prints the build version" without pinning a string. So how is the --version acceptance test made falsifiable? A build where -X silently failed — e.g. exactly the injection-target binding mistake you flagged in your opening (symbol path not main.version) — still prints dev, so an assertion against dev passes whether or not injection actually worked; the test cannot fail on the one bug it exists to catch. What VERSION does the harness inject, what exact string does the --version step assert, and is there any control that turns a broken injection into a genuine FAIL?

My recommendation: pin this in Decision 6 and the harness contract (Decision 5). Have the suite build with a distinctive sentinel unrelated to the dev default (e.g. VERSION=0.0.0-harness or a per-run ULID), and have the --version step assert that exact string — so a wrong -X target, a dropped ldflag, or a hard-coded constant all produce a real failure, not a false green. State the single injection target explicitly as main.version (the benchmark's binding; internal/version is gone per your A5), and note that the sentinel assertion is the guard proving the binding actually took effect — otherwise FR-010's acceptance is unfalsifiable. Which VERSION/assertion do you commit to, and will you record it as part of the Decision-6/harness contract?

A9 (subject): Verdict: I accept — and I commit to a sentinel assertion. The default-dev comparison is exactly the unfalsifiable case you describe, and it must be fixed in Decision 6 + the Decision 5 harness contract.

Why dev can't work. Both ends default to dev: research.md Decision 6 says "a Makefile build target with VERSION ?= dev," and the benchmark's symbol is var version = "dev" (cmd/tell-me-go/main.go:40). So a build where -X silently missed — precisely the binding mistake I flagged in my opening (wrong symbol path) — still prints dev, and an assertion against dev is a false green on the one bug the test exists to catch. version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature correctly leaves the string unpinned ("prints the build version"), so nothing else closes the gap.

What I commit to. The suite builds the binary with a distinctive sentinel unrelated to dev — VERSION=0.0.0-harness — and the --version step asserts that exact string on stdout. This turns each failure mode into a genuine FAIL: (i) wrong -X target → prints dev ≠ sentinel → fail; (ii) dropped ldflag → prints dev ≠ sentinel → fail; (iii) a hard-coded source constant (any value ≠ the sentinel) → fail; (iv) stale binary reused from a build that dropped the flag → fail. I record the single injection target explicitly as main.version (the benchmark binding; internal/version is gone per A5), so the sentinel assertion is also the guard proving the binding took effect. Per-run value: optional hardening — a 0.0.0-harness-<runid> (ULID) additionally defeats a source literal equal to the fixed sentinel and defeats stale-binary reuse absolutely, at the cost of not being able to reuse a prebuilt binary. I commit to the fixed sentinel as the default (deterministic, reusable, catches all four realistic modes) and note the per-run variant as available hardening.

Channel nuance (refinement of how you framed it). The falsifiable assertion belongs at the interface/step-def level, not in the acceptance feature. Acceptance stays business-worded ("prints the build version") per acceptance-business-language; the interface Gherkin step + its step-def builds with the sentinel and asserts the exact value. So the acceptance rule is carried (per acceptance-coverage) and the falsifiability is enforced one level down, where exit codes/output are asserted (consistently with the CLI-streamlined rule that terminal interactions — stdout, exit codes — are the interface). It is not that the acceptance Example should pin a string; it is that the interface step must.

Interaction with A5's getVersion decision. Since the sentinel is != "dev", the injected branch is taken and the debug.ReadBuildInfo() fallback (which I deferred anyway) is bypassed — so the assertion tests exactly the injection path, not a coincidental build-info value. One consequence: the harness controls VERSION explicitly (VERSION ?= dev is only the local default; the harness overrides it), and the release path sets VERSION=x.y.z — so dev never appears in an asserted run.

Amendments: research.md Decision 6 — record the sentinel build + exact-string assertion and the main.version single target; research.md Decision 5 (harness contract) — the suite injects VERSION=0.0.0-harness and asserts stdout == that value; techstack.md — reflect the version-injection + sentinel test in the Build/Testing rows; truth-delta.md — MODIFY on the /axb-technical-research entry.

So: yes — build with VERSION=0.0.0-harness, assert that exact string, single target main.version, and record it as part of the Decision-6/harness contract. FR-010's acceptance is otherwise unfalsifiable, and you've correctly identified it.

---

Q10 — is the /axb-data-plan NOOP actually correct?

Q10 (griller): On /axb-data-plan you've asserted (opening ¶1; truth-delta.md) an "expected NOOP" because "Configuration is a slice-local input, not persisted state," and spec.md locks "no data/** truth this round." But the methodology baseline you yourself cited in A8 says the opposite about this exact case: aixbdd-tmg/README.md (line 37) — "/axb-data-plan is conditional — invoked only if the CLI manages persistent configuration (e.g. ~/.config/...), local storage (SQLite, JSON), or complex domain state. For stateless CLI tools, it is skipped." Round 001 does both: it reads a persistent, user-authored configuration at $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/<mode>.yaml — the very ~/.config/… shape the rule names — and it creates system-owned persistent state at $TELL_ME_HOME/output/<mode>/ (the future home of session data), with FR-005 even fixing a config schema (MODE, PERSON, SELECTED_PROVIDER, PROVIDERS). The rule's own example is a read input, so "slice-local input, not persisted" is not an exemption the rule grants. So is the /axb-data-plan NOOP actually correct under the baseline you cited — or does round 001 owe at least a minimal data/state truth (the config schema + the workspace layout) — and if spec.md has locked "no data/** truth," isn't that a spec-vs-methodology tension the research must surface rather than silently ratify as an unexamined "expected NOOP"?

My recommendation: don't let "expected NOOP" stand on an unexamined premise. Either (a) invoke /axb-data-plan to author a minimal data truth for the persistent surfaces round 001 actually introduces — the $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/<mode>.yaml config schema and the $TELL_ME_HOME/output/<mode>/ layout — which later slices (history.jsonl, SQLite) then extend rather than mint under pressure; or (b) if config/workspace are to stay out of data/**, state the exclusion criterion explicitly against the README rule (e.g. "the CLI reads but neither writes nor derives config state, and the workspace holds no schema this round") and record it as a deliberate, justified NOOP — not "expected." Since spec.md currently locks (b) but the methodology rule leans (a), the honest move is to record the tension and route the ruling to the PM. Which do you commit to — invoke /axb-data-plan for a minimal data truth, or a justified NOOP with the spec-vs-rule tension surfaced — and where (research vs. PM) does that resolution belong?

A10 (subject): 1. "Expected NOOP" does not stand — I retract it plainly (opening ¶1 and the truth-delta.md /axb-data-plan row). It rested on an unexamined premise ("slice-local input, not persisted") that the baseline I cited in A8 contradicts.

2. The README trigger is met, so round 001 arguably owes a minimal data truth. aixbdd-tmg/README.md (line 37): /axb-data-plan "is conditional — invoked only if the CLI manages persistent configuration (e.g. ~/.config/...), local storage (SQLite, JSON), or complex domain state. For stateless CLI tools, it is skipped." Round 001 does both named things: it reads a persistent, user-authored config at $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/<mode>.yaml — the ~/.config/… shape exactly — and it creates system-owned persistent state at $TELL_ME_HOME/output/<mode>/, with FR-005 even fixing a config schema (MODE, PERSON, SELECTED_PROVIDER, PROVIDERS). Crucially, the rule's own example is a read input, so "slice-local input, not persisted" is not an exemption the rule grants. Note also data-model-covers-all-state ("every kind of system state") and delta-covers-all-owners — a NOOP must prove the check happened, i.e. be justified, not assumed.

3. Committed resolution — surface and route; do not silently ratify either way. There is a genuine spec-vs-methodology tension: spec.md Assumptions and STATUS.md both lock "no data/** truth this round," while the README rule leans toward one. So:

• The tension is a PM scope ruling (does round 001 owe data truth?) — routed via /axb-clarify.
• The authoring (if released) belongs solely to the /axb-data-plan owner (truth-single-owner) — research cannot write specs/truth/data/**.
• If the PM releases the lock → invoke /axb-data-plan for a minimal data truth: (i) the config input schema (MODE/PERSON/SELECTED_PROVIDER/PROVIDERS + TELL_ME_* precedence) and (ii) the workspace lifecycle (created-on-first-run, reused, must-be-a-directory, idempotent) — so later slices extend it rather than minting under pressure.
• If the PM affirms the lock → the NOOP stands but justified with an explicit criterion written against the README rule: "round 001 introduces no system-owned persisted state with a schema — config is read-only external input, the workspace is an empty directory, and derived effective values are ephemeral." I'll flag that this criterion is weaker than "reads but doesn't write" (the README example is also a read), so the lock genuinely diverges and needs the PM's explicit ratification.

4. Committed amendments.

• truth-delta.md — /axb-data-plan row: from "PENDING … expected NOOP" → "tension surfaced; NOOP not assumed — pending PM ruling (spec lock vs README line 37); owner /axb-data-plan to author minimal data truth if released."
• research.md — record the spec-vs-README tension as a residual risk, with the criterion for a justified NOOP if the lock holds, and name the two minimal surfaces (configs/<mode>.yaml schema; output/<mode>/ lifecycle).
• No specs/truth/data/** written by research; no spec.md edit (PM-owned).

So: NOOP retracted as unexamined; the ruling belongs to PM (scope) + /axb-data-plan (authoring); research's job is to surface, not ratify.

---

VERDICT (griller)

VERDICT: The subject's core stack choices (Go 1.26/layout, pflag, yaml.v3 + hand-written resolver, godog runner, E2E harness) held up — each was defensible and benchmark- or rule-grounded — but nearly every representation of them did not: "black-box proves SC-001…SC-004," though SC-004 is an absence claim; godog presented as instantiated when it executes nothing this round; and the Decision 4–7 rationales, the unfalsifiable --version assertion, and the /axb-data-plan NOOP all overstated or mis-scoped. Recommendation: proceed with changes — keep the decisions, land the committed corrections (research/techstack scoping, the VERSION=0.0.0-harness sentinel, honest adopted/uninstantiated labels), and pause for /axb-clarify on the two genuine PM-boundary items (-d/FR-014 scope; data/** NOOP) before /axb-system-analysis.

POST-GRILL POSITION (subject)

POST-GRILL POSITION:

1. What I stand by. The must-asks are PM-locked and sound: one CLI end, godog, E2E black-box. Decisions 1–3 core hold — Go 1.26, module github.com/gosharplite/tellme, cmd/tellme/ + internal/{config,home,cli}, spf13/pflag, gopkg.in/yaml.v3 + hand-written resolver; -X main.version version injection (Q9 sentinel aside); and the round's scope as PM-locked narrow foundation. On Q8 I still hold that the acceptance Gherkin is legitimate operator-facing acceptance (sanctioned by the CLI-streamlined rule; spec US1–US3), not "dressed integration assertions."

2. What I revised (committed corrections).

• Q1 SC-004 is proven by the host harness (no-network sandbox + build-graph capability guard), not black-box observation; skips, never false-greens.
• Q2 godog = "adopted; first instantiated in /axb-dsl-refine"; executed = interface Gherkin, acceptance = carried; step-defs at tests/e2e/; harness contract pinned.
• Q3 6-step resolver pinned as Decision 3; filename is a seed only; effective mode env-then-file; divergence legal; MODE-absent ⇒ butler.
• Q4 -d is a reporting path (exit 0 on produced report; health in --json); reframed as FR-014 scope ambiguity, not "divergence."
• Q5 dropped internal/version; single source main.version; rationale = separation of concerns, not unit-testability.
• Q6 reopened Phase 2 for the -d item; techstack.md = settled+present only, with an explicit "adopted, not yet instantiated" bucket; unratified proposals stay in research.md.
• Q7 adopt staticcheck; defer golangci-lint/govulncheck (policy artifacts); named unchecked-error residual (and corrected you: golangci-lint is present locally).
• Q8 record the "no net-new user value" research risk.
• Q9 build with VERSION=0.0.0-harness; assert the exact string.
• Q10 retracted "expected NOOP."

3. Routed to PM / /axb-clarify.

• /axb-clarify (Phase-2 blocker): -d exit-code semantics / FR-014 scope.
• PM: acceptance-coverage gap (no--c + MODE≠butler); the tellme init vertical-add proposal; data-plan tension (spec lock vs README line 37) → /axb-data-plan to author if released.
• Still open (non-blocking): exact -d --json schema.

---

Orchestrator fact-checks (butler)

1. Analyzer availability (Q7 dispute). The griller claimed staticcheck present / golangci-lint absent; the subject claimed none on PATH but all present in $GOPATH/bin. Verified in-shell: command -v resolves staticcheck, golangci-lint, govulncheck, gocyclo, deadcode, goimports at /home/pos/go/bin — so both are present and on PATH; only errcheck is genuinely absent. (Both agents were partly wrong; the subject's "neither on PATH" is also wrong in this shell.)
2. A10 truncation. The subject's first A10 reply was truncated in transit (part 0 = 300 chars; the remaining 16.9 KB was its internal is_thought block). The subject was asked to re-send; the A10 above is the clean re-send.

Round ledger

• Questions: 10 (Q1–Q10) · Verdict: proceed with changes · PM-boundary items to route: 2 (-d/FR-014 scope; data/** NOOP).