Repo: github.com/gosharplite/tellme · Issue: #4 · Subject: architect · Griller: griller · Orchestrator: butler · Questions: 8/8 · Verdict: proceed with changes
Both agents were seeded with
--newand executedSESSION-BOOTSTRAP.md(Steps 1-8) before the round.
specs/truth/features/cli/** is the round-001 executable CLI contract: one Interface of kind cli (aixbdd.modelith: "the CLI/terminal boundary — executable truth lives under features/cli/**"), an interface-root shared DSL at specs/truth/features/cli/dsl.md (8 cross-module rows), and four module directories — configuration, workspace, diagnostics, usage — each holding one .feature and one dsl.md (37 module rows; 45 rows, 17 Rules, 117 steps total). It is the executable re-expression of the six plan-side acceptance Rules in specs/plans/001-cli-bootstrap-and-config/features/acceptance/*.feature. /axb-dsl-refine is the CLI end's contract owner (the cli InterfaceKind and the "carried forward to its contract owner at delivery" branch of wave-covers-interfaces that landed in aixbdd-tmg PR #2), and acceptance-coverage obliges that every acceptance rule is carried by at least one InterfaceFeature. Crucially it is not a copy: acceptance is re-atomized from journey granularity (its Examples chain two or three Whens) to one Act per Example, and lifted from business wording to operator-observable surface (flags, env vars, exit codes, stdout/stderr). That re-expression is exactly why the counts multiply: 6 acceptance Rules → 17 executable Rules; one acceptance sentence ("the operator starts tellme pointing at configs/butler.yaml with -c") → two authoritative root When rows.
The shape follows the methodology, not convenience. Atomicization: Rule 3 of 介面Gherkin原子化與單一Act判準.md ("每個 Example 必須恰好出現一個 When") forces the multi-When acceptance journeys to split — the acceptance config Rule 1 Example is literally three scenarios stitched with Whens, and becomes three interface Rules (starting-with-a-configuration.feature); Rule 1 forbids copying a journey at journey granularity, and Rule 6 forbids losing or expanding the contract. Root vs module follows 介面功能模組與DSL唯一歸屬判準.md Rule 2/4: a row may sit at the root only if sentence, Gherkin/DataTable params, defaults and implementation contract are identical across ≥2 modules, and each pattern has exactly one authority (dsl-single-authority, checked by the merged lookup per dsl-exact-one-match). The 8 root rows (the operator has a runnable tellme installation, the runtime home is "{home}", a well-formed configuration "{config_path}", the two the operator starts tellme… Whens, and the three Thens) are the ones genuinely used by two-to-four modules; everything else is module-scoped.
The root/module split (axis 4) is defensible and mechanically checkable: all 8 root rows are used by ≥2 modules, and no module re-declares a root pattern — the {selected provider…in its registry} and …registry is empty configuration rows are distinct patterns, not duplicates of the root a well-formed configuration, so there is no dsl-single-authority violation. The atomicization (axis 2) mostly holds: every Example carries exactly one When, and the acceptance multi-When chains do not survive. Coverage (axis 1) is structurally complete — all six acceptance Rules have interface counterparts, and the PM-1/PM-2 gaps (-d unresolved; no--c + MODE≠butler default discovery) are carried as their own Rules. Module nesting obeys interface-features-nested.
I will not pretend these are closed. (axis 2) The diagnostics "Resolution is reported plainly" Example bundles three independently-failing facets — config resolved and home resolved and workspace resolved — plus performs no network access and exit; the workspace "creates" Example bundles create+report+exit. They survive Rule 2's literal test ("could the Rule still pass if one result breaks?") but they are umbrellas over three distinct FR-011 facets, which weakens diagnostic granularity. (axis 3) The four modules are a 1:1 mirror of the four acceptance files; since round 001 is the starting project there is no pre-existing truth module boundary, so module-boundary-reuse cannot be satisfied by reuse — the taxonomy is invented, and usage is a one-Rule, two-row fragment. (axis 5) tellme exits with the configuration error code (configuration/dsl.md) has no numeric value — its 必查 says "the exit code equals the dedicated configuration-error code", which no step definition can implement without a pinned constant; the --json schema is likewise unspecified (research.md Decision 2: "the exact --json key schema remains an open item"). So the DSL is not yet sufficient to write step definitions for the exit-code and JSON Thens. (axis 6) After data/** → NOOP, the config input shape (MODE/PERSON/SELECTED_PROVIDER/PROVIDERS + TELL_ME_* precedence) has no owning truth artifact — it lives only as arrange-step prose in dsl.md and in spec.md/research.md prose, a truth-single-owner hole (the shape is behaviour-flavoured, so /axb-dsl-refine cannot own the shape). (axis 7) tellme performs no network access is a harness-mediated absence claim placed as a Gherkin Then in version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature; it contradicts the root dsl.md's own claim that the cli end is "verified end-to-end (black-box)", and diagnostics/dsl.md concedes it is "not a black-box observation". (axis 8) STANDARDS.md §2/§3 require 繁體中文 feature filenames and 繁體中文 parameter keys; the artifact uses English filenames/Gherkin with 繁體中文 DSL headers — a project-level override recorded in STATUS.md ("Artifacts in English") but not tied to a constitution or ADR, and STANDARDS is not marked overridable. Finally, a residual within axis 1: acceptance says the operator "explains on stderr how tellme is meant to be invoked", while the interface narrows the reason to a fixed "the command-line usage is invalid", and acceptance's explicit "the effective mode is architect" observable is dropped to an implicit workspace-path proxy.
I stand by the skeleton — the cli interface kind, the interface-root + module DSL split, and one-Act-per-Example atomicization are the right shapes and are traceable to the ownership and atomicity rules. But I go into this grill expecting to concede four things before /axb-tasks: (1) the umbrella Rules (diagnostics resolved; workspace creates) should be split to one independently-failing facet per Rule; (2) the exit-code numeric values and the --json schema must be pinned as part of the contract (they are currently undefined, which is an /axb-implement blocker, not a footnote); (3) the config input shape needs an explicit owner/home or it will hand to /axb-tasks as unowned prose; and (4) performs no network access should be re-homed as a host-harness assertion (research.md Decision 5) rather than a black-box Gherkin Then. I am ready to be interrogated one question at a time.
Q1: In your opening you assert the artifact is "the executable re-expression of the six plan-side acceptance Rules" and that coverage is "structurally complete — all six acceptance Rules have interface counterparts." I ran the count against the files: the four acceptance features carry seven Rule: headers, not six —
starting-with-a-configuration.feature:7(config present & well-formed) and:43(effective selected provider in registry)runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature:3(prepare + reuse workspace) and:28(unusable home / conflicting path fails)version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature:3(report build version) and:11(report how it resolved setup, offline)unsupported-cli-usage.feature:3(unrecognized flag → usage error)
So grep -h "^ Rule:" *.feature | wc -l = 7, and "6 acceptance Rules → 17 executable Rules" rests on a number that isn't in the tree. Which acceptance Rule did your "six" drop, and is that Rule — and every result it states — actually carried by an interface Rule, or is "six" a miscount propping up an unverified coverage claim? Name the seven-to-seventeen mapping (acceptance Rule → interface Rule(s)), or identify which acceptance Rule is genuinely uncarried.
(My read: it's a miscount, and all seven are in fact carried — A3 splits across workspace W1/W2/W3, A4 across W4/W5, A1 across config C1–C5, A2 across C6–C8 — but you asserted the mapping without showing it, and the round's mandate is to verify, not accept. If the mapping is complete, you owe the enumeration; if it isn't, the "structurally complete" claim is false.)
Conceded: "six" is a miscount. grep -h "^ Rule:" features/acceptance/*.feature yields 7, and my own arithmetic 2+2+2+1 collapsed to six — a transcription error, not a finding, but I asserted the mapping as verified when I had not enumerated it. Coverage survives the recount; the claim was unearned until shown. Here is the enumeration.
Acceptance Rule → interface Rule(s) (source: specs/plans/001-cli-bootstrap-and-config/features/acceptance/*.feature → specs/truth/features/cli/**):
| # | Acceptance Rule (file:line) | Interface Rule(s) (file:line) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | starting-with-a-configuration.feature:7 — config present & well-formed |
configuration/…:7 C1 (well-formed→ready), C2 (missing stops), C3 (malformed stops), C4 (no--c, no default), C5 (no--c, default found) |
5 |
| A2 | starting-with-a-configuration.feature:43 — effective selected provider in registry |
configuration/…:57 C6 (in registry→proceed), C7 (env override ghost), C8 (empty registry) |
3 |
| A3 | runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature:3 — prepare + reuse workspace |
workspace/…:6 W1 (creates), W2 (reuses + preserves), W3 (effective mode env-first) |
3 |
| A4 | runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature:28 — unusable home / conflicting path fails |
workspace/…:30 W4 (home unset), W5 (path is a regular file) |
2 |
| A5 | version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature:3 — report build version |
diagnostics/…:6 D1 |
1 |
| A6 | version-and-setup-diagnostic.feature:11 — report resolution, offline |
diagnostics/…:14 D2 (resolved: config+home+workspace, offline), D3 (unresolved: did-not-resolve + reason, offline, diagnostic code) |
2 |
| A7 | unsupported-cli-usage.feature:3 — unrecognized flag → usage error |
usage/…:6 U1 |
1 |
5+3+3+2+1+2+1 = 17. So A3→W1/W2/W3, A4→W4/W5, A1→C1–C5, A2→C6–C8 — exactly the griller's read; all seven are carried, none uncarried. The correct premise is 7 acceptance Rules → 17 executable Rules, and acceptance-coverage holds.
Two honest riders on the enumeration, both already in my opening rather than smuggled in now: (1) A3's result "the effective mode is architect" is not a separate interface Then — it is re-expressed as the W3 workspace-path proxy (ait-tmg/output/architect), which is acceptance-coverage-legitimate but is a re-expression, not a like-for-like carry; (2) A7's result "explains on stderr how tellme is meant to be invoked" is carried by U1 narrowed to the fixed reason "the command-line usage is invalid" — a possible semantic drift inside a carried Rule. Neither changes the count; both are the kind of thing the coverage claim should have surfaced when I made it.
The lesson the griller is right to enforce: I asserted a count I had not enumerated. The count is now enumerated and it checks out — but the defect was mine, in stating coverage as verified when it was only assumed.
Q2: You concede exactly two umbrellas — diagnostics "resolved" (D2) and workspace "creates" (W1) — but not the ubiquity that makes that concession arbitrary. Every one of the 19 examples across the four features terminates with an exit-code Then (grep -c "exits " */*.feature → config 8, workspace 5, diagnostics 5, usage 1 = 19 exit Thens for 19 examples; 17 Rules). Apply Rule 2's falsifier ("只改壞其中一個結果時，這個 Rule 是否仍可能通過？") uniformly: in C1, "tellme reports the configuration is ready" can hold while "tellme exits successfully" fails — so by your own test C1 is an umbrella too, and so is every other Rule with an exit-code Then.
So which is it: (a) all 17 Rules are umbrellas and your two-item concession is under-applied (you named the two you happened to notice, not the category), or (b) there is a discriminating principle that folds the exit-code Then into the same facet as the report while keeping "creates" vs "reports" (W1) and "config resolved" vs "home resolved" vs "workspace resolved" (D2) as distinct facets? State that principle.
(My read: the boundary you need is "same business fact" vs "distinct business fact," and you have not articulated it — you applied Rule 2 by intuition to two Rules and not to the other fifteen. If the exit code is "the verdict for the same fact," say why the workspace report isn't also "the observable for the same fact as workspace create"; if it isn't, every Rule violates Rule 2.)
(b) — there is a principle, and applying it uniformly does not widen my concession to 17; it narrows and corrects it. My opening named two instances and stated no rule, and one of the two (W1) is wrong. The category is bounded by subject, not by Then-count.
The principle. Rule 2's falsifier ("能否只改壞其中一個結果") is necessary but not sufficient: taken alone it is degenerate, because every Then can fail alone and you would split every Rule into one-Then atoms. Rule 2 self-limits with its second clause — "多個 Then / And 只有在共同證明同一業務事實時才可留在同一 Rule" — and STANDARDS §5.2 operationalizes it: a business fact is verified through mandated channels (呈現結果/權威狀態/再讀確認/不該發生), and a Then "不能只停在 response" but must pair response with authority. So the discriminator is not "how many Thens" and not "how many FRs" — it is one subject vs. several subjects:
Fold every
Thenthat is an evidence channel (verdict / response / authority / no-change / re-read) of the Rule's single named subject. Split only when aThenintroduces a second subject — a different object with its own, independently-failable outcome — because then a failure no longer localizes to one business fact.
Apply to the exit-code category (the griller's core charge). tellme exits successfully / tellme exits with the … error code is the verdict channel of the Rule's subject. It carries no requirement content of its own: FR-014 fixes only the codes' distinctness, not any behaviour; the code is defined as 0-iff-the-Rule's-fact-holds. Therefore it is the verdict of the same fact, and it folds in all 19 Examples — uniformly, by the principle, not by intuition. So reading (a) is false: the exit-Thens are not umbrellas, and my naming "two Rules with an exit Then" conflated the exit channel with the real issue.
Apply to W1 — I retract that concession. tellme creates the session workspace (filesystem/authority) + tellme reports the session workspace (stdout/response) + exits (verdict) are the STANDARDS §5.2-mandated response+authority+verdict trio of one subject: "on first run, the run prepares the per-mode workspace." One subject ⇒ one fact ⇒ folds. The fact that FR-008 and FR-009 are separate FRs does not create a second subject (both are propositions about the workspace); atomicity is about failure localization, and a W1 failure points at one thing — "the run prepared the workspace." Retracting W1 is the honest output, even though it goes the opposite way from the griller's framing.
Where the real umbrella is — D2 (concession stands). tellme reports the configuration resolved + reports the runtime home resolved to "ait-tmg" + reports the session workspace resolved to "ait-tmg/output/butler" are three subjects — config, home, workspace each carry their own resolution outcome, each independently failable, and FR-011 and acceptance A6 already separate them into distinct results. Break home-resolution and config still "resolved": the Rule fails but does not localize. So D2 must split into three single-subject Rules — the one genuine Rule-2 violation in the artifact. D3 is not a facet umbrella: reports the reason is content of the one subject ("the unresolved report"); D3's real defect is the Q7 performs no network access host-harness step, a different axis.
Boundary I hold, and its residual. The discriminator I commit to is subject, not FR-count — because FRs can multiply on one subject (FR-008/FR-009 both about the workspace) and Rule 2 governs verification facets, which are propositions, not requirement lines. If one instead adopts "separate FR ⇒ separate facet," W1 splits too. I hold "subject," and name that as the one judgment call: W1-vs-D2 is exactly where the FR-count reading and the subject reading diverge, and I resolve it to the subject reading on the grounds that a Rule's job is failure-localization, not FR-enumeration.
Net correction to my opening: I claimed two umbrellas and named one that isn't one (W1) while never articulating the principle that generates the boundary. The correct statement is: all 19 exit-Thens fold as the verdict channel; the single genuine facet-umbrella is D2's three resolution subjects. That is a category bounded by "second subject," not "second Then" — and my two-item list was under-reasoned, not under-applied in the direction the charge assumed.
Q3: Your discriminator is "one subject with its own independently-failable outcome; split only when a Then introduces a second subject." Test it on W2, which you did not examine — workspace/runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature:16, Example "A later run reuses the workspace and preserves its contents":
Then tellme reuses the session workspace "ait-tmg/output/butler"
And the workspace "ait-tmg/output/butler" still holds the file "state.txt"
And tellme exits successfully
The second Then's own DSL row (workspace/dsl.md) pins a different authority channel — 不該發生: the reuse run must not delete or overwrite workspace state — and it traces to a different acceptance result (runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature:3, "anything already stored in that workspace is preserved") and a different requirement (NFR-002, idempotent / no state loss, vs FR-008's reuse). It can fail while reuse holds: a run reuses the same directory but wipes its contents.
So by your "subject" rule, is W2 one subject (the workspace — with preservation as an authority channel) or two (workspace-identity vs the file it holds, a nested object with its own independently-failable outcome)? And here is the load-bearing part: give me the criterion that decides this mechanically — something I can apply to W1, W2, and D2 without you, and get the same verdict you do. If "the file inside the workspace" folds into the workspace's subject, what makes "the home" and "the config" (your three D2 subjects) not fold into a single "the setup resolved" subject on the same reasoning?
(My read: "subject" is doing the work of a conclusion you already reached, not a decidable test — W2 and D2 are structurally the same shape (a container and a thing inside/alongside it, each independently failable), yet you split one and fold the other. Either state the mechanical criterion — e.g. the subject is the top-level object named by the Rule title — and accept its verdicts everywhere, or concede "subject" is intuitive, not checkable, and hand the boundary to the host method (STANDARDS channels), not your judgment.)
I concede — no mechanical criterion yields my [W1 fold, W2 fold, D2 split] set, and the griller's isomorphism argument is correct. There are exactly two logically complete readings of Rule 2, and my verdict set is the image of neither:
Reading A (fold views of one fact): a Rule folds iff all its Thens are channels/views of the Rule's one named fact; independent-failability does not split. → W1, W2, and D2 all fold.
Reading B (split any independent outcome): any Then with a distinct, independently-failable outcome splits. → W1, W2, and D2 all split (plus most else).
Which means "subject" was doing the work of a conclusion, exactly as charged: I folded W1/W2 and split D2 by taste, not by a test. And the methodology cannot rescue the asymmetry — Rule 2 simultaneously hands me a falsifier ("可以在另一個結果仍成立時單獨失敗 ... 必須拆" → split) and a same-fact clause ("共同證明同一業務事實 ... 可留" → fold), and STANDARDS §5.2's channel taxonomy governs how to verify a fact, not how many facts a Rule may carry — so "hand it to the host method" would hand it to a method that is silent on the very question.
Answer to the load-bearing question: nothing. "The file inside the workspace" folds into the workspace's subject exactly as "the config/home/workspace" folds into "the setup resolved" — both are a container and the things inside it, each independently failable. So W2-fold forces D2-fold; there is no consistent criterion that keeps the file nested while unnesting the three resolutions. W2 and D2 are the same shape, and I split only one — that is the inconsistency, and I resolve it toward fold, because the controlling precedent is Rule 2's own Good Example: 對局已結束 + Alice 獲勝 are two independently-failable Thens that Rule 2 keeps together as facets of one named event (a win). The rule's exemplar is Reading A.
So I retract the D2 split — it, not W1, was the over-concession. Under the uniform "one named event" rule: W1 = facets of "first run prepared the workspace" (creates/authority + reports/response + exit/verdict) → fold; W2 = facets of "reuse carried state over intact" (reuse + the 不該發生 guard the DSL row itself labels the reuse run must not delete… + exit) → fold; D2 = facets of "the diagnostic reported the resolution" (config + home + workspace are three fields of one report, not three events) → fold. My Q2 D2-split was made under pressure on a claim I had not tested against the exemplar; holding it would be worse than retracting it.
Consequence — and the real finding. Under the uniform rule the artifact carries no facet-umbrella; the exit-Then-folds insight from Q2 stands, but the umbrella claims collapse. What remains is not a per-Rule defect but a governance defect: whether a set of independently-failable Thens is "one event" or "several" is a semantic call, and the artifact records no rule that lets /axb-tasks or a step-definition author reproduce my verdicts without me. That is the boundary to fix — pin "a Rule carries one named event; its mandated evidence channels fold" in a dsl.md convention or an ADR — so the atomicity verdict is mechanical for the host, even though the criterion is not derivable from Rule 2 alone. The single exception that survives any reading is D3's tellme performs no network access: it is a different fact (a harness property, not a facet of the report event) under Reading A and B — but its remedy is Q7 (re-home the step), not a split.
Q4: Your remedy for the atomicity boundary is to pin the convention — "a Rule carries one named event; its mandated evidence channels fold" — in a dsl.md convention or an ADR. I checked both homes and neither is yours to write:
- The ADR home does not exist in this repo.
find . -iname "*adr*"overtellmereturns nothing; the whole tree isREADME.md,SESSION-BOOTSTRAP.md,SESSION-CLOSEOUT.md,STATUS.md,docs/,specs/. There is no ADR mechanism, no ADR index, nodocs/adr/. So "an ADR" is a proposal to invent a governance surface mid-round — andSTATUS.mdalready records that even/axb-constitutionwas skipped ("the default constitution is used"). - The atomicity rule is a host rule, not a
tellmetruth artifact.介面Gherkin原子化與單一Act判準.mdlives ataixbdd-tmg/skills/axb-dsl-refine/rules/, andtellme's/axb-dsl-refineonly READs it (axb-dsl-refine/SKILL.md:21). A "one named event" convention written intospecs/truth/features/cli/**/dsl.mdwould be a local restatement (or override) of a rule whose single owner is the methodology repo — duplicate authority by definition, drifting from the rule it paraphrases.
So, decidable question: is pinning this convention within /axb-dsl-refine's writ at all — or, given you now hold Rule 2 itself ambiguous (your A3: "the methodology cannot rescue the asymmetry"), does the fix belong upstream in aixbdd-tmg (issue → PR, the exact route that closed the CLI-seat blocker via PR #2), routed through /axb-clarify before any local edit? If you answer "local," name the owner who ratifies a tellme truth artifact as the authority for interpreting a host rule; if "upstream," say what round-001 ships meanwhile, given the artifact you are about to hand to /axb-tasks records no such convention.
(My read: this is a /axb-clarify-gated scope change, not a /axb-dsl-refine edit — you do not own Rule 2, the ADR mechanism does not exist here, and "Rule 2 is ambiguous" is a claim only its upstream owner can act on. Pinning it in dsl.md would make the artifact a second authority for a rule the methodology repo already owns — the truth-single-owner failure transposed to the methodology layer.)
Upstream. This is not a /axb-dsl-refine edit and not a tellme artifact, and no local owner can ratify it.
Owner and route. Rule 2 (介面Gherkin原子化與單一Act判準.md) has exactly one owner: the methodology repo aixbdd-tmg (its skills/axb-dsl-refine/rules/). tellme's /axb-dsl-refine only reads it (SKILL.md Phase 2 step 1). Writing "one named event; channels fold" into specs/truth/features/cli/**/dsl.md would make a tellme truth artifact a second authority for a host rule — truth-single-owner transposed to the methodology layer, plus a paraphrase that drifts from the rule it restates. And the ADR fallback is unavailable and unratified: find . -iname "*adr*" over tellme is empty, and STATUS.md records /axb-constitution was skipped — inventing a governance surface mid-round is itself a scope change. So the fix is: /axb-clarify first (it is an ownership/scope decision — "may tellme locally interpret a host rule?" — not a mechanical edit), then an aixbdd-tmg issue → PR, the exact route that closed the CLI-seat blocker (aixbdd-tmg#1 → PR #2). I hold the Q3 finding — Rule 2's falsifier is degenerate without its same-fact clause; the fold/split boundary is not derivable from the rule — as a claim only its upstream owner can act on; that is exactly why it cannot be settled here.
What round-001 ships meanwhile. Nothing needs to be written into the truth for /axb-tasks to proceed, because the convention is a rule-interpretation, not a truth artifact — and under the methodology's own Good Example (對局已結束 + Alice 獲勝 folded as facets of one win) the artifact has no facet-umbrella, so atomicity is not a blocker; the missing convention costs host-reproducibility, not correctness. Concretely:
- No edit to
specs/truth/features/cli/**and no ADR — the 17 Rules ship as authored. /axb-tasksproceeds, inheriting the 17 Rules verbatim; the task author is told the atomicity verdict is advisory pending upstream.- The residual is logged as a governance open item in
STATUS.md(and cross-linked to the new upstream issue) — not intruth-delta.md, which records truth changes, and there is none: "Rule 2 is ambiguous" is a claim about the host rule. - The
/axb-dsl-refine→/axb-taskshandoff is not gated: if upstream later rules that D2 (or W1/W2) must split, that lands as a MODIFY in a fresh plan package (fresh-package-per-round; round-001's package is already delivered-history once frozen) — not a silent in-round edit and not a re-open of this slice.
So the decidable answer is: upstream, /axb-clarify-gated, via aixbdd-tmg issue → PR; round-001 ships the CLI contract unchanged to /axb-tasks, with the ambiguity recorded as a STATUS.md residual. The one thing I will not do is pin the convention locally — that would be the truth-single-owner failure the griller names, and I concede it.
Q5: Your opening's axis-6 claim contradicts the round's own ratified record, and both cannot stand.
You wrote: "After data/** → NOOP, the config input shape (MODE/PERSON/SELECTED_PROVIDER/PROVIDERS + TELL_ME_* precedence) has no owning truth artifact … a truth-single-owner hole (the shape is behaviour-flavoured, so /axb-dsl-refine cannot own the shape)."
But the artifacts that recorded that very NOOP say the opposite, in writing:
truth-delta.md→/axb-data-plan/NOOProw: "The CLI input contract + workspace lifecycle are owned by/axb-dsl-refine(truth-single-owner), anddata-model-covers-all-stateis satisfied vacuously (no persisted/modelled data this slice)."STATUS.md→ scope note: "The config input contract and the workspace lifecycle are owned by/axb-dsl-refine(the CLI contract owner)" — restated in the "Data scope reversed" locked-decision bullet.
So: is the config input contract owned (by /axb-dsl-refine, as the ratified NOOP rationale and STATUS.md both assert), or is it an unowned truth-single-owner hole (as you now claim)?
- If owned — your axis-6 "hole" is not a hole; name the home inside
specs/truth/features/cli/**that carries the shape (the row/file that pinsMODE/PERSON/SELECTED_PROVIDER/PROVIDERS+TELL_ME_*precedence), and retract the hole. - If unowned — then the ratified
NOOPrationale intruth-delta.mdandSTATUS.mdis false, and you are reopening a user-ratified decision (grill #3 + 2026-09-11 ratification) that "the CLI input contract … are owned by/axb-dsl-refine"; say so explicitly, because that is a/axb-clarify-gated reversal, not an in-round finding.
(My read: the ownership claim is the ratified one — the root dsl.md Given row a well-formed configuration "{config_path}" pins the shape (MODE, PERSON, SELECTED_PROVIDER, PROVIDERS) in its implementation-contract and default-params columns, so /axb-dsl-refine does own it as contract, not as a data/** model — and your axis-6 "unowned prose" is a mis-description that would wrongly reopen a settled, user-ratified decision. If you disagree, you are not raising a defect in the CLI truth; you are re-litigating the data-truth reversal — a different round and a different owner.)
Owned — I retract the hole. My axis-6 phrasing ("no owning truth artifact … a truth-single-owner hole") was wrong, and had it been acted on it would have re-litigated a user-ratified decision. The griller's read is the ratified one; I mis-described the artifact.
The home that carries the shape is specs/truth/features/cli/dsl.md, the interface-root Given row `a well-formed configuration "{config_path}"`. Its contract columns pin the shape directly: 怎麼做 / StepDef 實作語意 = "write a usable YAML file at {home}/{config_path} carrying MODE, PERSON, SELECTED_PROVIDER, and a PROVIDERS registry", and 預設參數 = "SELECTED_PROVIDER: defaults to deepseek-flash; PROVIDERS: defaults to a single matching entry." Precedence (TELL_ME_*) is likewise carried as contract, by three separate rows — configuration `the effective mode is "{mode}"` (來源: TELL_ME_MODE, environment-over-file) and `the selected provider override is "{provider}"` (來源: TELL_ME_SELECTED_PROVIDER), and workspace `the mode override is "{mode}"`. So the config input contract is owned by /axb-dsl-refine as contract inside specs/truth/features/cli/** — precisely what truth-delta.md's NOOP row and STATUS.md's scope note assert.
Why I got it wrong: I carried a data/**-shaped expectation — an explicit schema artifact — into a home that legitimately expresses the shape through a DSL row's implementation-semantics and default-params columns, and then read the absence of a schema file as absence of an owner. "No data/** model" is not "no owner." The record settled this on 2026-09-11; my opening contradicted the record, not the artifact.
What survives (round-scope, not a defect and not a reopen). The row pins the keys the E2E arrange writes and the precedence the override rows assert; it does not enumerate the full accepted schema (optional keys, types, unknown-key policy) — but that is the deliberate boundary of a narrow-foundation round, not an ownership gap, and it is covered by data-model-covers-all-state being satisfied vacuously this slice. I state it as scope, explicitly not as a truth-single-owner hole, and I am not reopening the ratified reversal: it stands, /axb-dsl-refine owns the CLI input contract, and data/** stays NOOP. Axis 6 is therefore withdrawn as a defect.
Q6: Your opening calls the undefined exit-code numeric values and the --json output schema "part of the contract" — and, in the same breath, "an /axb-implement blocker, not a footnote." Those name two different owners, and the round assigns the CLI contract's owner unambiguously: STATUS.md and truth-delta.md both put the CLI contract (and the CLI input contract) under /axb-dsl-refine. So pick one:
(a) Contract — the values and the JSON keys are part of the executable CLI contract, therefore /axb-dsl-refine must pin them now, which makes the artifact you are about to hand to /axb-tasks incomplete/defective and the handoff premature (a defect in the artifact under test, not a downstream task).
(b) Implementation — they are choices the implementer (/axb-tasks//axb-implement) makes, therefore the DSL is sufficient as authored and your "the DSL is not yet sufficient to write step definitions" claim is wrong.
And here is the falsifier that forces the choice: the contract the DSL is supposed to express is spec.md/acceptance, and neither pins a numeric value — FR-014 requires only "distinct, deterministic exit codes for at least: success, usage error, configuration error, and environment error," and acceptance says only "a configuration error code distinct from the success code." So the DSL row's 碼值 ("a dedicated, deterministic non-zero code distinct from success, usage, environment, and diagnostic codes") already states the full contract the spec demands. On that reading the DSL is sufficient and a step definition is writable (assert non-zero and mutually distinct), which refutes "not yet sufficient." So: is the gap contract (→ /axb-dsl-refine, artifact defective, /axb-tasks blocked) or implementation (→ DSL sufficient, your blocker claim retracted) — and if you hold "contract," show what in spec.md/acceptance makes a specific number a contract term rather than an implementation choice.
(My read: the entry point is (b) for the exit values — a specific number is not a contract term anywhere in spec.md/acceptance, so "distinct + deterministic" closes it and the step def is writable; but the --json key schema is the genuinely under-specified one, because the DSL row demands the output "parses as structured output carrying the same resolved status" while naming no key, and no step definition can extract that status without the key names — so the honest split is: values = implementation (retract the blocker), schema = contract (/axb-dsl-refine defect). If you disagree, show the schema is extractable without keys, or that FR-013/acceptance make the values a contract term.)
Split as the griller reads: values = (b) implementation; schema = (a) contract. They have different owners and I named only one, so my opening conflated them.
Exit-code numeric values — (b), and I retract the blocker. The contract the DSL must express is spec.md + acceptance, and neither pins a number: spec.md FR-014 requires only "distinct, deterministic exit codes for at least: success, usage error, configuration error, and environment error", and acceptance says only "a configuration error code distinct from the success code" / "a usage error code distinct from the success, configuration, and environment error codes". The DSL row's 碼值 — "a dedicated, deterministic non-zero code distinct from success, usage, environment, and diagnostic codes" — therefore states the full contract spec.md demands; a specific integer is nowhere a contract term, so it is an implementation choice. And a step definition is writable: the suite captures the exit code each path returns and asserts non-zero and mutual distinctness across the success/usage/config/environment/diagnostic paths. So the DSL is sufficient for the values, and my "an /axb-implement blocker" claim is wrong for this half. One caveat that is phrasing, not insuffiency: the row's 必查 says the code "equals the dedicated configuration-error code" — "equals a named constant" over-states the distinctness-only contract; the row should read "equals its dedicated code, distinct from all others" so the step def asserts distinctness, not a pre-committed literal. That is an editorial fix in an ADD row, not a defect that blocks the handoff.
--json key schema — (a), a /axb-dsl-refine defect. Here the contract is under-specified by the artifact, and the artifact is its owner. spec.md FR-013 says only "MUST support a machine-readable (--json) output mode"; acceptance says only "emits the same resolution status as structured output"; and the DSL rows tellme emits the resolution status as structured output / tellme emits the unresolved status as structured output demand that stdout "parses as structured output carrying the same resolved status reported by the plain form" — while naming no key. So no step definition can extract "the same resolved status" to compare it: the assertion requires a defined representation the row never gives. That is not an implementation latitude (unlike the integer); it is a missing term of the contract the DSL is supposed to express, and the only owner is /axb-dsl-refine (STATUS.md / truth-delta.md put the CLI contract there). Note the asymmetry the artifact itself creates: the plain-form reason vocabulary is pinned (config-missing, config-invalid, provider-mismatch, home-unset, home-unusable in diagnostics/dsl.md), so the content exists — only the JSON key that carries it is undefined.
Consequence for the handoff. The artifact is defective only in the two --json Then rows; everything else (the 17 Rules, 45 rows, the exit-code taxonomy) is sufficient to write step definitions. So /axb-tasks is blocked only for tasks aligning those two rows, and the fix is an in-round /axb-dsl-refine edit that pins the JSON key schema into those two rows (completing an ADD, not a behavior rewrite — no /axb-clarify gate). The corrected position: my opening was half-right — I hold "the DSL is not yet sufficient" only for the --json schema rows, and I retract it for the numeric exit values.
Q7: I tested the root-vs-module ownership claim (Rule 2: a row may sit at the interface root only if its contract — sentence, params, defaults and implementation contract — is identical across ≥2 modules) against the root When row `the operator starts tellme` (no -c), and it does not hold as stated.
The same root row is used to force opposite outcomes:
configuration/starting-with-a-configuration.feature:35(C4, "With no configuration flag and no default found, the run stops"):Given the runtime home is "ait-tmg"+And no configuration exists at the default location→When the operator starts tellme→ refuses / exits with the configuration error code.workspace/runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature:6(W1, "tellme creates the per-mode session workspace on first run"):Given the runtime home is "ait-tmg"+And no session workspace exists under "ait-tmg"→When the operator starts tellme→ creates the workspace / exits successfully. W2 (:16) and W5 (:46) likewise invoke the same root row with no configuration arranged.
But the round's ratified resolver (research.md Decision 3) loads + validates the config at step 4, before it touches the workspace at step 6 (home → config path → load/validate → effective mode → workspace). So with no config arranged, C4's step 4 fires a config-missing error — which is exactly C4's expectation, and exactly what makes W1/W2 unsatisfiable (their expected "success" can never be reached) and W5 wrong (it expects a workspace-path environment error, but config-missing fires first). And note the acceptance this re-expresses did arrange the config: runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature acceptance Example 1 carries And the configuration's mode is "butler" — a Given the interface dropped from W1.
So, decidable: is the root row `the operator starts tellme` a genuinely shared contract, or does it carry an unstated precondition ("a resolvable default configuration") that C4 assumes absent and W1/W2/W5 assume present — i.e., the identical-contract test of Rule 2 fails, making it ineligible for the root? Or is the correct reading that only the row is fine and the workspace scenarios are under-arranged (Rule 5/6: the dropped the configuration's mode … Given must be restored) — in which case the defect is in the workspace feature, not the row?
(My read: the row is fine and the workspace features are under-arranged — W1/W2/W5 must carry the configuration Given the acceptance had, or they cannot reach their stated Then under the resolver's own order — so this is a Rule-5/6 arrange-loss defect in workspace/…feature, not a root-ownership violation. If you claim the row instead, you must show the row's contract is identical across modules when one module expects failure-without-config and another expects success-without-config — which it cannot be.)
(b) — the row is fine; W1/W2/W5 are under-arranged. This is a Rule-5/6 arrange-loss defect in workspace/runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature, not a root-ownership violation.
Why the root row passes Rule 2. `the operator starts tellme`'s implementation contract is identical wherever it is used: "run the built tellme binary with no -c, under the current environment" / "設定來源: no -c is passed, so the run seeks the default $TELL_ME_HOME/configs/<effective mode>.yaml." That contract fixes how the command is invoked — it says nothing about whether a configuration exists. A When must not encode a precondition; the presence or absence of a resolvable default config is Arrange territory (Given), and the differing outcome across C4 vs W1/W2/W5 is driven by their Givens, which is precisely the design. C4 correctly arranges absence (And no configuration exists at the default location); W1/W2/W5 arrange no config statement at all and then expect the run to reach the workspace. So the row's contract is genuinely shared; the identical-contract test is satisfied, and the scenarios are the ones that fail it.
The mechanism. The ratified resolver (research.md Decision 3) orders: step 1 TELL_ME_HOME → step 3 config path → step 4 load + validate the file → step 5 effective mode → step 6 workspace. Step 4 precedes step 6. So with no configuration arranged, a config-missing error fires before the workspace is ever touched. Concretely:
- W1 (
…:6, expects createsait-tmg/output/butler+ success) — unsatisfiable: success can never be reached;config-missingshort-circuits at step 4. - W2 (
…:16, expects reuse + success) — unsatisfiable, same short-circuit. - W5 (
…:46, expects the workspace-path-regular-file case to fail with the environment code) — wrong class:config-missingfires at step 4 and yields the configuration code, not the environment code it asserts. - W3 (
…:24) is correct — it does arrange the file (the configuration "configs/butler.yaml" declares the mode "butler"). W4 (…:36) is correct —TELL_ME_HOMEresolution (step 1) precedes config load, so the "home is not usable" environment error is right.
The rule it violates. The acceptance this re-expresses already carried the Arrange: runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature acceptance Example 1 has And the configuration's mode is "butler" — the interface feature dropped it. That is Rule 5 ("Journey 前序操作必須轉成已完成的 Given 狀態") and Rule 6 ("原子化不得遺失 … Acceptance 契約") in 介面Gherkin原子化與單一Act判準.md: atomicization may not lose an acceptance-required prem.
Fix and owner. Restore the configuration Given in W1/W2/W5 — root `a well-formed configuration "{config_path}"` at configs/butler.yaml and/or workspace `the configuration "{config_path}" declares the mode "{mode}"`; both rows already exist, so no new DSL is needed — a pure feature-file edit by /axb-dsl-refine, in-round (completing the ADD; no /axb-clarify gate, since it restores, not rewrites, acceptance). This is the most concrete defect found: unlike the atomicity boundary (a judgment call) and axis 6 (a mis-description), W1/W2 are provably impossible as arranged under the artifact's own ratified resolver — an unsatisfiable Then, not an interpretive dispute.
Q8: The round's last unexamined axis is the language override, and the artifact is caught in a contradiction it does not resolve. STANDARDS.md is a host standard and states, unconditionally, §2 "檔名用繁體中文" and §3 "參數 key 名稱用繁體中文" — with no override clause. I checked every grounding you might claim:
grep -rn "English" aikbdd-tmg/**/*.md→ 0 hits; there is no English-override provision anywhere in the methodology repo.- No ADR mechanism exists in
tellme(find . -iname "*adr*"empty), andSTATUS.mdrecords/axb-constitutionwas skipped — so the "default constitution" the STATUS note appeals to has no artifact in either repo (aixbdd-tmghas onlyskills/axb-constitution/, no default constitution file). - Meanwhile the artifact mixes both languages in one file: the
dsl.mdcolumn headers are 繁體中文 (DSL 句型 | Gherkin 參數 | Data Table 參數 | 預設參數 | StepDef 實作語意) and the impl-semantics cells use 繁體中文 labels (怎麼做,權威狀態落地,必查), while the filenames (starting-with-a-configuration.feature, …) and the parameter keys (home,config_path,mode,provider,flag,reason,file_name) are English — the two things §2/§3 govern.
So the override is real, broad, and ungrounded by any artifact in either repo, and it is half-applied (headers comply, filenames/keys don't). Decidable question: what is the ratified home of the English override — and if there is none, is this a local editorial consequence (translate the feature filenames + parameter keys to 繁體中文 in-round, since the artifact's own headers already assume it) or a /axb-clarify-gated scope decision (the project's artifacts ship in English contra a host standard, exactly the ownership/ratification shape you conceded for the atomicity convention in Q4)?
(My read: no home exists — grep "English" is empty, there is no ADR, and the constitution was skipped — so this is the same class as Q4: an unratified local deviation from a host rule, which /axb-dsl-refine cannot self-authorize, and which a host STANDARDS audit would flag on §2 and §3. The internal header/content split makes it worse: the file simultaneously claims 繁體中文 convention and violates it. Either produce the ratified warrant, or route it through /axb-clarify and record it — the half-English, half-繁體中文 artifact is the one state that cannot be defended under any reading.)
No ratified home exists — so it routes, same class as Q4. I concede the facts: STANDARDS.md §2 ("檔名用繁體中文") and §3 ("參數 key 名稱用繁體中文") are unconditional with no override clause; grep -rn "English" aikbdd-tmg/**/*.md is empty; there is no ADR mechanism in tellme; /axb-constitution was skipped so the appealed "default constitution" has no artifact in either repo. There is a decision (STATUS.md D5, "Artifacts in English") but a decision is not a warrant: D5 is broad, lives in a status file, and addresses neither the host standard's unconditional rule nor which parts of an artifact go English. It does not authorize /axb-dsl-refine to deviate from a host rule — exactly the ownership shape I conceded for the atomicity convention in Q4.
One refinement to the griller's framing, not a defence. The 繁體中文 half is not the file "claiming a convention it violates." The column headers (DSL 句型 | Gherkin 參數 | Data Table 參數 | 預設參數 | StepDef 實作語意) and the impl-semantics tokens (怎麼做, 權威狀態落地, 必查, 呈現結果, 不該發生) are the host standard's prescribed fixed field names (§4 "DSL 必備欄位", §5), which STANDARDS literally spells in 繁體中文. So the artifact does not assert §2/§3 compliance — it uses the standard's literal meta-schema tokens while switching the two things §2/§3 actually govern (filenames, parameter keys) to English. The defect is therefore not an internal contradiction but a half-applied override: D5 was never operationalized into a rule saying whether "artifacts in English" reaches the DSL meta-schema tokens, the filenames, or the Gherkin parameter keys. That scope question is unratified.
Ruling. It is a /axb-clarify-gated scope decision — the project's artifacts ship English contra an unconditional host standard — with an upstream half: an aixbdd-tmg issue → PR to add a project-language-override clause to STANDARDS.md, the same route that closed the CLI-seat blocker (PR #2) and that Q4's atomicity ask also needs. The local-translation option the griller floats is not self-authorizable by /axb-dsl-refine: translating filenames and parameter keys to 繁體中文 would both reverse D5 without a warrant and constitute a broad MODIFY (4 feature filenames + every parameter key across 5 dsl.md files). A host STANDARDS audit would flag §2/§3 today; that is the finding, and only its owners can close it.
Meanwhile-ship. Round-001 ships the CLI contract unchanged — no in-round translation, no local self-authorization — and records the language override as a STATUS.md residual cross-linked to the /axb-clarify and upstream items, exactly as the atomicity residual is routed. If the user ratifies "translate to 繁體中文," it lands as a gated MODIFY — in-round only if ratified before this package is delivered, otherwise a fresh package under fresh-package-per-round. The one state I will not defend is calling the current artifact compliant: it is a half-applied, unratified deviation, and the honest record is "decision present, warrant absent, scope unspecified," resolved by ownership — not by me.
VERDICT: The subject's core diagnosis held — the cli interface kind, the interface-root/module DSL split, and one-Act-per-Example are the right shapes, coverage is genuinely complete (the seven acceptance Rules map cleanly onto all seventeen interface Rules), and the round's one concession it should not have made (element 2's umbrella split, then element 3's "subject" rule) it correctly retracted once shown the criterion was not mechanical. But the artifact is not shippable as-is and the opening mis-stated its own weaknesses: the round proved W1/W2 are unsatisfiable and W5 asserts the wrong exit class under the artifact's ratified resolver (a Rule-5/6 arrange loss), the two --json Thens name no key schema (a /axb-dsl-refine contract gap), while three of its four self-named "concessions" were miscast — axis-6 (the config-shape "hole") was simply wrong against the ratified record, and the exit-code "blocker" dissolved into an implementation choice once FR-014's distinctness-only contract was read. Recommendation: proceed with changes — /axb-dsl-refine restores the dropped configuration Given in workspace/…feature (W1/W2/W5) and pins the JSON key schema, both in-round and ungated, before /axb-tasks; the two host-rule matters (the atomicity convention and the English override) route through /axb-clarify + an aixbdd-tmg issue→PR and ship as STATUS.md residuals, exactly as the subject itself concluded — so the handoff to /axb-tasks is not premature, but it is conditional on the two in-round fixes landing first.
POST-GRILL POSITION:
What I stand by. The core shapes survived adversarial pressure: the cli InterfaceKind, the interface-root/module DSL split (the 8 root rows are genuinely cross-module; no duplicate authority), and one-Act-per-Example atomicization. Coverage is genuinely complete — the seven acceptance Rules map cleanly onto all seventeen interface Rules (A1→C1–C5, A2→C6–C8, A3→W1–W3, A4→W4–W5, A5→D1, A6→D2–D3, A7→U1). I also stand by the Q2 insight that the exit-code Then is the verdict channel and folds in all nineteen Examples, and by the Q4/Q8 routing class — a local skill cannot self-authorize a deviation from a host rule, so those matters route, they are not edited locally. And I stand by the retractions I made under verification: axis-6 (Q5) and the D2/W1 umbrella claims (Q2/Q3).
What I revised, concretely. The grill exposed that my opening mis-stated its own weaknesses, and the corrected record is: three of my four self-named "concessions" were miscast. (1) Axis-6 was simply wrong — the config input shape is owned by /axb-dsl-refine as contract, carried by the root row `a well-formed configuration "{config_path}"` plus the three override rows; this contradicts the ratified NOOP/STATUS record and I withdraw it. (2) The exit-code "blocker" dissolved — a specific number is not a contract term anywhere in FR-014/acceptance, the DSL row's 碼值 already states the full distinctness-only contract, and a step definition (assert non-zero + mutual distinctness) is writable; implementation, not contract. (3) The D2 split was retracted once the criterion proved non-mechanical. What actually stands as defects is smaller and sharper than I claimed.
The in-round fixes I will apply (as /axb-dsl-refine, completing the ADD, ungated). First, restore the dropped configuration Given in workspace/runtime-home-and-session-workspace.feature W1/W2/W5 — the Rule-5/6 arrange loss (acceptance Example 1's And the configuration's mode is "butler" was dropped), which makes W1/W2 provably unsatisfiable and W5 assert the wrong exit class under the artifact's own resolver (step 4 load/validate precedes step 6 workspace); the fix uses existing rows (root `a well-formed configuration "{config_path}"`, workspace `the configuration "{config_path}" declares the mode "{mode}"`) — no new DSL. Second, pin the --json key schema in the two diagnostics Then rows (`tellme emits the resolution status as structured output` / `… unresolved …`), which currently demand output "carrying the same resolved status" while naming no key — so no step definition can extract it; this is a contract gap only /axb-dsl-refine owns. Third, an editorial alignment: the configuration error-code row's 必查 should read "equals its dedicated code, distinct from all others" rather than "equals the dedicated code", to match FR-014's distinctness-only contract. All three are in-round; the handoff to /axb-tasks is therefore conditional, not premature.
Routed residuals (recorded in STATUS.md, cross-linked). Two host-rule matters, both out of /axb-dsl-refine's writ, both the same class: (i) the atomicity convention — Rule 2's falsifier is degenerate without an operative fold/split criterion (one named event); (ii) the English override — STANDARDS.md §2/§3 are unconditional, no warrant exists in either repo, and D5 is a decision without a home. Both go /axb-clarify → aixbdd-tmg issue → PR (the PR #2 route), and ship as STATUS.md residuals rather than gating the package.
Open questions. To the user / /axb-clarify: the language-policy scope — does "artifacts in English" reach the DSL meta-schema tokens, the filenames, and the Gherkin parameter keys, or only prose? — ratify the override or translate. To aixbdd-tmg: add a project-language-override clause to STANDARDS.md, and an operative Rule-2 criterion. To the RD seat: confirm the --json key names are an RD contract decision (my read — no /axb-clarify gate), unless the user wants PM sign-off on the diagnostic output shape. And one delivery question for the user: do the two host-rule residuals block delivering this package, or ship as recorded residuals while the in-round W1/W2/W5 + JSON-schema fixes land first?