amadan

carlos / platform Public

spec: Astra whole-branch review brief for plans 1

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
claude 80672fad599ca72aba577f78d783d8c6107599f1 parent e0a0d91
1 file changed, +52 −0
  • docs/superpowers/specs/CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-PLANS-1-CODE.md +52 −0

CI failed — run details

CI log 
=== gate ===
cd launchctx && go vet ./... && go test ./... -count=1
ok  	amadan.net/carlos/platform.git/launchctx	0.011s
?   	amadan.net/carlos/platform.git/launchctx/controlname	[no test files]
?   	amadan.net/carlos/platform.git/launchctx/wireid	[no test files]
go vet ./...
gofmt needed:
accounts_plan_test.go
make: *** [Makefile:17: test] Error 1

amadan: step gate failed: exit status 2

amadan: job failed at step gate — its output is above, not at the tail of this log
diff --git a/docs/superpowers/specs/CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-PLANS-1-CODE.md b/docs/superpowers/specs/CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-PLANS-1-CODE.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..424d1e978
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-PLANS-1-CODE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Whole-branch code review brief: Plans 1 (catalog and account limits)
+
+You are a senior Go reviewer on the carlos platform. Review the
+implementation of Plan 1 on branch `design-plans-and-caps`, range
+`3d444a1b..HEAD` (`git diff 3d444a1b..HEAD`; ignore the docs under
+docs/superpowers/ except as requirements). The review is read-only: do not
+modify the working tree, index, HEAD or branches, and do not build into the
+repo. You may run `go test` for packages you want to probe.
+
+Requirements, in order of authority:
+1. Spec: docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-20-plans-caps-packs-design.md
+ (sections 4, 7, 8.7, 9.4, 10 are what Plan 1 implements; section 3
+ lists product decisions that are not to be argued with).
+2. Plan: docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-20-plans-1-catalog-and-limits.md.
+3. The executor's rulings (deviations from the plan, each with its cost):
+ `.superpowers/sdd/2026-10-20-plans-1-catalog-and-limits/progress.md`,
+ lines containing `Ruling:`. Weigh each; say if any is wrong.
+
+The spec is a vision document. For behaviour it is silent on, judge by what
+a reasonable operator or customer would expect, and grade by effect.
+
+Check these deliberately (the plan's Review Focus, inputs its tests may not
+exercise):
+1. A catalog edited without a version bump: the console must refuse to
+ start or treat it as new, never publish records whose catalog_id lies.
+2. A catalog change that orphans an assignment (plan or pack removed): skip
+ that account, keep its last record, keep publishing everyone else.
+3. A deleted (tombstoned) account: no row ensured, no record written.
+4. An operator change racing the publish pass: the newer revision wins in
+ the bucket and in published_revision; a stale publish never marks a
+ newer revision published.
+5. Partial sponsored limits: unset fields leave the plan's value;
+ min_schedule_seconds 0 must not mean "no minimum".
+
+Also look hard at: the host-claim boundary (hostops classifier entry for
+accounts/<sqid>/limits.json, claim fixtures and probes), behaviour with
+CARLOS_PLAN_CATALOG unset (must be exactly today's behaviour), the operator
+door's authorization (fleet operators only; everyone else gets the stdlib
+404), CAS and retry correctness in publishAccountLimits, SQL in
+accountplans.go, and cross-compilation (darwin/windows).
+
+Do not review the wording of human-facing strings: they passed Paul's copy
+review and are applied verbatim (accounts_plan_copy.go,
+internal/console/apiaccountplan_copy.go, docs/site/plans.md, the cli.md
+entry, nav.json, the accounts usage block).
+
+Output format:
+- Findings, most severe first, each labelled Critical / Important / Minor,
+ with file:line, the concrete failure scenario, and the fix you suggest.
+- "Declined to judge": every behaviour you considered and set aside as
+ outside the plan or spec, one line each with the reason.
+- A verdict: ready to merge, ready with fixes, or not ready.