Working here

Work and review live at https://amadan.net/rastrillo/native. Use the amadan agent skill and your agent account. Take a worktree and branch, describe it, keep tasks current, and land with amadan branch merge. Never squash.

Run make ci before pushing. .amadan/ci.d calls the same Make targets. Keep platform-specific dependencies out of the shared Swift target. Add a component only after proving adoption in existing applications. Comments explain the failure prevented; review user-facing English before translating.

Work in a worktree, and catch main up first

Take a worktree for the work. Do not work in the shared checkout.

git -C <repo> fetch origin git -C <repo> worktree add ../<repo>-<task> -b <branch> origin/main

Both halves matter, for different reasons.

The worktree, because several sessions share this machine and some share this repository, and a checkout has one HEAD, one index and one working tree between all of them. A branch switch under somebody else's uncommitted work destroys it with nothing on screen to say so, and two sessions editing the same paths disagree quietly instead of conflicting loudly. A worktree gives the work its own HEAD and its own files, and costs a directory.

From origin/main, after a fetch — not from whatever the checkout happens to be sitting on. A branch cut from a stale main is a merge conflict scheduled for later, against files somebody else has renamed in the meantime. A branch cut from another task's branch is worse: it carries that task's commits into yours, where they are reviewed as though you wrote them, and the two can only be separated by hand.

Remove it when the work has landed — git worktree remove — so that git worktree list keeps saying something true.

Written down because of 2026-09-17, in meet. The shared checkout was sitting on one task's branch while holding a different task's feature uncommitted on disk — some four hundred lines, a new migration among them — put there by a session nobody else knew was working in that tree. Two other sessions were meanwhile coordinating over the same checkout by asking each other not to touch it, which is the arrangement a worktree makes unnecessary. Nothing was lost. Nothing about the arrangement would have said so if it had been, and by then the same feature existed twice, once on each side of a rename, because the two sessions had branched from different starting points.