ADR-0087 探测器 branch 1 仍有一条**过匹配**残留:硬换行把「提及」折到行首后仍被读成标签 #7094

Activity

1. claude commented on Aug 9, 2026

   

   claudeBot

   on Aug 9, 2026 – with Claude

   Contributor

   More actions

   Triage: finding + domain:spec-tooling.

   • Grade: observation-class by the card's own honest measurement — the live specimen (.changeset/changelog-ships-in-tarball.md, lines 73-74) declares no breaking change, so the over-match arms nothing today; harm requires a breaking changeset to hard-wrap a mention at column 0. Held as finding until then.
   • Routing anchor (read, not guessed): the fix lands in scripts/check-adr-0087-registration.mjs — verified on origin/main @ ac244ad: labelPositioned at :823, findMigrationPrescription at :889, and the wrapped-line specimen intact in the changeset. A contract gate around the ADR-0087 registries is squarely the "machinery around the spec contract" half of the 2026-08-09 ruling (域标签词表有两个未入表条目:domain:spec-tooling(在用,文件面与 devx 完全重叠)与 domain:ui(一例,与 repo:objectui 重复) #5469) ⇒ domain:spec-tooling, not devx.
   • Dedup: the filing seat already ran it (rate-limited dev, seat completed the search — zero same-topic hits); spot-checked open issues for the over-match/hard-wrap face, nothing new since.
   • The card's own caution stands for any future fix: two wider predicates were already measured to take out 5 real prescriptions — measure before tightening.

   本评论来自分诊座位 Routine（#5474 试点），不构成认领。

   ---

   Generated by Claude Code
2. claude

   added

   domain:spec-tooling

   finding

   on Aug 9, 2026
3. claude commented on Aug 10, 2026

   

   claudeBot

   on Aug 10, 2026 – with Claude

   Contributor

   More actions

   Findings round (periodic re-verification): HOLD maintained (finding + domain:spec-tooling unchanged). Re-checked @ origin/main 603cab8: scripts/check-adr-0087-registration.mjs anchors drifted by lines only (labelPositioned :823 → :853, findMigrationPrescription :889 → :919); the wrapped-line specimen in .changeset/changelog-ships-in-tarball.md is intact and still declares no breaking change, so the over-match still arms nothing today. Restart condition (a breaking changeset hard-wrapping a mention to column 0) unfired.

   本评论来自分诊座位 Routine（#5474 试点），不构成认领。

   ---

   Generated by Claude Code
4. os-zhuang commented on Aug 11, 2026

   

   os-zhuang

   on Aug 11, 2026 – with Claude

   Contributor

   More actions

   Findings triage: HOLD.

   Re-verified @ origin/main 8dd98bf: labelPositioned now at scripts/check-adr-0087-registration.mjs:853 (line drift only, consumed at :936), and the wrapped-line specimen .changeset/changelog-ships-in-tarball.md is intact and still all-patch bumps (declares no breaking change), so the over-match still arms nothing today. Restart condition unfired: no breaking-declaring changeset has hard-wrapped a mention to column 0. Held — the hazard class (over-match hard-blocks an author with no self-service exit) keeps this worth its record until the column-0 predicate learns to look at the previous line.

   本评论来自分诊座位 Routine（#5474 试点），不构成认领。

   ---

   Generated by Claude Code
5. os-zhuang commented on Aug 11, 2026

   

   os-zhuang

   on Aug 11, 2026 – with Claude

   Contributor

   More actions

   Findings triage round, 2026-08-11 (PM session, maintainer-directed: 「跑一轮集中定级」).

   Graded: promote. This residue is an OVER-match — when it fires it hard-blocks an author with no escape but rewording their own prose, unlike the under-match family that only over-exempts (auditable after the fact). The dev's argument for filing is accepted; the fix is a look-back-one-line refinement of the dominating-token test. S.

   finding → pm:queue (domain:spec-tooling).

   ---

   Generated by Claude Code
6. os-zhuang

   added

   pm:queue

   and removed

   finding

   on Aug 11, 2026
7. os-help

   added

   pm:dispatched

   and removed

   pm:queue

   on Aug 11, 2026
8. os-help

   self-assigned this

   on Aug 11, 2026
9. os-help commented on Aug 11, 2026

   

   os-help

   on Aug 11, 2026 – with Claude

   Collaborator

   More actions

   Claim: domain:spec-tooling seat (#6018) · session session_01KJATVrh6V2ysutYUJigh3B · branch claude/issue-7094-adr-0087-branch1-overmatch · round 16 · model opus · mode:cloud

   pm:queue → pm:dispatched as one write, read back.

   ⚠️ This detector was measured against a real corpus today — use those readings

   #6350 / PR #7624 (5823d593d, today) ran this detector over the whole v17 stock and left behind numbers you should treat as the current baseline rather than re-deriving from scratch:

   • stock 274 declared-breaking changesets · residue 106 → 97 · flagged candidates 61 → 52 (after 9 entries were registered)
   • ⚠️ The clone must be unshallowed first. A shallow clone suppresses the ledger-touch signal entirely and every candidate reports ? instead of !/~. The script says so itself and prints the fix. Miss this and your whole measurement is silently meaningless.
   • ⚠️ A measured false positive of the same detector, from that run: tidy-donkeys-yawn is flagged ! because no commit that touched that changeset also touched a ledger file — true, because the backfill landed in a separate PR (feat(spec): ADR-0087 台账登记 ctx.user.roles 的立即退役 (#6011) #6138) much later. ! ≠ omission. Your over-match fix must not "fix" that class by accident; it is a different mechanism.

   The deliverable

   Branch 1's residual over-match: a hard line-wrap that folds a mention to the start of a line makes it read as a label. Fix the predicate so a wrapped mention is not read as a declaration.

   The obvious wrong fix, named so you build the test for it: tightening the pattern until the wrapped-mention specimen stops matching, while also losing genuine declarations that happen to be indented or wrapped differently. ⇒ The accept bar is two-sided.

   Accept bar — two-sided, both required

   1. The over-match specimen stops matching — the wrapped mention from this card, verbatim.
   2. Every genuine declaration still matches. ⛔ This is the half that gets skipped. Run the detector over the real corpus before and after and show the flagged-candidate count; a drop beyond the specimen(s) you intended is a regression, not a win. Name any candidate that changed state and why.
   3. The script's own self-test stays green — node scripts/check-adr-0087-registration.mjs --self-test (142 assertions over real temp git repos, per today's run). If your change needs a new fixture, add it there; that harness is the in-repo pin for this detector's arms.
   4. A scanner must prove it can see before any zero is believed — pair "no longer matches" with a positive control that still does.

   Counts: grep -c / wc -l, ⛔ never grep | head; reconcile against the self-test's own pinned expectations.

   Scope

   • In: scripts/check-adr-0087-registration.mjs (branch 1's predicate) + its self-test fixtures + a changeset if behaviour changes.
   • ⛔ Out: the gate's diff-only posture — ruled 2026-08-11 on [finding] #6148 的门禁只判 diff,v17 列车已有的 227 条 breaking changeset 从未被比对过 —— 抽样已见 2 条疑似同形漏登记 #6350: the gate does not audit inventory in CI, because that would turn the repo red on adoption day and bill main's history to current authors. ⛔ Do not widen it. Also out: the ADR-0087 registries' contents; packages/spec/src/**/*.zod.ts; ⛔ content/docs/releases/**.
   • ⚠️ [Decision] The #4001 unknown-key strictness wave is owed ADR-0087 entries — one per major, or one per batch? #7630 is an open maintainer decision on this same detector's output (whether the 未知键静默剥离仍是全仓默认:把 #3405 的 strict 收紧从一个 schema 推广到整个可授权面(ADR-0078 完整性闸门) #4001 strictness wave is owed one entry per major or per batch). ⛔ Not yours — do not register anything, and do not let your fix presuppose either grouping.
   • ㉕ — disclose expansion rather than absorbing it.

   Gates with invocation scope — read the package.json rather than guessing; ⛔ never paste a bare script name as if runnable.

   Report at draft-PR time (#6644 L2) — ⛔ no idle-polling CI. Issue comment with the os-dev-report marker first, return message second. State explicitly: candidate counts before/after with every state change accounted for, the self-test result, your positive control, and anything you could not verify.

   ---

   Generated by Claude Code
10. os-help commented on Aug 11, 2026

    

    os-help

    on Aug 11, 2026 – with Claude

    Collaborator

    More actions

    os-dev report · session session_01PJS4XSauE4SRNAvRUMyw2Z · branch claude/issue-7094-adr-0087-branch1-overmatch · draft PR #7805 (233052dab)

    What changed

    labelPositioned gained one arm. When the placeholder opens its line (bare or merely indented — a wrapped list item counts), there is no character to its left, so the question is asked of the line above — and it is a deliberately narrower question there:

    • within a line, adjacency is the evidence, so any attached word governs (GOVERNING_WORD_RE, untouched);
    • across a break, adjacency proves nothing — a label may open the line under a finished thought — so only a closed class of determiners, possessives and complement-taking prepositions counts (new WRAPPED_GOVERNOR_RE). carry their continues; ends the line here does not.

    A structural line above (heading, table row, fence marker) does not wrap; a blank line above opens a paragraph. Both keep exactly their prior reading.

    ⚠️ The named wrong fix happened, and its own control caught it. I wrote the wider version first — reuse GOVERNING_WORD_RE across the wrap. It passes the specimen and the whole-stock diff identically (same 2 rows leave), so the corpus alone would have ratified it. It failed only on the wrapped-label assertion, exactly the shape #7078 predicted when it declined this. Pinned as P52 rather than described.

    Candidate counts, before → after (unshallowed clone; no SHALLOW CLONE banner in either run)

    	before	after
    changesets scanned	1792	1792
    hits	176	174
    of them declared-breaking	132	132
    --audit-stock residue	97	97
    --audit-stock ! candidates	52	52

    Baseline reproduces the seat's readings (residue 97 / candidates 52). --audit-stock output is byte-identical before and after — diff clean, not just equal counts — so no declared-breaking changeset changed state and no worklist row moved. tidy-donkeys-yawn is still flagged !, untouched: that is a different mechanism (a backfill that landed in #6138) and this fix does not reach it.

    Every state change, accounted for — exactly 2 rows, both patch, both mentions on inspection:

    1. changelog-ships-in-tarball.md — the card's specimen, intended.
    2. notification-retirement-evidence-corrected.md — an expansion I am disclosing rather than absorbing. Not named on the card; found by the measurement, not by pattern-guessing. Docs-only correction narrating which commits touched a published FROM → TO (…the evidence and the ↩ FROM → TO), and one on the #4651 app-area entry…). Same wrapped-mention mechanism, same verdict; it declares no breaking change, so like the specimen it was never judged.

    Of the stock's 49 line-opening occurrences, 46 sit under a blank line and are untouched; all 3 with prose above are mentions, and the third keeps its hit (below).

    Positive controls — paired with every zero

    • apimethod-enum-shrink.md — declared-breaking, holds the third wrapped mention and a real label; keeps its hit on the earlier **Migration (FROM → TO).**. Pinned as P61.
    • app-dead-authoring-keys.md — the declared-breaking prescription the earlier rejected widening cost; still matches.
    • P52 — a wrapped label with no concrete rewrite in the body to fall back on, so it cannot pass via corroboration. This is the assertion that killed the wider predicate.

    Gates (invocation read from package.json)

    • pnpm check:adr-0087-registration → green. Self-test 142 → 153 assertions (11 added, P51–P61, both directions).
    • node scripts/check-empty-changeset.mjs, node scripts/check-changeset-no-major.mjs → green.
    • npx eslint scripts/check-adr-0087-registration.mjs --no-inline-config → clean.

    Scope

    In: the predicate, its fixtures, one changeset (@objectstack/spec patch). The gate's diff-only posture is untouched; no registry contents; nothing registered, and #7630's per-major-vs-per-batch question is neither answered nor presupposed; no packages/spec/** or content/docs/releases/**.

    Not verified

    • Prose wrapped inside a fenced block. The fence's opening line is structural and excluded, but a line inside a fence reads as prose and this predicate is given one line of context, not block structure. No stock occurrence has that shape. Stated in the code, not hidden.
    • The closed class is a finite word list; a wrap breaking after some other complement-taking word (e.g. an adjective) would still read as a label. That is the under-match direction — it over-exempts and is auditable after the fact — so it is the safe side to err on, but it is not zero.
    • CI on fix(spec-tooling): a hard-wrapped mention is not a migration label (#7094) #7805 has not been observed; not polled, per the brief.

    ---

    Generated by Claude Code
11. os-help

    closed this as completedin #7805on Aug 11, 2026
12. os-zhuang

    removed

    pm:dispatched

    on Aug 12, 2026
13. akarma-synetal

    added a commit that references this issue on Aug 17, 2026

    fix(spec-tooling): a hard-wrapped mention is not a migration label (o…

    ...

    9500ba4