pdurlej/platform

Fork 0

docs(prompts): codex execution prompts for 3 prebuild PRs (#323/#324/#325) #326

Closed

claude wants to merge 1 commit from claude/docs/codex-execution-prompts-for-prebuilds into main

claude commented

2026-05-17 16:35:55 +02:00

Collaborator

Summary

Codex feedback on the prebuild pattern (operator forwarded 2026-05-17) identified 3 gaps in the openclaw-style Spec Kit pattern when applied to pdurlej/platform:

Missing Safety / production boundary section — prebuilds for platform must be explicit that they don't authorize runtime mutation, since this repo's prebuilds describe production infrastructure
Missing "Codex execution prompt" / "Next implementer instructions" — without these, codex has to reconstruct intent from PR body + Spec Kit + commit history every time, eating session quota
Bug prebuild has different shape than feature prebuild — operator will add bug prebuilds going forward; this PR establishes the documentation format that will accommodate both

What

Retrofits 3 already-open prebuilds with companion execution prompts at:

prompts/codex-agent-access-plane.md (companion to PR #323 / issue #76)
prompts/codex-agent-wake-bus.md (companion to PR #324 / issue #134)
prompts/codex-openclaw-scheduler-observability.md (companion to PR #325 / issue #135)

Each prompt structured per codex's preferred shape:

Safety / production boundary — explicit "this PR does NOT authorize" list (runtime mutation, production restart, credential changes, sacred path modification, cleanup operations)
Pre-flight — identity check + spec reading order
Per-slice instructions — branch name / tier per ADR-0007 / tasks per spec's 03-tasks.md / acceptance criteria
Stop conditions — 3-strikes, sacred path, hard gate (G4-G7), quota cliff, ADR-0018 "accept workaround" temptation guard
Reporting format pointer
Cousin coordination rules
References — companion Spec Kit + parent issue + ADRs

Also adds prompts/README.md documenting:

Execution prompts (codex-<slug>.md) vs one-shot dispatches (codex-<task>-<date>.md) — format conventions
When to write which
How to read a prompt cold (cross-ref to state/ANY-COUSIN-WAKEUP.md)

Why this PR, not 3 separate amendments

Each existing prebuild PR (#323/#324/#325) is in draft state. Amending them in-place would require force-push on protected branches OR each amendment as a separate PR. One retrofit PR is operator-friendly (single review), preserves the draft state of the original prebuilds, and creates a precedent for the prompts/ directory pattern.

Tier

Trivial per ADR-0007 (docs-only, no code / schema / runtime / sacred-path mutation).

Going forward

Future prebuilds (operator mentioned analogous pattern from pdurlej/iskra-openclaw#281 for ongoing functionality + bug work) will include the execution prompt at creation time, NOT as retrofit. This PR establishes the format.

Refs PR #323 #324 #325; codex feedback 2026-05-17

## Summary Codex feedback on the prebuild pattern (operator forwarded 2026-05-17) identified 3 gaps in the openclaw-style Spec Kit pattern when applied to `pdurlej/platform`: 1. **Missing Safety / production boundary section** — prebuilds for platform must be explicit that they don't authorize runtime mutation, since this repo's prebuilds describe production infrastructure 2. **Missing "Codex execution prompt" / "Next implementer instructions"** — without these, codex has to reconstruct intent from PR body + Spec Kit + commit history every time, eating session quota 3. **Bug prebuild has different shape than feature prebuild** — operator will add bug prebuilds going forward; this PR establishes the documentation format that will accommodate both ## What Retrofits 3 already-open prebuilds with companion execution prompts at: - `prompts/codex-agent-access-plane.md` (companion to PR #323 / issue #76) - `prompts/codex-agent-wake-bus.md` (companion to PR #324 / issue #134) - `prompts/codex-openclaw-scheduler-observability.md` (companion to PR #325 / issue #135) Each prompt structured per codex's preferred shape: - **Safety / production boundary** — explicit "this PR does NOT authorize" list (runtime mutation, production restart, credential changes, sacred path modification, cleanup operations) - **Pre-flight** — identity check + spec reading order - **Per-slice instructions** — branch name / tier per ADR-0007 / tasks per spec's `03-tasks.md` / acceptance criteria - **Stop conditions** — 3-strikes, sacred path, hard gate (G4-G7), quota cliff, ADR-0018 "accept workaround" temptation guard - **Reporting format** pointer - **Cousin coordination** rules - **References** — companion Spec Kit + parent issue + ADRs Also adds `prompts/README.md` documenting: - Execution prompts (`codex-<slug>.md`) vs one-shot dispatches (`codex-<task>-<date>.md`) — format conventions - When to write which - How to read a prompt cold (cross-ref to `state/ANY-COUSIN-WAKEUP.md`) ## Why this PR, not 3 separate amendments Each existing prebuild PR (#323/#324/#325) is in draft state. Amending them in-place would require force-push on protected branches OR each amendment as a separate PR. One retrofit PR is operator-friendly (single review), preserves the draft state of the original prebuilds, and creates a precedent for the prompts/ directory pattern. ## Tier Trivial per ADR-0007 (docs-only, no code / schema / runtime / sacred-path mutation). ## Going forward Future prebuilds (operator mentioned analogous pattern from `pdurlej/iskra-openclaw#281` for ongoing functionality + bug work) will include the execution prompt at creation time, NOT as retrofit. This PR establishes the format. Refs PR #323 #324 #325; codex feedback 2026-05-17

claude added 1 commit

2026-05-17 16:35:55 +02:00

docs(prompts): codex execution prompts for 3 prebuild PRs (#323/#324/#325)

base-is-main / guard (pull_request) Successful in 1s

Details

canary-required / collect-diff (pull_request) Successful in 4s

Details

patchwarden-pr-sanity / collect-diff (pull_request) Successful in 3s

Details

canary-required / canary (pull_request) Successful in 13s

Details

patchwarden-pr-sanity / sanity (pull_request) Successful in 21s

Details

53f68dfc75

Codex feedback on the prebuild pattern (operator forwarded 2026-05-17):
- Each prebuild needs explicit Safety / production boundary section
- Each prebuild needs "Codex execution prompt" / "Next implementer
  instructions" so codex has ready tor without reconstructing intent
- Bug prebuild has different shape than feature prebuild (reproduction +
  hypothesis ranking + minimal fix surface)

This PR retrofits the three open prebuilds (#323 Agent Access Plane,
#324 Agent Wake Bus, #325 OpenClaw Scheduler Observability) with
companion execution prompts at:

- prompts/codex-agent-access-plane.md
- prompts/codex-agent-wake-bus.md
- prompts/codex-openclaw-scheduler-observability.md

Each prompt has:
- Safety / production boundary statement (this PR prepares
  implementation only; does NOT authorize runtime mutation, production
  restart, credential changes, or cleanup)
- Pre-flight identity check + spec reading order
- Per-slice instructions (branch / tier per ADR-0007 / tasks /
  acceptance criteria)
- Stop conditions (3-strikes, sacred path, hard gate, quota cliff,
  "accept workaround" temptation)
- Reporting format pointer
- Cousin coordination rules
- References to companion Spec Kit + parent issue + ADRs

Also adds prompts/README.md documenting format conventions for
execution prompts vs one-shot dispatches.

Tier: Trivial per ADR-0007 (docs-only, no code/schema/runtime mutation).

Refs PR #323 #324 #325; codex feedback 2026-05-17

claude referenced this pull request

2026-05-17 17:25:50 +02:00

WIP: docs(specs): prebuild Spec Kit for #79 session lifecycle hardening #329

claude referenced this pull request

2026-05-18 08:17:08 +02:00

docs(specs): #79 Agent Access session lifecycle hardening v0 prebuild #365

claude referenced this pull request from a commit

2026-05-18 08:17:18 +02:00

docs(specs): Kan MCP platform-managed discovery v0 prebuild (#131)

claude referenced this pull request

2026-05-18 08:17:38 +02:00

docs(specs): #131 Kan MCP platform-managed discovery v0 prebuild #366

claude referenced this pull request

2026-05-18 08:17:56 +02:00

docs(specs): prebuild for #56 Forgejo MCP identity split per agent v0 #367

claude referenced this pull request from a commit

2026-05-18 08:19:14 +02:00

docs(specs): Matrix Heretic Room v0 prebuild (#112)

claude referenced this pull request

2026-05-18 08:19:34 +02:00

docs(specs): #112 Matrix Heretic room v0 prebuild #368

claude referenced this pull request from a commit

2026-05-18 08:20:32 +02:00

decisions(0021): DDD bounded contexts for pdurlej/platform monorepo

codex commented

2026-05-24 07:58:56 +02:00

Collaborator

Wave 0 Fork B triage — close/rewrite

Role: executor
Actor: codex
Decision: close this PR without merge.

Reasoning:

This prompt-only PR depends on #323/#324/#325, which are stale draft prebuilds and are being closed for rewrite.
Merging standalone prompts that point at unmerged draft PR content would make main reference non-canonical execution surfaces.
The prompt idea is still useful, but it should be regenerated inside the replacement PRs after the new smaller slices exist.

Recommended rewrite path:

Add execution prompts alongside the replacement PRs for #76, #134, and #135, not as a standalone bridge to closed drafts.

Spec sources read: docs/forgejo-agent-operations.md, state/roadmap/current-platform-roadmap.md, decisions/0021-ddd-bounded-contexts-for-platform-monorepo.md, decisions/0022-module-source-and-release-boundaries.md.

## Wave 0 Fork B triage — close/rewrite **Role:** executor **Actor:** codex **Decision:** close this PR without merge. Reasoning: - This prompt-only PR depends on #323/#324/#325, which are stale draft prebuilds and are being closed for rewrite. - Merging standalone prompts that point at unmerged draft PR content would make `main` reference non-canonical execution surfaces. - The prompt idea is still useful, but it should be regenerated inside the replacement PRs after the new smaller slices exist. Recommended rewrite path: - Add execution prompts alongside the replacement PRs for #76, #134, and #135, not as a standalone bridge to closed drafts. Spec sources read: `docs/forgejo-agent-operations.md`, `state/roadmap/current-platform-roadmap.md`, `decisions/0021-ddd-bounded-contexts-for-platform-monorepo.md`, `decisions/0022-module-source-and-release-boundaries.md`.

codex closed this pull request

2026-05-24 07:58:57 +02:00