Tianyi Cui
27f5f84e3b
- Fix two root-AGENTS.md cross-links that the depth bump left pointing at the new docs/AGENTS.md instead of the root file they cite (capability-seams, optional-code-mode). These resolved on disk so verify-md-links passed — the gate checks existence, not which file you meant; corrected to ../../../. - Broaden verify-md-links scope to .agents/skills/**/*.md: this PR rewrote the dsh-code-review skill's links into the RFC tree, but the skill dir was outside the gate, so a broken skill link would have passed silently. - Percent-decode the path component before the existence check, so a valid encoded relative target (My%20File.md) is not falsely reported broken; a malformed escape (%zz) is reported broken rather than crashing the gate. - Drop the merged property-testing RFC's "nightly CI job 100x" claim: that line came from the original proposal, not the accepted decision, and CI has only push/pull_request triggers — note it as possible future work instead. doc-sync (incl. verify-md-links over 58 files), doc-typecheck, lint pass.
RFCs
One kind of design doc lives here. An RFC records a decision or proposal that shapes this codebase — the why and what we gave up, the parts code and docs can't carry. (Earlier this split into separate "ADR" and "RFC" trees; they were unified, since most ADRs were simply implemented RFCs.)
Layout and naming
Files are grouped by lifecycle into three folders, and an RFC moves between them as its status changes:
proposed/— proposals reviewed before implementation; not yet built (or only partly).implemented/— the decision shipped. The file records what was decided and what was rejected.rejected/— the proposal was considered and declined. Kept for the record so the rejection isn't re-litigated.
Each file is named yyyy-mm-dd-topic-title.md, where the date is when the topic was first proposed (per git history). Cross-references between RFCs use relative markdown links ([topic](../implemented/2026-…-….md)) — never bare prose or numbers — so they are mechanically checkable and survive moves between folders.
When to write one
Write an RFC when a decision is durable (it shapes the codebase beyond a single function or package), contested (there was a real alternative a reasonable engineer might have chosen), and surprising (a future reader would otherwise ask "why on earth is it done this way?"). A proposal for substantial future work starts in proposed/; a decision already made starts in implemented/.
Do NOT write one for a mechanical or local choice (a variable name, a one-file refactor), for anything already enforced and explained by a gate or a convention in AGENTS.md, or for a still-provisional decision tagged TODO(...) in the code — record those as TODOs and promote to an RFC only once they settle. An RFC is never edited into a different decision: supersede it with a new one and cross-link.
Proposed
| Title | First proposed |
|---|---|
| Mutation testing as the coverage counterweight | 2026-06-11 |
| Deterministic tests, the replay invariant fixture, and race stress | 2026-06-11 |
| Architectural conformance — dependency rules and the adapter kit | 2026-06-11 |
| API extractor reports | 2026-06-11 |
| Supply chain checks and vendor drift verification | 2026-06-11 |
| Agent Client Protocol (ACP) support for external editors | 2026-06-14 |
| Multiplex concurrent ACP sessions over one connection | 2026-06-14 |
| Optional Code Mode — model writes TypeScript against an SDK of all tools | 2026-06-15 |
| Runtime schemas for the event vocabulary (Zod vs the merge-extensible-map pattern) | 2026-06-16 |
Implemented
Rejected
| Title | First proposed |
|---|---|
| Deep-readonly public surfaces | 2026-06-11 |