[objectstack-fleet]

Requested by Elon · project thread

Fixes #25558

Clause-②: no
Metadata-protocol: none

维护者速读(草稿)

• 改了什么:把批 chore: version packages #10 裁决 D(评论 6378083450,您 01:17:34Z「pm-dispatch: in an app repo with no 分诊席 the seat that files a card also judges its 业务理由 — who is the independent reader there? (from the #25507 review, 2026-10-24) #25558 记为 D」)写进 pm-dispatch:应用仓卡的业务理由由该应用项目召唤的总监席做首触复核,三出口同分诊,没把握的报该应用自己的总监(人)裁;第三方应用的总监是其自身维护者。规则文字只写角色,不出现登录名。
• 为什么改:应用仓没有分诊席,docs(pm-dispatch): every card carries a business rationale the 分诊席 judges, every card is triaged (pre-applied labels are a suggestion), and a seat verifies a card's premise before dispatch #25552 落地后立卡人与判断人可能是同一席;您 00:46:47Z 还点出「第三方会开发应用，不是都有我来审核」。
• 风险与代价(含回滚):纯规则文本,三处:lanes/director.md +1 行职责、lanes/triage.md 在「应用仓无分诊席」后 +1 行、cross-repo-coordination.md 机械三务一行原地改。两处上限 director.md 87→88、triage.md 7→8,已在 Skills 席位线程用决策卡请您点头,点头前不落地。一次 revert 可回。
• 你要做的(一个动作):在 Skills 席位线程的决策卡上选「同意抬上限」。之后按您 14:14Z 的长期授权,复核通过、CI 全绿由席位落地。

What changed

File	Change
references/lanes/director.md (87 → 88)	+1 under 授权与形态: 「应用仓召唤本席复核卡的业务理由首触,三出口同分诊;没把握 ⇒ 报该应用的总监(人)裁。」
references/lanes/triage.md (7 → 8)	+1 after 「应用仓无分诊席」: 「应用仓业务理由由该项目召唤的总监席复核;第三方应用的总监是其自身维护者。」 (the ruling's own sentence)
references/cross-repo-coordination.md (51, in place)	机械三务: 「自做首触(含 finding 与业务理由,判据评论同分诊)」 → 「自做首触(含 finding;业务理由归召唤的总监席)」
scripts/pm/check-skill-line-ratchet.mjs	ceilings director.md 88, triage.md 8, each row's comment citing ruling 6378083450; director.md is the destination of a declared cross-file move, so its +1 is also recorded as a ruledRaises entry on that move

Ruling items 3 (app cards that need a platform change go to objectstack's triage) and 4 (the director's daily-digest sampling demoted to a fallback) describe existing behaviour and add no text. Every edited line is at or under 120 bytes; no adjacent pair in either raised file merges under 120 bytes, so the two lines could not be paid in place.

Gates

On this head: pnpm check:pm-skill-ratchet ✓ (director.md 88/88, triage.md 8/8, cross-repo-coordination.md 51/51; the director.md move reads +17 less 1 ruled line against −17), pnpm check:pm-skill-id-lint ✓, pnpm check:skill-frame-sync ✓, pnpm check:skill-frame-freshness ✓, pnpm check:pm-governed-prose ✓, node scripts/check-commit-card-trailers.mjs --range origin/main..HEAD ✓. No package moves: skip-changeset.

Acceptance notes

• Governed surface .claude/** (Tier S). Landing waits on the maintainer's answer to the ceiling-raise card, then a CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER PASS record on the head and green checks.
• Built on main after docs(pm-dispatch): every card carries a business rationale the 分诊席 judges, every card is triaged (pre-applied labels are a suggestion), and a seat verifies a card's premise before dispatch #25552 (which wrote 「应用仓无分诊席」 into lanes/triage.md) and fix(pm): drop the cross-account review rule — the queue guard accepts a same-account Tier S record again, and contract-review.md stops requiring Reviewed-by-account #25585.
• Opened through the fleet-write relay pr_create; every later write goes through the relay too.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01REMuzhz6MWRjg8uohedMnM

[objectstack-fleet]

Contract review

Served-tier: CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER
Head-sha: 9ebb01000ceb9e0160dbb6fab6faec99d78a0d94
Local-runs: none
Scope: .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/cross-repo-coordination.md, .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/lanes/director.md, .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/lanes/triage.md + scripts/pm/check-skill-line-ratchet.mjs, .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/filing-gate.md, .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/triage-duties.md, .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/lanes/hotcrm.md, .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/SKILL.md

Inputs read: card #25558 body and both comments (ruling 6378083450, the seat's claim 6378144834); PR #25593 body, file list and git diff origin/main...origin/claude/project-thread-r6oa8t (4 files, +24/−3, one commit, merge-base = origin/main e073455 which already carries #25552 and #25585); the head's check-runs (47), read 2026-10-24T03:10Z, 2026-10-24T03:13Z and 2026-10-24T03:18Z. Adversarial read: the dispatch order and the seat's own conclusions were not inputs.

① Derived judgments

1. Ruling D carried faithfully, item by item. Item 1 (app project summons a 总监席 for the first-touch review of its cards' 业务理由, 「三出口同分诊」, 「总监席不认领、不落地」): director.md +1 「应用仓召唤本席复核卡的业务理由首触,三出口同分诊;没把握 ⇒ 报该应用的总监(人)裁。」 and triage.md +1 「应用仓业务理由由该项目召唤的总监席复核;第三方应用的总监是其自身维护者。」 — the latter is the ruling's workload sentence byte-for-byte, placed after 「应用仓无分诊席」 as the ruling orders. 不认领/不落地 is already director.md line 20 「永不认领 backlog、永不写码」 and SKILL.md row 56; the new line adds nothing that contradicts it. Item 2 (third-party app's 总监 = its own maintainer; roles only, no logins): carried in triage.md; the three edited lines name only roles (应用仓、总监席、维护者、立卡人) — grep for logins over the diff is empty. Item 3 (platform-change cards still file to objectstack triage): existing behaviour, hotcrm.md 「建设 hotcrm 时发现的平台能力缺口,立普通平台卡到 objectstack 或 objectui」 / 「那是 file-at-destination、非缝卡、待分诊」 — no text owed, none added. Item 4 (brief option A demoted to fallback): A was never written into director.md 职责四 (the daily digest line names no app-repo sampling), so there is nothing to demote; no text owed, none added. Nothing beyond the ruling's workload was added — the diff is exactly the three files the ruling names plus the gate rows those lines force.
2. The three exits resolve. 「三出口同分诊」 in director.md resolves to filing-gate.md lines 26–28 (清楚且合北极星方向 ⇒ 入队 / 缺失或站不住 ⇒ Triage: returned / 产品取舍或方向不明 ⇒ needs-user-decision) and triage-duties.md line 35 「首触先按业务理由三出口分流,再定级路由」. The director line's own clause 「没把握 ⇒ 报该应用的总监(人)裁」 re-points the third exit's human to the app's own 总监, which is the ruling's 「产品取舍或没把握 ⇒ 报该应用自己的总监(人)裁」; the 产品取舍 half rides on the imported third exit, whose card lands in the app repo's own inbox (cross-repo-coordination.md 「决策卡入本仓收件箱,不落 objectstack」) and is presented by the summoned director seat (SKILL.md 276 「总监席是唯一呈裁席」). Coherent; no second place defines the exits.
3. Single-lane seat's duty stays coherent. cross-repo-coordination.md 机械三务 now reads 「自做首触(含 finding;业务理由归召唤的总监席)」: the repo:* seat keeps sweep, type, finding and grading (hotcrm.md line 8 「机械三务(含首触定级)…自理」 still true), and the rationale judgement and its exit comment move to the director seat, whose line says the exits are triage's — so the Triage: returned / needs-user-decision writes are the director seat's, in triage's shape. One thing the text leaves to the reader: in an app repo the two halves of 「首触先按业务理由三出口分流,再定级路由」 now sit in two seats, and no line says the repo:* seat waits for the director's exit before grading. The ruling named no ordering and its workload was three one-liners, so this is an observation for the Skills seat's notes, not a defect of this PR.
4. Ratchet rows are each exactly the measured delta, cited to the ruling id. director.md 87 → 88 against a measured 87 → 88 on origin/main…head; triage.md 7 → 8 against 7 → 8; cross-repo-coordination.md 51 → 51 (in-place rewrite, no row moved). Both comments quote the ruling comment id 6378083450 and the maintainer's word 「pm-dispatch: in an app repo with no 分诊席 the seat that files a card also judges its 业务理由 — who is the independent reader there? (from the #25507 review, 2026-10-24) #25558 记为 D」 verbatim, as the ratchet header's ordinary-raise exit requires (ruling id + measured delta in the PR body, row moved by at most that delta — the body states both). No other CEILINGS row moved.
5. The ruledRaises record on the director.md move is well-formed and the arithmetic closes. Record = {ruling: '…「#25558 记为 D」…', date: '2026-10-24', delta: 1}: the ruling string matches VERBATIM_QUOTATION (「…」 present), the date matches RULED_RAISE_DATE, delta is a positive integer; the self-test's live-map assertion (every record quotes, dates and names a positive count) holds for it. Read against crossFileMoveVerdict: gross = 88 − 70 = 18, ruled = 1, move raise = 17, source decrease = 120 − 103 (triage-duties.md ceiling at head, unchanged by this PR) = 17 → 17 ≤ 17 passes; crossFileMoveTotalVerdict restores the destination at was + 1 = 71, so net = (88 − 71) + (103 − 120) = 0, unchanged. was was correctly left at 70, not carried forward — the header's stated trap avoided. The PR body's reading 「+17 less 1 ruled line against −17」 matches this derivation.
6. Line-length and provenance rules. Edited .md lines measure 112, 119 and 108 bytes (all ≤ 120). The three skill lines carry no issue number, date or login (check:pm-skill-id-lint corpus clean by inspection); the ratchet script's (#25558) citations follow that file's own row convention and are outside the id-lint corpus. The commit's trailer pair is model-free (Claude-Session: + Co-Authored-By: Claude); no model identifier in title, body or comments.
7. Base and claim. Branch starts at origin/main e073455 (the docs(pm-dispatch): every card carries a business rationale the 分诊席 judges, every card is triaged (pre-applied labels are a suggestion), and a seat verifies a card's premise before dispatch #25552 merge), so the 「应用仓无分诊席」 anchor line exists in the base and the 「在 PR docs(pm-dispatch): every card carries a business rationale the 分诊席 judges, every card is triaged (pre-applied labels are a suggestion), and a seat verifies a card's premise before dispatch #25552 之后落」 ordering is satisfied; fix(pm): drop the cross-account review rule — the queue guard accepts a same-account Tier S record again, and contract-review.md stops requiring Reviewed-by-account #25585 is also in the base. The card's newest Claim: names this branch and session; The card this PR closes must claim this branch is green.

② Semver level

skip-changeset — correct. The diff touches .claude/** and scripts/pm/** only; no released package moves. Clause-②: no, Metadata-protocol: none are declared on the PR body and match the diff (no protocol surface touched).

③ Boundary flags

• Governed surface: .claude/** (register row claude-tree, Tier S). scripts/pm/check-skill-line-ratchet.mjs is not on the register (adr, claude-tree, skills-catalog, agents-md, claude-md, north-star, workflows); it is read here as the gate paired with the rule. Tier S landing = this record (PASS) + every check green + the owning seat through the queue. PR is draft, mergeable_state: blocked; nothing armed.
• Landing condition, not a verdict item: the two ordinary ceiling raises (director.md 87 → 88, triage.md 7 → 8) are the maintainer's to authorise. The ruling of record 6378083450 orders the text that forces them, and the PR cites it per the ratchet header's exit, but the seat has also put the raises to the maintainer on a decision card in the Skills seat thread; the seat lands only after that answer. Recorded here as a condition the seat confirms before landing.
• Check-runs on the head (48, final read 2026-10-24T03:17Z, nothing left in_progress): every non-skipped run concluded success — the required contexts Lint & Repo Gates (whose Lint · repo & tooling gates leg runs check:pm-skill-ratchet), TypeScript Type Check, Test Core (1–6 of 6) and Governed Surface Queue Guard included, plus Check Changeset, Check PR Size, Check Documentation Links, Dogfood Regression Gate, Lint · PM dispatch-gates and the three card/claim guards. Build Core and the full-battery jobs (Console Pin Gate, Temporal Conformance, Build Docs, Dogfood shards) are skipped by the path filter on a docs-only diff. Earlier reads 2026-10-24T03:10Z and 2026-10-24T03:13Z had six runs still in progress; none of them went red.
• Not in scope and untouched: any Tier H path, the human-ruling floor in triage-duties.md, GOVERNED_APPROVERS. No GitHub writes by this review; the seat posts this record.

Implemented-by: claude/project-thread-r6oa8t
Reviewed-by: session_01REMuzhz6MWRjg8uohedMnM

VERDICT: PASS