1.5 KiB
1.5 KiB
Research Findings: AI-Facing Repository Constitution
Decision 1: Constitution is authoritative for AI
- Decision: AI-facing constitution overrides conflicting human docs for AI guidance; conflicts trigger updates to both with recorded resolution.
- Rationale: Ensures consistent automated actions and avoids drift between AI behavior and repo rules.
- Alternatives considered: (a) Defer to human docs and mirror later (rejected: increases drift); (b) Split authority by domain (rejected: adds ambiguity for AI tools).
Decision 2: Documentation IA
- Decision: Place the living constitution in
/docs; keep feature-specific planning/playbooks underspecs/001-ai-docs/with index links in constitution. - Rationale: Clear separation of durable source-of-truth vs feature-level artifacts; aligns with spec expectations.
- Alternatives considered: (a) Keep all AI docs in
/specs(rejected: mixes planning with durable guidance); (b) Distribute docs per module directory (rejected: harder AI discoverability).
Decision 3: Validation approach
- Decision: Validate docs manually against repo conventions and the specification’s success criteria (discoverability ≤2 steps, full module/host coverage, secrets map completeness).
- Rationale: No automated tests for markdown; checklist-based review matches spec.
- Alternatives considered: (a) Add automated linting now (rejected: out-of-scope for this documentation feature); (b) No validation (rejected: risks drift and omissions).