theme_directive debug log

2026-11-07T11:45:50Z - Step 1

step1_solution_assessment.md, "≥2 solution options": the codebase holds two directive precedents, event: derived on read and title: with a derived record. Writing both as options, with the parent's root header as a third, showed that the cheaper read-time pattern fits a theme. Retain.
RAILSPIKE.md, Original Query preservation: the request was one line, so the parent query's page-theme sentence was added as labeled context, not merged into the query. Retain.

No supported findings.

RAILSPIKE.md, Follow-up Cycles Before Merge: no branch reuse requested yet; the cycle's branch is decided after Approved Step 3.

Effort estimation, starting point: this cycle depends on unbuilt work from v3/engagify_theme. The instructions do not say how to state a starting revision for a cycle that starts after another cycle's stage; the estimate assumes engagify page themes are delivered and records the planning revision.

step2_feature_description.md, Risks with earliest validation: reading the canonical post record spec showed the client-signed subset rejects unknown headers, which turned the hidden form's main uncertainty into a named spec change. Retain.
step2_feature_description.md, Shared component inventory: Body-Format is an existing optional header on threads and replies, so the hidden form has a precedent to follow instead of a new pattern. Retain.

No supported findings.

step2_feature_description.md, Known user or environment: the request names no user or environment.
step2_feature_description.md, documentation-only scope fields: this is an application change.

Effort estimation, starting revision: the cycle starts from an unmerged branch (feat/engagify_theme). The instructions do not say whether a starting revision must be on the default branch; the branch commit is recorded.

step3_development_plan_do.md, stage sizing (about one hour or 50 lines): the hidden form split into a record-format stage and a read-model stage instead of one stage touching eight components. Retain.
step3_development_plan_do.md, **High risk:** prefix for data and rollback risks: the signed record format and the schema bump both qualified. Retain.

step3_development_plan_before.md and step3_development_plan_after.md, keep Step 1–3 docs uncommitted: this cycle's planning lives on its own plan/ branch at the maintainer's request, so commits there do not reach a feature branch. The instruction does not anticipate a plan branch.

step3_development_plan_do.md, known user or environment replay stage: Step 2 names none.
Documentation-only fields: application change.

Stage 3 runs independently of Stage 1; the format does not say whether parallel stages need a different numbering or note beyond Dependencies.

step4_implementation_before.md, Planning Docs Commit Gate: committing the approved plans first, before any code, kept the folder move and link repairs out of the stage commits and made each stage diff reviewable on its own. Retain.
step4_implementation_do.md, Stage Boundary Protocol (verification recorded per stage): running smoke plus changed tests at each stage caught the base-branch BoardListTest failure early and kept it from being mistaken for a regression later. Retain.
read_model_schema_v1.md (project rule surfaced through the shared implementation standards' reuse step), prior-version startup test: following the event-end-date precedent added a schema-50 startup test that the Step 3 plan had not listed. Retain; consider naming project schema contracts in the Step 3 template's verification field.

step4_implementation_do.md, retrospective stage-work assessment per stage plus a separate cycle retrospective: with six small stages, the per-stage retrospectives added a line each but the cycle retrospective was their sum in practice. Clarify whether the cycle retrospective should be judged independently, as the projection is.

step4_implementation_do.md, documentation-only verification: application change.
step3_development_plan_do.md replay stage for a known user or environment: none named.
RAILSPIKE.md, Follow-up Cycles Before Merge: this cycle uses a new branch based on an unmerged one, not branch reuse.

Branching from an unmerged feature branch: the instructions cover reusing an unmerged branch for a follow-up, but not basing a new cycle's branch on another cycle's unmerged branch. This cycle recorded the base and merge order in the summary.
step4_implementation_do.md, "never amend completed commits": a status edit in the Stage 6 commit touched three unrelated index lines; the fix went in a separate commit rather than an amend. The instructions do not say whether an unpushed final stage commit counts as completed.