Tasks — Investigate canary follow-ups #1142 and #1141

Mission: investigate-canary-followups-1142-1141-01KS02TV Mission ID: 01KS02TVCYPQXQ9DX1Z39SXZ6K Date: 2026-05-19 Spec: spec.md · Plan: plan.md · Quickstart: quickstart.md

This mission is an investigation/runbook. The deliverables are GitHub issue comments + one cross-branch markdown edit per issue. No spec-kitty source code is modified.

Subtask Index

IDDescriptionWPParallel
T001Pre-flight repo state verification (FR-008)WP01—
T002Verify NEXT-AGENT-HANDOFF.md is absent (FR-009)WP01—
T003Snapshot issue #1142 body to research/issue-1142-snapshot.jsonWP01—
T004Execute #1142 H1 clean-venv repro (NFR-004 ≤ 15 min)WP01—
T005Execute #1142 H2 emitter walk (only if H1 RED; FR-004)WP01—
T006Compose + post #1142 substantive comment per contracts/issue-comment-shape.md (FR-002, NFR-003)WP01—
T007Close #1142 with fix-pattern comment (only if H1 CONFIRMED; FR-003)WP01—
T008Update mission-exception.md ## Follow-up row for #1142 on focused-PR branch (FR-007, C-001)WP01—
T009Snapshot issue #1141 body to research/issue-1141-snapshot.jsonWP02—
T010Execute #1141 H4 (fixture state) cheapest-first checkWP02—
T011Execute #1141 H3 (sequencing race) if H4 ruled outWP02—
T012Execute #1141 H2 (payload shape comparison) if H3 ruled outWP02—
T013Execute #1141 H1 (CLI regression via git log) if H2 ruled outWP02—
T014Compose + post #1141 substantive comment with A/B/C recommendation (FR-006)WP02—
T015Update mission-exception.md ## Follow-up row for #1141 on focused-PR branch (FR-007, C-001)WP02—

[P] markers are intentionally omitted; the cross-branch mission-exception.md is touched by both WPs, so WP02 is sequenced after WP01 to keep the focused-PR-branch edit single-threaded.

Work Package 1 — #1142 investigation (7-day window)

Priority: P0 (operator-committed window is shorter) Goal: Investigate #1142 cheapest-first (H1 → H2 → H3), post a substantive comment, close with fix-pattern if H1 confirms, and record the outcome in mission-exception.md ## Follow-up. Window deadline: 2026-05-26 (UTC end-of-day) Estimated prompt size: ~420 lines (8 subtasks, conditional branches)

Independent test

A reviewer can copy the Commands section from the posted #1142 comment, run them on a fresh canary venv, and reach the same conclusion within 15 minutes (NFR-003).

Included subtasks

  • ✅ T001 Pre-flight repo state verification (FR-008) (WP01)
  • ✅ T002 Verify NEXT-AGENT-HANDOFF.md is absent (FR-009) (WP01)
  • ✅ T003 Snapshot issue #1142 body (WP01)
  • ✅ T004 Execute #1142 H1 clean-venv repro (WP01)
  • ✅ T005 Execute #1142 H2 emitter walk (conditional) (WP01)
  • ✅ T006 Compose + post #1142 substantive comment (WP01)
  • ✅ T007 Close #1142 with fix-pattern (conditional) (WP01)
  • ✅ T008 Update mission-exception.md ## Follow-up row for #1142 (WP01)

Implementation sketch

1. Pre-flight (T001 + T002). Run the four-command pre-flight from quickstart.md Step 0. Halt and report drift if any check fails. 2. Snapshot (T003). gh issue view 1142 --json title,body,labels,state > research/issue-1142-snapshot.json so the hypothesis numbering is pinned. 3. H1 repro (T004). Follow quickstart.md Step 1 verbatim. Capture three logs: /tmp/h1-pip-canary.log, /tmp/h1-pip-spec-kitty.log, /tmp/h1-run.log. Copy them under research/ for the comment evidence. 4. Branch on result:

5. Cross-branch follow-up (T008). Per contracts/follow-up-update-shape.md and quickstart.md Step 6. Default branch kitty/pr/unblock-sync-identity-boundary-canary-01KRZJ07-to-main; fallback to main if PR #1143 already merged.

  • H1 GREEN twice in a row → T006 with Conclusion: CONFIRMED — H1 (stale canary venv), then T007 closes with fix-pattern wording.
  • H1 RED → T005 (emitter walk per research.md R3). If a non-conforming emitter is found, open a separate 1-WP follow-up mission via /spec-kitty.specify (do not patch in this mission — C-003). Then T006 with Conclusion: RULED_OUT + linked follow-up.

Dependencies

  • None.

Risks

  • gh token scope insufficient → fix via unset GITHUB_TOKEN per CLAUDE.md.
  • PR #1143 merged mid-investigation → fallback path in quickstart.md Step 6.
  • H1 false-positive single run → mandate "green twice in a row" before declaring CONFIRMED.

Work Package 2 — #1141 investigation (14-day window)

Priority: P1 Goal: Investigate #1141 cheapest-first (H4 → H3 → H2 → H1), post a substantive comment with a Recommendation (A/B/C), and record the outcome in mission-exception.md ## Follow-up. Window deadline: 2026-06-02 (UTC end-of-day) Estimated prompt size: ~380 lines (7 subtasks, conditional branches)

Independent test

A reviewer can read the posted #1141 comment, follow its Commands section to the same file/line citations in tests/identity_boundary/test_scenario_4_review_rejection_contract.py and src/specify_cli/status/{lifecycle_events,store}.py, and arrive at the same conclusion within 15 minutes (NFR-003).

Included subtasks

  • ✅ T009 Snapshot issue #1141 body (WP02)
  • ✅ T010 Execute #1141 H4 (fixture state) (WP02)
  • ✅ T011 Execute #1141 H3 (sequencing race) — conditional (WP02)
  • ✅ T012 Execute #1141 H2 (payload shape comparison) — conditional (WP02)
  • ✅ T013 Execute #1141 H1 (CLI regression) — conditional (WP02)
  • ✅ T014 Compose + post #1141 substantive comment with A/B/C recommendation (WP02)
  • ✅ T015 Update mission-exception.md ## Follow-up row for #1141 (WP02)

Implementation sketch

1. Snapshot (T009). gh issue view 1141 --json title,body,labels,state > research/issue-1141-snapshot.json. 2. Hypothesis sweep (T010 → T013). Per quickstart.md Step 4, in order H4 → H3 → H2 → H1. Stop at the first hypothesis that explains the failure. Each hypothesis check's evidence (file/line refs, log excerpts, git log slices) goes under research/h4-evidence-1141.md (etc.). 3. Comment (T014). Per contracts/issue-comment-shape.md, the comment MUST include the ### Recommendation heading with one of A / B / C. Save the comment body to research/comment-1141.md first; post via gh issue comment 1141. 4. Cross-branch follow-up (T015). Same as WP01-T008 but for the #1141 row.

Dependencies

  • Depends on WP01 to keep the cross-branch mission-exception.md edit single-threaded (avoid file-level merge conflicts on the focused-PR branch).

Risks

  • Hypothesis sweep mis-orders (skipping H4) → wasted operator time on H1/H2. Mitigated by the cheapest-first rule (C-004).
  • Recommendation A/B/C decision ambiguous → comment includes rationale; reviewer can override after merge.
  • WP01 outcome not yet committed when WP02 starts → operator stages both follow-up rows on the focused-PR branch in one commit.

MVP Scope

WP01 is the MVP. #1142's 7-day window is the tighter operator commitment and most-likely (H1) ends with a 10-minute confirmation + closing comment. Even if WP02 slips inside its 14-day window, WP01 delivered alone discharges the more time-sensitive commitment.

Parallelization

These WPs are issue-independent but file-coupled on mission-exception.md. They are sequenced (WP02 → after → WP01) to keep a single-threaded edit on the focused-PR branch. If two operators must run in parallel, they MUST agree on a single rebase point for the cross-branch markdown edit.