{{ message }}
Repository navigation
docs: clarify delivery versus post-delivery spec persistence - #4945
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Separate the common delivery and convergence loop from team-owned artifact maintenance choices. Clarify flow-back intent and preserve neutrality among persistence models. Assisted-by: GitHub Copilot (model: GPT-6.1 Sol, autonomous) Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 423e8bf6-30ec-49e3-bdb5-dc073f812ee5
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟢 Approval recommended
The documentation consistently satisfies the linked issue’s acceptance criteria without changing executable behavior.
0 open findings
What changed in this PR
Clarifies the distinction between feature delivery and post-delivery artifact persistence while preserving model neutrality.
Changes:
- Defines the shared delivery and convergence loop.
- Separates post-delivery guidance for each persistence model.
- Clarifies flow-back intent and converge’s append-only authority.
🧠 Review effort: Balanced
💡 Configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
This was referenced Oct 13, 2026
Open
8 tasks
stn1slv
added a commit
to stn1slv/spec-kit-reconcile
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2026
* fix(reconcile): respect flow-forward and align with spec-kit docs Spec Kit's docs (github/spec-kit#4945, #4948) say extension edits follow project governance and code is evidence, not intent. Expectations for Case M and the A, C, E, H, I re-runs are committed before the runs. * test(fixture): record v1.3.1 round * fix(reconcile): close v1.3.1 multi-model review gaps A five-model review found an undefined Approved: append on rewrites, an unordered Convergence warning and flow-forward self-contradictions. Expectations for M1, M3, M4 and M5 are committed before the runs. * test(fixture): record v1.3.1 post-review round
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Closes #4943.
Clarify the boundary between shared feature delivery and post-delivery artifact persistence in
docs/concepts/spec-persistence.mdanddocs/guides/evolving-specs.md.Documentation only; no commands, templates, or executable behavior changed.
Testing
git diff --check— passed.npx --yes markdownlint-cli2 docs/concepts/spec-persistence.md docs/guides/evolving-specs.md— passed; two files linted, zero issues.Reviewed both pages against the issue's five acceptance criteria and the existing converge reference; checked their relative local link targets.
CLI checks, pytest, and sample-project execution were not run because this change only updates documentation.
Tested locally with
uv run specify --helpRan existing tests with
uv sync && uv run pytestTested with a sample project (if applicable)
AI Disclosure
AI disclosure: Authored by GitHub Copilot on behalf of @mnriem using GPT-6.1 Sol (model ID: gpt-6.1-sol), with session-default reasoning settings. The agent autonomously authored the documentation and PR text and ran validation in an interactive session at the user's direction; no human line-by-line review is claimed. AI assistance covered issue assessment, documentation edits, validation, and commit/PR preparation.