Repository navigation
Conversation
A Quest writes housekeeping documentation as it goes and stamps each document with a status at authoring time. Nothing updates it, so a record says "delivered as draft PR, not merged" forever, including long after the PR merged. Observed in a downstream repo: seven implementation records all claimed unmerged work that had shipped, and the same mechanism had left the README telling visitors the product was not for sale months after it became purchasable. This matters because agents read a status field as fact. A stale one is worse than a missing one, since it is confidently wrong and nothing in the repository contradicts it. It also manufactures a phantom backlog of work that is already done. Proposes the gate at draft-PR time, where the agent still has the context on what those documents claim, with pr-shepherd and a CI lint as weaker backstops. Leaves open whether the gate blocks or warns, whether status should become a closed vocabulary, and whether journals should be exempt because they legitimately record what was believed at the time. Idea only. No behavior changes. Quest/Co-Authored by Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> in collaboration with KjellKod <kjell.hedstrom@gmail.com>
KjellKod
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 24, 2026 23:03
![cubic-dev-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1082092?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1 issue found across 2 files
Prompt for AI agents (unresolved issues)
Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.
<file name="ideas/2026-09-22-quest-doc-status-before-draft-pr.md">
<violation number="1" location="ideas/2026-09-22-quest-doc-status-before-draft-pr.md:6">
P3: The Origin line reports "Four separate stale-status incidents," but the evidence section below cites seven records (a seven-row table, "seven implementation records claimed the work was unmerged") plus a README case, and the phantom-work bullet repeats "Seven shipped features." The number 4 is never reconciled with the 7, so the count reads as a contradiction. Say "seven stale-status records across four incidents" or align the intro with the table.</violation>
</file>
Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix.
Re-trigger cubic
| Date: 2026-09-22 | ||
| Status: `proposed` | ||
| Origin: surfaced while auditing documentation in a downstream repo that uses | ||
| Quest. Four separate stale-status incidents in one session, all the same |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P3: The Origin line reports "Four separate stale-status incidents," but the evidence section below cites seven records (a seven-row table, "seven implementation records claimed the work was unmerged") plus a README case, and the phantom-work bullet repeats "Seven shipped features." The number 4 is never reconciled with the 7, so the count reads as a contradiction. Say "seven stale-status records across four incidents" or align the intro with the table.
Prompt for AI agents
Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At ideas/2026-09-22-quest-doc-status-before-draft-pr.md, line 6:
<comment>The Origin line reports "Four separate stale-status incidents," but the evidence section below cites seven records (a seven-row table, "seven implementation records claimed the work was unmerged") plus a README case, and the phantom-work bullet repeats "Seven shipped features." The number 4 is never reconciled with the 7, so the count reads as a contradiction. Say "seven stale-status records across four incidents" or align the intro with the table.</comment>
<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+Date: 2026-09-22
+Status: `proposed`
+Origin: surfaced while auditing documentation in a downstream repo that uses
+Quest. Four separate stale-status incidents in one session, all the same
+mechanism. Analysis only, no code changed.
+
</file context>
Suggested change
| Quest. Four separate stale-status incidents in one session, all the same | |
| Quest. Seven stale-status records across four separate incidents in one session, all the same |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@KjellKod Fix with cubic is available during trial and on the Pro plan. Upgrade your plan to use this feature. https://www.cubic.dev/settings?tab=subscription
This branch was successfully deployed
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
1 participant
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.
⭐ Why this matters
Quest stamps a
status:on the documents it writes, at authoring time, andnothing ever updates it. Shipped work therefore keeps announcing that it is
unmerged, and agents read that as fact.
Summary
Adds an idea proposing that any housekeeping documentation a Quest touched must
describe the state being delivered before the draft PR is created, with an
explicit opt-out for records that deliberately preserve a point-in-time view.
Changes
ideas/2026-09-22-quest-doc-status-before-draft-pr.mdand itsrow in the
ideas/README.mdGovernance and Enforcement index.Validation
ideas/2026-09-22-quest-doc-status-before-draft-pr.mdand judge whether the gate belongs at draft-PR time (option A), in
pr-shepherdat merge (option B), or as a CI lint (option C). Thedocument argues for A with C as a safety net.
table in
ideas/README.md.Watch for: the four open questions at the end are genuinely open, in particular
whether the gate should block draft-PR creation or only warn. Blocking risks a
documentation field stopping delivery; warning risks being ignored.
Notes
table. Seven records claimed unmerged work that had shipped, verified against
merged PRs and against the code being present on main.
status:vocabulary. Quest does notown downstream repositories' documentation conventions.
▐▛███▜▌ ▝▜█████▛▘ ▘▘ ▝▝ Quest/Co-Authored by Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) in collaboration with KjellKod