docs: correct claim that RFC-0001 specifies Doll origin.doll_id - #16
Open
BunsDev wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs: correct claim that RFC-0001 specifies Doll origin.doll_id#16BunsDev wants to merge 1 commit into
origin.doll_id#16BunsDev wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
`docs/ward-deep-dive.md` stated that the RFC "mentions Doll proposals ...
with `origin.doll_id`" and "notes that Doll proposals cannot be Tier 0
auto-promoted". Neither clause appears in any normative text.
Verified `doll` has zero occurrences in RFC-0001-familiar-contract.md
(v0.7.0, the current normative text), rfcs v0.2-v0.6, and SPEC.md.
Rewrites the two prose lines that attribute Doll semantics to the RFC so
they describe it as a Coven architectural concept and future work, matching
the phrasing already used by the sibling "Multi-familiar proposal
interactions" section ("The current RFC does not specify ...").
Deliberately unchanged, because they are already accurate:
- docs/faq.md L155 and L281 (L281 states Doll proposals are "referenced as
context, not as requirements")
- docs/ward-primer.md L133 and CHANGELOG.md L224 (both list Doll as future work)
Docs-only; no schema or normative text touched. `npm test` passes
(7/7 positive, 38/38 negative, audit-records READY).
Closes #15
Signed-off-by: Val Alexander <bunsthedev@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR corrects documentation that incorrectly attributed “Doll proposal” semantics (including origin.doll_id and Tier 0 auto-promotion constraints) to RFC-0001, clarifying that these are Coven-architecture concepts not yet specified in normative text.
Changes:
- Rewrites the “Doll proposal semantics” section in
docs/ward-deep-dive.mdto explicitly state the RFC does not specify Dolls and that the described semantics are future work. - Hedges proposal-structure wording in
docs/faq.mdto avoid implyingorigin.doll_idis RFC-specified, while still describing it as a Coven-architecture concept.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| docs/ward-deep-dive.md | Removes the incorrect claim that RFC-0001 specifies Doll proposals and reframes Doll semantics as non-normative/future work. |
| docs/faq.md | Adjusts proposal-structure wording to clearly separate Coven-architecture concepts (e.g., origin.doll_id) from RFC-specified requirements. |
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
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.
Fixes the claim in
docs/ward-deep-dive.mdthat RFC-0001 specifies Doll proposals withorigin.doll_id. It does not. Full evidence is in #15.The problem
docs/ward-deep-dive.mdL371 read:Both clauses attribute content to the RFC that is not in it.
Verification
doll(case-insensitive) occurrence counts across every normative file in this repo, checked atf1da013:dollrfcs/RFC-0001-familiar-contract.md(v0.7.0, current)rfcs/RFC-0001-familiar-contract-v0.2.mdrfcs/RFC-0001-familiar-contract-v0.3.mdrfcs/RFC-0001-familiar-contract-v0.4.mdrfcs/RFC-0001-familiar-contract-v0.5.mdrfcs/RFC-0001-familiar-contract-v0.6.mdSPEC.mdThe unversioned
RFC-0001-familiar-contract.mdcarriesVersion | 0.7.0in its header andCHANGELOG.md's newest entry is[0.7.0], so the zero-dollfile is the current normative text. There is nov0.7.mdinrfcs/.What changed
docs/ward-deep-dive.md— rewritten to describe Doll semantics as a Coven architectural concept and future work rather than existing RFC content. The phrasing deliberately matches the sibling "Multi-familiar proposal interactions" section three paragraphs above, which already says "The current RFC does not specify..." — so this is the file's own house style, not a new convention. The section's closing sentence (already calling this "future work") is unchanged and now agrees with its opening.docs/faq.mdL149 — a softer case. It described proposal structure withorigin.doll_idin a way that reads as spec-derived. Hedged to attribute it to the Coven architecture and note it is not yet specified in the RFC. Happy to drop this hunk if you consider it in-scope as-is.Deliberately NOT changed
These are accurate and I would argue against touching them:
docs/faq.mdL281 — "The parts of the spec that are Coven-specific — Doll proposals, Cave Board integration, multi-familiar routing — are referenced as context, not as requirements." This is the best statement of Doll's true status anywhere in the repo.docs/faq.mdL155 — already scoped with "in the Coven architecture".docs/ward-primer.mdL133 andCHANGELOG.mdL224 — both correctly list Doll as future work.Why it's worth fixing
This one sentence propagated. It was cited downstream in
coven-grimoire's Ward Layer Spec Brief as "RFC-0001 v0.2.0 ... Dollorigin.doll_id" (v0.2 has zero occurrences), and from there into a design doc incoven-threads— three repos deep from a single line. Downstream work was close to pinning the field spellingorigin.doll_idas though it were normative.Validation
Docs-only; no schema or normative text touched.
Note:
node -e "... readdirSync('schemas') ... JSON.parse"fromAGENTS.mdfails onmainas well —schemas/containscoven-memory-schema.md, which isn't JSON. Pre-existing and unrelated; all five.jsonschemas parse. Worth a follow-up to filter by extension.Closes #15
🪞 Found and filed by Echo while scoping coven↔coven handoffs in
coven-threads. Reported as an issue first rather than pushed directly; opening the PR at Val's direction. Not self-merging — this is a spec repo and the wording is yours to ratify.