design.md described what tireless does to an issue but never what it is for, and
in one place said the opposite of the intent: §1 assigned "identifying what
should be worked on" to the operator, which is the thing discovery automates.
A reader — human or agent — would have concluded the system is human-triggered
only and never built the lane.
Rewrite §1 around continuous multi-repo development. Add §2.5, the autonomy
boundary, as a table of which transitions are automatic and which are human,
with the alternatives considered and why they lose. Add §2.6 on anchoring
discovery to a tracking issue rather than making Job.issue a sum type, and what
that buys. Add stage 6 for the lane, renumbering scheduling to 7 and hardening
to 8, with the reasoning for placing a cheap stage late.
Add §10 on tireless working on tireless: that a merged PR restarts the runner
that opened it and why that is survivable but not free, which areas must be
routed to the stronger lane because they are constraint-bearing, and the four
questions dogfooding is expected to answer.
Two new invariants. Admission is inherited (§2.5), and every constraint must be
reachable from a binary's startup path — the rule the previous commit's orphaned
guards violated.
AGENTS.md symlinks CLAUDE.md: both agents look for their own filename, the
implementation prompts tell them to, and a symlink is the only version of this
that cannot drift.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013TxK1CWPkFXqdcXMJ4hVe6
helexa#179's application-owned system prompts let tireless shape both ends of
the cc->oc handoff, so the "will a 27B execute an Opus plan" risk becomes a
tunable rather than a hope.
Three prompts, versioned as one set: plan.cc.md tells Claude Code it is writing
for a literal, absent reader; implement.oc.md tells OpenCode to execute exactly
that and report rather than improvise; implement.cc.md covers unplanned issues.
PromptSet::load refuses a mismatched set, and tests assert the prompts mention
every section ChildSpec requires.
The middle is validated, not trusted. plan::validate rejects a plan before any
implementation job is enqueued unless every child carries a runnable acceptance
command (a stopping condition) and a non-empty out-of-scope list (a boundary) --
the two sections a small model needs and a human reader does not. Dangling and
cyclic dependencies are caught too, and implementation_order derives the start
order.
cc uses --append-system-prompt, never --system-prompt: replacing Claude Code's
default discards the tool-use scaffolding that makes it a coding agent. Pin
bumped to 2.1.220, the version this flag surface was verified against.
The oc path depends on helexa#179's passthrough guarantee, which is still open
and unverified for qwen3 arch templating. Stage 5 now opens with a PONG probe
rather than debugging it through a failed implementation run.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01DHhHtohxcdk1PL3tfnYJdH
Autonomous issue-to-PR driver for Claude Code and OpenCode, structured per
lair/architecture generic.md.
Workspace: entities/core/data/agent library crates plus api, worker and cli
binaries. Two pieces of real logic land with tests — lane routing (cc for
judgement, oc for specification) and the limit governor.
Constraints encoded as code rather than comments:
- agents are spawned as vendor binaries; tireless never calls a provider API
- ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is never set by tireless, only passed through
- assert_not_anthropic refuses to start an OpenCode lane pointed at Anthropic
- every run passes the governor; provider rate-limit signals win over our own
accounting
Deployment assets target bob.hanzalova.internal:23296 (registered in
port-allocations.md), fronted by hanzalova at tireless.internal.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01DHhHtohxcdk1PL3tfnYJdH
