vh
9703eb2b6b
Worldtree Conversation API debug TUI. Multi-pane observability dashboard: chat transcript + persona/Vili affect log + tool events + admin events + Bifrost state + tool inventory + (opt-in) raw server log. Design locked at docs/design-brief.md (originated as brokkr-smithy/docs/ratatoskr-design-brief.md). Operator-locked decisions: - Textual application-shell framework (multi-pane dashboard, not REPL). - Separate repo + separate dev team (no Worldtree-source imports). - httpx-sse for SSE consumption (reference Python SSE-resume impl). - Triple version-skew mitigation: spec-pin in pyproject.toml + recorded SSE snapshot tests + conformance smoke. Initial pin: Worldtree v0.19.0 at 55101e909abcd2219833266b6f905c5bc956e0f0. - Persona pane: label-don't-refuse PII posture. - Server-log pane: opt-in via --server-log <path>. - Two-stage Ctrl-C (cancel then exit). - Markdown rendering default-on; --raw opt-out. In the box: - docs/design-brief.md — the locked design with full rationale. - docs/SPEC-PIN.md — Worldtree spec pin + bump procedure. - docs/conversation-api-spec.md + docs/conversation_api.contract.md — vendored Worldtree spec snapshots at the pinned SHA. - pyproject.toml — Python 3.12, hatchling, uv-managed, deps locked. - src/ratatoskr/ — stub package (cli.py raises NotImplementedError). - tests/test_no_worldtree_imports.py — boundary smoke test PASSING. - tests/snapshots/README.md — recording convention for SSE snapshot tests. Not in the box yet: - Gitea remote (operator/infra-ops to register at vh/ratatoskr). - Implementation — the dev team owns this; design brief is the spec. Origin: althing thread 01KS3R34XD3N6HMK91VXESHGW7 (worldtree-dev → brokkr-smithy-dev, 2026-05-20). Volva consulted via thread 01KS3VF6W33N3V5FNMGQ91YNVD.
2.7 KiB
Principles
Four principles governing engineering choices across all Corviduo projects. Common lodestar: fitness-for-purpose. Each principle rejects a different substitute goal that disguises itself as virtue.
These are user-level defaults that originate at ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md,
duplicated here so they live with the codebase and are visible to
humans browsing the repo (or AI tooling that doesn't load the
user-level CLAUDE.md). When the user-level statement is amended,
this file is backported.
1. Excellence over uniqueness
Pick the shape that's right for the problem, not the shape that's new. If uniqueness is a byproduct of excellence, so be it; do not target it.
Rejects: novelty-as-goal.
2. Explicit over implicit
Make load-bearing assumptions, constraints, and coupling visible. Idiomatic implicitness (language conventions, well-known protocols) is fine — the rule targets invisible implicitness, not all of it. Cost of explicitness is verbosity; cost of invisible implicitness is undetectable coupling. Pay the cost where auditability beats the tax.
Rejects: cleverness-as-goal.
3. Elegance is a byproduct, not a target
Excellent engineering often produces elegant results; targeting elegance directly tends to produce cleverness, which is a different thing. Review test: "fit-for-purpose, debuggable, consistent" — not "feels nice."
Rejects: beauty-as-goal.
4. Action-relevance over thoroughness
Before investigating, ask whether the answer would change the action. If both outcomes lead to the same default, skip the question.
Rejects: thoroughness-as-goal.
What this file is, and isn't
These principles are what to optimize for. They sit above two other layers:
| Layer | Where it lives | What it answers |
|---|---|---|
| Principles (this file) | PRINCIPLES.md + ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md § Core principles |
What to optimize for across all work |
| Behavioral guidelines | CLAUDE.md § BEHAVIORAL GUIDELINES |
How to operate session-to-session (Think Before Coding, Simplicity First, Surgical Changes, Goal-Driven Execution) |
| Workflow mechanics | CLAUDE.md § Project conventions + the contract format, TDD cycle, etc. |
Project-level mechanics (contracts-first, TDD vertical slices, no-backwards-compat-until-v1.x, persistent-memory commit-along) |
Don't conflate the three layers. Workflow rules tell you what to do mechanically; behavioral guidelines tell you how to think during a session; principles tell you what good looks like across all of it.
A workflow rule can be amended without touching the principle that motivates it. A principle changes rarely — when one does, it ripples through every other layer.