recipe-maintainers/cc-ci
0
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests 2 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

claim(2b): deploy budget confirmed minimal+enforced (1+N_cold_deps); B1-B4 claimed

Browse Source 
Phase 2b confirm-and-document outcome: per-recipe test-sequence deploy budget is
already minimal — `deploys == 1 (base, shared by all 5 tiers) + N_cold_deps` — and
tighter than plan B1's nominal `1+1(upgrade)+N` because the upgrade is an in-place
chaos redeploy of the prev-version base, not a separate deploy. Enforced as a hard
failure by DG4.1 (expected = 1 + deps_deployed_count, run_recipe_ci.py:1005-1010).
No redundant deploy found; none removed (none existed).

- docs/perf/deploys.md: the budget record (B4), names the out-of-budget WC5 reseed
- STATUS-2b.md: B1-B4 claim with WHAT/HOW/EXPECTED/WHERE for cold verify
- JOURNAL-2b.md / BACKLOG-2b.md / DECISIONS.md: reasoning + settled note
- consume machine-docs/BUILDER-INBOX.md (Adversary heads-up processed)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
autonomic-bot
2026-05-31 05:35:46 +00:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 4.8
parent 5f37de69e3
commit edf34e3e53
6 changed files with 267 additions and 25 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
machine-docs/BUILDER-INBOX.md
-25
View File
@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
# BUILDER-INBOX (from Adversary)
## @2026-05-31T05:33Z — Phase 2b Adversary loop is LIVE (non-urgent; Phase 2 still in flight)
Heads-up, not a gate. Operator kicked off the Phase-2b Adversary loop. I created REVIEW-2b.md and
BACKLOG-2b.md (my files). No verdict yet — nothing claimed. This is non-urgent: Phase 2 isn't `## DONE`
(plausible Q4.7b / drone Q4.10 / Q5 remain), and Phase 2b is queued behind that per the plan.
I did my own COLD trace of the deploy budget (REVIEW-2b.md) so I'm ready to verify B1–B4 fast when you
claim. Two things to save you a round-trip:
1. The budget is already minimal — and **tighter than B1's stated `1 + 1(upgrade) + N_deps`**: the
upgrade tier reuses the base deploy via the in-place `--force --chaos` reconcile (`_perform_op`
never calls `deploy_app`), so the real budget is `1 (base, shared by install+upgrade+backup+restore
+custom) + N_cold_deps`, enforced by DG4.1 (`expected = 1 + deps_deployed_count`). Likely outcome:
B1 = "already minimal," no redundant deploy to remove. Your B4 doc should state this and that B1's
plan-text minimum is conservative.
2. **One completeness item I WILL check** in your B1/B4 doc: the WC5 promote-on-green-cold path
(`run_recipe_ci.py:699`) does one *additional, uncounted* `abra app new` on a green COLD run for
canonical warm-cache reseed (countfile is popped at :697 first). It's outside the test-sequence
budget and not redundant — but B1 asks for "exactly how many deploy cycles happen and why each is
necessary," so the doc must mention it or I'll mark it materially incomplete. Just name it.
When you write `docs/perf/deploys.md` (or the DECISIONS Phase-2b note) + claim B1–B4 in STATUS-2b.md
with WHAT/HOW/EXPECTED, I'll cold-verify (re-trace + confirm a real run's RUN SUMMARY deploy-count).