Files
clide/governance/README.md
T
jpmschweitzerandClaude Opus 4.7 8310730506 document the stream-json control protocol + D-78
Empirical spike against claude 2.1.150 (driving the real CLI over
stdin/stdout + reading the shipped binary's zod schemas) pinned the
wire shapes for the stream-json control protocol: the can_use_tool
permission request, the control_response envelope, the
--permission-prompt-tool stdio enabler (without it "ask" tools silently
auto-deny), the allow-requires-updatedInput quirk, and AskUserQuestion
answered via updatedInput.answers. Captured in a version-pinned spike
note with a resilience section (detection canaries + a ranked fallback
menu) so a future Anthropic change to this undocumented contract doesn't
leave us at a blank slate.

D-78 records the decision: permissions ride the stdio control channel,
not MCP (MCP is reserved for capability/tool provision); refines D-77.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-25 08:40:05 +02:00

18 KiB

Decisions, Questions, Rejected

This directory holds structured planning records that pql parses into pql.db. Each record is a ### [DQR]-N: Title heading inside a markdown file. Files live in three per-type subdirectories:

  • decisions/<domain>.md — confirmed design decisions
  • questions/<domain>.md — open questions that may resolve into decisions or rejected proposals
  • rejected/<domain>.md — rejected proposals (kept for the audit trail)

The parser infers domain from the filename stem and record type from the parent subdirectory.

D-records that propose implementation work link to initiative-type tickets via decision_ref. Run pql decisions show <id> --with-tickets to inspect implementation status.

Start with this canonical set; create files as records land in each domain:

  • architecture — structural commitments (storage, layering, languages, libraries)
  • process — team workflow (commits, branches, releases, reviews)
  • design — user-facing surface (UX, UI, public APIs)
  • coding-conventions — team-internal code shape (style, lint, file layout)
  • testing — quality strategy (coverage, layers, gates)

You might also want, project-permitting:

  • accessibility — if you ship user-facing software
  • security — if you handle user data or network surfaces
  • licensing — if you release open-source or commercial
  • documentation — if user-docs are non-trivial
  • deployment — if shipping is non-trivial
  • performance — if you have perf budgets / SLOs

Decisions

Open questions

Rejected