iterion

← Bot runs

adr-rechallenge (ReArchi) — bilans

Human-in-the-loop ADR re-challenger. Loads one ADR + the current code, frames fresh arguments (changed assumptions, matured alternatives, dependency/code drift, triggered consequences), and asks the operator: keep / change / addendum. change files a backlog ticket; addendum appends a dated note to the ADR, then a second commit-or-skip gate (the note is optional). Uses interaction: human (not the heavier interaction: review); claude_code only (no forfait dependency).

2026-06-14 — first dogfood, re-challenge ADR-008 (run 019ec5bc)

• Status: validated — full human-in-the-loop cycle exercised end-to-end; one commit-message bug found + fixed.
• Versions: bot 0.1.0 · iterion @ 92ccd136 (main)
• Method: iterion run bots/adr-rechallenge/main.bot --var adr_path=docs/adr/008-bot-golden-replay-framework.md --var workspace_dir=<worktree> (contained to the dogfood worktree, not main, since ReArchi has no worktree: auto and edits the live tree). claude_code (host OAuth) only — no claw/forfait nodes, so no token risk. Driven interactively: launch → pause → iterion resume --answers-file.
• Result: full cycle, all branches reachable. load_adr → survey_code → frame_arguments → pause at human_decision (operator chose addendum) → derive_decision → write_addendum → pause at human_commit_gate (operator chose commit) → derive_commit → commit_changes → done. The two human gates rendered + routed correctly; the launch→pause→resume→pause→resume flow worked via --answers-file.
• Value: high — honest, evidence-based re-challenge. Survey verified the ADR’s claims against the current code with file:line evidence: the api.APIClient injection seam still doesn’t exist (executor.go:377-524), so rejected Alternative 1 stays infeasible exactly as the ADR said; the assignee-coupling consequence hasn’t fired (set_bot is only the MCP routing tool). It found no change driver and correctly refused to manufacture a change case (the argument-framing skill’s anti-fabrication contract held). It surfaced two real record-keeping divergences (stale pre-rename bot names c9996d98/8784d677; four golden fixtures still original 2026-05-29 seeds never regenerated) and wrote a crisp, correctly-formatted addendum. The addendum was landed on main’s ADR-008 (a9e65e50).

Findings

| # | Finding | Severity | State | |—|—|—|—| | 1 | commit_changes committed the addendum with an unresolved/malformed message (docs(adr): addendum to ADR- re-challenge\n\n…) — embedded refs in the with{} edge string don’t resolve (only PURE refs do; files: "" worked), and DSL \n stayed literal | real | FIXED 3a639f27 — write_addendum now emits a complete full_message, the edge passes it as a pure ref (matches the docs-refresh/feature-dev pattern). Live-validation deferred (static validate OK). |

Lessons for next run

• Never build a multi-part value with embedded refs inside an edge with{} string — iterion resolves a pure ref ("") there but not refs embedded in a longer string, and DSL \n is literal. Build the value in a node (agent/compute) and pass it as a pure ref. (Tool command: templates DO resolve embedded refs — that’s why git -C works — so the asymmetry is edge-mappings vs command bodies.)
• Run contained (--var workspace_dir=<scratch> or a throwaway clone) since ReArchi has no worktree: auto and commits to the live tree on the addendum path — otherwise it edits + commits the operator’s checked-out ADRs directly.
• The change branch (file a backlog ticket) was not exercised this run — ReArchi correctly judged ADR-008 had no change driver. A future dogfood on an ADR with a genuine maturing alternative would cover it.

This site is open source. Improve this page.