Path: none | charter (.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/SKILL.md filing rules · references/lanes/director.md :40 · references/state-machine.md intake · .claude/agents/os-dev.md report contract · the write-identity lock roster) | RULED — maintainer 「1 2 3 4 5 6 8」 (5750077963) | graded by domain:skills#2
Filed by the director seat, summon #25 (session_012GcsUbuqFGBibkEDMRC1eE), as the summon's 换班报告 finding — class 原则错/缺 (item 1) and 可机械化项 (item 2). ⛔ Filed unassigned; the skills lane triages it. ⛔ No domain:* / priority:* / type applied.
1. Charter sequencing — the first batch came 51 cards late, and the charter's wording is why
The director charter (.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/lanes/director.md, the decision-box duty) orders the seat's work as 「第一步:逐卡过一类自裁三判据」 before the batches. Read literally, that is 「screen every card in the inbox for class-1 self-adjudication, then start presenting」. Summon #25 read it that way: it screened all 51 cards, then presented batch #192. The maintainer's reaction, verbatim (chat, this summon):
「你不是应该5张一批给我决裁吗,你在忙什么?是不是技能有问题。」
「你为什么要读完全部决裁卡才开始呈交第一批 有什么好处」
The seat's honest answer: the benefit was small. Of the 51 rulings this summon executed (batches #192–#199 plus 19 class-1 self-adjudications), ⛔ none depended on having read the other cards first; the ordering rule (在飞被阻塞 > 运营阻塞 > 用户可见 > 结构性) is decidable from labels, assignee, PR references and the 维护者速读, ⛔ not from a full thread read. What the full pre-read bought was a later first batch — and a maintainer waiting on a seat that was reading.
Proposed wording (one rule, replacing the step order):
- The first batch is presented after the first ≤5 same-family cards are read; class-1 screening runs per batch (on the five cards in hand), ⛔ not inbox-wide before the first batch.
- Inbox ordering uses a cheap scan (labels, assignee, open-PR references, the 速读's first lines) to pick the next five; the full thread read happens on those five only.
- A card found to be class-1 during a batch read is self-adjudicated in that batch's stroke and replaced in the batch by the next candidate, so a batch still presents five decisions.
- Verifiable criterion: time from the summon's opening marker to the first batch's presentation ≤ the time to read five cards.
2. Ruled cards re-enter the decision box without citing the ruling on their own thread
Measured this summon — cards whose thread already carried a maintainer ruling (Ruling: first-line comment, or a 「⚖️ RULED」 record) and that were nevertheless placed back in needs-user-decision with a fresh 速读 that did not name the earlier ruling or say what changed since:
| card |
earlier ruling on the thread |
what the re-entry lacked |
| objectstack#17518 |
a batch ruling (letter A) |
the 速读 re-asked the ruled question; the summon ruled A′ citing the record |
| objectstack#13503 |
a standing ruling on the reaper's input shape |
re-entered as if unruled; class-1 re-affirmed |
| objectui#6033 |
standing ruling 5406213903 |
re-entered without citing it; class-1 「the standing ruling stands」 |
| objectui#6900 |
ruled twice (5472485052, 5486949502) |
the third entry (5737290535) did cite them — the good example; the two-week gap before it was a label never moved |
| objectui#6379 |
triage grading on the human floor (5453884177) |
a hold audit released it to pm:queue reading 「no pending ruling」 while the decision was pending; three seats passed it over |
Each re-entry cost a full re-read by the director seat and, where the ruling stood, produced a ruling that says only 「the standing ruling stands」.
Proposed mechanism (可机械化): the decision-box intake check that already verifies the 速读 and four-facet block (triage's 「落卡入箱时校验/补全」 duty) also requires a Prior rulings on this card: line naming every Ruling: / 「RULED」 comment id on the same thread and one sentence on what changed since each; a card whose own thread carries such a comment and whose face lacks the line is refused entry (pm:retriage to the filer), ⛔ not presented. check-prior-rulings.mjs already reads the thread by first-line shape and can print the line.
Not proposed
- ⛔ Not a change to the batch size (5), the six-item prose, or the 「呈完即停」 rule — those worked.
- ⛔ Not a change to class-1 criteria — the 19 self-adjudications this summon are on the summon's summary table for 追认.
Dedupe words: director first batch after five cards · class-1 screening per batch · decision box re-entry cite prior ruling · Prior rulings on this card line · needs-user-decision intake refuses unruled re-entry
Generated by Claude Code
Path: none | charter (
.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/SKILL.mdfiling rules ·references/lanes/director.md:40 ·references/state-machine.mdintake ·.claude/agents/os-dev.mdreport contract · the write-identity lock roster) | RULED — maintainer 「1 2 3 4 5 6 8」 (5750077963) | graded bydomain:skills#2Filed by the director seat, summon #25 (
session_012GcsUbuqFGBibkEDMRC1eE), as the summon's 换班报告 finding — class 原则错/缺 (item 1) and 可机械化项 (item 2). ⛔ Filed unassigned; the skills lane triages it. ⛔ Nodomain:*/priority:*/ type applied.1. Charter sequencing — the first batch came 51 cards late, and the charter's wording is why
The director charter (
.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/lanes/director.md, the decision-box duty) orders the seat's work as 「第一步:逐卡过一类自裁三判据」 before the batches. Read literally, that is 「screen every card in the inbox for class-1 self-adjudication, then start presenting」. Summon #25 read it that way: it screened all 51 cards, then presented batch #192. The maintainer's reaction, verbatim (chat, this summon):The seat's honest answer: the benefit was small. Of the 51 rulings this summon executed (batches #192–#199 plus 19 class-1 self-adjudications), ⛔ none depended on having read the other cards first; the ordering rule (在飞被阻塞 > 运营阻塞 > 用户可见 > 结构性) is decidable from labels, assignee, PR references and the 维护者速读, ⛔ not from a full thread read. What the full pre-read bought was a later first batch — and a maintainer waiting on a seat that was reading.
Proposed wording (one rule, replacing the step order):
2. Ruled cards re-enter the decision box without citing the ruling on their own thread
Measured this summon — cards whose thread already carried a maintainer ruling (
Ruling:first-line comment, or a 「⚖️ RULED」 record) and that were nevertheless placed back inneeds-user-decisionwith a fresh 速读 that did not name the earlier ruling or say what changed since:pm:queuereading 「no pending ruling」 while the decision was pending; three seats passed it overEach re-entry cost a full re-read by the director seat and, where the ruling stood, produced a ruling that says only 「the standing ruling stands」.
Proposed mechanism (可机械化): the decision-box intake check that already verifies the 速读 and four-facet block (triage's 「落卡入箱时校验/补全」 duty) also requires a
Prior rulings on this card:line naming everyRuling:/ 「RULED」 comment id on the same thread and one sentence on what changed since each; a card whose own thread carries such a comment and whose face lacks the line is refused entry (pm:retriageto the filer), ⛔ not presented.check-prior-rulings.mjsalready reads the thread by first-line shape and can print the line.Not proposed
Dedupe words:
director first batch after five cards·class-1 screening per batch·decision box re-entry cite prior ruling·Prior rulings on this card line·needs-user-decision intake refuses unruled re-entryGenerated by Claude Code