Skip to content

[codex] Consume structured IR provider evidence#22

Merged
bigsmartben merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/issue-21-structured-ir-provider-evidence
Jul 1, 2026
Merged

[codex] Consume structured IR provider evidence#22
bigsmartben merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/issue-21-structured-ir-provider-evidence

Conversation

@bigsmartben

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

  • consume HTML SSOT refs and structured IR refs as external intake artifact references across specify/checklist/plan/tasks
  • keep provider/intake evidence gaps as [BLOCKED: PROVIDER_EVIDENCE] instead of promoting them to product clarifications
  • remove current visual validation/final visual review task semantics and preserve visual/IR refs as traceability for UI implementation and non-visual acceptance
  • update README, governance docs, cross-agent contracts, validator markers, and contract tests

Validation

  • C:\Users\24598\.cache\codex-runtimes\codex-primary-runtime\dependencies\python\python.exe -m unittest tests/test_preset_contract.py

@bigsmartben
bigsmartben marked this pull request as ready for review July 1, 2026 05:55
@bigsmartben
bigsmartben merged commit a70979e into main Jul 1, 2026
3 checks passed
@bigsmartben
bigsmartben deleted the codex/issue-21-structured-ir-provider-evidence branch July 1, 2026 05:55

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 92e7865b18

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

- [ ] Requirement Status is declared for each visual requirement.
- [ ] Provider-dependent rows cite HTML SSOT refs, structured IR refs, visual SSOT refs, or other external intake artifact refs when available.
- [ ] Missing required provider or intake evidence sets Gate Status: BLOCKED, uses `[BLOCKED: PROVIDER_EVIDENCE]`, and lists the item in Blocking Items.
- [ ] Rows that do not depend on HTML SSOT, structured IR, or provider evidence are marked `Not Applicable` with rationale.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Keep provider-independent UI rows executable

For product-side UI requirements that do not depend on provider evidence, such as hand-written responsive or accessibility requirements, this forces the Visual Fidelity Evidence Matrix row to Not Applicable even though the matrix is one row per visual requirement. Because /speckit.tasks only derives UI implementation and acceptance work for Required rows, those requirements can be skipped downstream; keep the requirement status Required and mark only the provider-evidence dependency as no/not applicable.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Comment thread commands/speckit.tasks.md
Code review task text must require boundary review: task scope stays within planned `M + U`, implementation matches the referenced contracts, validation evidence covers quickstart or contract paths, and no implementation task changed `spec.md`, `contracts/`, readiness checklists, or Visual Fidelity Readiness to make execution pass.

Code review task text must require visual consistency review when UI or visual acceptance was in scope. The review must reconcile implemented UI states and viewport behavior with Visual Fidelity Readiness, UIF paths, screenshot refs, visual proof refs, and Client Asset Contract bindings, variants, and fallback policy.
Code review task text may require UI consistency review when UI or visual acceptance was in scope. The review must reconcile implemented UI states and viewport behavior with accepted requirements, Visual Fidelity Readiness, UIF paths, visual/IR traceability refs, and Client Asset Contract bindings, variants, and fallback policy; it must not require screenshot comparison, visual diff, baseline capture, or final visual review.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Require UI consistency review when UI is in scope

In UI or visual features, changing this from must to may lets generated final review tasks omit the only post-implementation reconciliation of UI states and viewport behavior after the dedicated final_visual_review task type was removed. Make the UI consistency review mandatory whenever UI or visual acceptance was in scope, while still forbidding screenshot comparison or visual diff work.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Comment on lines +309 to 312
"visual SSOT ref",
"HTML SSOT ref",
"structured IR ref",
"Client Asset Contract",

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Recognize visual/IR traceability refs in receipts

The updated task contract can emit the literal visual/IR traceability refs, but the validator markers do not match that phrase. If a handoff only names that new evidence binding and not Visual Item ID or structured IR ref, _handoff_requires_traceable_validation_evidence() returns false and a generic receipt can pass; add visual/IR traceability ref(s) to the handoff trigger and receipt evidence marker checks.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant