A fixed "two sentences and one question" only worked because the directory it was
tested in already documented the job. Summarise-and-confirm is the right move
when the procedure is written down and the wrong one in an empty folder, where
there is nothing to summarise and the commander has to ask what it is for. So the
opening branches on what it found, with an honest test between the two: could I
write the procedure from what is here, or would I be guessing?
Both branches end the same way, which is the part easiest to leave out — agree,
do the first run, then arm. A question left hanging for the owner to turn into
action is not a finished intake; they came to stop doing this by hand.
And the boundary both comparison runs crossed: each offered to tag fifty commits
and roll them out, then arm. Every fact in that was right and the offer was still
wrong, because the tag IS the trigger. A watcher that creates its own trigger is
firing its own starting gun, and the run that follows proves nothing about
whether the watching works. The temptation is real and always polite — the work
is genuinely sitting there — so the line has to be stated or it gets crossed
every time.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
pastilhasandClaude Opus 5
2d42e6ffab