iter33 cluster-claude-md-slim: CLAUDE.md 379 → 151 行(单文件瘦身 60%)#825
Merged
Conversation
错误模式: CLAUDE.md 单文件 379 行 / 22 段,混合顶级架构约束(核心) + 操作类细则(Codex CLI 调用规范 / gstack / 文档系统 / 项目结构 / 构建与运行 / 编码风格 / 前端设计 / 测试门禁 / 提交与 PR / 文档 mermaid 等)+ 重复条款。 新原则: CLAUDE.md 保持单文件但瘦身到 ~150 行,保留真核心: - 顶级架构约束 - 架构哲学 - 字段命名与 Metadata 决策树 - Command / Envelope / Dispatch - 权威状态 / ReadModel / Projection - Actor 设计原则 / 生命周期 / 执行模型 - 中间层状态约束 - 序列化 非顶级条款删除或移到 skill / docs: - Codex CLI 调用规范 → 已在 codex-refactor-loop skill 自包含 - gstack → 已在 gstack skill 自包含 - 前端设计 → 已在 aevatar-frontend-design skill 自包含 - 项目结构 / 构建运行 / 编码风格 / 文档系统 / 测试门禁 / 提交PR → 删除细则,保留 essential 引用 skill 死链清理:codex-refactor-loop + codex-implement-loop SKILL.md 中指向被删 CLAUDE.md 段的死链改为指向 skill 内部 section。 不拆 CLAUDE.md 为 docs/canon multi-file vocab。 不引入 tools/docs/lint.sh 新 guard(本 cluster scope 不含)。 Closes #801 ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧
loning
added
auto-loop
Contributor
Author
🤖 测试审查通过：PR 825 未触达生产或测试代码TL;DR
详细说明我按指定三点 diff 测试稳定性方面也没有实际风险：PR 没改 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)---
pr: 825
role: tests
verdict: approve
---
## Verdict
Test coverage and test quality are adequate because this PR only changes documentation/skill guidance and introduces no production or test behavior requiring new tests.
## Evidence
- `git diff --name-status origin/auto-refact-dev...origin/refactor/iter33-cluster-claude-md-slim` shows only `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md`, `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md`, and `CLAUDE.md`; there are no touched `src/`, `agents/`, or `test/` files to require matching test coverage.
- `/Users/auric/aevatar/.refactor-loop/runs/implement-cluster-claude-md-slim.md` is absent, so no implement summary supplied additional test claims to validate.
- `tools/ci/test_stability_guards.sh:16` still scans tests for `Task.Delay(` and `WaitUntilAsync(`; this PR does not modify that guard.
- `tools/ci/test_polling_allowlist.txt:1` and existing entries are unchanged by the PR; no polling allowlist expansion needs justification.
- Added diff text contains no added test pacing, skipped tests, manual traits, assertion weakening, or bump-only tests; the only added occurrence of `Task.Delay`/`WaitUntilAsync` is a documentation reminder in `CLAUDE.md`.⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
🤖 quality review：缺少 refactor self-doc，建议暂缓合并TL;DR
详细说明我按三点实际检查了 diff： 阻塞点是自说明缺失： 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)---
pr: 825
role: quality
verdict: reject
---
## Verdict
Reject: the doc slim-down is focused and readable overall, but the required refactor self-doc Old/New block is missing from this major top-level refactor.
## Evidence
- `CLAUDE.md:1` / full file `CLAUDE.md:1-151`: no `Refactor (iter33/cluster-claude-md-slim)` Old/New self-documentation block is present in the refactored top-level instruction file, despite the checklist requiring the cluster self-doc marker for refactors.
- `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md:127` and `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md:509,1844`: the two skill edits are narrow stale-reference updates and do not introduce naming, abstraction, duplication, dead-code, or complexity issues.
## What would change your verdict (only if comment or reject)
Add a concise refactor self-doc block for `iter33/cluster-claude-md-slim` that states Old: oversized mixed top-level CLAUDE rules with duplicated operational detail; New: slim single-file core architecture and engineering boundary, with operational details owned by skills. If docs-only refactors are intentionally exempt from the `// Refactor ...` production-code format, state that exemption explicitly in the PR or checklist.
REVIEW_DONE:825:quality:reject⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
🤖 架构评审：reject，CLAUDE.md 瘦身丢失强制条款TL;DR
📢 cc 原作者:@loning 请重点 sanity-check 详细说明本轮按三点 diff 检查了 主要阻断点：
📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)---
pr: 825
role: architect
verdict: reject
---
## Verdict
Reject: the code/proto/canon diff is empty, but the PR weakens mandatory `CLAUDE.md` architecture clauses while slimming the file.
## Evidence
- `CLAUDE.md:47` on the PR branch preserves the runtime-neutral inbox wording but drops the previous hard prohibition against direct transport access. Clause regressed verbatim from `origin/auto-refact-dev:CLAUDE.md:48`: “投递语义 runtime-neutral：`publish/send` 统一表示"进入目标 inbox"；不因目标 `self` 或底层差异退化为 inline dispatch；需立即执行走独立 `dispatch` 契约，禁止绕过 publisher 直操底层传输对象。” The new line no longer carries “禁止绕过 publisher 直操底层传输对象,” which is the enforcement hook preventing business/middleware code from bypassing the dispatch abstraction.
- `CLAUDE.md:60` on the PR branch weakens query-time replay/priming by deleting the materialization-refresh boundary. Clause regressed verbatim from `origin/auto-refact-dev:CLAUDE.md:65`: “禁止 query-time replay/priming：`QueryPort/QueryService/ApplicationService` 不得在请求路径读 `IEventStore`、重放 events、临时重建 state mirror；不得在 query 方法内同步补投影或补跑 ES/materialization。刷新须通过正式 projection 会话、后台 materializer 或写侧预挂接 projection 完成。” The PR text keeps a shorter ban on synchronous projection but loses the ES/materialization wording and the allowed refresh mechanisms, so the query/projection lifecycle boundary is less enforceable.
- `CLAUDE.md:83` on the PR branch compresses the Application-layer contract rule and removes several mandatory prohibitions. Clause regressed verbatim from `origin/auto-refact-dev:CLAUDE.md:94`: “应用层契约以业务命名：读端口用 `IXxxQueryPort`（封装 projection 读取 + 业务映射），写命令通过 `IActorDispatchPort` 或等价命令分发机制发往 GAgent；禁止 `IXxxStore` 等存储导向命名出现在应用层。endpoint 不直接依赖 `IActorRuntime` 或 `IProjectionDocumentReader` 等基础设施抽象。应用层契约必须承载业务语义（验证、映射、默认值），禁止纯转发空壳。” The new text omits the `IXxxStore` ban, the concrete infrastructure abstractions, and the “must carry business semantics / no empty forwarding shell” requirement.
Checked but not flagged: the requested `git diff origin/auto-refact-dev...origin/refactor/iter33-cluster-claude-md-slim -- '*.cs' '*.proto' 'docs/canon/*.md'` is empty, so no refactored type/method needed Old/New pattern comments, no proto field-number issue exists, and anti-pattern grep over that diff found no code hits.
## What would change your verdict
Restore the removed mandatory clauses in `CLAUDE.md`, or rewrite them in a shorter form that keeps the same normative force: direct transport bypass remains forbidden, query-time ES/materialization refresh remains forbidden with explicit allowed refresh paths, and Application-layer contracts still ban store-oriented ports, endpoint infrastructure dependencies, and pure forwarding shells.
REVIEW_DONE:825:architect:reject⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
📊 当前状态 — Phase 8 r1 review + fix r1 派出
🤖 controller status banner ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
🤖 fix-codex：已修复 PR 825 round 1 的 4 个 reject demandTL;DR
📢 cc 原作者:@loning 请 sanity-check 这次 CLAUDE.md 瘦身后保留的强制语义。 详细说明本轮 demand list 里，tests reviewer 是 approve；architect 有 3 个 reject，quality 有 1 个 reject。4 个 demand 都落在本 PR 已触达的 具体修复： 验证结果： 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)# Fix report for PR 825 round 1
## Applied
- (A) CLAUDE.md:3: Added `Refactor (iter33/cluster-claude-md-slim)` Old/New self-doc block for the Markdown-only top-level refactor (addresses reviewer:quality's evidence #1; demand: "Add a concise refactor self-doc block for `iter33/cluster-claude-md-slim` that states Old: oversized mixed top-level CLAUDE rules with duplicated operational detail; New: slim single-file core architecture and engineering boundary, with operational details owned by skills.").
- (A) CLAUDE.md:53: Restored runtime-neutral dispatch enforcement text: `禁止绕过 publisher 直操底层传输对象` (addresses reviewer:architect's evidence #1; cited clause from old CLAUDE.md: "投递语义 runtime-neutral：`publish/send` 统一表示...禁止绕过 publisher 直操底层传输对象。").
- (A) CLAUDE.md:66: Restored query-time replay/priming enforcement for `补跑 ES/materialization` and the allowed refresh paths via formal projection session, background materializer, or write-side pre-hooked projection (addresses reviewer:architect's evidence #2; cited clause from old CLAUDE.md: "刷新须通过正式 projection 会话、后台 materializer 或写侧预挂接 projection 完成。").
- (A) CLAUDE.md:89: Restored Application-layer contract prohibitions for `IXxxStore`, direct endpoint dependency on `IActorRuntime`/`IProjectionDocumentReader`, and pure forwarding shells (addresses reviewer:architect's evidence #3; cited clause from old CLAUDE.md: "应用层契约必须承载业务语义...禁止纯转发空壳。").
## Rejected as false positive
- None.
## Blocked (cannot fix this round)
- None.
## Build status
- build: pass (`dotnet build aevatar.slnx --nologo 2>&1 | tail -20`; 0 errors, 143 existing warnings)
- tests: n=skipped (PR touches only `CLAUDE.md` and two skill markdown files; no touched production/test project to target)
- docs lint: pass (`bash tools/docs/lint.sh 2>&1 | tail -20`; 46 files checked, 0 errors)
## Recommendation for next round
- expect unanimous
⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
…self-doc - architect: 恢复 publisher 直操禁令 / query-time replay 允许刷新路径 / Application 层禁 IXxxStore 直接 endpoint 依赖 IActorRuntime / IProjectionDocumentReader 等强制条款(瘦身保留 normative force) - quality: 加 refactor self-doc Old/New block 注明 cluster id + 边界 ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 fix-pr825-r1 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 5 min)
|
Contributor
Author
📊 当前状态 — fix r1 完成 + reviewer r2 派出
🤖 controller status banner ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-architect-r1 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 9 min)
|
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-quality-r1 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 9 min)tokens used POSTED:quality:825:#825 (comment) review：缺少 refactor self-doc，建议暂缓合并 ---
pr: 825
role: quality
verdict: reject
---
## Verdict
Reject: the doc slim-down is focused and readable overall, but the required refactor self-doc Old/New block is missing from this major top-level refactor.
## Evidence
- `CLAUDE.md:1` / full file `CLAUDE.md:1-151`: no `Refactor (iter33/cluster-claude-md-slim)` Old/New self-documentation block is present in the refactored top-level instruction file, despite the checklist requiring the cluster self-doc marker for refactors.
- `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md:127` and `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md:509,1844`: the two skill edits are narrow stale-reference updates and do not introduce naming, abstraction, duplication, dead-code, or complexity issues.
## What would change your verdict (only if comment or reject)
Add a concise refactor self-doc block for `iter33/cluster-claude-md-slim` that states Old: oversized mixed top-level CLAUDE rules with duplicated operational detail; New: slim single-file core architecture and engineering boundary, with operational details owned by skills. If docs-only refactors are intentionally exempt from the `// Refactor ...` production-code format, state that exemption explicitly in the PR or checklist.
|
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-tests-r1 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 9 min)
|
Contributor
Author
🤖 tests 视角通过：PR 825 没有测试覆盖缺口TL;DR
详细说明我按三点 diff 测试质量风险也没有出现：本 PR 没改 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)---
pr: 825
role: tests
verdict: approve
---
## Verdict
Approve: no production or test files are touched; the diff is documentation/skill slimming only, so there is no net-new behavior requiring tests and no evidence of test degradation.
## Evidence
- `git diff --name-status origin/auto-refact-dev...origin/refactor/iter33-cluster-claude-md-slim` shows only `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md`, `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md`, and `CLAUDE.md`.
- No touched `src/` or `agents/` files, so no matching `test/.../<TypeName>Tests.cs` obligation was triggered.
- No touched `test/` files or `tools/ci/test_polling_allowlist.txt`, so no added `Task.Delay`, `[Skip]`, manual traits, weakened assertions, or allowlist changes were introduced.
- Requested implement summary file `.refactor-loop/runs/implement-cluster-claude-md-slim.md` is absent; the verdict is based on the actual PR diff and guard files.⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
🤖 quality review approve: CLAUDE.md 瘦身保持聚焦TL;DR
详细说明本次变更只触及 未看到新抽象、死代码、重复段落、无价值注释或无关 drive-by cleanup。已按要求打开完整 touched files，并用 three-dot diff 检查范围。 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)---
pr: 825
role: quality
verdict: approve
---
## Verdict
The PR is readable, focused, and does not introduce quality regressions in naming, complexity, dead code, or scope.
## Evidence
- `CLAUDE.md:4`-`CLAUDE.md:6`: required refactor self-doc is present and clear to a non-audit reader; it states the old mixed runbook pattern and the new ownership boundary.
- `CLAUDE.md:120`-`CLAUDE.md:157`: operational guidance is consolidated into a compact engineering-conventions section without adding new abstractions, duplicated snippets, or ambiguous public names.
- `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md:127` and `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md:349`: stale references to the removed `CLAUDE.md` Codex CLI section are replaced with local skill-owned rule references; no behavior or unrelated cleanup is introduced.
- `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md:509` and `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md:1844`: stale `CLAUDE.md` references are similarly redirected to the owning skill rules, keeping the PR aligned with the slim-down intent.
- `git diff --check origin/auto-refact-dev...origin/refactor/iter33-cluster-claude-md-slim`: no whitespace errors reported.
## What would change your verdict (only if comment or reject)
N/AREVIEW_DONE:825:quality:approve ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
🤖 架构评审 reject：CLAUDE.md 瘦身丢失 docs frontmatter / lint 强制条款TL;DR
详细说明我按三点 diff 检查了 这不是普通删冗余： 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)pr: 825
|
Contributor
Author
📊 当前状态 — r2 review + fix r2 派出
🤖 controller status banner ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
🤖 fix-codex r2 已修复：恢复 docs governance 强制条款TL;DR
📢 cc 原作者:@loning 请 sanity-check 这条精简保留是否符合原瘦身意图。 详细说明Architect reviewer 的唯一 reject 是 我在 PR worktree 的 📎 完整 fix report(存档备查)# Fix report for PR 825 round 2
## Applied
- (A) `CLAUDE.md:126`: restored the mandatory `docs/canon/` and `docs/adr/` YAML frontmatter requirement plus `tools/docs/lint.sh` CI enforcement as one concise engineering-convention bullet (addresses reviewer:architect's evidence #1 and #2).
## Rejected as false positive
- None.
## Blocked (cannot fix this round)
- None.
## Build status
- build: pass (`dotnet build aevatar.slnx --nologo`, 143 existing warnings, 0 errors)
- docs lint: pass (`bash tools/docs/lint.sh`, 46 files checked, 0 errors)
- tests: skipped; PR changes only `CLAUDE.md` and loop skill docs, with no touched code or test project.
## Recommendation for next round
- expect unanimous⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
architect r2 reject demand: canon/ADR YAML frontmatter mandatory clause + tools/docs/lint.sh enforcement 在瘦身后丢失。补回 normative force(短句)。 ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧
Contributor
Author
📊 当前状态 — fix r2 完成 + reviewer r3 派出| 阶段 | Phase 8 reviewing(r3) | 🤖 controller status banner ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
🤖 tests 视角通过：PR 825 没有测试风险变更TL;DR
详细说明本次三点 diff 只包含 我也检查了测试稳定性相关风险：没有测试文件变更，没有新增 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)---
pr: 825
role: tests
verdict: approve
---
## Verdict
Test coverage and test quality are adequate because this PR only trims documentation/skill instructions and does not touch production code or tests.
## Evidence
- Diff scope is limited to `CLAUDE.md`, `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md`, and `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md`; there are no touched `src/` or `agents/` production files requiring matching tests.
- No test files changed, so there are no added bump-only tests, skipped/manual tests, weakened assertions, or test naming regressions to flag.
- `tools/ci/test_polling_allowlist.txt` is unchanged, and the patch adds no `Task.Delay(...)`, `Thread.Sleep(...)`, or `WaitUntilAsync(...)` usage in tests.
- Requested implement summary `.refactor-loop/runs/implement-cluster-claude-md-slim.md` is not present in this checkout; review is based on the actual PR diff and opened guard/allowlist files.
⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
🤖 quality review approve：PR 825 可读性与瘦身范围通过TL;DR
详细说明我按三点检查： 可读性结果： 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)---
pr: 825
role: quality
verdict: approve
---
## Verdict
Approve: the PR is a focused documentation slimming with clear refactor self-documentation and no quality regressions in naming, simplicity, dead code, or scope.
## Evidence
- `CLAUDE.md:3`: Required `Refactor (iter33/cluster-claude-md-slim)` self-doc is present and readable; it explains the old mixed runbook pattern and the new ownership principle without placeholder references.
- `CLAUDE.md:9`: The condensed architecture sections keep business-intent wording and avoid adding generic naming, new abstractions, or duplicated guidance.
- `CLAUDE.md:120`: The compact engineering section is a scoped summary of existing repo conventions; it does not introduce unrelated behavior changes or drive-by cleanup outside the cluster intent.
- `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md:127` and `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md:349`: Stale references to deleted CLAUDE runbook wording were replaced with skill-owned wording, which improves local readability.
- `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md:509` and `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md:1844`: Same stale-reference cleanup is narrow and consistent with the stated migration of operational details into owning skills.
- `git diff --check origin/auto-refact-dev...origin/refactor/iter33-cluster-claude-md-slim`: no whitespace errors.
REVIEW_DONE:825:quality:approve |
Contributor
Author
🤖 架构评审通过：PR 825 未发现 CLAUDE/AGENTS 架构回归TL;DR
详细说明我按提示使用三点 diff 检查了 实际 PR diff 只包含 📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)---
pr: 825
role: architect
verdict: approve
---
## Verdict
Approve: the scoped architecture diff is empty for code/proto/canon files, and the documentation slimming keeps the enforceable CLAUDE/AGENTS architecture clauses without introducing a new pathway or shim.
## Evidence
- `git diff origin/auto-refact-dev...origin/refactor/iter33-cluster-claude-md-slim -- '*.cs' '*.proto' 'docs/canon/*.md'` returned no changes, so the architecture anti-pattern checklist has no production or canon diff to flag.
- `CLAUDE.md:3-7` includes the required refactor comment: old pattern was mixed architecture rules plus operational runbooks; new principle is keeping architecture/engineering boundaries in `CLAUDE.md` while skill-owned operations live in skills.
- `CLAUDE.md:9-158` still carries the relevant top-level clauses for layering, projection, read/write split, strong typing, command dispatch, readmodel/projection, actor modeling, middle-layer state, serialization, tests/guards, and external repo no-modification policy.
- `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md` and `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md` only update stale references from removed `CLAUDE.md` operational sections to their owning skill rules; this matches the PR's declared `CLAUDE.md` slimming scope.
- No `.proto` changes, no new `*WriteActor` / `*ReadActor` / `*Store` split, no new NyxID / chrono-* dependency path, and no deletion-first concern from an empty forwarding interface or compatibility wrapper.
REVIEW_DONE:825:architect:approve⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 fix-pr825-r2 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 7 min)
|
Contributor
Author
✅ 共识达成 — Phase 8 r3 全 approve(3/3 unanimous)
🤖 controller consensus card ⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧ |
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-architect-r2 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 11 min)
|
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-architect-r3 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 3 min)
|
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-quality-r2 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 11 min)
|
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-quality-r3 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 3 min)
|
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-tests-r2 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 11 min)Posted to GitHub: #825 (comment) REVIEW_DONE:825:tests:approve ---
pr: 825
role: tests
verdict: approve
---
## Verdict
Approve: the PR is documentation/skill slimming only, with no production behavior or test-suite changes requiring additional tests.
## Evidence
- Diff touches only `.claude/skills/codex-implement-loop/SKILL.md`, `.claude/skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md`, and `CLAUDE.md`.
- No touched `src/`, `agents/`, or `test/` files.
- No changes to `tools/ci/test_polling_allowlist.txt`; no new polling waits, skips, manual traits, or loosened assertions.
- Requested implement summary file was absent, so verdict is based on the actual PR diff and guard files. |
Contributor
Author
📊 codex 进展 review-pr825-tests-r3 (⏳ 进行中; 已跑 3 min)
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
摘要
iter33 cluster-claude-md-slim(CLAUDE.md 单文件瘦身,中等优先级)。
违反:CLAUDE.md 顶级条款不应混入操作细节(可读性差,非顶级条款应在对应 skill 自包含)。
范围
3 文件改动(+73 / -301 LOC)。CLAUDE.md 379 → 151 行。架构 guards 全绿;docs lint 全绿;test stability guards 全绿。
来源
A-no-lint-guard(maintainer narrowing "单文件瘦身").refactor-loop/runs/implement-cluster-claude-md-slim.md🤖 Auto-loop / codex-refactor-loop iter33
Closes #801
⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧