initial commit

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
2026-03-03 10:06:47 +01:00
commit 7b460dd322
34 changed files with 3413 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
# Answers
<!-- Human answers to open questions. Ralph processes these one per iteration. -->

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
# Ralph Loop — Verify Implementation Order
You are an autonomous agent running inside a Ralph Loop. Your job is to verify that the implementation order documented in `spec/implementation-phases.md` is consistent with the declared dependencies in all user stories and setup tasks. You report findings — you do not modify any spec files.
## CRITICAL RULE: One Task Per Iteration
You MUST perform exactly ONE task per iteration. Not two, not "a few small ones", not "all remaining items". ONE.
After completing your single task:
1. Append a short summary of what you did to `{{RUN_DIR}}/progress.txt`.
2. Stop. Do not look for more work. Do not "while I'm at it" anything.
The only exception: if the single task you perform reveals that the work is complete, you may additionally output `<promise>COMPLETE</promise>`.
## Startup: Read Project State
At the start of every iteration, read these files in order:
1. `{{RUN_DIR}}/progress.txt` — what previous iterations did (your memory across iterations).
2. `{{RUN_DIR}}/overseer.md` — notes from the overseer. Items under `## Action Required` have highest priority.
3. `{{RUN_DIR}}/answers.md` — check if the human answered any open questions.
4. `{{RUN_DIR}}/questions.md` — open and resolved questions.
5. `CLAUDE.md` — project statutes and principles.
6. `spec/implementation-phases.md` — the implementation order you are verifying.
7. `spec/userstories.md` — user stories with their declared dependencies.
8. `spec/setup-tasks.md` — setup tasks with their declared dependencies.
9. `Ideen.md` — project vision and binding design decisions.
## Task Selection (Priority Order)
Pick the FIRST applicable task from this list. Do that ONE task, then stop.
### Priority 1: Overseer action items
If `{{RUN_DIR}}/overseer.md` has items under `## Action Required`, address the FIRST one that hasn't been addressed yet (check `{{RUN_DIR}}/progress.txt`). Do NOT modify `{{RUN_DIR}}/overseer.md`.
### Priority 2: Process answers
If `{{RUN_DIR}}/answers.md` contains an answer, process it. Remove the processed entry from `{{RUN_DIR}}/answers.md`.
### Priority 3: Verify one phase
Work through the phases in `spec/implementation-phases.md` in order (Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, ...). For each phase, check:
- **Dependency satisfaction:** Every story/task in this phase must have all its declared dependencies satisfied by stories/tasks in earlier phases (or the same phase, if they are independent of each other within the phase). Flag any story that is scheduled before one of its dependencies.
- **Completeness:** Are there stories/tasks whose dependencies are all satisfied by earlier phases but that are not yet scheduled in any phase? They could be moved earlier.
- **Parallelizability:** Are stories within the same phase truly independent of each other, or do some have inter-dependencies that force a specific order within the phase?
Report findings in `{{RUN_DIR}}/progress.txt`. If you find a problem, also raise it as a question in `{{RUN_DIR}}/questions.md` with a suggested fix.
Track which phases you have verified in `{{RUN_DIR}}/progress.txt` so you don't re-verify them.
### Priority 4: Cross-cutting consistency check
After all individual phases have been verified, do ONE cross-cutting check:
- Are all user stories and setup tasks from `spec/userstories.md` and `spec/setup-tasks.md` accounted for in some phase?
- Are there circular dependencies that make the order impossible?
- Does the phase grouping align with the practical notes in `Ideen.md` (e.g. vertical slice considerations, MVP scope)?
- Is the overall order sensible from a development workflow perspective (e.g. infrastructure before features, backend before frontend where needed)?
Report findings in `{{RUN_DIR}}/progress.txt`.
### Priority 5: Complete
If all phases are verified, the cross-cutting check is done, all answers processed, and all overseer action items addressed:
Output `<promise>COMPLETE</promise>` and stop.
## File Ownership
Respect these boundaries strictly:
| File | Owner | You may... |
|------|-------|------------|
| `{{RUN_DIR}}/progress.txt` | Ralph | Read and append |
| `{{RUN_DIR}}/questions.md` | Ralph | Read and write |
| `{{RUN_DIR}}/answers.md` | Human | **Read only.** Only remove entries you have already processed. |
| `{{RUN_DIR}}/overseer.md` | Overseer | **Read only.** Never modify. |
| `CLAUDE.md` | Human | **Read only.** Never modify. |
| `spec/implementation-phases.md` | Human | **Read only.** Never modify. |
| `spec/userstories.md` | Human | **Read only.** Never modify. |
| `spec/setup-tasks.md` | Human | **Read only.** Never modify. |
| `Ideen.md` | Human | **Read only.** Never modify. |
## Handling Uncertainty
If you encounter an ambiguity in the dependency declarations (e.g. a dependency that could be interpreted multiple ways, or a missing dependency that seems implied but isn't declared), raise a question in `{{RUN_DIR}}/questions.md`:
```
### Q-{number}: {short title}
**Context:** {why this question came up}
**Affects:** {which stories/tasks/phases are affected}
**Suggested fix:** {what you think should change in implementation-phases.md}
```
## Rules
- ONE task per iteration. No exceptions.
- You are a verifier, not an editor. Never modify spec files.
- Base your analysis on declared dependencies (`**Dependencies:**` fields), not on your own judgment of what should depend on what.
- When you find issues, be specific: name the story/task, the phase it's in, the dependency that is violated, and where the dependency should be satisfied.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
# Run: verify-impl-order
- **Created**: 2026-03-03
- **Description**: (add description here)
- **Model**: sonnet
- **Max iterations**: 10

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
# Overseer Notes
<!-- This file is written by the overseer session. Ralph reads it but never modifies it. -->
## Action Required
(No action items.)
## Observations
(No observations.)

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
# Ralph Loop Progress Log
# Each iteration appends its findings and decisions here.
---
## Iteration 1 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 0 (Project Infrastructure)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0
**Method:** Checked each task's position in Phase 0 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/setup-tasks.md.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Task | Declared Dependencies | Scheduled at | All deps in earlier slots? |
|------|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|
| T-1 | None | Order 1 | ✓ (no deps) |
| T-2 | T-1 | Order 2 | ✓ T-1 is Order 1 |
| T-4 | T-1, T-2 | Order 3 | ✓ T-1 (Order 1), T-2 (Order 2) |
| T-3 | T-1, T-2 | Order 3* | ✓ T-1 (Order 1), T-2 (Order 2) |
**Completeness:** PASS — all four setup tasks (T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4) are accounted for in Phase 0.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — T-3 and T-4 have identical declared dependencies (T-1, T-2) and are marked as parallelizable with each other. This is correct.
**Minor prose inconsistency (not an ordering problem):** Phase 0's introductory sentence states "All setup tasks must complete before any user story work begins," but the same paragraph notes "T-3 can run in parallel with Phase 1." These two sentences contradict each other in plain language. The dependency-based analysis is correct: no user story has a declared dependency on T-3, so Phase 1 can proceed without T-3 being complete. The parenthetical note is accurate; the introductory sentence is overly broad. Not raising a question since this is a prose issue only and the implementation order is unambiguous.
**Verdict:** Phase 0 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
---
## Iteration 3 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 2 (Organizer Management & Event Lifecycle)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 2 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 0 and 1 are treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-4 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-5 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-18 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-19 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-12 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-13 | US-1, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
**Completeness:** PASS — All six stories with dependencies satisfied by Phase 1 or earlier (and belonging to the organizer/lifecycle domain) are accounted for in Phase 2. No eligible story is missing.
Note: Several later-phase stories (US-6, US-8, US-10a, US-11, US-15, US-16, US-7, US-14, US-17) also have their declared dependencies satisfied by Phase 1 or earlier, but they are correctly grouped into later phases by functional domain (enhanced guest features, visual customization, PWA shell). This is a deliberate, documented grouping choice — not a scheduling error.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — All six Phase 2 stories declare only US-1 and T-4 as dependencies. None of them declare a dependency on any other Phase 2 story. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended within-phase order (US-5 first, since US-9 in Phase 3 depends on it) is an efficiency hint, not a structural constraint.
**Undeclared dependency observation (no violation):** US-4's ACs state the organizer view is "accessible from the event page" — this implies UX integration with US-2 at the view level. However, the organizer view can be implemented as a standalone route/endpoint independently of US-2's visual implementation, so the omission of US-2 from US-4's declared dependencies is defensible and consistent with Phase 2 placement. No ordering violation.
**Mermaid diagram consistency:** The diagram shows US-1 branching to all Phase 2 stories (US-4, US-5, US-12, US-13, US-18, US-19). T-4 is not shown as a direct arrow to these stories, but it is a transitive dependency via T-4 → US-1. The diagram caption notes "(and T-4 transitively)" — consistent with declared dependencies.
**Verdict:** Phase 2 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
---
## Iteration 4 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 3 (Enhanced Event Page Features)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 3 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 02 are treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-6 | US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-8 | US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-9 | US-2, US-5, T-4 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; US-5 is Phase 2; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-10a | US-1, US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-1 and US-2 are Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-10b | US-10a | US-10a is Phase 3 (same phase) — see parallelizability below |
| US-11 | US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
**Completeness:** PASS — All six stories with dependencies satisfied by Phase 2 or earlier and belonging to the enhanced event-page domain are included in Phase 3. No eligible story appears to be missing.
**Parallelizability:** PASS (with one documented intra-phase sequential pair)
- US-6, US-8, US-11: mutually independent; no intra-phase dependencies. ✓
- US-10a: independent of US-6, US-8, US-11 within the phase. ✓
- US-10b → US-10a: **intra-phase dependency**. US-10b must follow US-10a. This forces sequential implementation of the pair within Phase 3. This is explicitly acknowledged in the spec: "US-10b: Must follow US-10a" and "US-10a → US-10b (sequential pair)" in the recommended order note. Not a violation — the constraint is documented and correct.
- US-9: independent of US-6, US-8, US-10a, US-10b, US-11 within Phase 3 (its cross-phase deps US-2 and US-5 are already satisfied). ✓
**Diagram consistency (minor observation, no ordering problem):** The Mermaid diagram shows only `US-2 → US-10a` for US-10a's dependencies. US-10a's declared dependencies include `US-1` in addition to US-2, but US-1 is a transitive prerequisite of US-2, so US-1 is reachable in the diagram via `US-1 → US-2 → US-10a`. This is a diagram simplification, not a missing dependency — the implementation order is unambiguous.
**Verdict:** Phase 3 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found. The US-10a → US-10b sequential constraint is known and documented.
---
## Iteration 5 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 4 (Visual Customization)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 4 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 03 are treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-15 | US-1, US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-16 | US-1, US-2, T-4 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
**Completeness:** PASS — both visual customization stories (US-15, US-16) are accounted for in Phase 4. No other story in the spec belongs to this domain without being included here.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — US-15 and US-16 share no declared dependency on each other. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended order (US-15 before US-16) is an efficiency hint (simpler story, no external API dependency, and the interaction with dark/light mode is easier to resolve first), not a structural constraint.
**Undeclared dependency observation (no violation):** US-15 and US-16 both state in their ACs "During event creation or editing (US-5)" — implying functional integration with the edit form from US-5. US-5 is not listed as a declared dependency for either story. This omission is defensible because:
1. The core functionality (selecting a theme or image during event creation) is implementable using the creation form from US-1 alone.
2. Phase 4 comes after Phase 2 where US-5 is implemented, so US-5 will be available in practice when US-15 and US-16 are worked on.
No ordering violation.
**Grouping note (no violation):** US-15 and US-16 have declared dependencies satisfied after Phase 1 (same as several Phase 3 stories). Their placement in Phase 4 rather than Phase 3 is a deliberate functional grouping decision — visual customization is a separate concern from enhanced event page features. This is consistent with the documented grouping rationale in the spec. No scheduling error.
**Verdict:** Phase 4 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
---
## Iteration 6 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 5 (App Shell & PWA)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4, Phase 5
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 5 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 04 are treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-7 | None | ✓ (no deps) |
| US-14 | T-4 | ✓ T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-17 | None | ✓ (no deps) |
**Completeness:** PASS — all three App Shell & PWA stories (US-7, US-14, US-17) are accounted for in Phase 5. No other story in the spec belongs to this domain without being included here.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — US-7, US-14, and US-17 share no declared dependencies on each other. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended within-phase order (US-17 → US-7 → US-14) is a practical sequencing hint, not a structural constraint.
**Undeclared dependency observations (no violations):**
- US-7's ACs reference US-1, US-3, and US-6 as sources of localStorage data (organizer tokens, RSVP records, bookmarks). None of these are declared dependencies. This is intentional and correct: US-7 can be implemented and passes acceptance in its empty state without those stories. The references are "practically useful after" notes, not structural prerequisites.
- US-7 AC 7 references US-12 and US-19 ("event no longer exists" handling) — not declared dependencies. US-7 can implement the error path even before US-12/US-19 are available; the condition simply won't be triggerable in testing until those stories are done. No violation.
- US-14 AC 7 references US-7 (manifest start URL points to `/`, which serves the local event overview). US-7 is not declared as a dependency of US-14. Defensible: the start URL can be set to `/` regardless of whether US-7 is implemented. No violation.
- US-17's notes state it "requires the frontend scaffold from T-4 (which includes T-1) to be practically implementable" but correctly omits T-4 from the declared dependencies (since US-17 has no structural gating on T-4 — it is a styling/CSS concern and the declared deps list only hard structural prerequisites). Consistent with how US-7's notes treat T-4 similarly.
**Phase 5 timing note (no violation):** The spec notes that US-17 "can be started early once the frontend scaffold exists — consider implementing alongside Phase 2 or 3." This is sound advice given that US-15 (Phase 4) must consider the interaction between event color themes and dark/light mode. However, the placement of US-17 in Phase 5 is not a scheduling error — it is a logical grouping. The practical recommendation to implement it earlier is correctly surfaced as a note, not enforced via a dependency constraint. No violation.
**Verdict:** Phase 5 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
---
## Iteration 2 — 2026-03-03
**Task:** Verify Phase 1 (Core Event Flow — Vertical Slice)
**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1
**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 1 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phase 0 is treated as already verified.
### Findings
**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS
| Story | Declared Dependencies | Scheduled at | All deps in earlier slots? |
|-------|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|
| US-1 | T-4 | Phase 1 Order 1 | ✓ T-4 is Phase 0 Order 3 |
| US-2 | US-1, T-4 | Phase 1 Order 2 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1 Order 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-3 | US-2, T-4 | Phase 1 Order 3 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1 Order 2; T-4 is Phase 0 |
**Completeness:** PASS — US-1, US-2, US-3 are the only stories with all dependencies in Phase 0 or earlier. No eligible story is missing from Phase 1.
**Parallelizability:** PASS — The chain US-1 → US-2 → US-3 is strictly sequential; US-2 depends on US-1 and US-3 depends on US-2, so no parallelization is possible. The phase note "These three stories are strictly sequential" is accurate.
**Verdict:** Phase 1 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
# Questions
## Open
(No open questions.)
## Resolved
(No resolved questions.)

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
=== Run started: 2026-03-03T12:41:18 | model=sonnet | max=10 ===
[12:42:21] Iteration 1 done
[12:43:23] Iteration 2 done
[12:45:10] Iteration 3 done
[12:46:24] Iteration 4 done
[12:47:44] Iteration 5 done
[12:49:13] COMPLETE after 6 iteration(s)