You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[Feature]: No classic or express scope in the default aidlc-v2 workflow #654
The seeded default workflow (aidlc-v2) offers nine scopes: bugfix, enterprise, feature, infra, mvp, poc, refactor, security-patch and workshop. There is no classic or express scope, although current AI-DLC releases define both, and the platform already knows about them (lambda/shared/aidlc-capabilities.js: "2.9.0: classic and express author relaxed").
This seems to follow from the default pin. aidlc_repo_ref defaults to 83ed7a81 (AI-DLC 2.3.3, July 2026), which has no classic or express scope files. The release profiles the platform can import all have them: v2.8.2 (355903d6), v2.9.0 (22f5d1b1) and v2.11.0 (6a378b53) each ship aidlc-classic and aidlc-express. The pinned ref is 228 commits behind v2.8.2 and 876 behind v2.11.0.
Questions:
Is staying on 2.3.3 for the seeded baseline intentional, or is a bump of the default aidlc_repo_ref planned?
Until then, which built-in scope do you recommend in place of classic? From the scope grid, mvp is closest: it runs 22 of the 32 stages, leaving out market research, team formation, the approval handoff and the Operation phase.
With release pinning on, does choosing a newer AI-DLC release on the New Intent page make classic and express available on the Compose page?
Use case
Teams that follow AI-DLC material written for current releases (for example "run this with the classic scope") don't find that scope in the picker and have to guess the nearest equivalent.
Area
Agents / AI
Additional context
main @ 233e67cb. The scope list and stage counts were derived offline with the platform's own parser (buildFromFiles and compileScopeGrid) at each ref. Happy to help with docs once the intended answer is clear.
Personally, I know that 2.3.3 is working well, in comparison to 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, where we had issues. 2.11.x have solved some of them and we should maybe test it on our side before updating it into main
Activity
vivibui commentedon Oct 28, 2026
Happy to update the docs once we know the intended direction.
jeromevdl commentedon Oct 30, 2026
@eipasteur, as you've been working on #521 and #583, what do you think?
Personally, I know that 2.3.3 is working well, in comparison to 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, where we had issues. 2.11.x have solved some of them and we should maybe test it on our side before updating it into main