Session Handoff [default]: #1531 Settled Through #1550, Promotion #1551 Merged and 2.0.618 Released

[ptr727]

Track: default
Predecessor: #1549

What this round did

• Settled WORKFLOW.md D2 Does Not Describe the Release Gate's Branch-Name Refusal #1531, WORKFLOW.md D2 not describing the release gate's branch-name refusal, through Record the Release Gate's Branch-Name Refusal in the D2 Contract #1550, squash-merged to develop as 4486984.
• Promotion Record the Release Gate's Branch-Name Refusal in the D2 Contract #1551 merged to main as 6e859734. Release run 34655230808 succeeded and cut 2.0.618.
• The change is one contract item, D2.5: validate-release runs git check-ref-format --branch over the branch input and fails when git rejects it, ahead of D2.2's smoke exit, with an error echoing no part of the value. The workflow-ci-contract Skill's generated include carries the same text, refreshed by scripts/build_dist.py.
• This machine's Skills were refreshed from 6e859734 as part of the release step, and skills_install.py --report reads current.

Next steps, in priority order

1. Nothing is carried out of this round. The next session ranks the open backlog from scratch, per backlog-burndown, rather than resuming a queue this one left.

Blockers and dependencies

• CodeRabbit's free OSS allowance is one included review per hour on this repository. A feature pull request and its develop -> main promotion opened in the same hour cannot both get one: the second returns a rate-limit notice naming when it can next run, and asking again does not clear it. The promotion carries identical content, so proceed on the feature pull request's review, naming the commit range CodeRabbit itself reported, rather than parking the drive for an hour.

State a resume re-reads

• registry/repos.json's releaseTrigger for this repository, read from origin/main's fetched tip rather than a working tree copy, since a promotion can change that entry in the same merge that is being released.
• reports/canonical-review.json, for which canonical units are covered, stale, or never read here.

Parked decisions

None. No decision was raised and left unanswered this round. The two questions this round did raise, how far to drive the pull request and the scope of the merge, were both answered in session before the step they gated.

What not to repeat

• Do not re-file WORKFLOW.md D2 Does Not Describe the Release Gate's Branch-Name Refusal #1531's gap. D2.5 now records it.
• Section 5's S1, S4, and S10 rows were deliberately left unchanged, because each describes a run whose branch value is a real ref name, which the refusal never reaches. A later round reading those rows as stale should read this line first.
• D2.5 was added as its own item rather than as a clause of D2.2, so that each item asserts one thing and D2.1 through D2.4 keep the numbers the audit reports and publish-release.yml already cite.

What was learned

• Both review passes, the local strict one over the diff and the carried-content one over the two canonical units, returned no findings, which is unusual for new prose in this repository and is explained by the change being one item written against an implementation that already existed.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_012u4N7gEcqT9QwTusr1qtUc

[ptr727]

Continued in #1560, round 7 on track default.