The problem
apps/claude-code/unic-archon-dlc/commands/specs.md is 441 lines. The design-contract section under Step 7 is 122 of them — 28% of a command named for producing a PRD, spent on how to read a design system and what a contract holds. It arrived as the third amendment to the branch-on-input ADR (the design branch, #416) and now outweighs several of the steps around it.
Why it is worth a ticket
Two of /specs' three halts are one sentence each. In run 2 of the chain on DXP-DesignSystem (WI 43004) both were walked past while the run's own report is almost entirely contract facts — the agent spent itself where the prose is. That is filed as #441, whose "did not decide" list records the length-as-cause link as inference, not measurement: nobody has shown that shortening the file makes a halt hold.
So this is not a style complaint and it is not #441's fix. It is the one structural relief available for a file whose length is the suspected reason its own rules were skipped, and #441's criteria land in that file either way.
The shape, not yet decided
A second command sharing the gate is the obvious candidate — the contracts already ride the PRD's pull request, so the gate is where they meet. What is undecided is whether a Consumer wants two invocations, and whether a feature that names no component should pay for a command it never runs.
Grill this before writing criteria. The instinct to "just move the block" is what produced the amendment that put it here.
Related
- #441 — the halts that did not halt; this ticket is the relief for the length its "did not decide" list names
- Sibling spin-off: rewrite the branch-on-input ADR as its own current state
The problem
apps/claude-code/unic-archon-dlc/commands/specs.mdis 441 lines. The design-contract section under Step 7 is 122 of them — 28% of a command named for producing a PRD, spent on how to read a design system and what a contract holds. It arrived as the third amendment to the branch-on-input ADR (the design branch, #416) and now outweighs several of the steps around it.Why it is worth a ticket
Two of
/specs' three halts are one sentence each. In run 2 of the chain onDXP-DesignSystem(WI 43004) both were walked past while the run's own report is almost entirely contract facts — the agent spent itself where the prose is. That is filed as #441, whose "did not decide" list records the length-as-cause link as inference, not measurement: nobody has shown that shortening the file makes a halt hold.So this is not a style complaint and it is not #441's fix. It is the one structural relief available for a file whose length is the suspected reason its own rules were skipped, and #441's criteria land in that file either way.
The shape, not yet decided
A second command sharing the gate is the obvious candidate — the contracts already ride the PRD's pull request, so the gate is where they meet. What is undecided is whether a Consumer wants two invocations, and whether a feature that names no component should pay for a command it never runs.
Grill this before writing criteria. The instinct to "just move the block" is what produced the amendment that put it here.
Related