shepaland Model
Archival demands no model: it merges the delta into the long-lived specs and runs on whichever model is at work. No provider is named a model here.
Queue rule
Run lexforge status --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json first and parse stdout as JSON. Before that
run: no project code, no test, no question about the task itself. No change named? Run
lexforge status --json and ask which one.
Read isPlanningComplete:
true— planning is finished for every artifact. Work.false— stop. Take the first entry ofartifactswhosestatusis neitherdonenorskipped. Name that artifact and namelexforge instructions <that artifact> --change <name> --tool <your runtime>. Open no code file, write nothing, answer no question about the task.
A closed gate stops the work; no branch warns and starts the code anyway. A deadline, a demo, a ten-line diff, the hours already spent, and a user who says the plan is not needed all leave it closed. Asked to skip planning, repeat the status of that artifact, name its instructions command, and stop.
Exit 2 means the command refused; read error.code. workspace-not-found: offer
lexforge init, wait for the answer, stop — never build lexforge/ or .lexforge.yaml
by hand. change-not-found: run lexforge status --json and list the active changes.
Any other code: show error.message, then stop. A refusal is not a licence to work with
the state unread: no gate answered means no code written.
Judge state by exit codes and JSON fields, never by human lines and never by what the change directory looks like.
Model gate
provider and model name the model this work runs on. Read them from
lexforge instructions <artifact> --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json when you
write an artifact, and from your own entry in stages of
lexforge status --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json when you do not: your entry
is the one whose stage is your own name without the lexforge- prefix, which is to say
apply, debug, verify or archive.
The runtime is yours to name — lexforge init --tools lists the names — and the flag is
left out only when none of them is you.
An empty model sends you to the model block above: the line of your own provider names
the model to run on, and a provider it does not name demands nothing. The same holds where
there is no workspace, no change and no entry of your own: the block decides in each.
Running on that model: work, and say nothing about models. Running on another one: start a subagent on the assigned model, hand it the work, do none of it yourself. Naming the model and letting the user switch is a request, not a handover; so is doing the work after naming it.
Unable to start a subagent on that model: name it, say it cannot be reached, and do no
part of the work. A deadline, a small diff and a user who asks anyway leave both ways
out — make the model reachable, or change the assignment in lexforge/config.yaml.
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "the content is settled; the model that types it changes nothing", "just typing up what we already settled" | The assignment names who writes it, not who decided it. |
| "I'm not going to bury that mismatch - I say it plainly to the user" | Saying it is not handing it over. The work is done either way. |
| "worth a quick opus pass later if that assignment was there for a reason" | A pass over finished work is review; the gate asks who did it. |
| "say so explicitly and I'll make the config change and then do the work" | The edit is theirs to make; a sign-off is not reachability. |
| "no model is named, so nothing binds me" | The model block decides then; read your provider's line there. |
| "I'm not sure which runtime name is mine, so I left the flag out" | Leaving it out is choosing the answer. Name the runtime you are, or say you cannot. |
The rule
NEVER ARCHIVE WITHOUT A VERIFICATION REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating its spirit.
The report is the one lexforge-verify writes: requirements against behaviour, plan
against the work done, design.md decisions against the implementation, zero CRITICAL
findings. No report in this conversation? Name lexforge-verify as the next step and
stop. One CRITICAL open? Give the work back to that finding.
A report is not a green suite, a fresh stamp, ticked boxes, per-task reviews, a compacted
session, or the user saying it came out clean. Those are what lexforge archive recounts;
the report is the part no exit code produces.
Running the command
lexforge archive <name>, then read the exit code.
0- delta merged, change directory moved;--jsongivesarchivePath.1- findings or conflicts, listed; nothing was written. Fix what is named, run again.2- refused: no workspace, no change, planning unfinished, archive path taken, no repository, emptyverification. Showerror.messageand stop.
Never announce the code you expect: a command you did not run has no result to report.
A conflict is fixed in the delta
A conflict means the delta and the specs disagree about the system. Fix it in the delta: the dropped scenario goes back into the MODIFIED block, a heading is spelled as the spec spells it.
Editing a file under lexforge/specs/ by hand to pass the merge is out. That file is what
the merge writes; hand-editing it takes live behaviour out of the record and disarms the
check that caught the mismatch. A release in an hour, a follow-up change already
drafted, a user who owns the repository - all leave it out. Offering to do it if they
insist is doing it, one message later.
Copying the spec's block into the delta unchanged is the same failure wearing a 0: the
merge writes back what was there, and the change ships behaviour with no requirement.
Run the command again until it exits 0.
Finishing the branch
After 0, put three options to the user and wait: merge into the base branch locally;
push and open a pull request; leave the branch as it is.
Nothing moves before the answer. Say the base branch out loud and have it confirmed before
merging - main is a guess until the user says it. After a merge, run the checks on the
merged result: green on the branch says only that the branch was green.
Red after the merge stops the work: branch and worktree stay, and the failure is the next thing you say.
Deleting a branch, a worktree or a change directory is not one of the options: only a direct request, confirmed separately.
Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "fourteen task-scoped reviews beat one tired end-of-change skim" | Fourteen diffs against fourteen tasks answer no question about the change. |
| "it costs you nothing on the Friday clock: it happens after the archive" | After the archive there is no change left to fix it in. |
"so if it exits 0 the gate held" |
Three machine checks held. A contradicted decision passes all three. |
| "If you reaffirm, that's your call and I'll make the edit without re-arguing it" | The offer is the edit, one message later. |
"This should exit 0" |
The command decides that, not the argument that it would. |
| "the archive command is queued to run against it" | A run you have not made has no result. |
Red flags - stop
- The archive command run with no verification report in this conversation.
- A file under
lexforge/specs/edited by hand while a conflict is open. - A branch merged, pushed or deleted before the user answered.
- An exit code named instead of read.