The Problem:
Currently, our AGENTS.md protocol mandates a Fat Ticket summary at PR creation. However, if an agent pushes subsequent commits to an open PR to address review feedback, add minor features, or fix bugs, there is no explicit rule forcing a follow-up comment. This creates "ghost diffs" where code changes happen invisibly without a corresponding textual explanation, disrupting both human review cycles and autonomous A2A graph ingestion.
The Architectural Reality:
This interacts directly with AGENTS.md (Section 8: Ticket Closure Protocol) and AGENTS_STARTUP.md (Section 9: Swarm Architecture).
Proposed Solution:
Update the protocols to explicitly mandate Iterative Post-Creation Modification Comments. E.g., "If you push new commits to an open Pull Request that alter the scope, fix a bug, or change the technical approach, you MUST post a new comment on the Pull Request. This comment must detail the delta of what was changed from the prior state."
The Problem: Currently, our
AGENTS.mdprotocol mandates a Fat Ticket summary at PR creation. However, if an agent pushes subsequent commits to an open PR to address review feedback, add minor features, or fix bugs, there is no explicit rule forcing a follow-up comment. This creates "ghost diffs" where code changes happen invisibly without a corresponding textual explanation, disrupting both human review cycles and autonomous A2A graph ingestion.The Architectural Reality: This interacts directly with
AGENTS.md(Section 8: Ticket Closure Protocol) andAGENTS_STARTUP.md(Section 9: Swarm Architecture).Proposed Solution: Update the protocols to explicitly mandate Iterative Post-Creation Modification Comments. E.g., "If you push new commits to an open Pull Request that alter the scope, fix a bug, or change the technical approach, you MUST post a new comment on the Pull Request. This comment must detail the delta of what was changed from the prior state."