📝 [docs] board: bound expensive design comparisons

[EricTechPro]

Note

✅ Ready to merge · ✅ 4/4 AC · head f9d1b281fa389a6fe582d15179ffa07e21d955d6

Problem

The board can start a costly technical change without recording who should own the new work or which interface callers should use. Unnecessary design comparisons can also slow simple fixes or reopen an approved design.

Solution

• Compare two caller/module sketches only for an unsettled ownership boundary, public interface or architecture expensive to reverse.
• Follow current flow, constraints and applicable specs/ADRs before proposing a choice. Keep simple bugs and mechanical refactors on their existing path.
• Retain the short rationale in existing issue Context or a linked spec/ADR. Workers use the existing rung-3 commit trailer.
• Keep product, auth and public-contract human gates. Keep eight skills and three lanes.

Acceptance criteria

• Conditional lint rule and worker rung-3 pointer share one bounded design protocol. ↳ Five reference files reviewed; all 11 relative links resolve in source and a fresh installed copy.
• Existing ticket sections and decision trailers remain compatible. ↳ python3 tests/test_writing_format.py: 14/14; bash tests/test-install.sh: 17 scenarios.
• Four protocol examples retain the fast path, supplied ADR, bounded technical choice and public-contract human gate. ↳ Worked review traces saved outside the package. These are protocol examples, not model-quality or product-runtime proof.
• Full safety suite, all 13 CI jobs and fresh independent review pass on final head. ↳ bash tests/run-safety.sh: 57/57; CI run 38519287691: 13/13; fresh independent review on f9d1b281fa389a6fe582d15179ffa07e21d955d6: no findings.

Iteration history

Lane	Done	Time	Details
🔨 builder	⏳	Oct 13, 22:55 PDT	f9d1b28 · 57 safety suites green; CI/review pending

Risk

🟢 Low · guidance only. Selecting a good design remains agent judgment; offline format checks do not prove it.

[qodo-code-review]

Qodo reviews are paused for this user.

Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more →

On a Teams plan?
Reviews resume once this user has a paid seat and their Git account is linked in Qodo.
Link Git account →

Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center?
These require an Enterprise plan - Contact us
Contact us →