docs: repo-governance - Define saved reply reuse #249

Current delivery and branch audit — 24 October 2026

This current snapshot supersedes conflicting earlier branch instructions and implementation-status claims below. Earlier dated notes remain historical evidence, not current acceptance. No status, hierarchy, native PR association or repository change is proposed by this description patch.

• Outcome: Define book-relevant saved replies and personal setup/maintenance.
• Recorded status: In Progress. Accepted whole-child completion is not established.
• Verified implementation position: CONTRIBUTING.md already documents personal saved-reply setup and common response themes. No local SAVED_REPLIES directory appears in current .github/. A checked T036 or existing generic copy is not accepted book-editorial selection.
• Outstanding acceptance: Select/tailor replies and assign maintenance responsibility through approval; decide whether local reference files are justified. Do not claim automatic inheritance.

Branch instructions

• Repository: lightspeedwp/ThisOneTimeOnAcidCom
• Implementing issue(s): this existing child; GitHub sync counterpart docs: repo-governance - Define saved reply reuse #249 in the same repository. Linear GitHub-sync mapping retrieved; GitHub issue body/parent not independently re-read in this audit. Do not use a closing/development association until independently verified.
• Parent epic context: native parent verified; coordination only. No implementation branch/file plan belongs to the epic itself.
• Allowed closing target(s): none now. Whole-child acceptance and independent GitHub/Linear mapping/association review are required before proposing a closing target; never the parent.
• Branch state: proposed new branch
• Branch: docs/governance-saved-replies
• Base: develop, verified at 3f583002482d80ffd1910676bcf7c63e13989b20; refresh before separately authorised implementation
• Naming policy: target instructions, contributor guide, validator, local branch guide, organisation strategy. Classification rationale: docs is the candidate code/documentation class; authorised prefix is checked independently of the Linear title. Exact proposed name passed node scripts/validate-branch-name.js --branch docs/governance-saved-replies in this read-only audit. It is not created or approved for creation.
• Pull request template: shared pr_docs.md — explicitly read/use its sections; do not add a repository-local copy
• PR association safeguard: No parent identifier/link in a future branch name, PR title/body, coding prompt, development link or closing directive. Association/status automation settings remain unverified; do not assume “Related to” text or a hyperlink is harmless. Child references in this description are not proposed PR text.
• Constraints: preserve unrelated work; do not create/switch/rename/delete branches, force-push, merge, deploy, change settings or close records under this draft. Shared locked configuration/templates require human review. Residual protected-file declarations remain relevant despite absent guard workflow; do not equate absent automated enforcement with permission. Workflow ownership conflicts require controller/owner resolution, not local edits to managed dependency workflows.
• Conflicts or missing evidence: Which replies and maintainers are approved; local reference-material decision remains unresolved so no SAVED_REPLIES files proposed.

Expected file changes

Plan status: provisional bounded proposal, not an approved or exhaustive implementation manifest; conditional rows are not permission to act.

• Out of scope: Account settings changes, automatic synchronisation and unapproved local reference library creation.
• Remaining discovery: Which replies and maintainers are approved; local reference-material decision remains unresolved so no SAVED_REPLIES files proposed.
• Scope-change gate: stop for revised exact scope and approval before adding materially different paths or operations. No unbounded “other files as needed”. Protected-file approval never overrides a prohibition on routine agent edits.

Evidence and handoff packet

• Recipient and request: originating issue-management audit; read-only exact existing-record preview for approval, not a new intake or implicit specialist invocation.
• Selected record: this existing child description, separate from the coordination parent; no writes performed.
• Implementing targets and criteria: this child’s existing outcome and acceptance criteria remain in force. Define book-relevant saved replies and personal setup/maintenance. Outstanding gates: Select/tailor replies and assign maintenance responsibility through approval; decide whether local reference files are justified. Do not claim automatic inheritance.
• Sources checked: current Linear description/status/native parent/relations/explicit pullRequests and GitHub sync metadata; target instructions, contributor guide, validator, local branch guide, organisation strategy; the exact source paths/revisions above and current repository inventory. Shared template config checked at 47aee0722033f65d4d9d57429b410b518646b817. Some path evidence is inventory-only and is labelled as such; it is not full content/behaviour validation.
• Branch/PR evidence: Current remote inventory includes historical epic/repo-governance-lightspeedwp/ThisOneTimeOnAcidCom#237 and broad governance/testing branches; scope/base/diff fit was not verified, so none is recommended for reuse. An open application-instrumentation pull request overlaps shared configuration; refresh its head, changed paths and scope before choosing a branch or editing shared files. No reuse is approved. No native linked PR was returned for this child; descriptive/historical references are not native associations.
• Association and closing rationale: Linear GitHub-sync mapping retrieved; GitHub issue body/parent not independently re-read in this audit. Do not use a closing/development association until independently verified. No complete-child acceptance or closing target established. Linear GitHub documentation lookup identified the integration article but did not expose its detailed association content; current workspace linking/status rules remain unverified. No parent identifier/link in a future branch name, PR title/body, coding prompt, development link or closing directive. Association/status automation settings remain unverified; do not assume “Related to” text or a hyperlink is harmless. Child references in this description are not proposed PR text.
• Unresolved points and exclusions: Which replies and maintainers are approved; local reference-material decision remains unresolved so no SAVED_REPLIES files proposed. Account settings changes, automatic synchronisation and unapproved local reference library creation.
• Approval state: draft only. Exact description-preview approval is still required; repository edits/branch actions/PRs/settings/native associations retain separate boundaries. Existing GitHub issue sync is active, so approved description changes may propagate externally; no duplicate GitHub body write is proposed.

Review the shared saved-reply library for useful book, editorial and contributor responses. Decide whether the repository needs local reference material under .github/SAVED_REPLIES/.

Acceptance criteria

• Relevant replies are selected and tailored where necessary
• Documentation distinguishes reference files from personal GitHub saved replies
• Personal setup and maintenance responsibilities are explained
• No automatic inheritance or synchronisation is claimed

Target: book repository. Reference: shared saved replies.

Current implementation and remaining acceptance — 19 October 2026

Reviewed against develop revision 4ecdb26d9655a48bf000a7c89da2f70383edce87. No tests, interface submissions, settings changes or metadata mutations were performed during this review. Merged changes are partial evidence, not automatic completion.

Delivered: #268 supplies saved-reply context. T036 remains unchecked.

Remaining acceptance: select/tailor book-editorial replies; decide whether local reference material is justified; document personal setup, use and maintenance.

Validation gap: reference material must not be described as automatically inherited or synchronised personal replies.