[memtomem]

Summary

First delivery of #173: syncmill room repair runs only the member that produced a candidate, from that candidate. The result is a new candidate, verified again, that you compare and select yourself. Other members, their candidates and the source stay as they were.

syncmill room repair CAND --prompt "what to change" --preview
syncmill room repair CAND --prompt "what to change" --confirm TOKEN

Refs #173. This is PR 1 of the design in docs/room-targeted-repair-plan.md. Still to come: feedback requests (PR 2), room diff --against (PR 3), the TUI and --detach (PR 4).

How it holds together

• The preview starts nothing. The token is the digest of a plan: room revision, candidate and digests, member, provider settings, session, --cold, task, lessons and gate. --confirm rebuilds the plan and runs only on an equal token.
• Changes after confirmation refuse. start_round(repair_guard=) re-derives the revision, the parent rules and the stored session in the transaction that inserts the round, so nothing starts.
• Anything that could only fail after the lease is refused at the preview. That includes a prompt that overflows only once rendered, and lessons that do not fit. A refusal cannot freeze the room.
• Records. Repair rounds write provenance v3 and all-member rounds keep writing v2. round_expected_members narrows conversation records and _missing_members to the target of a believed repair, so a damaged record keeps today's warnings.
• Sessions. --cold clears the target's session alone. A provider that cannot resume produces a failed candidate, and the parent stays repairable.

Departures from the approved design

The design was approved before #273 merged, and #273 moved its premise. All three are recorded in the design doc.

1. The checkout is rebuilt only when it differs from the parent's patch, not always. Measured after fix(gates): keep what a gate writes out of the candidate (#268) #273: a gate writing only an ignored file leaves the tree equal to the candidate with ignored files kept, and a gate writing a visible file is already rebuilt at round end. An unconditional rebuild would only delete ignored files such as .venv. A failed attempt's leftovers still trigger a rebuild. The always-rebuild option is a one-line change if you prefer it.
2. No core.hooksPath flags. fix(gates): keep what a gate writes out of the candidate (#268) #273 dropped them on purpose, and capture_changes runs repository-local hooks from the control repository #269 owns hooks.
3. The shared helper already existed (rebuild_worktree).

Measured with real providers

Claude Code 2.1.319, Codex CLI 0.167.0 and Kimi Code 2.5.2, in one-member rooms with a gate, on macOS, 8 provider launches. Round 1's prompt holds a random codeword, and a file is left in the checkout to force a rebuild.

Provider	Session	workspace.rebuilt	Left-behind file at launch / in patch	Codeword	Time
Claude	resume	1	no / no	returned	12.1 s
Codex	resume	1	no / no	returned	21.4 s
Kimi Code	resume	1	no / no	returned	24.4 s

• Claude with a matching checkout: no rebuild, and an ignored file stayed.
• Codex with an unknown session id: a failed candidate in 2.5 s with no fallback to a new conversation. The room stayed awaiting_decision, and --cold --preview worked.

These ran before the TUI commit, which does not touch the repair path, and before the merge with main. Linux was not run.

Test plan

• Full suite with suite-run on the merge with main: CLEAN (exit 0)
• 11 behaviours removed one at a time; each made tests/test_room_repair.py fail. The TUI fix was checked the same way against its own test
• End-to-end through the real CLI with fake provider binaries: create, round, preview, confirm, compare, select, apply --verify, judge
• Real-provider smoke, above

Review

Codex, with each finding checked against the source:

• Plan, 2 rounds: 5 Major. Three changed the plan: the unguarded no-lessons size check, --cold missing from the token, and a smoke that would not have forced a rebuild. Two were already avoided by the code and are now pinned by tests.
• Implementation, 3 rounds: SHIP with 0 findings on the diff; then 1 Major from a round aimed at the unchanged code; then SHIP on the fix. That finding was the TUI round dialog prefilling a repair's prompt as every member's default, fixed in the second commit.

All of these reviewed the branch before its merge with main. That merge brought tests and fixtures, and one conflict in docs/architecture/persisted-contracts.md.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code