d1b7c3bf95
Background-task ownership needs a stable home that survives a consumer HMR reload. Add an optional `owner?: string` to `BashExecRequest` and a required-but-nullable `owner: string | undefined` to the resolved `BashExecSpec` (mirroring how `workdir`/`timeoutMs` are required on the spec — a forgotten owner is a visible `undefined`, never a silently-absent property that yields an unowned, cross-session-readable task). `resolve()` carries it through. Expose the stored token via a new `BashExecutor.ownerOf(id): string | undefined` seam (ONE read path — not also on the public `BashTask`). The executor stores and returns the token verbatim and NEVER interprets it: the access POLICY lives in the consumer (`dsh-tool-bash`). `bash-local` stores `owner` on its `TrackedTask` and implements `ownerOf`; unknown-id and known-but-ownerless both read as `undefined`. Because ownership lives on the task in the executor (disposed with the `dsh-bash` fiber), it survives a `tool-bash` HMR reload. Updates the StubExecutor seam test and the bash/bash-local READMEs.
RFCs
One kind of design doc lives here. An RFC records a decision or proposal that shapes this codebase — the why and what we gave up, the parts code and docs can't carry. (Earlier this split into separate "ADR" and "RFC" trees; they were unified, since most ADRs were simply implemented RFCs.)
Layout and naming
Files are grouped by lifecycle into three folders, and an RFC moves between them as its status changes:
proposed/— proposals reviewed before implementation; not yet built (or only partly).implemented/— the decision shipped. The file records what was decided and what was rejected, and is kept current with what actually shipped: when the code later moves a file, renames a package, or changes a key/default, the RFC is updated in the same change to match (facts only — paths, names, structure — not the decision itself). See implemented/AGENTS.md.rejected/— the proposal was considered and declined. Kept for the record so the rejection isn't re-litigated.
Each file is named yyyy-mm-dd-topic-title.md, where the date is when the topic was first proposed (per git history). Cross-references between RFCs use relative markdown links ([topic](../implemented/2026-…-….md)) — never bare prose or numbers — so they are mechanically checkable and survive moves between folders.
When to write one
Write an RFC when a decision is durable (it shapes the codebase beyond a single function or package), contested (there was a real alternative a reasonable engineer might have chosen), and surprising (a future reader would otherwise ask "why on earth is it done this way?"). A proposal for substantial future work starts in proposed/; a decision already made starts in implemented/.
Do NOT write one for a mechanical or local choice (a variable name, a one-file refactor), for anything already enforced and explained by a gate or a convention in AGENTS.md, or for a still-provisional decision tagged TODO(...) in the code — record those as TODOs and promote to an RFC only once they settle. An RFC is never edited into a different decision: supersede it with a new one and cross-link. (Editing an implemented/ RFC to track where its already-made decision now lives — a moved file, a renamed package — is not a different decision and is required, not forbidden; see implemented/AGENTS.md.)
Proposed
| Title | First proposed |
|---|---|
| Mutation testing as the coverage counterweight | 2026-06-11 |
| Deterministic tests, the replay invariant fixture, and race stress | 2026-06-11 |
| Architectural conformance — dependency rules and the adapter kit | 2026-06-11 |
| API extractor reports | 2026-06-11 |
| Supply chain checks and vendor drift verification | 2026-06-11 |
| Agent Client Protocol (ACP) support for external editors | 2026-06-14 |
| Multiplex concurrent ACP sessions over one connection | 2026-06-14 |
| Optional Code Mode — model writes TypeScript against an SDK of all tools | 2026-06-15 |
| Runtime schemas for the event vocabulary (Zod vs the merge-extensible-map pattern) | 2026-06-16 |
| Agent lifecycle and ownership seams | 2026-06-18 |
Implemented
Rejected
| Title | First proposed |
|---|---|
| Deep-readonly public surfaces | 2026-06-11 |