5270dcd61d
core-data-structures 18 篇（core.md 因超长仍在产出、随后补）、 postmortem 3 篇与 RFC 前门 README 配对；流水线 + 二遍校验产出。 生成文件 docs/rfc/INDEX.md（gen-rfc-index 产物）列入排除。中文侧 页内锚点统一指向英文侧锚名，满足配对门禁的链接目标一致规则。
1.5 KiB
Post-mortems
English | 中文
Incident write-ups: a bug reached a place it shouldn't have (a real user, a merged PR, a release), and the interesting part is why our process let it through, not just the one-line fix.
A post-mortem is NOT an RFC (which records a deliberate design decision and its rejected alternatives, or proposes future work). It is a backward-looking record of a failure: what broke, the mechanism, why every safety net missed it, and the concrete guardrails added so the same class of bug fails loudly next time.
Write one when a bug is subtle (the mechanism is non-obvious and a careful engineer would re-derive it the hard way), systemic (the reason it escaped is a gap in tests/tooling/conventions, not a one-off typo), and costly to rediscover (it cost real debugging time, and would cost it again). Link the guardrails (tests, AGENTS.md rules, ADRs) the post-mortem motivated.
Every post-mortem opens with an Executive summary: one short paragraph a busy reader can absorb in thirty seconds — what broke, the root cause in plain terms, why it escaped, and the durable lesson — before the detailed Summary / Timeline / Root cause / Guardrails sections that follow.
| # | Title |
|---|---|
| 0001 | ACP server crashed on connect: export default dropped the plugin's inject |
| 0002 | Filesystem snapshot tools were permanently disabled by a literal !!js object |