Skip to content

[feature] status/inspect: report waiting_for per node and document R1 acceptance gating #52

Closed

Description

@smota

Split from #50 (item 2a).

Problem

From status and inspect, an operator can't tell why a node is waiting. In the holoself sprint run the operator expected only Tier3 nodes to stop for accept. When a Tier2 node stopped at AwaitingReview, they had to read the source to find out why.

In the current R1 subset (ADR 0016) every node stops for human acceptance, and the tier only decides routing. ADR 0007 requires human acceptance only at Tier 3, so expecting gating by tier is reasonable, and the difference isn't documented anywhere a user would see it.

Proposal

  1. Add a waiting_for field to each node in status --json and inspect --json, with one of:

    • acceptance (state AwaitingReview)
    • dependency (with the blocking node ids)
    • plan_acceptance
    • retry_budget_exhausted
    • null when the node isn't blocked

    The text output shows the same reason.

  2. docs/start.md, plus the meshloop-review-plan and meshloop-accept skills, say plainly: in R1, every node stops for meshloop accept, and the tier only chooses the harness and model.

  3. review-plan output lists which nodes will need accept, which today is all of them.

Changing which nodes stop is proposed separately in #53. This issue only reports the current behaviour accurately.

Acceptance criteria

  • Test: a node in AwaitingReview has waiting_for: "acceptance". A node waiting on another node has waiting_for: "dependency" and lists that node's id.
  • docs/start.md and the two skills state the R1 acceptance rule.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Activity

  1. smota commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @smota
    OwnerAuthor

    Workflow status: implemented in #69 (branch work/supervision-surface, base main @ d058307). Executor: Meshloop with Claude Sonnet workers, orchestrated and reviewed by Claude Code (Opus 5.5). Plans accepted by @smota. xtask check passes on bad9d72. Next owner: an independent reviewer (for-review:), then a human merges.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    drafted-by:claudeIssue, plan, or spec drafted by Claude in the current sessionenhancementNew feature or requestfor-implementation:claudeImplementation routed to Claude

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions