A host reboot on 2026-08-30 left the instance down: deploys only ever
started it. enable is best-effort until the host's polkit rule grants
manage-unit-files to deploy-runner.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Desk/receipt titles become questions (What's been proposed? / What
happens to your proposal? / What came in? / Which proposal is this?),
Where to send it and Record a prospect explain why before the field,
lucide icons on input-bearing features, README's alternatives rule
reworded (draw people in with a real path, not necessarily a slogan)
and its stale /develop-proposal + followup references fixed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
develop/ holds the whole proposal flow (index = owners desk,
proposal = public form, proposed = chain-gated receipt) with relative
actions; review/ gains _section.yaml (one owners gate for the
directory) and a [record].yaml dynamic page - /review/<chain-hash>
shows a single proposal. Top-level files drop their now-derived id:
and fossil route: fields. URLs /develop-proposal and /proposed become
/develop/proposal and /develop/proposed (no automation references
them - n8n filters checked).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A private starred repo used to link visitors straight to a 404. The
link now uses the repo's Website setting when set, falls back to the
repo url only for public repos, and renders private repos without a
website as unlinked cards. Also: Gitea serializes the star count as
stars_count, not GitHub's stargazers_count - the stars chip had been
silently null and dropped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
proposed_yaml binds to the file select: the selected file's content
fetches through Gitea's contents API (base64-decoded by the jq
filter) and lands in the editor. On-site contributions no longer
start from a blank box.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A linked card straight from Gitea's repo info - proposers can read
what exists before proposing against it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
target_path becomes a select whose options are the live listing of
questions/ from Gitea's contents API (the engine's existing
select-from-resource mechanism - no code change), with a free path
field kept for proposals that create a new file. No more hand-typed,
typo-able paths for existing pages.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The automation fences commits to questions/*.yaml and aggregates.yaml;
the page and README now say so, instead of promising "any file" and
silently failing after approval.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
It was a worked example of the empathic pattern, not a feature: every
alternative should be empathic, informative, and helpful - information
that gives an answer, not necessarily a path to choose. The pattern
stays (voice rules, README); the investor pages, aggregate, review
alternative, and front-page gateway go. The investors KV bucket and
its test records linger in NATS unreferenced - purge at leisure.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The title is the only question; alternatives are bold statements
argued against each other; explain why input is needed, then hand
over the field; never assume the visitor's role - give the concern
its own page and let the question nav surface it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- The page title is the only question anywhere; alternative and
feature names are now statements in our voice. Where we need input
we say why (the reply is personal, software lands somewhere, a
proposal is a stance), then hand over the field.
- The opening question's alternatives become the statements we'd like
visitors to get behind: "Good software begins with a clear
argument", "Attention is earned", "Capital needs reasons", "Work
happens through dialogue, not tickets".
- followup: true on the five post-submission pages keeps them out of
the question nav until the visitor actually carries a chain.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
"I want to invest" on the front page presumed the visitor's intent.
/invest now asks it from their side - "How do we invest in uhhm?" -
and speaks to what a capital manager is actually accountable for:
reasons. The front page keeps only a light gateway; the question nav
surfaces /invest (like every other qualifying question) from anywhere,
so no concern depends on front-page space.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Replaces the long-stale schema notes (pre-aggregates, pre-resources,
pre-proposal-loop) with what the repo actually is now: declare a state
graph, give it a way in (submission), a way through (review
transitions), let automations react, and change the system through
itself.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
It existed to prove the round-trip (proposed -> approved -> PR ->
lint -> merge -> live) and it did. Its job is done.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
End-to-end verification of the proposal loop - this page is a harmless demo and can be deleted after the round-trip is confirmed.
Proposed-by: Verification Bot
Approved-by: bl@id.uhhm.no
A development-proposal PR previously got no check at all (the workflow
only fired on push to main) - so branch protection's required status
check, the thing that makes the automation's merge_when_checks_succeed
an actual lint gate, had nothing to require. Lint now runs on both
events; the content-reload NATS publish stays push-only.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- applicants grows past the one decision: invited -> active (onboarded)
-> departed, one continuous graph per person.
- investors: open -> in_dialogue -> committed -> divested, with decline
edges; submission via a new "I want to invest" alternative on /.
- organizations (prospect -> client -> past_client) finally gets pages:
a review listing with its transitions and a record-a-prospect form.
- development_proposals: the question architecture dogfooding its own
development - /develop-proposal takes proposals from anyone (human
today, an LLM later through the same public form), /develop lets an
owner approve or reject, and approval hands off to the automation
that opens the PR (see infrastructure's development-commit workflow).
The repo's own lint CI gates the merge, same as any human commit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
