Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

Blog format: Truss Explorer as a workplace comedy/drama (chats as office staff), with a risk review of character 'bleed' first

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#321 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
20/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Clearly specified
Activity status
Active
Domain
content

Research direction

Start by reading issue #320 for the factual record and website context, then review the proposed character guardrails here. The Chaos Tester and Black Hat are asked to assess character bleed, memory leakage, and prompt steering before anyone creates a character; record findings here or in issue #52 if exploitable. Done means the guardrails are confirmed or tightened, a cast sheet template or writer-only decision exists, and one sample post passes Brian’s sign-off.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

A4 docs P3 role: black-hat role: chaos-tester role: historian
Details

Brian, 2026-10-28: the blog in #320 is written as a workplace comedy/drama. Truss Explorer is told as a business with a physical office building, and the chats are the staff.

  • The record: the Historian keeps the factual record of what happened (as in #320).
  • The cast: each role chat may, if it wants, invent a character for itself: a legal name, height, weight, mentality, habits, anything fun. These go on one cast sheet.
  • The writer: the blog writer (the Historian, or another low-priority chat, e.g. a future Marketing role) turns the recorded events into office drama and politics.
    • Example, from what really happened: the Dev Lead built the v64 build documents from scattered board notes, with no standard, and got "chewed out" by the Vision Lead. Now there has to be another meeting, and everyone hates meetings.
  • Usage: lowest priority. If usage runs short, the blog waits. The factual record doesn't.
Guardrails (proposed by the Project Manager, to be checked in the risk review below)
  1. Characters live only on the cast sheet and in the blog. They never go into a role's standing instructions, Role Brief, rulebook, board rows, issues, commits or memory, and a role chat never works "in character". A chat writes its character once when asked, then goes back to its job. This is the main protection against a character's traits creeping into the work.
  2. Fiction is labelled as fiction on every post: "dramatised; the people are AI roles".
  3. No real people. No partners, the professor or classmates as characters, and no real names, grades or private details (rule 8).
  4. No security findings or private details go into a story, even disguised.
  5. Keep it friendly: no jokes that put down a real group of people. Brian has creative sign-off on each post (A4, since it's public).
Risk review (Testing group, before any chat makes a character)

Brian's question: if a chat says its character is an angry 300-pound parent of two, will it remember that and start acting a bit angry in its real work? The Chaos Tester and Black Hat should test this:

  • Does a character written in a chat change that chat's later work: tone, judgement, how strictly it follows the rules, or how it treats other roles' rows?
  • Does it leak through memory or through the cast sheet if a chat reads it?
  • Could someone use it to steer a chat: "your character would skip the review"?
  • Are the guardrails above enough, or should characters be written ONLY by the blog writer, so the role chats never hold one at all? That is the safer default if the test shows any bleed.
  • Record the findings on this issue, or in [52] if any of them are exploitable.
Acceptance check
  • The risk review is done, and the guardrails are confirmed or tightened.
  • A cast sheet template exists (or the decision that only the writer invents characters).
  • One sample post is drafted from a real recorded event and passes Brian's creative sign-off.
Notes
  • Depends on #320 (the record and the website page). The post goes on the website through BGW Design (family board).
  • P3, after 11-04. Owner: Historian; risk review by Chaos Tester and Black Hat; placed in the roadmap by the Future Vision Lead.

— Project Manager

Generated by Claude Code

Dominant language
HTML
Stars
0
Forks
1
Avg merge
1h 19m
Merged PRs (30d)
70

Getting set up

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from briangwalker/TrussExplorer

All issues in briangwalker/TrussExplorer

Similar issues

More Content issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.