Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

fw termlink dispatch: CLAUDE.md's check-in rule terminates headless workers at their first commit (exit 0, mandate unfinished)

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#44 1 comentario 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
4/5
Tiempo estimado
3-5 días
Aptitud para principiantes
43/100
Tipo de issue
Nueva funcionalidad
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
cli, shell
Área
cli, developer-experience

Línea de trabajo

Start by locating the fw termlink dispatch implementation and the shipped CLAUDE.md template; the issue does not name their file paths or tests. Read how dispatch prompts are composed and how run completion is recorded, then check the existing dispatch tests. Done means headless workers receive the narrowly scoped stop-condition guidance, the template distinguishes interactive sessions, and missing expected artifacts can be reported as incomplete without bypassing gates.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

Summary

fw termlink dispatch spawns a headless claude -p worker into a project whose CLAUDE.md
tells it, in §Agent Behavioral Rules:

Commit Cadence and Check-In
After every commit, briefly report what was done and ask if the user wants to continue.
Do not chain multiple commits without user interaction.

There is no user attached to a dispatched worker. A claude -p process has exactly one way
to "ask and wait": end its turn. Ending its turn ends the process. So a well-behaved worker
that makes a commit terminates itself at its first commit, with exit_code 0 and a
partially-finished mandate.

The worker is not misbehaving. It is following the governance it was given, and the
governance is what kills it.

What we measured

Dispatch r3-audit, one of nine in a three-round orchestrated sequence (task T-1102):

fw termlink dispatch --task T-1102 --name r3-audit \
  --prompt-file <composed> --project /opt/1409-sprind --timeout 7200 \
  --permission-mode acceptEdits --allowed-tools "Read Write Edit Bash Glob Grep TodoWrite"

meta.json: "status": "done", "exit_code": 0, 14:41:56Z → 14:59:25Z.

Exit 0, 17½ minutes, and the mandate was a 3-cycle audit run with a required handback
deliverable. It completed cycle 1 of 3 and wrote no handback. Its final message:

Committed. Per the commit cadence protocol, let me check in before continuing.
[…] Given the scale of the remaining mandate […] do you want me to continue autonomously
through the full 3-cycle run, or pause here so you can review/redirect?

It cited the rule by name. Cycle 1 itself was good work — four new WARNs triaged, three
closed with evidence, one correctly parked as a Sovereign question, one filed upstream. Then
it stopped, because it was told to.

Why this is easy to miss: exit_code 0 and status: done. Nothing in meta.json
distinguishes "finished the mandate" from "asked a question into the void and exited". An
orchestrator that checks exit codes — the obvious thing to check — records a successful run.
We only caught it because the deliverable file was absent.

Two earlier dispatches in the same sequence hit a related failure: both REVIEW workers exited
without the standalone handback their dispatch required, and their stop conditions had to be
reconstructed from report bodies and meta.json afterwards.

Why this belongs in the framework, not in every prompt

fw termlink dispatch knows the worker is headless — it constructs the claude -p
invocation. The project's CLAUDE.md does not, and cannot: it is one file serving both
interactive sessions and dispatched workers, and the rule is correct for the first.

So the knowledge exists at exactly the point where it can be acted on, and is not acted on.
Every dispatch made by any project carries this latent.

Asks, in order of leverage

  1. fw termlink dispatch should inject a headless-context preamble that narrowly
    suspends the check-in rule and names the stop conditions that replace it (mandate
    complete / budget / blocking gate / Sovereign decision). Narrow: it must not read as
    permission to skip gates, tick Human ACs, --force, or decide Sovereign questions. We
    did this by hand in the re-dispatch and the worker resumed correctly.

  2. Make the rule conditional in the shipped CLAUDE.md template, e.g. "…ask if the user
    wants to continue. This applies to interactive sessions only; a dispatched or headless
    worker continues to its stop condition and records what it would have asked as a Sovereign
    question in its handback.    "     Fixes the source rather than patching each dispatch.

  3. Distinguish "mandate complete" from "exited early" in meta.json. exit_code 0 +
    status: done currently covers both. A --expect-artifact <path> flag that marks the run
    incomplete when the deliverable is missing would have caught all three instances here
    automatically, instead of relying on an orchestrator noticing an absent file.

Environment

  • Framework 1.6.769, shared-tooling mode, tmux backend
  • 9 dispatches across 3 rounds; 3 affected (1 hard stop at cycle 1/3, 2 missing handbacks)
Lenguaje dominante
Shell
Estrellas
16
Forks
6
Merge medio
6 h 24 min
PR fusionados (30 d)
5

Preparar el entorno

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de DimitriGeelen/agentic-engineering-framework

Todos los issues de DimitriGeelen/agentic-engineering-framework

Issues similares

Más issues de Shell/Bash

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.