← Method

gap

Change review for rules

I edit the source of truth directly. With many consumers, a rule change needs review.

What's missing

Rule and token changes land the moment I make them. When one person authors and everyone consumes, a bad edit propagates to every session instantly with no second reader.

Why

The whole point of a small owned source of truth is that people can build against it without checking — which means changes to it are the one place that does need a check.

How I'd build it

Put the rules in a reviewed repo: changes go in as proposals, a surface owner approves, a changelog records what changed and why, and breaking changes get a deprecation window before old values stop resolving.

Connected

This thread is scoped to Change review for rules. Opening another node starts a new one.

Ask this node