spec: CONTEXT-1 — decay defaults as RECOMMENDED guidance, canonical titles, corrected cross-spec citations - #118
Merged
Merged
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe intent-context specification updates session specification references, clarifies non-binding decay guidance, refines the OVOS-INTENT-4 payload citation, revises session-security scope, and renames a related-specification link. ChangesIntent Context Specification Updates
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
JarbasAl
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 16, 2026 07:21
JarbasAl
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2026
…angelog pathway model Fixes three latent citation issues found in audit of PR #118 (all prior hunks KEEP, no rework needed there): - Intro cited the forward() derivation backing the ovos.session.sync mutation pathway as MSG-1 §5.3; MSG-1 §5 actually defines forward under §5.1 (§5.3 is response()). Corrected. - SESSION-1 field-registry citation tightened from bare §2 to §2.2, the actual field-registry subsection, for consistency with this spec's other precise cross-references. - CHANGELOG's "Initial draft" bullet still described a superseded mutation-pathway model (skill bus events; engine auto-population on match; orchestrator sweep on session close). Rewritten to name the actual §5.1-§5.3 model: pipeline-plugin Match.updated_session applied post-match-pre-dispatch, transformer in-place hook writes, and skill/handler entry-level merge via ovos.session.sync.
JarbasAl
force-pushed
the
spec/intent-context
branch
2 times, most recently
from
August 4, 2026 12:50
4a2bf9e to
8676941
Compare
…itles, corrected cross-spec citations Squashed from: - spec: CONTEXT-1 — forward cited as MSG-1 §5.1; registry cite §2.2; changelog pathway model - docs: CONTEXT-1 consistency review — decay defaults as guidance, canonical titles, corrected citations Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
JarbasAl
force-pushed
the
spec/intent-context
branch
from
August 10, 2026 18:17
8676941 to
6e67282
Compare
JarbasAl
marked this pull request as draft
August 10, 2026 18:23
JarbasAl
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 10, 2026 18:31
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Category: editorial —
intent-context.mdWhat
Canonical spec titles, corrected section cross-references, and one softening: default decay values are RECOMMENDED tuning guidance, never a conformance requirement. Also drops a forward reference to a "future session-security specification".
Why (defect citation)
Cross-references pointed at renumbered sections (SESSION-2 §5.3 → §5.1, SESSION-1 §2.1 → §2.2, INTENT-4 §6.1 → §5.2/§6.1) and two spec titles were stale.
Semantic change?
No. Zero semantic change — this is a rubber-stamp PR.
Owner decision needed?
No.
Depends on
Nothing.
No
version:field bump and no CHANGELOG entry: the specs are unreleased and all one version.