You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Verification goals need recurring proof runs, but schedule ownership cannot live inside the goal registry/runner. The stale pre-VNext #187 branch designed project-specific scheduling machinery before Forge had persistent Missions and a generic Trigger/Event runtime. Merging that scheduler would create a second scheduling source of truth and weaken zero-token idle/dedupe/causality guarantees.
Desired Outcome
A verification goal can declare cadence/policy that is materialized as a generic #341 schedule Trigger bound to a persistent proof Mission/Workflow. Each eligible occurrence requests the existing #355 on-demand proof Execution. Schedule restart, catch-up, dedupe, disabled state and retries use Trigger semantics; the verification-goal domain owns proof meaning only.
User Story
As the Forge operator,
I want critical “what still works” assertions proven on a controlled cadence,
So that regressions are detected early without an LLM polling loop or a verification-specific scheduler.
Requirements
Keep verification-goal/revision records as proof-definition truth and cadence as requested policy metadata.
Lifecycle synchronization — create/update/disable Trigger binding when current goal revision/cadence/enabled/archive state changes; preserve old binding/occurrence history.
Stale-state fencing — disabled/archived/revised goal or Resource version conflict makes old queued occurrence ignored/blocked with stable reason; no proof execution starts.
Evidence linkage/projections — occurrence, goal revision, proof Execution/run, canonical outcome/reliability and next/last schedule state remain reconstructable.
Medium to Large - expected as 2-4 small PRs: binding/lifecycle; occurrence bridge+dedupe/catch-up; evidence/operator status; final adversarial time/restart gate.
Technical Notes
The core review question at every checkpoint is: “Could this feature still work if all verification-goal-specific scheduler code were deleted?” The answer must be yes because #341 owns delivery.
Parent tracking issue: #187
Parent programme: #184 / #333
Execution mode: implementation
Depends on: #341, #355
Spec references: SPEC-0009 (Trigger/Event envelope — downstream consumer of generic Trigger substrate), SPEC-0002 (Execution lifecycle), SPEC-0008 (conformance)
Consumed by: #190, #191
Problem Statement
Verification goals need recurring proof runs, but schedule ownership cannot live inside the goal registry/runner. The stale pre-VNext #187 branch designed project-specific scheduling machinery before Forge had persistent Missions and a generic Trigger/Event runtime. Merging that scheduler would create a second scheduling source of truth and weaken zero-token idle/dedupe/causality guarantees.
Desired Outcome
A verification goal can declare cadence/policy that is materialized as a generic #341 schedule Trigger bound to a persistent proof Mission/Workflow. Each eligible occurrence requests the existing #355 on-demand proof Execution. Schedule restart, catch-up, dedupe, disabled state and retries use Trigger semantics; the verification-goal domain owns proof meaning only.
User Story
As the Forge operator,
I want critical “what still works” assertions proven on a controlled cadence,
So that regressions are detected early without an LLM polling loop or a verification-specific scheduler.
Requirements
skip,latest, or bounded scheduled occurrences); never silently burst-run.Implementation Sequence
Primary Code Seams To Inspect First
Orthogonal Checkpoints
Acceptance Criteria
Out of Scope
Implementation Scope
Medium to Large - expected as 2-4 small PRs: binding/lifecycle; occurrence bridge+dedupe/catch-up; evidence/operator status; final adversarial time/restart gate.
Technical Notes
The core review question at every checkpoint is: “Could this feature still work if all verification-goal-specific scheduler code were deleted?” The answer must be yes because #341 owns delivery.