Design for grouping projects by client on the home page and in a new
sidebar Kanban flyout tree, making the dashboard the project landing
page with the board one click away, and a prototype/project kind flag
so unsolicited client-facing prototypes can live alongside committed
projects with the same permissions, just tagged differently.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Two views rather than one chart, because the data forced it: measured on
the live database, 1 of 5 live cards has a target date and none has both
dates. target_date is client-owned and optional; start_date is only set on
Inbox acceptance. A conventional Gantt would render almost empty.
So Now/Next/Later is the default and works with zero dates, and the
timeline earns its place as clients set dates. From Dave's Gantt reference
it takes the quarter header, the Today marker, project grouping with the
client's colour, and the per-row completion percentage — which maps onto
checklist progress, the one honest source for it. The faint full-width
track is load-bearing rather than decorative: it makes a sparse chart read
as unscheduled instead of broken.
Drag-to-reschedule always writes an activity row naming the owner, because
target_date belongs to the client. A developer silently moving a date the
client chose is the failure the activity log exists to prevent.
Completes the plan set for phases 1 through 5.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A guided interview that produces a written brief with sub-tasks, landing
in the Inbox as a draft through Plan 1c's existing accept flow.
Corrects an over-promise made during the Phase 1 discussion: the wizard
was described as grounding date proposals in measured per-card velocity,
and that data does not exist — Plan 2c deferred per-card effort because
session padding does not sum correctly across cards. This phase therefore
produces no time estimate at all, only a size band.
Names the intake as the highest-risk surface in the product: it is the
only place where text written by someone other than the developer enters
a prompt whose output creates records. The security property is that the
worst a hostile brief achieves is a strangely-worded Inbox card.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
One-liners per commit and a progress narrative per card, plus the
swappable provider layer both depend on, ported from the chat/ structure
in MEGAIFRASTRUCTURE.
Model and cost are measured rather than assumed: the full 779-commit
backfill costs about ninety cents on claude-opus-5, so model choice here
is a quality decision and not a cost one. Batch API considered and
rejected — it saves roughly forty cents and adds a job state machine.
Records the rules the non-editable preamble must guarantee, each tied to
a specific way a summary could mislead a paying client.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The neutral (gray) pill read as a status badge rather than an integral
annotation. The brand tone ties the indicator visually to the brand,
making it part of the figure rather than an overlay. The meaning is the
same — 'this number is not measured, it is computed' — and the methodology
panel still explains exactly how.
Builds on the Hermes build log Dave produced by hand from WFDASH-WEBAPP,
adopting its metric set, activity calendar and workdays-not-calendar-days
framing, and correcting three things: the "6 contributors" who were one
person plus AI agents, two undocumented hour methodologies, and monetary
framing that suited an internal audience but not a client-facing page.
Settles the effort methodology with named constants shown on the page,
excludes merge commits (verified: 787 total, 779 non-merge, 8 merges), and
requires HMAC verification on the webhook endpoint.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Covers the data model, the field-level permission model, card ordering,
pages, and acceptance criteria for the board spine. Records the decisions
carried into Phases 2-5 (commit linking, ingestion, effort inference, AI
publishing policy) so later specs do not relitigate them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
