docs: Issue-Body ist das Plan-File - fortlaufend aktuell, Abschluss ist die letzte Aktualisierung (4.1.2, #44)

Files changed:
- CHANGES.md
- VERSION
- instructions/dev/issue-tracking.md
- instructions/dev/stack-dev/SKILL.md

instructions/dev/issue-tracking.md

@@ -28,8 +28,12 @@ issues at that URL, which is exactly why `dist export` excludes
   an assumption nobody has checked, a decision that needs the user.
 - Picking an issue up: before doing anything else, read the body as the current
   spec, and re-label it if the ground has moved since.
+- **While working on one:** the body is updated as the state moves, not at the
+  end (step 2). A session that is interrupted leaves the body as its handover.
 - Prioritising: deciding what to pick up next, or re-labelling after the ground
   moved.
+- Closing one: the body is rewritten to its final state first, and only then
+  closed (step 7).
 
 ## Steps
 
@@ -38,23 +42,47 @@ issues at that URL, which is exactly why `dist export` excludes
    specific files or commands involved. An issue that only makes sense to
    whoever wrote it is a note, and notes were the problem.
 
-2. **Treat the body as the current truth, not as a historical first post.**
-   Work on one issue spans several sessions, often weeks apart, and the body is
-   the only thing that connects them: a session opening the issue must be able
-   to reconstruct what is decided and what is still open from the body alone,
-   without a human re-explaining it. So when the state changes, **rewrite the
-   body** - do not append to a text that has become wrong. An additively grown
-   log forces every later reader to reconstruct the current state by filtering
-   the whole history.
+2. **The body is the working state, not a historical first post - keep it
+   current as you go.** It is this stack's plan file: the same thing a harness's
+   own plan document is, and it is maintained the same way. Not written once,
+   not brought up to date at the end, but **updated whenever something in it
+   stops being true** - a decision made, a criterion met, an approach ruled out,
+   a new constraint found.
+
+   The test is an abort, not a milestone. A session can end at any moment - an
+   interrupt, a context limit, a crash, a human walking away - and whatever the
+   body says at that instant is the entire handover. So the standard is: **at
+   every point, a fresh session must be able to open the body and pick the work
+   up from there**, without a human re-explaining it and without reading back
+   through the comments. If the body would mislead someone who read it right
+   now, it is already out of date, whether or not the work is finished.
+
+   That means updating *during* the work, not only at its end:
+
+   - a decision gets made → the decision and its reasoning replace the question
+   - an acceptance criterion is done → tick it, in the same session that did it
+   - something turns out differently than the issue assumed → the assumption is
+     corrected where it stands, not contradicted three paragraphs later
+   - work is deferred or dropped → say so, with the reason, where the criterion is
+
+   **Rewrite, never append.** Do not add to a text that has become wrong: an
+   additively grown log forces every later reader to reconstruct the current
+   state by filtering the whole history, which is the exact cost the body exists
+   to remove. Comments carry the history (step 3); the body carries the state.
 
    Body rewrites and comments are an LLM session's job. A human normally
    touches only labels and metadata directly.
 
-3. **Comment a changelog, never a copy.** Every body rewrite gets one short
-   comment naming only what changed against the previous state - what is new,
-   what is gone, what was corrected. Do not snapshot the old body into a
-   comment: a full copy per revision forces a human to diff two prose texts,
-   which is not a readable history, only another copy.
+3. **Comment a changelog, never a copy.** A body rewrite gets one short comment
+   naming only what changed against the previous state - what is new, what is
+   gone, what was corrected. Do not snapshot the old body into a comment: a full
+   copy per revision forces a human to diff two prose texts, which is not a
+   readable history, only another copy.
+
+   One comment per *session's worth* of change, not per edit. Step 2 asks the
+   body to be kept current continuously, and a comment for every tick would bury
+   the board in noise; the changelog line summarises what that session moved.
+   Trivial upkeep - a typo, a tightened sentence - needs no comment at all.
 
    ```
    **Changelog:** Decision 2 tightened - `kind/` may now change over an
@@ -127,10 +155,46 @@ issues at that URL, which is exactly why `dist export` excludes
    answered can drop a size and move `kind/decision` to `kind/build`. Silent
    re-labelling is how a board stops meaning anything.
 
-7. **Close with what actually happened**, not with a commit hash alone: which
-   proposals were implemented, which were deliberately left out and why, and
-   what was verified. The issue is the only place that record survives - a
-   changelog entry says what changed, not what was decided against.
+7. **Closing is the last body update, not a comment.** If step 2 was followed
+   the body is already nearly there, and closing only settles what the final
+   run established. If it was not, closing is where the whole debt comes due -
+   and it comes due at the worst moment, because a closed body is the version
+   everyone reads afterwards and nobody revisits.
+
+   Either way the body reaches its final state *before* the issue closes:
+   proposals that were decided read as decided, a "to decide" section has become
+   the decision with its reasoning, acceptance criteria are ticked or struck with
+   a reason, and what was verified is named. Then close, with the one-line
+   changelog comment step 3 asks for.
+
+   Record what actually happened, not a commit hash alone: which proposals were
+   implemented, which were deliberately left out and why, and what was verified.
+   The issue is the only place that record survives - a changelog entry says
+   what changed, not what was decided against.
+
+   **A closing report in a comment does not satisfy this.** It reads as
+   complete to whoever writes it and leaves a body still phrased as open work:
+   unticked boxes, an undecided decision section, present tense about a defect
+   that no longer exists. #44 closed exactly that way, with a thorough comment
+   above a body that still asked for a decision that had already been made and
+   shipped. Nothing mechanical catches it (see below), which is why it is a step
+   rather than a habit.
+
+## What no tool checks
+
+`wikitool` does not know this tracker exists, and should not learn. It ships to
+instances that have no issues at that URL, while this file and the workflow it
+describes are pruned by `dist export` - a Gitea client inside the shipped tool
+would be a dev-only dependency carried by every instance, to check a board none
+of them have. The tracker is reachable only through the `gitea-mcp` server, in a
+session, by an agent.
+
+So there is no `docs verify` for the board. Nothing reports a closed issue whose
+body still reads as open, a body that contradicts its own comments, or an issue
+missing one of the four mandatory labels. Every one of those is caught by a
+session following this file, or not at all - which is the argument for the
+sequence in step 7 being explicit about the order (body first, then close),
+rather than leaving it to be inferred from step 2.
 
 ## Decision points
 
@@ -144,7 +208,8 @@ issues at that URL, which is exactly why `dist export` excludes
 - **Rewrite the body, or add a comment?** Rewrite whenever a reader of the body
   alone would otherwise be misled - a changed decision, a dropped criterion, a
   new constraint. A comment carries the changelog line for that rewrite, and
-  nothing else that a future session needs in order to act.
+  nothing else that a future session needs in order to act. Closing an issue is
+  always a rewrite - see step 7.
 - **An old issue carries only `prio/` and `size/`?** Complete it to all four
   when you touch it, rather than in a sweep. The board reaches the new scheme
   issue by issue, as each is picked up.