docs/ befuellt - Stack-Hintergrund fuer vier Themen, Pflegeklausel in AGENTS.md ergaenzt (4.3.1, #45)

Files changed:
- AGENTS.md
- CHANGES.md
- VERSION
- docs/ownership-and-templates.md
- docs/pipeline-rationale.md
- docs/version-model.md
- docs/why-gates-are-code.md

AGENTS.md

@@ -275,3 +275,10 @@ and `tools/README.md` are part of the change that introduced a stage, a command
 not follow-up work: nobody comes back for them, and a document that describes a repo which no
 longer exists is worse than none. The mechanical half - command tables, contracts, ignore
 canaries - is checked by `tools/wikitool docs verify`; the prose half is yours.
+
+`docs/` pages are held to a different clock than those three. A README goes stale on every new
+flag; a `docs/` page goes stale only when the reasoning it wrote down stops holding - a gate
+that stops living in code, an ownership line that moves, a boundary redrawn - which is rarer
+and not tied to any one commit. Nothing checks this by construction: a page there carries no
+normative sentence (see [File naming](#file-naming)), so there is no rule for `docs verify` to
+check, only a rationale for a session to notice has gone stale and to update or retire.

CHANGES.md

@@ -20,6 +20,31 @@ their date-only headings.
 
 ---
 
+## 4.3.1 - 2026-09-03 - docs/ befuellt - Stack-Hintergrund fuer vier Themen, Pflegeklausel in AGENTS.md ergaenzt
+
+**Author:** Torben Nehmer
+
+Gitea #45: die von #38 angelegte, bis dahin leere `docs/` bekommt ihre ersten vier Seiten - frisch
+geschrieben, nicht durch Umzug aus `kb/` befuellt, jede ohne normativen Satz und mit Verweis auf
+das bindende Dokument statt einer Wiederholung seiner Regeln:
+
+- `docs/pipeline-rationale.md` - warum `raw -> types/tools -> kb -> reports` vier getrennte Stufen
+  sind und was "never re-derive, always compile" praktisch bedeutet
+- `docs/why-gates-are-code.md` - warum Mass-Update-, Publish-Remote- und Iteration-Budget-Gate in
+  `tools/wikitool` statt in einer Instruktion stehen
+- `docs/ownership-and-templates.md` - der Unterschied zwischen stack-eigenen, verbatim
+  ausgelieferten Dateien und instanz-eigenen `.template`-Dateien
+- `docs/version-model.md` - warum Drop-in-Kompatibilitaet und Migrationsbedarf zwei unabhaengige
+  Fragen sind, illustriert an der 2.0.0-Fallstudie
+
+**AGENTS.md § Changelog:** neue Klausel zur Pflege von `docs/`, ergaenzt neben der bestehenden
+Regel zu `README.md`/`EVALS.md`/`tools/README.md`. Eine `docs/`-Seite veraltet nicht wie ein
+README bei jedem neuen Flag, sondern nur, wenn die aufgeschriebene Begruendung selbst nicht mehr
+traegt - per Konstruktion ungeprueft, da die Seite keinen normativen Satz enthaelt, den
+`docs verify` pruefen koennte.
+
+---
+
 ## 4.3.0 - 2026-09-03 - docs/ als ausgelieferter Hintergrund-Ort; Decision-Seiten bleiben in kb/, Decay-Skip fuer concept_type: decision
 
 **Author:** Torben Nehmer

VERSION

@@ -1 +1 @@
-4.3.0
+4.3.1

docs/ownership-and-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# Ownership and Templates
+
+Chemenu ships two kinds of files side by side, and at a glance they look the same: both are
+plain markdown, both sit in the repo root or under `kb/`, both get read at session start. But a
+stack upgrade treats them completely differently. Some - [AGENTS.md](../AGENTS.md),
+[kb/CONTRACT.md](../kb/CONTRACT.md), the per-stage contracts - are identical in every instance
+that runs this stack and can simply be overwritten by the next release. Others - `USER.md`,
+`SOUL.md`, `kb/CONVENTIONS.md`, `ENVIRONMENT.md` - describe one particular instance, and
+overwriting them would silently erase a choice someone made on purpose.
+
+## Two different kinds of truth
+
+The stack-owned files describe how the tool works. `kb/CONTRACT.md` opens by saying it holds
+what `tools/wikitool` enforces or what follows mechanically from how it operates - see
+[kb/CONTRACT.md](../kb/CONTRACT.md), lines 10-13. That kind of statement doesn't vary by
+instance: the compiler behaves the same way regardless of who is running it, so the sentence
+describing that behavior can be copied byte-for-byte into every checkout without becoming
+wrong anywhere.
+
+The instance-owned files describe a choice: which language pages are written in, what tone the
+agent takes, who the operator is, which git remote is authoritative, which MCP servers are
+reachable. None of that follows from the tool's mechanics - two instances of the identical
+stack can answer all of these differently and both be correct. [AGENTS.md § Personalization](../AGENTS.md#personalization)
+frames the split the same way for `kb/CONTRACT.md` versus `kb/CONVENTIONS.md`: "the split is by
+who may change the sentence, not by what it is about." A rule about page structure could in
+principle have been written per-instance too, but then every instance answering "not German" to
+setup would be hand-editing a file the stack also ships, and the next `dist export` merge would
+hand the instance's own file back to it, discarding the customization.
+
+## Why silent overwrite is the failure being designed against
+
+A stack update is meant to be a routine, low-risk operation: pull the latest release, get
+whatever fixes and features shipped since the last one. That only stays low-risk if the update
+knows which files it's allowed to touch. If `USER.md` or `kb/CONVENTIONS.md` were treated the
+same as `AGENTS.md` - shipped and periodically re-copied - an upgrade would quietly replace a
+description of *this* operator, in *this* language, with whatever placeholder or default the
+stack maintainers wrote. The damage wouldn't be loud: nothing crashes, the files still parse,
+the agent just starts acting on the wrong premises until someone notices the voice or the
+language changed.
+
+Keeping the boundary at the file level, rather than trying to merge changes within a shared
+file, means an upgrade never has to guess which lines are "stack" and which are "instance" -
+the file itself already answers that.
+
+## Why a `.template`, not just an absent file
+
+The mechanism for instance-owned content is a `.template` file the distribution ships instead
+of the real one - `USER.md.template`, `SOUL.md.template`, `kb/CONVENTIONS.md.template`,
+`ENVIRONMENT.md.template`. An alternative would have been to ship nothing at all and let a
+brand-new instance start from a blank page. The template exists because a blank page doesn't
+tell [instructions/setup-instance.md](../instructions/setup-instance.md) what shape the answer
+should take, and it gives nothing for a validator to check afterward.
+
+A template carries a placeholder value - a sentinel - in the fields that need a real answer.
+Setup interviews the operator and replaces the sentinel with what they actually said. That
+gives `doctor` a mechanical way to tell "personalized" from "not yet": a file that still
+contains the sentinel hasn't been through setup, regardless of whether the file exists. That's
+also why `ENVIRONMENT.md` only warrants a WARN rather than a FAIL when absent - see
+[AGENTS.md § Environment](../AGENTS.md#environment) - while a missing or unfilled
+`USER.md`/`SOUL.md`/`kb/CONVENTIONS.md` is a harder failure: `ENVIRONMENT.md` describes one
+checkout among possibly several and is gitignored for that reason, so its absence is a normal
+state rather than a sign setup was skipped.
+
+## The consequence in practice
+
+Running a stack upgrade against an existing instance boils down to: overwrite the verbatim
+files, leave the `.template`-sourced files alone. The verbatim files are safe to replace
+wholesale because they were never instance-specific to begin with - identical content going
+back in changes nothing an instance actually decided. The template-sourced files were filled in
+once, by a person, for a reason, and nothing about a newer release of the stack's mechanics
+gives it standing to override that.

docs/pipeline-rationale.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Why the pipeline has four stages
+
+Chemenu could, in principle, be one directory: drop a file in, ask a question, get an answer
+computed fresh each time. It isn't built that way. The pipeline in
+[AGENTS.md](../AGENTS.md#routing) - `raw/` -> `[types/ + tools/]` -> `kb/` -> `reports/`, with
+`work/` alongside rather than inside it - separates *material* from *meaning* from
+*byproduct*, and each seam exists because collapsing it costs something specific.
+
+## Why raw material stays untouched
+
+[raw/CONTRACT.md](../raw/CONTRACT.md) keeps a source exactly as it arrived. The reasoning is
+simple once stated: the moment someone "cleans up" or reformats a source on the way in, the
+thing later claims get checked against is no longer the thing that was actually said. An
+immutable `raw/` means a citation always resolves to the original, not to somebody's tidied
+memory of it. It also draws a trust boundary in one place instead of scattering it - everything
+past `raw/` can be treated as reviewed, because nothing upstream of it silently already was.
+
+## Why extraction happens once, through a schema
+
+[types/type-spec.md](../types/type-spec.md) is what stands between a raw file and a `kb/` page:
+a type-spec defines what a conforming instance of a page looks like, and the compiler
+(`tools/wikitool`) applies it. The alternative - every query re-reading and re-interpreting the
+source on demand - would mean paying the cost of understanding the material every single time,
+and getting a slightly different answer each time depending on how the question was phrased.
+Extracting once, against a fixed schema, turns "re-read and re-guess" into "look up what was
+already compiled." That is the "never re-derive, always compile" principle from
+[AGENTS.md](../AGENTS.md): understanding a source is expensive and worth doing exactly once,
+after which it becomes a cheap, stable lookup.
+
+## Why a `kb/` page has to stand on its own
+
+[kb/CONTRACT.md](../kb/CONTRACT.md) sets the bar for the compiled layer: a page should answer a
+future question without sending the reader back to the source it came from. That's the payoff
+of compiling in the first place - if every answer still bottomed out in "go re-read the raw
+file," the `kb/` layer would just be a pointer with extra steps, and the cost of extraction
+would have bought nothing. A page that stands alone is what makes the corpus fast and
+consistent to query: the work of understanding is already sitting there, done.
+
+## Why `reports/` doesn't need to be maintained
+
+[reports/CONTRACT.md](../reports/CONTRACT.md) treats most of what lands in `reports/` -
+lint output, telemetry traces - as disposable. The structural content of a lint report can be
+recomputed from the tree at any commit, so keeping an old copy around would just be a second
+version of something the tool can already answer on demand, and a second copy is exactly the
+kind of thing that quietly goes stale. Treating it as derived output rather than a fourth thing
+to maintain means there is nothing there to fall out of sync - regenerating it is cheaper than
+reconciling it. The one part that genuinely can't be recomputed - the judgment a pass produced -
+is carried out into `kb/` or `kb/log.md` before the report itself is discarded, which is the
+distinction between what's recomputable and what isn't.
+
+## Where `work/` fits
+
+[work/CONTRACT.md](../work/CONTRACT.md) describes a workshop, not a fifth pipeline stage: a
+place for the notes, extracts and open decisions of a task that spans more than one session, on
+its way toward becoming a `kb/` page. It sits beside the raw -> kb -> reports flow rather than
+inside it - closer in spirit to a desk than to a conveyor belt.
+
+## The shape this produces
+
+Four stages, each answering a different question: `raw/` - what was actually said; `types/` +
+`tools/` - how to turn that into structured understanding; `kb/` - what is now known;
+`reports/` - what a pass over the corpus noticed in passing. Keeping them separate is what lets
+each one be trusted for what it is, instead of every layer having to double as all four at
+once.

docs/version-model.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# Why the stack version splits compatibility from migration
+
+A stack version number looks like it answers one question. It actually answers two, and the two
+are independent of each other.
+
+## Two questions, not one
+
+The first question is whether the new version is a drop-in replacement for the old one - whether
+an existing instance can install it, and can also go back, without anyone doing hand-work. That
+is what a version number *is*: a promise. The second question is whether the existing corpus in
+`kb/` needs to change shape to keep working under the new version. These sound like the same
+question, because most of the time a change that breaks compatibility also happens to touch
+content, and most of the time a change that leaves content untouched also happens to be
+compatible. The correlation is real; it just is not a law. `instructions/dev/version-parts.md`
+carries the actual test for telling them apart and the steps that follow from it - this page is
+about why the split exists at all.
+
+## Why "kb/ untouched" is not proof of anything
+
+The tempting shortcut is: if no page in `kb/` had to change, the bump can't be that serious. This
+is exactly backwards for a class of changes that live entirely outside the corpus - a renamed
+release artefact, a Python import path, an environment variable, the URL an instance's own
+updater points at. None of those touch a single page. All of them can strand an existing
+instance just as thoroughly as a rewritten type-spec would. The corpus is the part of the stack
+that looks at itself; the compatibility question is about everything an instance depends on to
+keep functioning, most of which the corpus never sees.
+
+## Reading compatibility off the leftmost non-zero component
+
+Semantic versioning gives every component a job, but only one of them is where an existing
+instance's tooling actually looks to decide "is this safe." On a `2.x` stack that is MAJOR; on a
+still-pre-1.0 `0.x` stack, by the same convention, it's MINOR - the leftmost slot that isn't
+pinned to zero is the one an automated updater treats as the compatibility boundary. Bump
+anything to its left, or bump that slot itself, and the promise changes. Everything to the right
+of it can move as freely as the project likes without touching that promise. This is why the
+question "is it boundary-crossing" always resolves to one specific digit, not to a feeling about
+how big the change is.
+
+## Downgrade is half the promise
+
+It's natural to test compatibility by only asking "does the upgrade work." The other half -
+"can an instance that upgraded put the old version back and land where it started" - carries
+equal weight, and it's the half that's easy to forget because forward motion is what everyone is
+testing for anyway. A state file the old version can no longer parse, a generated index in a new
+shape, a stamp file that got renamed: none of these have to break the upgrade to break the
+downgrade. An instance that can go forward but not back has already lost the property a
+compatible version number is supposed to guarantee.
+
+## A promise made to a machine, not only to a person
+
+A human reading a changelog can absorb "this technically isn't compatible but it's fine, just
+update those two things by hand." An instance's own update mechanism cannot. It reads a version
+number, decides whether to pull the new release, and has no channel for nuance - which is exactly
+why the update path itself is one of the sharpest ways to cross the boundary invisibly: if the
+new version moves where updates come from, the very channel that would have told an instance to
+adjust is the channel that just broke. The version number isn't documentation aimed at a reader;
+it's an input consumed by code that has no other way to ask.
+
+## The 2.0.0 story
+
+This isn't hypothetical for this stack. The rebranding that produced Chemenu renamed the repo,
+the release artefact, and the Python package - and left every page in `kb/` untouched. The first
+instinct was a MINOR bump, on the reasoning that nothing in the corpus needed migrating. That
+reasoning was correct on its own terms and answered the wrong question. Three things broke
+underneath it: every existing instance's `update_url` pointed at a repo path that no longer
+existed and, because it's a machine-written file, couldn't be hand-repaired; the release artefact
+name changed, breaking every download script and pin against it; and the import name changed,
+breaking anything importing the package from outside the shipped tree. The corpus had nothing to
+say about any of this, because none of it lived in the corpus.
+
+What caught the mistake was a person looking at the diff and asking whether it really was a
+drop-in replacement, not a validator. No check in `docs verify` or anywhere else confirms that a
+version part was chosen correctly - it only confirms that a boundary-crossing bump documents
+what it breaks. The 2.0.0 entry in `CHANGES.md` carries the corrected reasoning in full, and the
+version bump that shipped it was `--major --no-migration`: boundary-crossing and untouched
+corpus, at the same time, which is precisely the combination the two-question split exists to
+make visible.
+
+## Where the procedure lives
+
+The drop-in test, the catalogue of changes that cross the boundary with no page touched, and the
+steps for a boundary-crossing bump - the `--breaking` line, the migration document or
+`--no-migration` reason, talking to the user before bumping - are one procedure, kept at one
+place: [instructions/dev/version-parts.md](../instructions/dev/version-parts.md).

docs/why-gates-are-code.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Why gates are code
+
+Chemenu has three hard limits - the Mass-Update Gate, the Publish-Remote Gate, and the
+Iteration Budget Gate - and all three live inside `tools/wikitool`, not in a paragraph of
+instructions an agent reads and follows. The rules themselves, and what to do when one trips,
+are in [AGENTS.md § Gates](../AGENTS.md#gates) and [instructions/gates.md](../instructions/gates.md).
+This page is only about the design choice underneath them: why code, and why these three
+mechanisms in particular.
+
+## A suggestion an agent can talk itself past
+
+An instruction like "don't publish too much at once" or "don't loop forever" lives in the same
+place as every other piece of guidance a session is holding - alongside the task, the user's
+last message, and whatever context made the moment feel urgent. Under pressure, or with a
+plausible-sounding reason ("this batch is different, it's mechanical"), that guidance can be
+reasoned around without anyone deciding to break a rule. Nothing enforces it; it just competes
+for attention with everything else in the context window, and sometimes loses.
+
+A check compiled into the tool doesn't have that problem, because it isn't part of the
+conversation at all. It runs before the command dispatches, regardless of how convincing the
+case for skipping it seemed a moment earlier. The difference isn't that code is smarter than a
+well-written instruction - it's that code doesn't get talked into anything.
+
+## Why three different mechanisms, not one
+
+The three gates ask three different questions, and each one's shape follows from what kind of
+question it is.
+
+The Mass-Update Gate asks *is this change too large to publish unreviewed* - a judgment that
+varies changeset by changeset, so it clears with a `--confirm` token tied to the specific
+output the user just read. Approval is scoped to that one publish.
+
+The Publish-Remote Gate asks something underneath that: *is this even the right repository*.
+That's not a per-push judgment, it's a standing property of the checkout - true or false for
+every publish that checkout will ever attempt, not just this one. A confirm token would let an
+agent clear it once and then treat the answer as settled, which is exactly backwards for a
+question whose answer shouldn't move at all mid-session. The only way past it is the user
+editing `.wikitool-remotes.json` directly, outside the gate's own flow.
+
+The Iteration Budget Gate asks a third kind of question - not "is this instance correct" but
+"has this session stopped making progress." That's read from the shape of the call history
+itself (call count, repeated identical calls), not from anything about the content of any one
+call.
+
+## Numbers that come from measurement, not intuition
+
+The iteration ceiling didn't start where it sits now. It used to run 15-25, borrowed from a
+general rule of thumb, until four real ingest runs measured 24, 26, 29 and 30 calls apiece -
+every one of them an ordinary workflow doing nothing wrong, and every one of them at or past
+where the old ceiling would have refused it. A limit that the normal case keeps tripping stops
+functioning as a limit; it becomes background noise a session learns to route `--override-budget`
+around as a matter of course, and the whole point of a hard-coded check is that it isn't supposed
+to feel routine.
+
+That's the deeper reason these numbers live in a tool rather than in prose: prose is read once
+and remembered loosely, but a threshold enforced every call is tested by every call, and a
+threshold that fails its own test gets noticed and re-measured rather than quietly ignored.