Charters as a first-class entity, and the external audit cycle
From manual ritual in Sentinel to canonized CLI command
From manual ritual in Sentinel to canonized CLI command
Issue #113 — the gap between having an artifact and the agent seeing it
Twelve learnings in an Issue, three gates in a PR, and a Charter that closed cleanly before the name existed
When discipline stops being habit and becomes name
The first systematic experiment, and the day Plan became Charter
Ten latent gaps surfaced in a single polish Charter, and the anti-pattern that earned a name
A second adopter, in a different language, validated the "surface declaration without wiring" anti-pattern — and the CLI helper we deferred on purpose finally shipped
A greenfield adopter cleared a backlog of follow-ups before shipping and found that three of them — the three that were real work — each carried a premise that was false the moment you checked it. Not because the code had changed under them, but because a follow-up is written at the one moment you are least equipped to verify it. The lesson isn't "write better follow-ups." It's that a follow-up is a dated hypothesis, and the cheap place to test it is when you read it, not when you write it — so that is where StrayMark now puts the check.