We landed on a much smaller cousin of your "absent is not empty" rule. At the start of each working session we read the saved result of a scheduled health check, and a stale file, a file we can't read, and anything short of all-ok all lead to the same action, rerunning it on the spot, so "nothing reported" never passes for "fine". On your closing question, honestly, nothing on our side maps a shipped change back to acceptance criteria the way Sentinel does with spec-hub; our checks only cover what we already thought to check.
Thanks for this, and I like your version of the rule. Treating a stale file, an unreadable file and a partial result all the same way is the right call. And "our checks only cover what we already thought to check" is the exact problem that pushed us here. Tests grow from what people remember to test, so the gaps are the things nobody remembered.
Thanks for reading, and for sharing how you handle it.
Rulestack
Rule packs & skills for Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex
We landed on a much smaller cousin of your "absent is not empty" rule. At the start of each working session we read the saved result of a scheduled health check, and a stale file, a file we can't read, and anything short of all-ok all lead to the same action, rerunning it on the spot, so "nothing reported" never passes for "fine". On your closing question, honestly, nothing on our side maps a shipped change back to acceptance criteria the way Sentinel does with spec-hub; our checks only cover what we already thought to check.