docs/ had 26 developer documents flat beside the manual, and the two
audiences are very differently sized: most readers want the manual and
the gesture reference, a few want the register, the designs and the
measurements. The manual and gestures.md stay at the top; everything for
someone changing the code moves to docs/dev/, and the two documents that
name their own successors — the v0.1 milestone and the UI-refinement plan
— go to docs/dev/archive/ rather than being deleted, since both are still
cited. docs/README.md is the index, users first.
Every reference follows: code comments, Cargo manifests, the workflows,
the pre-commit hook, the bench and traceability tools (which locate the
repo root by docs/dev/requirements.md now), packaging, the Docker READMEs,
CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md and the README. The matrix links one level
deeper and is regenerated. Links out of the moved documents into the tree
gain a level; a link checker over every Markdown file finds none broken.
The register said two things about plugins. §7 had listed "Plugin API"
as deferred since the first draft, in a bare row; §3.10 then specified
it in 23 clauses that counted against coverage. Twenty-one of them had
no implementation of any kind, and could not have: no crate loads
anything at runtime. The coverage figure was measuring the contradiction.
Decided 2026-09-19: §7 is right. §3.10 stays as the design of record,
each of its clauses is marked "(post-v1)" on its defining line, and
NFR-SEC-6 — which exists only for plugins — goes with them, as does D16.
The traceability tool learns the marker. A deferred requirement is still
defined, so a tag naming it is not an orphan, but it leaves the
denominator and is listed in its own table rather than under "not yet
tagged". The marker must sit on the definition line; a mention of
"post-v1" in prose changes nothing, and where an ID is defined twice the
deferral on either line wins. Both are tested. Coverage moves from 72.2%
of 194 to 80.6% of 170 without a line of application code changing,
which is the honest figure: it now measures what v1 owes.
Every gesture the application has was documented in the comment beside
the `TouchArea` that implements it. Excellent comments, and unreachable
by anyone not reading the source — which is the FR-UI-4 failure in a
different costume: a gesture nobody can find is a feature only its author
knows about.
Writing them out again in a hand-kept help page is the failure this
avoids. Two descriptions of one gesture drift, and it is always the prose
that drifts: the code is exercised every time somebody uses the
application and the page is exercised never. A help screen confidently
describing a double tap the grid stopped honouring last week is worse
than no help screen — and the grid did stop honouring one, in the commit
before this.
So the comment beside the implementation stays the only copy, and a
`GESTURE:` block beside it is scanned into two artefacts: `docs/gestures.md`
for a reader, and a Rust table for the application to draw a help sheet
from. Both committed, both gated, so neither can quietly stop describing
the code.
It lives in the traceability crate because it is the same operation on
the same input — walk the tree, pull structured tags out of comments,
render, fail if the committed artefact has moved. Only the vocabulary is
new. It scans `ui` and `apps` alone: a gesture needs an interface to be
performed on, and excluding `tools` is also what stops the scanner
extracting its own worked examples as broken gestures.
Fifteen gestures so far, across the library grid and the People screen.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
`platform` was missing from the traceability scanner's source roots, so
every TRACES tag in `dr-plat` — the secret store, volume discovery, and
now display-profile acquisition — was invisible to the matrix. The
FR-PLAT-* family is exactly what that crate exists to satisfy, so the
omission understated coverage by the requirements it was meant to
count.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Ports JellyTau's traceability tooling to Rust, carrying across the bug it
was repaired for. That gate divided a traced count by frozen literal
denominators; the requirements file outgrew them and it reported 158%
coverage, so it could never fail its own threshold.
Two rules, both enforced by the extractor's own tests:
- denominators parsed from docs/requirements.md at run time
- coverage is |traced ∩ defined| / |defined|, never a raw traced count
The gate additionally fails hard on a misconfigured run — zero
requirements parsed or zero files scanned — rather than reporting a
plausible 0%, and on any orphan tag naming a requirement that does not
exist.
Adapted for DarkRoom: IDs are FR-CAT-1 / NFR-P13 / FR-DEV-3a shapes
rather than JellyTau's fixed three digits, and decisions (D), spikes (S),
milestone items (M) and test ids remain taggable while being excluded
from the denominator — counting them inflated it by 25.
Also adds dr-sync: the RemoteBackend trait and capability model, so the
Nextcloud connector is one implementation rather than the only shape the
engine understands. No mature Nextcloud crate exists (reqwest_dav is too
thin), so the connector will be hand-rolled over reqwest per D7.
Gitea workflows follow the same style: containerised, commented with the
reasoning, desktop and Android on every push, plus a CI check that no
core/ crate depends on the UI toolkit (ARCH §6.5a).
Coverage today: 13.3% (19/143). 50 tests passing.
dtourolle
