ADR review found three stale claims: an unreviewed Testing dry-run cited as
evidence for the projected list size, the Challenger path missing from the
lane-rejection rationale, and no mention of judgment overriding known
failure modes of the download-signal (CI/dependency-inflated counts, model
weights vs. pip installs, large-but-specific audiences misread as niche).
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Cap changed to 3 obvious choices + up to 2 challengers (hard max 5)
during review, but the ADR still described the old cap of 3 with at
most one challenger.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Records the outcome of a grilling session with the maintainer that
settled the redesign of awesome-python from a catalog into a curated
shortlist of Obvious Choices per Use Case. Execution is held pending
maintainer go-ahead, so these files let a fresh agent resume without
re-litigating settled decisions:
- CONTEXT.md: glossary of the editorial vocabulary (Use Case, Obvious
Choice, Challenger, Displacement, Split, etc).
- docs/adr/0001-shortlist-not-catalog.md: the ADR recording the
decision, considered options, and consequences (status: proposed).
- .gitignore: docs/ was wholesale-ignored; carve out docs/adr/ so the
ADR can be tracked.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Vinta ChenandClaude