cophelia3_master_playbook を作成 - #9
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ebf4b633e4
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ | |||
| cophelia3_master_playbook: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file is structured as YAML, but its extensionless name causes .github/scripts/validate_repository.py:31-38 to exclude it from validate_structured_files. Consequently, malformed edits to this canonical playbook or its embedded templates will still pass the repository's validation workflow; rename it with a .yaml or .yml suffix so the existing parser check covers it.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| update_rule: "主要コミット/外部レビュー着信/画像公開時に計算" | ||
| visibility: "READMEバッジ+configに数値刻印" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whenever one of these update triggers fires, the playbook instructs operators to calculate and publish a RadicanTrust value without specifying a dataset, formula, review procedure, or whether it is merely artistic metadata. This conflicts with docs/QUANTUMART_PROTOCOL_V1.md:17-23 and the existing machine-readable metric's status: "unvalidated" in prompts/protocols/unique-aesthetic-harmony.v1.1.0.yaml:235-249, so different operators can publish arbitrary values and incorrectly treat movement toward the 0.92 KPI as measured progress; keep the value explicitly conceptual or define and validate the measurement method first.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| - {qid: q002, text: "あなたの強み（技術/資金/表現/哲学）で何を加速できますか？", type: open_text} | ||
| - {qid: q003, text: "Seven Warriorsに参加を希望しますか？", type: boolean} | ||
| - {qid: q004, text: "志望ロールを選択: Technologist / Supporter / Explorer / Poet / Connector", type: multiple_choice} | ||
| - {qid: q005, text: "あなたの印（言葉/沈黙/記号）を残してください。", type: open_text} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When this minimal template is copied as instructed, it records only the five substantive answers and has no reviewer anonymity mode, consent to publish the review or identity, retention choice, or withdrawal path. Operators therefore cannot enforce the playbook's own safety_ethics promise of explicit consent for secondary use, unlike the canonical review structure in docs/reviews/unique-aesthetic-harmony-review-template.yaml:7-11,32-36,50-52; add equivalent consent and publication fields before collecting responses.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| - "external_review.yaml" | ||
| - "trust-bridge-config.yaml" | ||
| - "assets/hero_banana_moon_square.png" | ||
| - ".github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feedback.yml" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Following the declared repo_structure creates only feedback.yml, even though step 6 requires two issue templates and the core-participant KPI relies on Issue: warriors_join. An implementation driven from this canonical artifact list will therefore omit the only documented join route; add the corresponding .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/warriors_join.yml entry.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| step_1_create_repo: | ||
| description: "Publicで作成、Descriptionに“公開レビュー導線”を明記、README自動生成ON" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At the time of this commit, README.md:24 already identifies BananaMoon-QuantumTrust-Review as the project's public trust-review layer, but the operational field manual still starts by telling the reader to create a public repository. Following the playbook now can create a duplicate review surface or fail on a repository-name collision instead of configuring the established layer; replace this step with an explicit link to and setup check for the existing repository, or name the distinct repository that is actually intended.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| spec: {ratio: "1:1", size_px: 1080, bg: "deep black", motif: "banana-crescent + interference bands", math: "p=|⟨φ|ψ⟩|²"} | ||
| footer_caption: "RadicanTrust Index: 0.89 — BananaMoon / Yokohama → IYQ2025" | ||
| placements: ["README先頭","OGP","X固定ポスト"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the generated hero is placed in the README and social posts as instructed, this specification provides no alt-text copy or requirement, leaving the formula and visual motif inaccessible to screen-reader users. That conflicts with the protocol's accessibility principle and the explicit alt_text_present review check in docs/reviews/unique-aesthetic-harmony-review-template.yaml:38-42; add canonical alt text to the asset specification and require it at each placement.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
No description provided.