Skip to content

docs(Table): compact contracts - #5870

Closed
cixzhang wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
table-contract-compaction-20260901
Closed

docs(Table): compact contracts#5870
cixzhang wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
table-contract-compaction-20260901

Conversation

@cixzhang

@cixzhang cixzhang commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Status: benchmark blocked

This draft is not ready for approval. A two-attempt reviewer benchmark at frozen authority 701fd39b found that the compact Table contracts reduced contract context by 44.1%, but did not preserve review quality on #5420:

  • objective blocker recall fell from 0.75 under the current contract to 0.50;
  • objective precision fell from 1.00 to 0.75;
  • both compact attempts found the unapproved-target boundary but missed the exact sort-color reachability blocker.

Reviewer output was slightly smaller, 1,240 to 1,170 estimated tokens, and settled/no-reask discipline remained correct. That is not enough: the compact record must retain 100% of the release-relevant objective blockers. Keep this PR draft until the structure restores that signal and passes the repeatable benchmark.

Why

The current Table contracts repeat source facts and plugin implementation detail, making the approved parent/module ownership boundary harder to scan and maintain.

What

  • keeps the parent contract focused on aggregate Table anatomy, its current target map, and the shared TablePlugin protocol
  • keeps row-status API, compatibility, precedence, accessibility, theming boundary, decisions, and pending evidence in the module contract
  • links shared AST-002, Icon, theming, accessibility, platform, and knowledge owners instead of copying their rules

Risk

Documentation-only compaction. No runtime, public API, consumer-doc, target, or release behavior changes.

The reviewer benchmark identifies a separate risk: semantic parity does not guarantee equal blocker detection.

Testing

  • Prettier on both contracts
  • pnpm check:knowledge -- --base origin/main
  • focused knowledge and row-status module tests
  • strict TypeScript contract probe
  • pnpm check:repo
  • changed-file and public-hygiene scans
  • private repeatable reviewer benchmark: failed strict gate on objective recall and precision

No Changeset: specifications only; no published package behavior changes.

@vercel

vercel Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated
astryx Ready Ready Preview Sep 2, 2026 2:29am UTC

Request Review

@meta-cla meta-cla Bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Meta Open Source bot. label Sep 2, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the needs:spec-owner-review Current knowledge records await owner approval label Sep 2, 2026
@cixzhang
cixzhang force-pushed the table-contract-compaction-20260901 branch from 785eb5d to 3522b62 Compare September 2, 2026 01:04
@cixzhang
cixzhang force-pushed the table-contract-compaction-20260901 branch from 3522b62 to 92db6e5 Compare September 2, 2026 01:10
@cixzhang
cixzhang force-pushed the table-contract-compaction-20260901 branch from 92db6e5 to c3bb846 Compare September 2, 2026 01:50
@cixzhang
cixzhang force-pushed the table-contract-compaction-20260901 branch from c3bb846 to 08bca8e Compare September 2, 2026 02:06
@cixzhang
cixzhang force-pushed the table-contract-compaction-20260901 branch from 08bca8e to 3c8b8db Compare September 2, 2026 02:19
@cixzhang
cixzhang force-pushed the table-contract-compaction-20260901 branch from 3c8b8db to cf9742d Compare September 2, 2026 02:25
@cixzhang cixzhang closed this Sep 2, 2026
@github-actions
github-actions Bot deleted the table-contract-compaction-20260901 branch September 2, 2026 06:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CLA Signed This label is managed by the Meta Open Source bot. needs:spec-owner-review Current knowledge records await owner approval

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant