Authored workshop sample. Exact Git bytes and hashes are not connected.
A possible connectionHypothesis
A shared contract for repeated commands
Both samples look up a receipt before doing work. A common request-key contract could make retry behavior easier to reason about across projects.
Still unknown: concurrent requests, changed payloads, and atomic writes. Similar syntax does not prove equivalent behavior.
Based on 2 synthetic sources · not verified
02 / Shape the next step
Human direction
Your judgment belongs here
Suggested by the agent Does the contract apply without the persistent worker?
You know the constraints. Give the next comparison a better starting point.
From insight to implementationSample brief
Make the contract reusable
# Implementation brief · synthetic sample
Scope
Define a shared command-receipt interface.
Constraints
• Keep execution inside each project.
• Do not introduce a persistent worker.
Evidence
• source-a: atlas-api / receipt.ts (1–5)
• source-b: orbit-worker / deduplicate.ts (1–5)
Authored samples; exact Git references pending.
Acceptance
Same key + same arguments reuses the result.
Same key + changed arguments is a conflict.
Test concurrent requests before adoption.
Exports this synthetic text. No issue is created and no agent is dispatched.
Composition inspector Contract 0.1.0
Edit the JSON, then apply it to change the component layout above. Invalid layouts leave your current view and decision draft intact. This only changes the local preview; it does not save a decision.
Only the six registered components and their reviewed properties are accepted. Maximum 16 nodes, depth 4, and 32 KiB. This is a UI workshop using the public contract with synthetic data.