my-pi/pi-permission-system/docs/retro/0080-extract-permission-prompter.md

issue, issue_title

issue	issue_title
80	Extract PermissionPrompter class to unify prompt/log/forwarding chain

Retro: #80 — Extract PermissionPrompter class to unify prompt/log/forwarding chain

Final Retrospective (2026-05-05T01:20:00Z)

Session summary

Planned, implemented, and shipped PermissionPrompter — a class encapsulating yolo-mode, review logging, and UI/forwarding branching behind a single prompt() method. Released as v4.4.0. Also performed a thorough gap analysis of docs/architecture/target-architecture.md vs. current state, filed #81 and #82 for remaining structural debt, and updated the target doc to reflect all completed work through #66.

Observations

What went well

• TDD execution was clean: 17 new tests, one minor assertion fix (expect.anything() vs undefined), no rework on the class itself.
• The target-architecture gap analysis was high-value — identified 3 untracked gaps, filed focused issues, and produced a comprehensive doc update accepted without revision.
• Pragmatic commit bundling (test + impl in one commit due to pre-commit hooks) was handled without friction.

What caused friction (agent side)

1. missing-context — Edited docs/architecture/v3-architecture.md without reading its purpose statement ("as-is design" = historical snapshot). User had to correct me. Impact: 2 wasted commits (94be5b5, c49523e revert).

2. wrong-abstraction — After the v3 correction, added permission-prompter.ts to target-architecture.md with an "interim; subsumed by permission-gate.ts" annotation. The user clarified that interim stepping stones don't belong in the target at all. Impact: 2 more wasted commits (c5cf101, f300f08 removal). Combined with (1), produced 4 net-zero commits.

   Both were user-caught. The underlying failure: treating architecture docs as "track current state" rather than understanding each doc's distinct role (historical snapshot vs. aspirational target vs. per-module current description).

What caused friction (user side)

• The user could have proactively mentioned "don't touch v3, it's frozen" when asking about target-architecture.md. However, the doc's own opening line makes its role clear — the agent should have read it first.

Changes made

1. Added ## Architecture docs section to AGENTS.md distinguishing v3-architecture.md (historical, frozen), target-architecture.md (living target), and per-module notes (current implementation).