Inherit Checkpoint Trailers in Final Block

I have enough to brief. Nothing is edited yet, and the worktree isn't created yet either.

Pre-edit brief: PR 2, squash and redo inheritance

Problem 1: inherited trailers fall out of the last paragraph (editor squash or redo, when there is new session work).

• Root cause (manual_commit_hooks.go:2977): addInheritedCheckpointTrailer puts the inherited IDs above git's comment block as their own paragraph. Then addCheckpointTrailerWithComment always adds "\n\n" + trailer after the user content. That leaves …Entire-Checkpoint: A\n\nEntire-Checkpoint: NEW, and after cleanup A is no longer in the last paragraph. The no-comment-block branch (commit.status=false) has the same \n\n.
• -m already works, because both writers go through AppendCheckpointTrailer, which joins an existing trailer paragraph.
• Fix: addCheckpointTrailerWithComment joins the user content through trailers.AppendCheckpointTrailer in both branches, so a trailing trailer paragraph gets the stamp on the next line. Layout, comment text and placement stay as on main. No config read.
• Tradeoff: a user's own trailing trailer block (for example Signed-off-by: from commit -s in the editor) now also gets the stamp joined to it instead of in a separate paragraph. Every link stays linked, and the stamp is still last. The narrower option is to join only when the last paragraph is all Entire-Checkpoint: lines. I recommend the reuse; tell me if you'd rather have the narrow version.

Problem 2: body mentions are inherited.

• Root cause: squash takes ParseAllCheckpoints(SQUASH_MSG) (manual_commit_hooks.go:679), and redo takes ParseAllCheckpoints(replaced[i].Message) (manual_commit_redo.go:68). A checkpoint that a squashed or redone commit only mentions in its body gets written into the new commit's final block and becomes a real link.
• Fix: squash loads the commits SQUASH_MSG names once, for both inheritance and the stale-path check, and takes each commit's IDs through PR 1's resolver. Redo does the same per replaced commit.
• One deviation from "call LinkedCheckpoints": I'd call readTrailerRules(ctx) once per hook path and use rules.checkpoints(msg) for each commit. That is the same rules and fallback as LinkedCheckpoints, but one git config call instead of one per squashed commit. The read only happens after the existing cheap early-outs (no key in SQUASH_MSG, no redo candidates).

Problem 3: indented commit <sha> lines count as squashed commits.

• Root cause: squashTouchesStagedPath matches strings.Fields(line) == ["commit", sha], so an indented commit <sha> in a squashed message counts. Once inheritance follows those headers (fix 2), that would inherit an unrelated commit's checkpoint.
• Fix: only unindented commit <sha> header lines count (strings.CutPrefix(line, "commit ")).

Already covered, no change: d01de9f96's presence check (PR 1 item 6), and 565f60b9e's listing and search (PR 1 already uses CommitCheckpoint(s) at explain.go:1696 and explain.go:2469).

Tests first, each seen failing. These go in TestTrailerAuthority_RealGitCommits. setup will return the IDs the commit must also link and the IDs it must not link.

• merge --squash + editor: fails today (problem 1).
• merge --squash + -m: regression row, expected to pass today.
• reset --soft redo + editor: fails today (problem 1).
• Squash of a commit whose body mentions an ID: fails today (problem 2).
• Redo of a commit whose body mentions an ID: fails today (problem 2).
• Squash of a commit whose body has commit <sha of another linked commit>: written after fix 2, so it fails before fix 3.

Commits: three local commits, one per problem, plus the docs update to the squash and redo paragraphs of sessions-and-checkpoints.md. Per your Agent Memory, there will be no Co-Authored-By trailer.

Worktree: git worktree add ../squash-redo-final-block-inheritance -b muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance origin/muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking. I'd use plain git rather than work new --trail 2635, so nothing touches the trail before you approve the publish plan. Say if you'd rather use work new.

Approve this, and choose between joining any trailer block (recommended) and only Entire-Checkpoint: blocks?

PR 2 is done: 4 local commits on muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance, cut from PR 1's branch. Nothing is pushed, linked or posted.

What changed:

• Inherited trailers stay in the last paragraph. Prepare's own stamp is now joined to a trailer paragraph that ends the user's text. Before, it started a new paragraph, so an editor squash or redo with new session work stopped linking the inherited checkpoints. As you approved, this also joins a user's Signed-off-by: block. Main's layout and comment text are otherwise unchanged.
• Only what a squashed or redone commit really links is inherited. Each commit is read the way LinkedCheckpoints reads it. A small reader in commit_trailers.go, which LinkedCheckpoints now also uses, reads git config at most once per hook. So a checkpoint a commit only mentions in its body is no longer inherited.
• Only real commit <sha> headers count. A squashed message's indented commit <sha> line no longer counts as a squashed commit.
• The squash and redo paragraphs of sessions-and-checkpoints.md are updated.
• Placement didn't need any comment-config reading, so nothing here crosses into PR 3.

Verification:

• New test rows. TestTrailerAuthority_RealGitCommits has 6 new rows. Five failed before their fix: squash with the editor, redo with the editor, squash and redo of a commit whose body names a checkpoint, and squash of a commit whose body names another commit. The squash -m row passed before and after, as expected, since -m already worked. All rows pass now. The existing squash and redo unit tests pass.
• mise run check. I ran it before each commit. Lint reported 0 issues every time and everything else passed, except a few timing tests: TestProbeConfigDir_AsksClaude (all three runs) and once each TestDiscoverAndRegister_ContinuesAfterRegistrationError and TestExternalCommand_SigintReachesPlugin. The load average was between 15 and 45 during those runs. Each passed when rerun on its own, and TestProbeConfigDir_AsksClaude also passes on PR 1's branch. I haven't had a fully clean mise run check while the machine is this loaded; I'll rerun it once it quiets down, together with mise run lint before the push.

Draft PR description (for approval):

Publish plan (I won't run any of it until you approve):

1. mise run lint on the current tree, then git push -u origin muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance.
2. entire trail link 2635 --repo gh/entireio/cli --branch muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance. Trail commands may need to run outside the sandbox for keychain access.
3. gh pr create --base muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking with the description above.
4. Check that only trail #2635 exists for the branch.
5. entire trail finding list cli/<change n> --freshness any, fix real findings, and re-check.
6. Post this comment on #2253: pr 2 of the split is up: #<new>, squash and redo inheritance. based on #2923, same trail #2635.

Review lessons: nothing worth saving from this one.

Approve the description, the comment text and the plan?

Yes, all five PRs go on one trail: #2635 (https://entire.com/gh/entireio/-/trails/2635). Each PR's branch joins it as its own Change.

I checked the trail itself:

• PR 1's branch muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking is linked to trail #2635 as its first Change.
• The trail description already lists all five PRs.
• Step 2 of the publish plan links PR 2's branch to that same trail as a second Change. It doesn't create a new trail.
• Step 4 checks afterwards that no second trail exists for the branch.

PRs 3 to 5 will be linked to #2635 the same way.

The draft description, the #2253 comment and the publish plan are still waiting for your approval.

Almost. Every PR except PR 3 says "Part of #2255". PR 3 says "Fixes #2255" and "Fixes #2256" instead, because it's the one that finishes them. That's how plan.md lays it out:

• PR 1, PR 2, PR 4, PR 5: "Part of #2255". This mentions the issue without closing it.
• PR 3 (git config fidelity): "Fixes #2255" and "Fixes #2256". It replaces PR 1's simplifications with git's real rules, so it's the one that fully fixes both issues.

One catch with stacking: GitHub only closes an issue from "Fixes" when the PR merges into the default branch, main. PR 3 targets PR 2's branch, so its "Fixes" won't fire when it merges there. The issues close when that code reaches main, either through the last PR in the stack or by closing them by hand.

So PR 2's draft description is right as written: "Part of #2255".

Right, I couldn't find a Linear ticket for this work. #2255 in "Part of #2255" is a GitHub issue on entireio/cli, not a Linear ID.

What I checked:

• The trail: #2635's description has no Linear: line.
• Linear searches: "checkpoint trailer", "Entire-Checkpoint body" and "2255". Nothing matches this work. ENT-2255 does exist, but it's an unrelated packfile issue, so it's the wrong one to reference.
• Closest ticket: ENT-161, "Amending commits with -m loses Entire-Checkpoint trailer" (Backlog). It's a different bug, though.

So the PRs only reference the GitHub issues: "Part of #2255" in PRs 1, 2, 4 and 5, and "Fixes #2255" / "Fixes #2256" in PR 3. Nothing needs linking in Linear unless you want a ticket created for tracking; I can draft one for you to approve.

The PR 2 description, the #2253 comment and the publish plan are still waiting for your approval.

Here's a draft for you to approve. I won't create it until you say so.

Team: ENT (where the CLI checkpoint tickets live, e.g. ENT-161) · Assignee: you · Priority: Medium (matches the trail) · Status: In Progress

Title: Link a commit to a checkpoint only through its last trailer paragraph

Description:

Creating the ticket brings these follow-ups. Each is a write, so I'll show you the exact text first:

1. Add the trail URL to the ticket as a link. The description above already has it.
2. Prepend Linear: ENT-<n> https://linear.app/... to trail #2635's description. That's a Trail write.
3. Mention the ticket ID in the PR descriptions: "Part of ENT-<n>" in PRs 1, 2 and 4, and "Fixes ENT-<n>" only in PR 5, the last one. Linear's magic words then close the ticket when the stack finishes, not after PR 1. PR 1 (#2923) is already open, so adding the line there means editing its description. I'm not sure how Linear handles a merge into a stacked base branch instead of main. If it closes the ticket early, you can reopen it by hand.

Should I create it as drafted, or change the team, priority or text first?

Good catch. "Shipped as five stacked PRs" makes it sound like all five exist. Only PR 1 is open. PR 2 is committed locally and not pushed, and PRs 3 to 5 aren't written yet. Here's the description with each PR's real status:

Everything else is the same as before: team ENT, assigned to you, Medium priority, status In Progress, and the same title. Once PR 2 is pushed, I'll change its status to "in review" and add its PR number.

The trail #2635 description has the same problem. It describes all five PRs without saying which exist. When I prepend the Linear line there, should I also add the same per-PR status?

Should I create the ticket with this text?

I created ENT-3643: https://linear.app/entirehq/issue/ENT-3643/link-a-commit-to-a-checkpoint-only-through-its-last-trailer-paragraph. It's in team Entire, assigned to you, Medium priority, In Progress, with trail #2635 attached as a link.

One fix after creation: Linear turned "trail #2635" in the description into a link to an unrelated PR (entirehq/fleet#2635). I changed those words to "the trail" with a direct link to trail #2635.

Trail #2635 not updated yet. I haven't changed the trail. Here is the exact new description, which keeps the current text and adds the Linear line and each PR's status:

If you approve, I'll run entire trail update 2635 --repo gh/entireio/cli --body "<text above>" and read the trail back to confirm it saved.

Separately, for Linear to close ENT-3643 when the work is done, the ID needs to appear in the PR descriptions: "Part of ENT-3643" in PRs 1, 2 and 4, and "Fixes ENT-3643" in PR 5. For PR 2, I'd add "Part of ENT-3643" under "Part of #2255" in the draft. Adding it to #2923 means editing an open PR's description; I'll show you that edit separately when you want it.

Should I update the trail with this text?

Trail #2635's description is updated: https://entire.com/gh/entireio/-/trails/2635. I read it back, and it matches the approved text exactly.

So ENT-3643 and trail #2635 now link to each other: the ticket has the trail attached, and the trail description starts with the Linear: ENT-3643 line.

I've added one line to PR 2's draft description, right under "Part of #2255":

The rest of the description is the same as before.

Still waiting for your approval:

• PR 2's description, with that line added.
• The comment on #2253: pr 2 of the split is up: #<new>, squash and redo inheritance. based on #2923, same trail #2635.
• The publish plan: lint, push, link the branch to trail #2635, open the PR against muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking, check that only one trail exists for the branch, then check the trail findings.
• Whether to add "Part of ENT-3643" to #2923's description. That's an edit to an open PR.

#2923 is yours: author MuskanPaliwal. It's PR 1 of the split, "fix(checkpoints): link a commit only through its last paragraph", open and ready for review: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2923

• Branch: muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking into main, the same branch the PR 2 worktree was cut from.

Since it's your own PR, adding "Part of ENT-3643" to its description just edits your description. It still updates a public PR, so I'll only do it if you say so.

PR 2 is published as https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2938, but the comment on #2253 didn't post. The permission check blocked the GitHub write, and I didn't try to get around it.

Done:

• #2923 (PR 1): "Part of ENT-3643." is added under "Part of #2255".

• Lint and push: mise run fmt && mise run lint gave 0 issues and no changes. I pushed muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance to origin (entireio/cli) with its 4 commits.

• Trail link: the branch is linked to trail #2635 as change cli/1714.

• PR: entire trail link opened its own draft PR, #2938, based on main, so it showed PR 1's changes too. My gh pr create hit a GitHub API connection error. To avoid two PRs for one branch, I turned #2938 into PR 2:

  • its base is now muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking;
  • it has the approved title and description, with Entire's trail link block kept at the top;
  • it's marked ready for review.

  Its diff is now just PR 2's 5 files.

• Single trail: the branch belongs only to trail #2635, where change 1706 is PR 1 and change 1714 is PR 2.

• Findings: entire trail finding list cli/1714 --freshness any shows none so far. The runners probably haven't finished yet, so I'll check again in about 10 minutes.

Still open:

• Comment on #2253: post it yourself by typing this in the prompt:
• ENT-3643: PR 2 still says "(in progress)" in the ticket. If you want, I can change it to "(#2938, in review)". The trail description has the same line.

I posted the comment on #2253: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2253#issuecomment-6464417807

I also changed PR 2's line from "in progress" to "#2938, in review" in both ENT-3643 and the trail #2635 description, and read the trail back to confirm. Because both PRs now say "Part of ENT-3643", Linear has attached #2923 and #2938 to the ticket on its own.

The findings check for cli/1714 is still running in the background, about 10 minutes after the push. I'll report the result, and fix any real findings, when it finishes.

Want me to add this line to Agent Memory.md? "Approving a publish plan covers every step in it, including its drafted comments; don't ask again for each step."

The source's appendTrailerLine already carries #2259's fix, which is what closes #2256. Last, the source's real-git matrix rows and the commits touching the test env:

The GitHub PRs are already fine. The branch-name titles are on the trail's Changes, and the CLI can't rename those.

GitHub PRs:

• #2923 (PR 1) is titled "fix(checkpoints): link a commit only through its last paragraph", is ready for review (not a draft), and targets main.
• #2938 (PR 2) is titled "fix(strategy): inherit squash and redo trailers from last paragraphs", is ready for review, and targets PR 1's branch. entire trail link had opened it as a draft named after the branch; I already retitled it and marked it ready.

Trail #2635's Changes:

• cli/1706: titled muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking
• cli/1714: titled muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance

A Change has no draft state, only "open". Its title is set once, by entire trail link --title, and falls back to the branch name when that flag is missing (project_trail_change_cmd.go:56-57). The CLI has no command that renames an existing Change; trail update only edits the trail itself. There are two ways to fix it:

1. Rename them in the entire.io web UI (recommended), if it allows editing a Change title. The Changes are https://entire.com/gh/entireio/-/trails/2635/changes/cli/1706 and https://entire.com/gh/entireio/-/trails/2635/changes/cli/1714.
2. Unlink and relink each branch with --title. The code and reviews are kept, but the relink will probably create new Change numbers. #2938's body points at cli/trails/1714 to stay connected to the trail, so that link and the findings history could break. I won't do this without your go-ahead.

For PRs 3 to 5, I'll pass --title "<PR title>" to trail link so their Changes start with the right name.

Stacking: yes, these are stacked PRs: five PRs, each targeting the previous one's branch, all on trail #2635.

• #2923 targets main.
• #2938 targets muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking.
• PR 3 will target muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance, and so on.

They merge from the bottom up. When PR 1 merges and its branch is deleted, GitHub moves #2938's base to main on its own. Because of this, PR 3's "Fixes #2255 / #2256" won't close those issues until its code reaches main.

PR 2's trail findings check is clear, with nothing found after 10 minutes. I paused PR 3 while you asked about this; I was still reading the source and haven't edited anything. Should I continue with PR 3's pre-edit brief?

Yes, a Change titled with its branch name is bad, and it comes from two places in ~/hub. Nothing in AGENTS.md says "use the branch name"; the instructions just leave out --title, and the CLI then falls back to the branch name.

Where it comes from:

1. ~/hub/AGENTS.md:426-427, the manual path: "Outside work, run entire trail create --no-branch once, then entire trail link N --branch <branch> after each branch's first push." I followed this for PR 2. The task prompt you pasted used the same command.
2. ~/hub/scripts/work:899, which work publish uses: link_args = ["entire", "trail", "link", project, "--branch", thread.branch, "--repo", thread.repo.slug]. It already has the thread's title a few lines above but doesn't pass it, so every follow-up Change linked with work new --trail N gets a branch-name title too. PR 1's Change cli/1706 got its name this way.
3. skills/run-playbook/playbooks/ship.md:18 repeats the manual form: "then entire trail link N".

Proposed changes, in the order I'd make them:

AGENTS.md, replacing lines 426-427:

tests/test_work_trails.py: in test_publishing_links_the_branch_to_its_trail_instead_of_creating_another, add this assertion first and see it fail:

scripts/work:899, the fix:

ship.md line 18: change "then entire trail link N" to "then entire trail link N --title \"<change title>\"".

All of this is outside this repository, in your ~/hub checkout, and I'd commit nothing there.

This fixes new Changes only. cli/1706 and cli/1714 still need renaming in the web UI, or an unlink and relink with --title, as described before.

Should I make these changes?

Sure. Here it is step by step.

What a Change is. A trail like #2635 is the whole piece of work. Each branch you add to it shows up on the trail as a "Change", one row per branch. Right now trail #2635 has two:

Those titles should read like the PR titles, such as "inherit squash and redo trailers from last paragraphs". Instead they show the raw branch names.

Why that happened. A branch becomes a Change through entire trail link. That command takes an optional --title. Without it, the CLI uses the branch name, and there's no command to rename the Change afterwards.

Neither of the two places that link branches passes --title:

1. Your work script (~/hub/scripts/work). work publish links the branch with entire trail link <trail> --branch <branch> --repo <repo>. It knows the thread's title ("Credit notifications", for example) but never passes it on. That's how PR 1's Change got its branch-name title.
2. Your AGENTS.md (~/hub/AGENTS.md, lines 426-427). For linking by hand, it says to run entire trail link N --branch <branch>, again with no --title. I followed that for PR 2, and so did the prompt you pasted.

What I'm proposing.

• In the work script, add --title <thread title> to that one link command.
• In AGENTS.md, add --title "<change title>" to the manual command, plus a sentence saying it's required.
• The same small fix to one line in the ship playbook, which repeats the manual command.
• One test assertion in ~/hub/tests/test_work_trails.py, checking that work publish passes the title. I'd add it first and see it fail.

These changes only affect Changes linked from now on, such as PRs 3 to 5. The two existing Changes keep their branch-name titles until you rename them in the entire.io web UI, or I unlink and relink them with --title, which may give them new numbers.

Should I make the four edits in ~/hub?

work publish now passes --title when it links a branch to a trail, and AGENTS.md says to always pass it. All four edits are in ~/hub, uncommitted.

• scripts/work:899: the link command now passes the thread title (--title). The new test assertion failed before this fix and passes now. The full hub suite passes, 109 tests.
• AGENTS.md:426-429: the manual command is now entire trail link N --branch <branch> --title "<change title>", with a line saying it's required and why.
• skills/run-playbook/playbooks/ship.md:18: the same --title added to the manual command there.
• tests/test_work_trails.py: the assertion that work publish passes the title.

Commit them when you're ready. I can run /commit in ~/hub if you want.

The two existing Changes still have branch-name titles. cli/1706 should become "fix(checkpoints): link a commit only through its last paragraph" and cli/1714 "fix(strategy): inherit squash and redo trailers from last paragraphs". Renaming them in the entire.io web UI is the safe way. An unlink and relink with --title might give them new numbers, which could break #2938's link to the trail. For PRs 3 to 5, I'll pass the PR title when linking.

Should I carry on with PR 3's pre-edit brief?

Only PR 1 is based on main. PR 2 is based on PR 1's branch. That's what "stacked" means here: each PR targets the branch of the PR before it.

What exists now:

I checked the bases earlier: #2923 targets main, and #2938 targets muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking.

Why stack them:

• Each PR's diff shows only its own change. #2938 shows 5 files, its own 4 commits, because GitHub compares it to PR 1's branch rather than to main. Against main it would show all of PR 1 too, which is what the auto-created draft did before I retargeted it.
• Reviewers can read PR 2 while PR 1 is still in review, instead of one 3,700-line PR like #2253.

How merging works:

1. PR 1 (#2923) merges into main first.
2. When PR 1's branch is deleted after the merge, GitHub moves #2938's base to main on its own. Its diff stays the same 5 files, because PR 1's commits are now in main.
3. Then PR 2 merges, PR 3 moves to main, and so on up the stack.

entireio/cli uses merge commits (the log shows "Merge pull request #2813"), so the branches above don't need a rebase after each merge. If a PR were squash-merged instead, the next branch would still carry the original commits and would need a git rebase --onto main before it merges cleanly.

Changes while PR 1 is in review: if a review on #2923 changes PR 1, I update its branch, then rebase or merge that into PR 2's branch, and from PR 2's into PR 3's, so each layer stays on top of the one below.

On the trail, each PR is one Change of trail #2635. entire trail merge cli/<n> merges a Change into its base, and per your AGENTS.md that's your call.

Merging is bottom-up only: #2938 shouldn't merge before #2923. Otherwise PR 2's commits land on PR 1's branch instead of main.

They're already stacked PRs on GitHub. There's no separate kind of PR to create: on GitHub, stacking just means each PR's base is the previous PR's branch, and that's how #2923 and #2938 are set up:

• #2923 (PR 1): muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking → main
• #2938 (PR 2): muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance → muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking

PRs 3 to 5 will be opened the same way, each against the branch below it.

What the PRs don't do yet is show the stack to reviewers. #2938 mentions #2923, but #2923 doesn't link forward. The usual fix is a short "Stack" list in each PR's description, with the current PR marked. Here's the exact text for both:

In #2923 the arrow would sit on line 1 instead. As PRs 3 to 5 open, I'd add their numbers to every PR's list.

Should I add this section to #2923 and #2938? If you meant something else, such as GitHub's own stacked-PR tooling or a tool like Graphite, tell me which one and I'll check whether it's available here.

GitHub does have official stacked PRs, via the gh stack extension. Your gh (2.102.0) points at it but doesn't have it installed. Our two PRs can join a GitHub stack without being recreated.

How it would work here:

1. Install the extension: gh extension install github/gh-stack. This installs software on your machine, so I'm asking first.
2. Link the existing PRs into a stack, bottom to top: gh stack link 2923 2938 --remote origin. This reuses #2923 and #2938, adds no new PRs, and keeps their bases as they are, since they already chain correctly. GitHub then shows the PRs as a stack in its UI.
3. Add PRs 3 to 5 as they're ready: gh stack link <stack-number> <new-branch>. This creates the PR on top and appends it to the stack. I'd pass --title to entire trail link as before, so each Change and PR has a proper title.
4. Merge later: gh stack merge <pr> merges every PR from the bottom up to the one you pick, all-or-nothing. Merging stays your call, the same as entire trail merge.

Caveats:

• The feature is in preview, and the docs disagree on whether it's public or private (landing page vs docs). It has to be turned on for the repository. If it's off for entireio/cli, gh stack link fails with "Stacked pull requests are not enabled for this repository", and that's a setting for an org admin.
• The repo's other branch rules and protections still apply when merging (creating stacked PRs).
• This would be a third place tracking the stack, next to trail #2635 and the PR bases. The trail stays the source of truth for the work, and the GitHub stack is just the review view.

Should I install the extension and run gh stack link 2923 2938? If the repo doesn't have stacks enabled, I'll stop there and tell you.

Sources:

• Stacked PRs CLI commands, GitHub Docs
• Creating stacked pull requests, GitHub Docs
• Stacked PRs quickstart, GitHub Docs
• gh-stack project page
• InfoQ: GitHub stacked PRs

We'll keep the current setup: each PR targets the branch below it, and trail #2635 tracks the whole stack. I won't install gh stack or change #2923 or #2938.

Next is PR 3 (git config fidelity). I'd stopped while still reading the source, before writing anything. Its worktree is ready at ~/Work/entireio/cli/git-config-fidelity, on branch muskan/git-config-fidelity, cut from PR 2's tip. Should I finish the investigation and bring you the pre-edit brief?

Here's the prompt for PR 3. It covers everything this session established: the source components, what's out of scope, the open decisions, the publish quirks, and the flaky tests.

I can also save it as PR3 Stack Split Prompt.md in <vault>/Work/Entire/, next to your other saved prompts.

plan.md: none of our PRs or branches contain it.

• Your plan.md is untracked (?? plan.md) and has never been committed in any worktree.
• #2923 and #2938 change only one Markdown file each: docs/architecture/sessions-and-checkpoints.md.
• The single plan.md in the repo's history is triage-plans/plan.md, from a claude[bot] commit made on March 24 on fix/e2e-23502690790. That's unrelated to this work.

Stack info written by hand: yes, you're right. Right now the stack is described by hand in four places:

• #2938's description opens with "PR 2 of the split of #2253, on trail #2635. Base: muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking (#2923)."
• Trail #2635's description lists all five PRs with their statuses.
• ENT-3643 lists all five with their statuses.
• The comment on #2253 says which PR builds on which.

Every new PR or merge means editing all of them by hand, and they drift out of date. A GitHub stack shows the order, the bases and each PR's state on the PRs themselves, and updates on its own.

If we switch to GitHub stacking:

1. gh extension install github/gh-stack installs the extension on your machine.
2. gh stack link 2923 2938 --remote origin puts the two existing PRs into one stack. Nothing is recreated, and the bases stay as they are.
3. Drop the "PR 2 of… Base: …" line from #2938, and don't add one to PRs 3 to 5. Their descriptions keep only the change itself and the issue lines ("Part of #2255", "Part of ENT-3643").
4. In trail #2635 and ENT-3643, keep the five-item plan as the outline of the work, but remove the per-PR statuses, so there's nothing to keep updating. I'd also update the PR 3 prompt I gave you to use gh stack link <stack> muskan/git-config-fidelity instead of describing the stack by hand.

The caveat from before still applies: the feature is in preview and has to be on for entireio/cli. If gh stack link says stacks aren't enabled for the repo, we stay with plain base-branch stacking, and I'd still trim the hand-written status lines.

Should I go ahead with steps 1 to 4?

Yes, you can do it in the browser, no extension needed. Our two PRs already qualify, since each one's base is the head branch of the one below.

1. Open https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/2938 (or #2923).
2. Look for GitHub's banner suggesting these PRs be linked as a stack. GitHub shows it on open PRs that form a chain like ours.
3. Click it. A dialog previews the stack (#2938 on top of #2923). Confirm.
4. The stack map then appears in the header of both PRs.

If there's no banner, stacked PRs probably aren't enabled for entireio/cli. The extension would hit the same wall (its "Stacked pull requests are not enabled for this repository" error), so that answers whether the extension would work too. Turning the feature on would be a repo admin's decision. In that case we keep plain base-branch stacking, which is already in place.

For PR 3 onwards, if the stack works: open any PR in the stack, click the stack icon in the header, then Add to stack. GitHub sets the base to the top PR's branch; you pick muskan/git-config-fidelity and create the PR. Since entire trail link also opens a draft PR for the branch, the order matters. I'd open the PR through "Add to stack" first, then run trail link --title ..., and check that it reuses that PR instead of opening a second one. I'll update the PR 3 prompt with that.

After you link the stack, tell me whether it worked. I'll then trim the hand-written stack text from #2938, trail #2635 and ENT-3643, as planned, showing you each edit first.

Source: Creating stacked pull requests, GitHub Docs

With the stack linked on GitHub, two things are left: trim the hand-written stack text, then start PR 3 in its own session.

1. Trim the hand-written stack text. These are the exact edits; I'll make them when you approve:

• #2938's description: delete the first line, "PR 2 of the split of #2253, on trail #2635. Base: muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking (#2923)." The Entire link block, "Part of #2255." and "Part of ENT-3643." stay.
• Trail #2635 and ENT-3643: keep the five-item plan but drop the status in parentheses, so for example "1. Final-block linking (#2923, in review): …" becomes "1. Final-block linking: …". That also removes "(in progress)" and "(not started)". Nothing else changes.
• #2923: leave as is. "First of five stacked PRs that replace #2253" won't go stale.

2. PR 3 in a new session. Use the prompt I gave you, with these replacements.

Replace the bullet list of PRs at the top of Context with:

Replace publish steps 3 to 7 with:

Step 3 is a browser step, so the new session will have to ask you to click it, the same as you did for the stack.

Also remove from the description paragraph the "PR 3 of the split of #2253, on trail #2635" opening and the "base" mention. It keeps "Fixes #2255.", "Fixes #2256.", "Part of ENT-3643." and the note about extra git config reads until PR 5.

Should I make the edits in step 1?

The hand-written stack text is gone from all three places:

• #2938: I deleted the "PR 2 of the split… Base: …" line. The description now opens with Entire's link block, then "Part of #2255." and "Part of ENT-3643.". Entire has updated that link block on its own to point at the Change URL (…/trails/2635/changes/cli/1714).
• ENT-3643: the five-item plan no longer has the status in parentheses.
• Trail #2635: same change in its description. I read it back and it matches the intended text exactly.
• #2923: left as agreed.

Next is PR 3. Start a new session in ~/Work/entireio/cli/git-config-fidelity and paste the PR 3 prompt with the replacements from my last message: the stack paragraph in Context, publish steps 3 to 7, and the trimmed description paragraph. The worktree is already cut from PR 2's tip, and nothing has been written there yet.

When you publish PR 3, you'll click "Add to stack" on #2938 in the browser, as you did for the stack.

Here's the full PR 3 prompt, with the GitHub stack changes folded in:

The full PR 3 prompt is on your clipboard (103 lines), ready to paste into the new session. It's also saved at /private/tmp/claude-501/-Users-muskanpaliwal-Work-entireio-cli-final-block-checkpoint-linking/5f8d4bf2-decb-4ddb-a211-1595bcfb4b58/scratchpad/pr3-prompt.md.

None of the failures come from our code. There are three causes, and one of them is a real problem for PR 1.

I also have to correct something I said earlier: when I reported #2938's checks, I printed only the last 15 lines of the list. All 15 shown were passing, but that cut off the failures listed below, so "all checks pass" was wrong.

1. Windows canary on #2938: stale run from when it targeted main.

• The error is "no task test:ci:canary:shard found".
• This run started at 08:30, while #2938 was still Entire's draft PR based on main. GitHub used main's current ci.yml, which now splits the Windows canary into three parts with mise run test:ci:canary:shard. But it checked out our branch, which is 158 commits behind main and doesn't have that task.
• test fails only because it requires the canary to pass.
• Rerunning doesn't help, because a rerun keeps the old base. The next push gives #2938 a fresh run against PR 1's branch.

2. The same problem is waiting for #2923. It targets main, so its next CI run will use main's sharded workflow against a branch without the task, and fail the same way. Its current green run happened before main changed. The real fix is to bring main into the stack:

• merge origin/main into muskan/final-block-checkpoint-linking and push;
• merge that branch into muskan/squash-redo-final-block-inheritance and push;
• update PR 3's local worktree the same way.

A trial merge with git merge-tree (which writes nothing) shows both branches merge cleanly with main. I'd use merge commits, which is how this repo merges, so no force-push is needed. I'd run mise run check before each push. This rewrites nothing, but it is two pushes, so I need your go-ahead.

3. controlplane on #2938: download failure. Installing Playwright failed with "could not download Node.js … stream error … INTERNAL_ERROR". That was a network problem on GitHub's runner. It re-runs with the next push, or I can rerun just that job.

"Entire Gates" on both PRs: waiting on a review.

• #2923: "No reviewers have approved this trail". Checks and findings pass.
• #2938: the same, plus "CI checks have not passed" from cause 1.

These clear when someone approves the Change and CI goes green.

Should I merge main into both branches and push? That also gives PR 3 a current base before you start its session.

PR 2 merged cleanly, and its diff against PR 1 is still the same 5 files. Waiting for PR 1's mise run check to finish.

PR 1's branch is pushed with main merged in. PR 2's merge and its full mise run check are running in the background, about 14 minutes. I'll push PR 2 and update PR 3's worktree once the check finishes.

What changed on PR 1 (#2923):

• Merged origin/main (158 commits) as a merge commit. No conflicts.
• A real test failure from the merge, now fixed in commit 48f97de871. main added TestEndedSessionWithTranscriptOnlyEdits_FullyCondensedAfterCommit, which fails every time on our branch. The test writes a trailer into the commit by hand without recording the stamp prepare would have made, so under PR 1's rule (post-commit condenses only into a stamped trailer) it never reaches the logic it checks. The fixture now records the stamp, as PR 1 already does in other tests.
• A sibling test in the same file had the same problem without failing. TestIdleSessionLinkedByLiveTranscript_NotCondensedIntoUnrelatedCommit asserts "not condensed", which held trivially. It now records the stamp too, and still passes.
• Verification:
  • The full strategy package and lint (0 issues) pass.
  • The two known load flakes, TestDiscoverAndRegister_ContinuesAfterRegistrationError and TestExternalCommand_SigintReachesPlugin, failed in the full mise run check but pass when rerun on their own.
  • The push triggers a new CI run on #2923 using main's current workflow, including the sharded Windows canary.