Repository navigation
Conversation
…odule) to .t27
Re-author the same-bank-13 routing test as
specs/port/trinity/hardware/rtl-root/d_bank13_test.t27 so the module is
generated from .t27 instead of hand-written Verilog. The original is the
direct connection assign led = clk: one clock input, one LED output that
mirrors it.
- module trinity_top carries the original's name and port view
(Inputs{clk}, Outputs{led}); t27c gen-verilog emits module trinity_top (
- connect_direct(clk) is the decision: the output wire equals the input,
no state, no control
- compute_outputs(Inputs) -> Outputs describes the module's behaviour
- on_comb(clk) -> bool is the data surface: parameter lowers to the input
wire, return to the 1-bit result the assign drives
- 5 tests assert led == clk in both clock states, on the compute surface,
the decision function and the data surface; 2 invariants pin the
identity at compile time
Verified: t27c parse OK; t27c typecheck OK (0 errors, 0 warnings);
spec-status IMPLEMENTED; test-report 5/5 pass, 0 BLOCKED; coverage
3/3 functions tested; gen-verilog emits module trinity_top with
input wire clk and assign result = on_comb(clk).
Closes #9440
A pull request must add exactly one docs/now entry and a bee has no way to know that: its brief names a boundary file and acceptance criteria, and docs/now/ is neither. The publisher adds it rather than failing the gate. Closes #9440 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
![tri-claw[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/5166765?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewer bee verdict for head 0e8866eed24e311b35adc0651c7be734d710a53f (tools/bees/reviewer.py, zai glm-4.7-flash, 3 turns, 173 s; then glm-4.5-flash, 4 turns, 124 s).
BEE-VERDICT: APPROVE
summary: All acceptance criteria passed; all 3 red checks are discounted (failed on master or not run on master)
criterion: 1. File exists -- met -- evidence: brief.md:494 "prints present"
criterion: 2. Module name correct -- met -- evidence: brief.md:495 "prints 1"
criterion: 3. Generated Verilog correct -- met -- evidence: brief.md:496 "prints 1"
criterion: 4. File parses -- met -- evidence: brief.md:497 "printed IMPLEMENTED"
criterion: 5. Has tests -- met -- evidence: brief.md:498 "printed 5"
criterion: 6. Tests run (no BLOCKED) -- met -- evidence: brief.md:499 "printed 0"
discounted-check: cli-tri -- not run on master for the last 6 commits (this PR is within that window), failure unrelated to this PR
discounted-check: duplicate-bodies -- failed on master 6560fc0 for same reason (existing bodies being copied, not introduced by this PR)
discounted-check: t27b-native-ratchet -- failed on master 6560fc0 for same reason (ratchet comparing against baseline, not specific to this PR)
Evidence
Based on the brief and diff, I need to analyze two things:
- Does the change satisfy issue #9440's acceptance criteria?
- Do the red checks count against this head?
Analysis
1. Acceptance Criteria
Looking at the "Criteria the runner ran" section (lines 492-499), ALL 6 criteria passed:
| Criterion | Result | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| File exists | PASSED | test -f specs/port/trinity/hardware/rtl-root/d_bank13_test.t27 && echo present printed present |
| Module name correct | PASSED | grep -cE '^\s*(pub )?module trinity_top\b' printed 1 |
| Generated Verilog correct | PASSED | t27c gen-verilog + grep printed 1 |
| File parses | PASSED | t27c spec-status printed IMPLEMENTED (not NOPARSE) |
| Has tests | PASSED | grep -cE '^[[:space:]]*test...' printed 5 |
| Tests run (no BLOCKED) | PASSED | t27c test-report |
The PR also wrote exactly one file (specs/port/trinity/hardware/rtl-root/d_bank13_test.t27) and nothing else (the diff shows only that file plus a docs entry that the brief explicitly says the bee cannot know about).
2. Red Checks Analysis
There are 3 red checks. I need to check if each is discounted.
duplicate-bodies -- FAILURE
- On master: MASTER 6560fc0: FAILURE
- Evidence: brief line 338 says "on master: master 6560fc0: failure"
- Failing step output (lines 383-386): Three bodies now copied (bit_at, build_level, build_report_frame), but no new bodies in this PR
- Discount: This check is discounted — it failed on master for the same reason (existing bodies being copied, not introduced by this PR)
cli-tri -- FAILURE
- On master: "not run on the last 6 commits of master"
- Evidence: brief line 390 says "on master: not run on the last 6 commits of master"
- Failing step: Cargo build for tri binary
- Root cause: Rust compiler errors in
cli/tri/src/nownote.rs:437(struct construction) and unrelated warnings - Discount: This check is discounted — it is not run on master for the same commits, and the failure is not related to this PR's changes (no mention of d_bank13_test.t27 in the log)
t27b-native-ratchet -- FAILURE
- On master: MASTER 6560fc0: FAILURE
- Evidence: brief line 442 says "on master: master 6560fc0: failure"
- Failing step: Ratchet verdict is "red, exit 1" (line 478-486)
- Conclusion: The log shows no changes to the corpus; the test "1" = "0" fails (ratchet is comparing against a baseline and finding a regression)
- Discount: This check is discounted — it failed on master for the same reason, and the ratchet verdict is comparing against a baseline, not specifically about this PR
Additional Notes
The PR diff also shows a new file docs/now/2026-10-14-published-port-ghashtag-trinity-hardware-rtl-root-d-bank13-test-v-veri.md, but the brief explicitly states: "This entry is written by the publisher, not by the bee. A pull request must add exactly one docs/now/ entry and a bee has no way to know that: its brief names a boundary file and acceptance criteria, and docs/now/ is neither."
The bee's work is correctly contained in the boundary file specs/port/trinity/hardware/rtl-root/d_bank13_test.t27. The docs entry is from the publisher (tools/queen/publish.py), not part of the bee's responsibility.
Second, independent review (glm-4.5-flash): APPROVE -- Successfully ports Verilog module trinity_top to .t27 specification with all acceptance criteria met
tri-claw
Bot
added
the
bee-reviewed
This branch has not been deployed
2 participants
Closes #9440
Written by a bee on
queen-9440and published bytools/queen/publish.py. The branch itself is the bee's; the second commit is the coordination entry every pull request must add, which a bee has no way to know about.🤖 Generated with Claude Code