# Alignment Dialogue: Blue Config Architecture

**Draft**: Dialogue 2033
**Date**: 2026-01-26 18:29Z
**Status**: Converged
**RFC**: [0033-comprehensive-config-architecture](../rfcs/0033-comprehensive-config-architecture.draft.md)
**Participants**: 💙 Judge, 🧁 Muffin, 🧁 Cupcake, 🧁 Scone, 🧁 Eclair, 🧁 Donut, 🧁 Brioche, 🧁 Croissant, 🧁 Macaron, 🧁 Cannoli, 🧁 Strudel, 🧁 Beignet, 🧁 Churro

## Expert Panel

| Agent | Role | Tier | Relevance | Emoji |
|-------|------|------|-----------|-------|
| 💙 Judge | Orchestrator | — | — | 💙 |
| 🧁 Muffin | Systems Architect | Core | 0.95 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Cupcake | Systems Thinker | Core | 0.90 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Scone | Domain Expert | Core | 0.85 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Eclair | Devil's Advocate | Core | 0.80 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Donut | Integration Specialist | Adjacent | 0.70 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Brioche | Risk Analyst | Adjacent | 0.65 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Croissant | First Principles Reasoner | Adjacent | 0.60 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Macaron | Pattern Recognizer | Adjacent | 0.55 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Cannoli | Edge Case Hunter | Adjacent | 0.50 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Strudel | Systems Thinker | Wildcard | 0.40 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Beignet | Domain Expert | Wildcard | 0.35 | 🧁 |
| 🧁 Churro | Devil's Advocate | Wildcard | 0.30 | 🧁 |

## Alignment Scoreboard

| Agent | R0 | R1 | R2 | **Total** |
|-------|-----|-----|-----|----------|
| 🧁 Muffin | 11 | 13 | 14 | **38** |
| 🧁 Cupcake | 10 | 13 | 14 | **37** |
| 🧁 Scone | 11 | 13 | 14 | **38** |
| 🧁 Eclair | 12 | 12 | 14 | **38** |
| 🧁 Donut | 10 | 12 | 14 | **36** |
| 🧁 Brioche | 12 | 12 | 14 | **38** |
| 🧁 Croissant | 10 | 13 | 14 | **37** |
| 🧁 Macaron | 10 | 12 | 14 | **36** |
| 🧁 Cannoli | 11 | 12 | 14 | **37** |
| 🧁 Strudel | 11 | 13 | 14 | **38** |
| 🧁 Beignet | 13 | 13 | 14 | **40** |
| 🧁 Churro | 11 | 13 | 14 | **38** |

**Total ALIGNMENT**: 451

## Perspectives Inventory

| ID | Agent | Perspective | Round |
|----|-------|-------------|-------|
| P01 | 🧁 Muffin | Schema versioning prevents future breakage | 0 |
| P02 | 🧁 Muffin | Release constraints belong in config, not hardcoded | 0 |
| P03 | 🧁 Cupcake | Lifecycle stages need config representation | 0 |
| P04 | 🧁 Scone | Worktree initialization is a constraint-propagation problem | 0 |
| P05 | 🧁 Scone | Release workflow belongs in constraints, not scattered | 0 |
| P06 | 🧁 Eclair | Config.yaml is the wrong layer for worktree constraints | 0 |
| P07 | 🧁 Eclair | Forge config is already incomplete | 0 |
| P08 | 🧁 Donut | Schema validation as first-class concern | 0 |
| P09 | 🧁 Brioche | Config validation as initialization contract | 0 |
| P10 | 🧁 Brioche | Release constraints need state tracking | 0 |
| P11 | 🧁 Croissant | Worktree initialization is chicken-and-egg | 0 |
| P12 | 🧁 Croissant | Release constraints are behavioral, not declarative | 0 |
| P13 | 🧁 Macaron | Schema evolution vs. validation enforcement | 0 |
| P14 | 🧁 Cannoli | First-run experience needs optional fields | 0 |
| P15 | 🧁 Cannoli | Release constraints belong in config, not just docs | 0 |
| P16 | 🧁 Strudel | Configuration lifecycle is the missing dimension | 0 |
| P17 | 🧁 Beignet | Config as lifecycle state machine | 0 |
| P18 | 🧁 Beignet | Separation of concerns—config vs state | 0 |
| P19 | 🧁 Churro | Config should encode lifecycle state, not just settings | 0 |
| P20 | 🧁 Churro | Branch constraints belong in Git config, not Blue config | 0 |

## Tensions Tracker

| ID | Tension | Status | Raised | Resolved |
|----|---------|--------|--------|----------|
| T1 | Worktree initialization is underspecified | **RESOLVED** | 🧁 Muffin | R1: `.env.isolated` generation |
| T2 | Config vs. code-enforced invariants | Partial | 🧁 Cupcake | — |
| T3 | Config sprawl vs. single source of truth | **RESOLVED** | 🧁 Scone | R1: Single file wins |
| T4 | Missing worktree initialization spec | **RESOLVED** | 🧁 Eclair | R1: Merged with T1 |
| T5 | Initialization vs. validation ordering | Partial | 🧁 Donut | — |
| T6 | Single file vs. layered validation | **RESOLVED** | 🧁 Brioche | R1: Single file + schema versioning |
| T7 | AWS profile scope ambiguity (multi-account) | Open | 🧁 Croissant | — |
| T8 | Single file vs. concern separation | **RESOLVED** | 🧁 Macaron | R1: Semantic sections in single file |
| T9 | Config precedence vs. forge autodiscovery | Open | 🧁 Cannoli | — |
| T10 | Forge configuration source of truth unclear | Open | 🧁 Strudel | — |
| T11 | Config purity vs runtime state | **RESOLVED** | 🧁 Beignet | R1: Config pure, state in blue.db |
| T12 | Branch constraints: Blue config vs Git/Forge | **RESOLVED** | 🧁 Churro | R1: Blue observes, Forge enforces |
| T13 | Observe vs enforce + schema versioning location | **RESOLVED** | Multiple R1 | R2: Blue observes, Forge enforces (12/12) |

## Round 0: Opening Arguments

### 🧁 Muffin

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Schema versioning prevents future breakage]

The `.blue/config.yaml` needs explicit versioning from day one. RFC 0032 omits this, but context.manifest.yaml already models it with `version: 1`. As Blue evolves across repos with different update cadences, unversioned config will create silent failures or force lockstep upgrades.

Propose top-level schema:
```yaml
version: 1

forge:
  type: github
  host: ...
  owner: ...
  repo: ...

aws:
  profile: cultivarium

release:
  main_branch: main
  develop_branch: develop

worktree:
  # initialization hooks or constraints TBD
```

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints belong in config, not hardcoded]

The requirement "develop on develop branch, merge to main only on release" suggests release policy varies by repo. Some repos may use trunk-based development, others gitflow variants. Hardcoding branch names in Blue's Rust logic couples tooling to workflow.

[TENSION T1: Worktree initialization is underspecified]

The topic mentions "worktree initialization requirements" but RFC 0032 only addresses AWS profile injection into `.env.isolated`. What other initialization needs exist?

---

### 🧁 Cupcake

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Lifecycle stages need config representation]

RFC 0032 addresses AWS profiles, but the broader config architecture must support **worktree initialization checks** and **release constraints**. These are lifecycle concerns, not runtime configuration. Current config.yaml has no concept of repo lifecycle state.

Proposal: Add a `lifecycle` section to config.yaml:

```yaml
lifecycle:
  worktree:
    required_paths:
      - .blue/state/
      - .blue/docs/
    initialization_check: true

  branching:
    develop: develop
    release: main
    enforce_release_branch: true
```

[TENSION T1: Config vs. code-enforced invariants]

Where's the line between "configuration" and "Blue's opinionated defaults"? If every Blue repo must have `develop` and `main` branches, why make it configurable?

**Recommendation**: Start with hard-coded defaults in Blue's Rust code. Add config overrides **only when a real repo needs them**.

---

### 🧁 Scone

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Worktree initialization is a constraint-propagation problem]

RFC 0032 treats AWS profile as isolated config, but worktree initialization is actually **constraint verification**. When `blue worktree init` runs, it needs to validate:
- Required branches exist (develop, main)
- Forge connectivity works
- AWS profile is valid (if specified)

The config schema should distinguish **requirements** (must be satisfied) from **preferences** (nice to have).

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release workflow belongs in constraints, not scattered]

The "develop on develop, merge to main only on release" rule is a **branch policy**, not a runtime config. Proposal:

```yaml
policies:
  branches:
    develop:
      protected: false
      commit_direct: true
    main:
      protected: true
      merge_from: [develop]
      merge_trigger: release_only
```

[TENSION T1: Config sprawl vs. single source of truth]

We have `.blue/config.yaml`, `.blue/context.manifest.yaml`, `.env.isolated`, `.gitignore` patterns. Are these truly separate concerns, or should config.yaml **import** context.manifest.yaml?

---

### 🧁 Eclair

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config.yaml is the wrong layer for worktree constraints]

RFC 0032 places AWS profile in `config.yaml`, but the stated requirement includes "worktree initialization requirements" and "release constraints". These are **lifecycle policies**, not configuration values.

Evidence from context.manifest.yaml: it already distinguishes Identity/Workflow/Reference tiers. Release constraints are "what should I do" rules, not "who am I" config. They belong in a different layer—possibly `.blue/policies.yaml`.

[TENSION T1: Missing worktree initialization spec]

The topic demands "worktree initialization requirements" but RFC 0032 only addresses AWS profile injection. What about required branch naming patterns? Pre-commit hook installation? Required directory structure?

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Forge config is already incomplete]

Current forge config is skeletal—just connection params. No mention of PR template paths, required reviewers, branch protection expectations. Before expanding config.yaml, we need to decide: is this file **connection strings only**, or **the entire repo policy specification**?

---

### 🧁 Donut

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Schema validation as first-class concern]

RFC 0032 shows `forge` and `aws` as parallel top-level keys, but config.yaml is becoming a **trust boundary**. The file drives MCP behavior, worktree isolation, and AWS credentials. We need schema validation baked in.

```yaml
schema_version: 1
forge:
  type: github
  ...

aws:
  profile: cultivarium

worktree:
  require_branch: develop
  release_branch: main
```

[TENSION T01: Initialization vs. validation ordering]

RFC 0032's precedence says "Shell AWS_PROFILE wins" but worktree initialization happens **before** the user has a chance to set shell vars. The `.env.isolated` gets written with config's profile, then user must override manually.

---

### 🧁 Brioche

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config validation as initialization contract]

RFC 0032 proposes adding `aws.profile`, but there's a broader pattern: **config.yaml should encode initialization requirements, not just runtime preferences**. Four proposed sections reflect different risk profiles:

1. **`forge`** - runtime-only (tools fail gracefully)
2. **`aws`** - runtime-only (inherits shell default)
3. **`worktree.required`** - Hard initialization requirement (blocks commands)
4. **`release.constraints`** - Soft validation (warns, doesn't block)

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints need state tracking]

"develop on develop, merge to main only on release" isn't just config—it's **state + policy**. Config can declare the policy, but enforcement requires tracking current branch, merge attempts, release markers.

**RISK**: If config.yaml contains policy but Blue doesn't track state to enforce it, the config becomes documentation, not enforcement.

[TENSION T1: Single file vs. layered validation]

Putting all repo-level config in one file conflates: static declarations, dynamic constraints, initialization gates, context manifest (already separate).

---

### 🧁 Croissant

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Worktree initialization is a chicken-and-egg problem]

RFC 0032 shows `blue_env_mock` generates `.env.isolated` from config, but the config schema doesn't specify **initialization-time** concerns. When Blue encounters a fresh worktree, what must happen before any tool runs?

Worktrees need more than environment variables—they need:
1. Git setup (fetch/tracking)
2. Branch constraints validated (am I on develop?)
3. Forge connection tested
4. AWS credentials verified

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints are behavioral, not declarative]

The develop-branch workflow shows constraints enforced in `blue_pr_create` code—not config. But these are repo-level policies. Proposal:

```yaml
workflow:
  branch_model: gitflow  # or: trunk, github_flow
  base_branch: develop
  release_branch: main
  feature_prefix: rfc/
```

[TENSION T1: AWS profile scope ambiguity]

RFC 0032 adds `aws.profile` but doesn't address multi-environment repos. What if a repo deploys to **both** cultivarium (dev) and muffinlabs (prod)? The "one profile per repo" model breaks.

---

### 🧁 Macaron

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Schema evolution vs. validation enforcement]

RFC 0032 proposes adding `aws` alongside `forge`. But we're building a **living schema** that will grow. Without versioning and validation at load-time, we'll hit silent failures when configs drift from code expectations.

**Evidence**: context.manifest.yaml shows `version: 1` at the top. But config.yaml has no version field. When we add `worktree.required_branch: develop`, how does Blue detect stale configs?

[TENSION T1: Single file vs. concern separation]

Consider the lifecycle difference:
- AWS profile: changes when switching cloud accounts (rare)
- Worktree rules: changes during branch policy shifts (medium frequency)
- Forge host: changes during infrastructure migrations (rare)
- Release constraints: changes during workflow evolution (rare)

These have different stakeholders and change frequencies. Bundling them means every Blue command must parse and validate all concerns.

**Alternative**: Keep config.yaml for repo identity (forge, aws), introduce `.blue/policies/` for enforcement rules.

---

### 🧁 Cannoli

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Worktree initialization is a chicken-egg problem]

RFC 0032 assumes `.blue/config.yaml` already exists when worktrees initialize. But what if the worktree IS the initialization? If someone clones Blue fresh, we need config.yaml to exist with sensible defaults BEFORE any Blue code runs.

This implies config schema must support OPTIONAL fields for everything except repo identity.

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints belong in config, not just docs]

The requirement "develop on develop branch, merge to main only on release" is a POLICY that should be machine-checkable:

```yaml
release:
  development_branch: develop
  stable_branch: main
  enforce_policy: true
```

Edge case: what if someone NEEDS to hotfix main? Config should allow policy overrides without editing the file.

[TENSION T1: Config precedence vs. forge autodiscovery]

Should config values be:
- **Declarative** (static, committed): repo name, owner, policies
- **Discoverable** (dynamic, env-aware): forge host, AWS profile defaults

If we mix both, changes to discoverable values create merge conflicts. Perhaps: `.blue/config.yaml` (committed) + `.blue/config.local.yaml` (gitignored)?

---

### 🧁 Strudel

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Configuration lifecycle is the missing dimension]

RFC 0032 focuses on AWS profile mechanics but ignores **when** configuration becomes authoritative. The real challenge: config.yaml needs different semantics during initialization versus steady-state operation.

Consider: `blue init` or `blue worktree create` must **write** forge config (detecting from git remotes) and **prompt** for AWS profile. But after initialization, config becomes read-only truth. This dual nature—mutable during bootstrap, immutable during operation—isn't addressed.

A comprehensive config needs:
1. **Schema version** for migration paths
2. **Initialization metadata** (when created, by what Blue version)
3. **Constraint declarations** (release workflow)
4. **Validation rules** (required fields, cross-field constraints)

[TENSION T1: Forge configuration source of truth is unclear]

RFC 0032 treats forge as existing config, but does Blue **generate** this from git remotes, or does the user write it? If generated, what happens when remotes change?

Proposal: `blue init` should write **initial** config with `# GENERATED` markers for derived fields and `# REQUIRED` markers for user-supplied fields.

---

### 🧁 Beignet

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as lifecycle state machine]

RFC 0032 treats `.blue/config.yaml` as a static declaration, but the topic requirements reveal it's actually a **state machine**. Consider:
- **Worktree initialization**: requires detection of "is this initialized?" vs "needs setup"
- **Release constraints**: requires tracking "which branch am I on?" and "is this a release context?"

The current schema is too minimal. But RFC 0032 only adds `aws.profile`—it doesn't address the temporal dimension.

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Separation of concerns—config vs state]

Looking at `context.manifest.yaml`, Blue already has precedent for **configuration architecture patterns**. That file separates declaration, lifecycle triggers, and resource graph.

Apply this pattern to config.yaml:
```yaml
forge: ...
aws: ...

repository:
  main_branch: main
  develop_branch: develop
  release_policy: develop_to_main_only

worktree:
  initialized: false  # or track in .blue/state/ instead?
```

[TENSION T1: Config purity vs runtime state]

Should `.blue/config.yaml` contain **mutable state** (like `worktree.initialized`)? This violates config-as-contract semantics.

Options:
1. Keep config pure, track state in `.blue/state/worktree.state`
2. Accept config mutability for operational pragmatics
3. Hybrid: config declares requirements, separate state file tracks fulfillment

**Evidence**: Git doesn't put "is working tree clean?" in `.git/config`. Config declares identity; state tracks operations.

---

### 🧁 Churro

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config should encode lifecycle state, not just settings]

RFC 0032 treats `.blue/config.yaml` as pure configuration, but the worktree initialization requirement suggests something deeper: **config must encode repo lifecycle state**. Is this repo initialized? Which branch should develop happen on?

The tension: if config.yaml becomes the single source of truth, it must handle BOTH:
1. **Declarative settings** (AWS profile, forge host)
2. **Lifecycle constraints** (develop-on-develop, release-to-main-only)

But RFC 0032's schema is flat key-value. Where do branch policies live?

[TENSION T1: Initialization state vs. configuration settings]

"Worktree initialization requirements" implies Blue needs to track whether initialization happened successfully. But config files don't naturally encode "this step completed at timestamp X."

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Branch constraints belong in Git config, not Blue config]

The requirement "develop on develop branch, merge to main only on release" smells like Git configuration, not Blue configuration. Git already has branch settings, protected branch settings live at forge level.

**Challenge**: Should Blue's config.yaml duplicate what Git and the forge already know? Or should Blue **read** from Git config and **defer** branch policy to the forge's API? This would make config.yaml thinner, focused on Blue-specific concerns.

---

## 💙 Judge Summary: Round 0

**Strong Convergence Emerging On:**
1. **Schema versioning required** (P01, P08, P13, P16) — unanimous
2. **Config vs state separation** (P17, P18, T11) — config.yaml should be pure declarations, state lives elsewhere
3. **Release constraints belong in config** (P02, P05, P12, P15) — but format TBD

**Key Tensions Requiring Resolution:**
- **T1/T4**: What exactly IS "worktree initialization"? — needs specification
- **T3/T6/T8**: Single file vs layered validation — fundamental architecture question
- **T11**: Config purity vs runtime state — clear preference for separation emerging
- **T12**: Blue config vs Git/Forge for branch policies — provocative challenge

**Proceeding to Round 1** — Experts will address these specific tensions.

## Round 1: Tension Resolution

### 🧁 Muffin

[RESOLVED T1: Worktree initialization specification]

"Worktree initialization" means the `.env.isolated` file generation during `blue_env_mock`. The config requirement is straightforward: what environment variables should Blue inject when creating isolated worktree environments?

[PERSPECTIVE P1: Config is a computed input boundary]

Config shouldn't be "pure static YAML" vs "stateful runtime"—it's the **input boundary for Blue's computed state**. Config.yaml declares **what should be computed**, not the computation results. State files hold materialized values.

[CONCESSION: Branch policies belong in Git/Forge]

Blue should **read and validate** branch protection rules, not duplicate them. Config declares intent, Blue queries forge APIs to verify policies are enforced.

---

### 🧁 Cupcake

[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]

Worktree initialization is **environment isolation for parallel work contexts**:
1. Creating isolated shell environment files per worktree
2. Injecting repo-specific config (AWS_PROFILE, PATH modifications)
3. Preventing cross-contamination between concurrent work streams

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as dependency injection contract]

Config.yaml should be a **dependency injection specification**. It declares what external systems a repo depends on without containing runtime state.

[RESOLVED T11: Config purity via dependency model]

Config declares dependencies; blue.db tracks runtime state. The dependency model makes this separation natural.

---

### 🧁 Scone

[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]

"Worktree initialization" = the set of operations Blue performs when creating an isolated work environment.

[PERSPECTIVE P1: Config as declarative constraints]

Test: "Does this value change per-worktree?" → STATE. "Does this value define repo identity?" → CONFIG. "Does this express a policy enforced at boundaries?" → CONFIG.

[RESOLVED T11: State separation pattern]

Config purity is non-negotiable:
- `config.yaml` — immutable declarations (version-controlled)
- `state/session.db` — ephemeral runtime data (gitignored)
- `.env.isolated` — generated artifacts (gitignored)

[RESOLVED T12: Branch policies belong in config]

Blue SHOULD express branch policies because it's **enforcing workflow constraints at tool boundaries**. Git knows nothing about "RFC work" or "release semantics"—Blue does.

---

### 🧁 Eclair

[RESOLVED T11: Config vs State Separation]

RFC 0032 shows the **right instinct** — pure config in config.yaml, runtime state stays out.

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Worktree Init = Environment Injection]

"Initialization" = translating static config into environment variables for isolation.

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Branch Policies Are Forge Responsibility]

Release constraints like "develop on develop, merge to main only on release" aren't Blue config—they're **branch protection rules**. Config declares `forge.main_branch: main`, Blue respects those when generating PR targets.

[REFINEMENT: Single File With Clear Sections]

Single file, domain sections. Add `schema_version: 1`. Validation runs per-section.

---

### 🧁 Donut

[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]

"Worktree initialization" = (1) creating `.env.isolated`, (2) ensuring git branch constraints validated, (3) setting up forge access.

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as contract, not implementation]

Config.yaml = "what this repo IS", separate files = "how Blue behaves".

[REFINED: Single file with schema evolution, not layers]

Reject layered validation. Single config.yaml with mandatory `version: 2` field, validated against versioned schema.

[RESOLVED T12: Blue config vs Git/Forge for branch policies]

Blue SHOULD declare branch policies: worktree isolation requires validating branch before creating environment.

---

### 🧁 Brioche

[RESOLVED T1: Worktree initialization specification]

RFC 0032 shows worktree initialization = `.env.isolated` generation.

[TENSION T13: Release constraints are git workflow, not Blue concerns]

Should Blue enforce branch policies, or document them? This is scope creep risk—we're building Blue, not reimplementing GitHub branch protection.

[REFINEMENT: Single file with validation stages, not layers]

ONE config.yaml file, Rust deserializes to typed structs, validation at load time.

[RESOLVED T11: Config purity through read-only semantics]

Config should be read-only after load. Rust's ownership model enforces this.

---

### 🧁 Croissant

[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]

First principle: **Worktree initialization is a CAPABILITY, not configuration**. Config declares WHAT (AWS profile = cultivarium), implementation decides HOW (write to .env.isolated).

[PERSPECTIVE P1: Config schema versioning protects future evolution]

Without versioning: cannot safely evolve structure, cannot migrate legacy configs.

[RESOLVED T11: Pure config vs runtime state]

Config contains ONLY declarations that answer "what should this repo be?" NOT "what is happening right now?"

[TENSION T13: Branch policy authority]

Blue should VALIDATE workspace state, not ENFORCE Git policy. Config declares branches, Blue checks on session start, warns on mismatch, but doesn't block.

---

### 🧁 Macaron

[RESOLVED T1: Worktree initialization specification]

"Initialization" = populating the isolated environment with repo-specific settings.

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as compilation target]

Config.yaml should be a compilation target for validation logic, not runtime execution. Config is the source, validation artifacts are generated.

[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints belong in forge config]

Branch policies are forge-specific. Schema should nest under `forge:`.

[CONCESSION: State separation is correct]

Agree—blue.db tracks runtime state, config stays declarative.

---

### 🧁 Cannoli

[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]

"Worktree initialization" = declaring runtime preconditions (AWS profiles, env vars) that must exist before code execution.

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as contract, not implementation]

Config should be a **requirements contract**: "This repo requires AWS profile X, Node v20, ANTHROPIC_API_KEY present."

[TENSION T1.1: Version inheritance vs explicit declaration]

Do worktrees inherit config from repo root, or can each worktree override?

[RESOLVED T12: Blue owns enforcement, not policy source]

Git/Forge define branch policies, but Blue **enforces them locally**. This isn't duplication—it's client-side validation.

---

### 🧁 Strudel

[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]

"Worktree initialization" = ensuring .env.isolated exists and contains declarations from config.yaml.

[PERSPECTIVE P1: Config is a deployment contract]

We're defining a **contract between repo and runtime**.

[RESOLVED T3/T6/T8: Single file wins with schema evolution]

Single file with versioned schema gives clear entry point, explicit migration path, room to grow.

Key principle: **Config declares invariants, state tracks variance**.

---

### 🧁 Beignet

[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]

Worktree initialization is **environment injection**:
- `AWS_PROFILE` from config
- Git hooks path override
- PATH modifications for isolated tooling

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Context manifest demonstrates layered pattern]

`context.manifest.yaml` implements tiered structure (identity/workflow/reference). Config.yaml should follow suit with `repository:` and `workflow:` sections.

[TENSION T13: Schema versioning location]

Where does `version: 1` live? At config root or per-section?

[CONCESSION: Defer to Git/Forge for branch protection]

Blue should NOT duplicate forge rules. The `workflow.branching` section is **documentation + validation assistance**, not enforcement.

---

### 🧁 Churro

[RESOLVED T1] **Worktree initialization specification**

"Worktree initialization" = settings that Blue's process needs to inject before ANY work happens. From RFC 0032, this is `std::env::set_var()` in `ensure_state()` and `.env.isolated` generation. These aren't "constraints" or "policies"—they're **ambient context**.

[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as Process Requirements]

The real question: **what does Blue's process need to function correctly in THIS repo?**

Config declares dependencies. Enforcement lives elsewhere.

[TENSION T13: Branch policy ownership]

Wrong framing on T12. Question is: **who enforces vs. who observes?** Blue needs to KNOW "releases happen from main" to generate correct release docs. Blue doesn't need to BLOCK merges.

[CONCESSION: State separation was correct]

T11's preference for separating config from state is right. Don't merge them.

---

## 💙 Judge Summary: Round 1

### Tensions RESOLVED (6 of 12):

| Tension | Resolution |
|---------|------------|
| **T1/T4** | Worktree init = `.env.isolated` generation + environment injection |
| **T3/T6/T8** | Single file with schema versioning wins over layered configs |
| **T11** | Config pure (declarations), state in blue.db/state/ |
| **T12** | Blue observes/validates branch policies, Forge enforces |

### Convergent Schema Emerging:

```yaml
version: 1

forge:
  type: github
  host: github.com
  owner: superviber
  repo: blue

aws:
  profile: cultivarium

release:
  develop_branch: develop
  main_branch: main
  # Blue validates, Forge enforces

worktree:
  env:
    # Additional env vars for .env.isolated
```

### Remaining Tension: T13 (Observe vs Enforce)

5+ experts independently raised the **observe vs enforce** distinction:
- Blue should **observe** branch policies (know them, validate against them)
- Blue should **NOT enforce** them (that's the forge's job)
- Config documents intent; tooling interprets; forge enforces

### Velocity Assessment

Round 0: 122 | Round 1: 161 | **Total: 283**

Major tensions resolved. T13 is the remaining architectural question.

**Recommendation**: Proceed to Round 2 to nail down T13 (observe vs enforce) and reach 100% convergence.

## Round 2: Final Convergence

### 🧁 Muffin
[RESOLVED T13] Blue should observe branch policies, not enforce them. Enforcement creates brittle coupling when forge APIs evolve.
[REFINEMENT] Added `blue config migrate` and `blue config validate` commands for schema versioning.

### 🧁 Cupcake
[RESOLVED T13] RATIFIED. Blue = workflow orchestrator. Forge = authority system.
[REFINEMENT] Observation scope: validation, warnings, routing intelligence, gap reporting.
[CONCESSION] Simplicity over completeness. This architecture will age well because it doesn't overreach.

### 🧁 Scone
[RESOLVED T13] Blue observes topology, validates patterns, provides guidance. Forge enforcement is out of scope.
[REFINEMENT] Schema is minimal and sufficient. Avoids security theater.

### 🧁 Eclair
[RESOLVED T13] RATIFIED. Blue's value is intelligent observation—validate config matches forge, surface violations early.
[CONCESSION] Observation is sufficient. Local enforcement would just delay inevitable forge rejection.

### 🧁 Donut
[RESOLVED T13] Blue knows, validates, but never blocks Git operations.
[PERSPECTIVE P14] Branch policies aren't constraints—they're **cognitive context** for Blue's decisions.

### 🧁 Brioche
[RESOLVED T13] Risk assessment: observe-only is SAFE.
[REFINEMENT] Blue should validate early: at worktree init, during status, before push.
[CONCESSION] Initially skeptical, but Blue cannot meaningfully enforce what Forge ultimately adjudicates.

### 🧁 Croissant
[RESOLVED T13] From first principles: **Authority derives from control**. Forge controls enforcement, Blue controls observation.
[REFINEMENT] Blue is a pre-flight validator, not a gatekeeper.

### 🧁 Macaron
[RESOLVED T13] Pattern matches: Terraform validate vs apply, ESLint vs runtime, mypy vs Python.
[CONCESSION] Schema declares branch ROLES, not RULES. Forge config already shows this pattern.

### 🧁 Cannoli
[RESOLVED T13] Edge cases validated: offline ops, config drift, mid-flight changes, multi-contributor scenarios.
[REFINEMENT] Validation timing: pre-flight + on-error.

### 🧁 Strudel
[RESOLVED T13] Architecture is systemically sound. Knowledge layer (Blue) vs enforcement layer (Forge).
[PERSPECTIVE P01] Config is a **contract between system layers**.

### 🧁 Beignet
[RESOLVED T13] RATIFIED. Matches real-world team dynamics perfectly.
[REFINEMENT] Rename mental model: "validate vs authorize" instead of "observe vs enforce".

### 🧁 Churro
[RESOLVED T13] As Devil's Advocate, stress-tested all enforcement arguments. Observe wins decisively.
- "Users expect tools to prevent mistakes" — fails, git doesn't block bad pushes
- "Fail fast locally" — fails, Forge CI feedback is fast enough
- "Avoid wasted CI cycles" — marginal benefit, not worth complexity
[CONCESSION] The observe-not-enforce boundary holds under pressure. Ratified.

---

## 💙 Judge: CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED

### Final Resolution: 100% Alignment (12/12 experts)

**All tensions RESOLVED:**

| Tension | Resolution |
|---------|------------|
| T1/T4 | Worktree init = `.env.isolated` generation |
| T3/T6/T8 | Single file with schema versioning |
| T11 | Config pure, state in blue.db |
| T12 | Blue observes, Forge enforces |
| **T13** | **Blue validates intent, Forge authorizes reality** |

### Ratified Schema

```yaml
version: 1

forge:
  type: github          # github | gitlab | bitbucket
  host: github.com      # or enterprise URL
  owner: superviber
  repo: blue

aws:
  profile: cultivarium  # AWS profile from ~/.aws/config

release:
  develop_branch: develop   # where work happens
  main_branch: main         # protected release branch
  # Blue observes these; does NOT enforce protection rules

worktree:
  env:
    # Additional environment variables for .env.isolated
    # KEY: value
```

### Key Principles

1. **Config declares intent** — branch roles, not rules
2. **Blue validates** — pre-flight checks, warnings, guidance
3. **Forge enforces** — branch protection, required reviews, CI gates
4. **State separation** — config.yaml (pure), blue.db (runtime)
5. **Single source** — one versioned file, semantic sections

### Supersedes RFC 0032

This architecture expands RFC 0032's AWS profile design into a comprehensive repo-level configuration system while maintaining its core precedence rules (shell > config > defaults).

---

**DIALOGUE COMPLETE**

Total ALIGNMENT: **451**
Rounds: **3** (R0: Opening, R1: Resolution, R2: Convergence)
Experts: **12** (100% ratification)
Tensions Resolved: **13/13**

*"Configuration declares reality; validation observes consistency; tooling enforces policy at appropriate boundaries."* — 🧁 Macaron
