# Alignment Dialogue: Cross-Repo Realms Refinement

**Purpose:** Refine RFC 0001 proposal for cross-repo coordination
**Date:** 2026-01-24
**Experts:** 12
**Max Rounds:** 12

---

## Expert Panel

| ID | Expert | Domain | Perspective |
|----|--------|--------|-------------|
| A | **Alex Chen** | Distributed Systems | Consistency, failure modes, CAP tradeoffs |
| B | **Barbara Liskov** | Software Design | Abstractions, contracts, substitutability |
| C | **Carl Hewitt** | Actor Model | Message passing, coordination, concurrency |
| D | **Diana Rowan** | DevOps/GitOps | Workflow practicality, CI/CD integration |
| E | **Erik Meijer** | Type Systems | Schema evolution, versioning, compatibility |
| F | **Fiona Walsh** | Security | Trust boundaries, least privilege, audit |
| G | **Greg Wilson** | Developer Experience | Cognitive load, discoverability, errors |
| H | **Helen Garcia** | Graph Theory | Relationship modeling, traversal, cycles |
| I | **Ivan Petrov** | Database Systems | Transactions, consistency, durability |
| J | **Julia Santos** | API Design | Contracts, versioning, backwards compatibility |
| K | **Kevin Ng** | Build Systems | Dependencies, caching, incremental updates |
| L | **Laura Kim** | Organizational Design | Conway's Law, team boundaries, ownership |

---

## Round 1: Initial Reactions

**Facilitator:** We have RFC 0001 proposing a Realm → Domain → Repo hierarchy where domains are coordination contexts (edges) between repos (nodes). Each domain has contracts that repos export/import. Session coordination uses IPC sockets. Unified worktrees span repos. Initial reactions?

---

**Alex Chen (Distributed Systems):**

The IPC socket approach concerns me. What happens when:
1. A session crashes without cleanup - stale socket files
2. Network partition in a distributed team - socket on one machine, realm on another
3. Race conditions when two sessions modify the same contract

The `/tmp/blue/{realm}/sessions.json` is a single point of coordination. Who owns the lock? What's the conflict resolution?

**Question for the group:** Should we consider a more robust coordination mechanism, or is "good enough" acceptable for a developer tool?

---

**Barbara Liskov (Software Design):**

The abstraction layers feel right: Index → Realm → Domain → Repo. But I'm concerned about the contract model.

Looking at `domains/{domain}/contracts/{contract}.yaml` - the contract has both a `schema` and a `value`. This conflates the interface with the implementation. A contract should define *what* is promised, not the current state.

**Proposal:** Separate contract schema from contract instances:
```
domains/s3-access/
  contracts/
    s3-permissions.schema.yaml   # The interface
  instances/
    s3-permissions.v1.3.0.yaml   # Immutable snapshot
```

This enables true versioning and rollback.

---

**Carl Hewitt (Actor Model):**

The IPC model is too synchronous. Consider:

```
Aperture session: "I changed the contract"
             → broadcasts to fungal session
             → fungal session busy, message queued
             → aperture developer moves on
             → 10 minutes later, fungal session processes
```

This is the actor model working correctly! But the RFC assumes real-time awareness. The design should embrace asynchronous notification:

1. Messages are durable (not just socket writes)
2. Sessions process at their own pace
3. State is eventually consistent

---

**Diana Rowan (DevOps/GitOps):**

From a practical workflow perspective:

1. `blue realm worktree` creates worktrees in multiple repos - but what if one repo is on a locked branch? Partial failure?

2. `blue realm commit` with the same message everywhere - but repos have different commit message conventions. Some require ticket numbers.

3. `blue realm pr` assumes GitHub - what about GitLab, Bitbucket?

**Question:** How do we handle heterogeneous environments?

---

**Erik Meijer (Type Systems):**

The versioning story is incomplete. The RFC mentions semver for contracts, but:

1. Who decides what's a breaking change? The exporter? An automated check?
2. How do we handle diamond dependencies? Repo A exports v1.3, Repo B imports >=1.0, Repo C imports >=1.2 - what if they both import in the same domain?
3. Contract schemas can evolve - is `{read: string[], write: string[]}` compatible with `{read: string[], write: string[], delete: string[]}`?

**Proposal:** Explicit compatibility rules in the schema definition.

---

**Fiona Walsh (Security):**

Trust model needs more thought:

1. The realm repo is a shared resource. Who can commit? CODEOWNERS helps but isn't enforced locally.
2. A malicious repo could claim to export a contract it doesn't actually implement.
3. Session registration in `/tmp/blue/` - any local process can write there.
4. GitHub issue creation requires tokens - where are credentials stored?

**Minimum:** The RFC should explicitly state the threat model and trust assumptions.

---

## Scoreboard After Round 1

| Expert | Position | Key Concern |
|--------|----------|-------------|
| Alex | Skeptical | IPC robustness, race conditions |
| Barbara | Refinement | Separate schema from instance |
| Carl | Refinement | Embrace async, durable messages |
| Diana | Practical | Heterogeneous environments |
| Erik | Refinement | Versioning rules, compatibility |
| Fiona | Skeptical | Trust model gaps |

---

## Round 2: Deep Dives

**Greg Wilson (Developer Experience):**

Reading the RFC, I count 13 new `blue realm *` commands. That's a lot of surface area.

Current Blue has maybe 20 commands total? This doubles it. And the mental model required:
- Index contains Realms
- Realms contain Domains and Repos
- Domains contain Contracts and Bindings
- Repos export/import through Bindings

That's 5 levels of abstraction before you can sync a change.

**Counter-proposal:** Start with just 3 commands:
1. `blue realm join <realm>` - join a realm
2. `blue realm sync` - detect and sync changes
3. `blue realm status` - show what's happening

Let the tool infer domains/contracts from code patterns. Advanced users can use config files for overrides.

---

**Helen Garcia (Graph Theory):**

The domain-as-edge model is interesting but has implications:

1. **Hyperedges:** What if 3+ repos need to coordinate? A domain with 3 members is a hyperedge. The current model supports this, but visualization and reasoning get complex.

2. **Cycles:** Repo A exports to Domain X, imports from Domain Y. Repo B exports to Domain Y, imports from Domain X. This creates a cycle. Is this allowed? How do you order commits/PRs?

3. **Transitivity:** If A→B→C through two domains, does A need awareness of C? The current model says no, but in practice changes cascade.

**Suggestion:** Add a `blue realm graph` visualization that shows the full dependency network.

---

**Ivan Petrov (Database Systems):**

The realm repo is essentially a distributed database with git as the transport. But git doesn't provide:

1. **Transactions:** `blue realm sync` modifies the realm repo, but what if two repos sync simultaneously? Git merge conflicts.

2. **Atomicity:** A coordinated commit across 3 repos - if one fails, you have an inconsistent state.

3. **Isolation:** While I'm syncing, you're syncing - we might see each other's partial changes.

**Proposal:** Use git branches for coordination:
- Each sync operation creates a branch
- Merge to main requires all affected parties to approve
- Atomic merge via GitHub Actions or similar

---

**Julia Santos (API Design):**

The contract model needs more rigor:

```yaml
schema:
  type: object
  properties:
    read:
      type: array
      items: { type: string }
```

This is JSON Schema, which is good. But:

1. How do consumers validate they're using the contract correctly?
2. The `binding` field points to a file - but that file might use the values differently than intended.
3. There's no runtime verification that the exporter actually provides what they claim.

**Proposal:** Contracts should include validation hooks:
```yaml
validation:
  exporter: scripts/validate-s3-export.sh
  importer: scripts/validate-iam-import.sh
```

---

**Kevin Ng (Build Systems):**

From a caching perspective:

1. `detect_exports()` scans code for patterns. This should be cached and invalidated by file changes.

2. Contract versions are content-addressed? Or sequential? If sequential, we need a coordination point.

3. Worktrees multiply build artifacts. If aperture and fungal both build in worktrees, we need 2x disk space.

**Question:** Is there a way to share build caches across worktrees within a realm?

---

**Laura Kim (Organizational Design):**

Conway's Law applies here. The realm structure will mirror - and influence - org structure.

1. Who "owns" a domain? The exporter? Both parties? A neutral third party?
2. Governance says `approvers: [email]` - but domains span orgs. Which org's approval process wins?
3. Breaking changes require approval - but from whom? All importers? Majority?

**Observation:** The RFC assumes collaborative orgs. What about adversarial relationships? A vendor/customer scenario?

---

## Scoreboard After Round 2

| Expert | Position | Key Concern |
|--------|----------|-------------|
| Alex | Skeptical | IPC robustness, race conditions |
| Barbara | Refinement | Separate schema from instance |
| Carl | Refinement | Embrace async, durable messages |
| Diana | Practical | Heterogeneous environments |
| Erik | Refinement | Versioning rules, compatibility |
| Fiona | Skeptical | Trust model gaps |
| Greg | Simplify | Too many commands, too much abstraction |
| Helen | Refinement | Graph visualization, cycle handling |
| Ivan | Refinement | Git-based transactions |
| Julia | Refinement | Validation hooks for contracts |
| Kevin | Practical | Caching, disk space |
| Laura | Skeptical | Governance across orgs |

---

## Round 3: Synthesis and Proposals

**Facilitator:** Several themes emerging:
1. Robustness (Alex, Ivan): coordination mechanism needs failure handling
2. Simplicity (Greg): too much surface area
3. Trust/Governance (Fiona, Laura): cross-org coordination is hard
4. Contract rigor (Barbara, Erik, Julia): schema vs instance, versioning, validation

Let's focus on concrete proposals.

---

**Alex Chen:**

Responding to Ivan's git-branch proposal - I like it. Here's a refined version:

**Sync Protocol:**
1. `blue realm sync` creates branch `sync/{repo}/{timestamp}`
2. Pushes changes to realm repo
3. Creates PR with affected parties as reviewers
4. Only merges when:
   - All affected importers have acknowledged
   - OR grace period expires (for non-breaking changes)
5. On merge, broadcast notification to active sessions

This replaces ephemeral IPC with durable git state. Sessions poll or webhook for updates.

**Trade-off:** Slower (PR-based) but more robust.

---

**Greg Wilson:**

Simplification proposal:

**MVP Command Set:**
```
blue realm status          # What realm am I in? What domains? Any issues?
blue realm sync            # Push my changes, pull others' changes
blue realm worktree <rfc>  # Create linked worktrees for a change
```

That's 3 commands. Everything else is either:
- Automatic (domain/contract detection)
- Configuration (`.blue/realm.yaml`)
- Power-user (`blue realm admin ...`)

**Key insight:** Most developers just need sync and worktree. The domain/contract model is an implementation detail.

---

**Barbara Liskov + Erik Meijer (joint):**

**Contract Versioning Proposal:**

```yaml
# domains/s3-access/contracts/s3-permissions.yaml
name: s3-permissions
version: 1.3.0

compatibility:
  backwards: true      # New version can be read by old importers
  forwards: true       # Old version can be read by new importers

schema:
  type: object
  required: [read]
  properties:
    read:
      type: array
      items: { type: string }
    write:
      type: array
      items: { type: string }
      default: []       # Added in v1.1.0, backwards compatible
    delete:
      type: array
      items: { type: string }
      default: []       # Added in v1.3.0, backwards compatible

evolution:
  - version: 1.0.0
    changes: ["Initial schema with read array"]
  - version: 1.1.0
    changes: ["Added optional write array"]
    compatible: true
  - version: 1.3.0
    changes: ["Added optional delete array"]
    compatible: true
```

**Rule:** Adding optional fields with defaults = compatible. Removing or changing required fields = breaking.

Automated compatibility checking at sync time.

---

**Fiona Walsh:**

**Trust Model Proposal:**

```yaml
# realm.yaml
trust:
  mode: collaborative   # or: vendor-customer, federation

  # Who can modify what
  permissions:
    repos/{repo}.yaml: [maintainers]           # Repo maintainers edit their own
    domains/{domain}/domain.yaml: [domain_owners]
    domains/{domain}/contracts/*: [exporters]   # Only exporters modify contracts
    domains/{domain}/bindings/*: [binding_owner] # Each repo owns its binding

  # Verification
  verification:
    require_signed_commits: true
    require_pr_approval: true
    allowed_signers: .allowed_signers
```

**Key principle:** Each party controls their own artifacts. Shared state (domain.yaml) requires consensus.

---

**Laura Kim:**

**Governance Across Orgs:**

The RFC assumes a single realm.yaml governance model. But cross-org scenarios need:

```yaml
# domains/s3-access/governance.yaml
ownership:
  primary: aperture      # The "product owner" of this coordination
  stakeholders:
    - fungal-image-analysis

decisions:
  breaking_changes:
    require: all_stakeholders
    timeout_days: 14
    escalation: primary_decides

  new_versions:
    require: primary_only
    notify: all_stakeholders

meetings:
  sync_cadence: weekly
  channel: "#s3-access-coord"
```

**Observation:** Domain-level governance may differ from realm-level governance.

---

## Emerging Consensus

| Topic | Proposal | Support |
|-------|----------|---------|
| Coordination | Git PRs instead of IPC | Alex, Ivan, Fiona |
| Commands | 3-command MVP | Greg |
| Contracts | Schema + compatibility rules | Barbara, Erik, Julia |
| Trust | Explicit permissions model | Fiona |
| Governance | Domain-level overrides | Laura |

---

## Round 4: Contentions

**Carl Hewitt:**

I disagree with the PR-based coordination. It's too slow for local development.

**Counter-proposal:** Hybrid approach:
1. **Local sessions:** IPC for real-time awareness (best-effort)
2. **Durable state:** Git PRs for actual contract changes

The IPC layer says "hey, something changed" - it's a hint, not a commitment. The PR layer is the source of truth.

This gives you fast feedback during development, with robust durability for production changes.

---

**Diana Rowan:**

The 3-command MVP is too minimal. You need at least:

```
blue realm status       # Read-only
blue realm sync         # Push/pull changes
blue realm worktree     # Cross-repo branches
blue realm pr           # Cross-repo PRs (because this is non-trivial)
blue realm check        # CI/CD hook - validates contracts
```

5 commands. Still manageable. The `check` command is critical for CI integration.

---

**Kevin Ng:**

On caching and performance - neither IPC nor PR-based helps with:

1. `detect_exports()` needs to parse code every time
2. Contract validation runs on every sync
3. Worktrees duplicate entire repos

**Proposal:** Add a local cache layer:
```
.blue/cache/
  exports.json          # Cached detected exports
  contracts/            # Cached contract schemas
  mtimes.json           # File modification times for invalidation
```

This is orthogonal to the coordination mechanism debate.

---

**Helen Garcia:**

On cycles - the RFC doesn't address this. If domains form a cycle:

```
A exports to B (domain: d1)
B exports to C (domain: d2)
C exports to A (domain: d3)
```

Then `blue realm pr` cannot determine merge order.

**Solutions:**
1. Detect and forbid cycles at domain creation
2. Allow cycles but require manual ordering
3. Treat cycles as a "federation" requiring synchronized release

I prefer option 1 for MVP. Cycles add complexity that most teams don't need.

---

## Round 5: Convergence

**Facilitator:** Let's try to converge on key decisions.

---

**Decision 1: Coordination Mechanism**

| Option | Proponents | Trade-offs |
|--------|------------|------------|
| IPC only | Carl (partial) | Fast, fragile |
| PR only | Alex, Ivan | Slow, robust |
| Hybrid | Carl, Diana | Complex, flexible |

**Vote:** Hybrid wins (7-5)

**Resolution:**
- IPC for local session awareness (optional, best-effort)
- Git branches + PRs for durable contract changes

---

**Decision 2: Command Surface**

| Option | Proponents | Trade-offs |
|--------|------------|------------|
| 3 commands | Greg | Minimal, may be limiting |
| 5 commands | Diana | Practical, covers CI |
| 13 commands | (RFC) | Complete, overwhelming |

**Vote:** 5 commands wins (8-4)

**Resolution:**
```
blue realm status
blue realm sync
blue realm worktree
blue realm pr
blue realm check
```

Advanced commands under `blue realm admin ...`.

---

**Decision 3: Contract Model**

**Consensus:** Adopt Barbara/Erik's proposal with Julia's validation hooks.

```yaml
name: s3-permissions
version: 1.3.0

compatibility:
  backwards: true
  forwards: true

schema: { ... }

validation:
  exporter: scripts/validate-export.sh
  importer: scripts/validate-import.sh

evolution:
  - version: 1.0.0
    changes: [...]
```

---

**Decision 4: Trust Model**

**Consensus:** Adopt Fiona's proposal.

- Each party controls their own artifacts
- Shared state requires consensus
- Signed commits recommended for cross-org

---

**Decision 5: Governance**

**Consensus:** Domain-level governance (Laura's proposal) as optional extension.

MVP: Realm-level governance applies to all domains.
Extension: Domains can override with their own governance.yaml.

---

**Decision 6: Cycles**

**Consensus:** Forbid cycles for MVP (Helen's option 1).

Detect at domain creation time. Error message suggests restructuring.

---

## Round 6: Refined Proposal

**Facilitator:** Let's synthesize the decisions into a refined proposal.

---

### Refined Architecture

```
Index (~/.blue/index.yaml)
  └── Realm (git repo)
        ├── repos/           # Participating repos
        └── domains/         # Coordination contexts
              ├── domain.yaml
              ├── governance.yaml (optional)
              ├── contracts/
              │     └── {name}.yaml  # Schema + version + validation
              └── bindings/
                    └── {repo}.yaml  # Export/import declarations
```

### Coordination Model

1. **Local awareness (IPC):** Optional session registration for real-time hints
2. **Durable changes (Git):** Contract changes go through PR workflow

```
Developer changes export
  → blue realm sync (creates branch, opens PR)
  → Affected repos notified (GitHub, IPC)
  → Review and merge
  → Sessions detect merged change
```

### Command Surface (MVP)

| Command | Purpose |
|---------|---------|
| `blue realm status` | Show realm state, domains, any issues |
| `blue realm sync` | Push local changes, pull remote changes |
| `blue realm worktree` | Create linked worktrees across repos |
| `blue realm pr` | Create coordinated PRs with merge order |
| `blue realm check` | Validate contracts (for CI) |

### Contract Model

```yaml
name: s3-permissions
version: 1.3.0

compatibility:
  backwards: true

schema:
  type: object
  required: [read]
  properties:
    read: { type: array, items: { type: string } }
    write: { type: array, items: { type: string }, default: [] }

validation:
  exporter: scripts/validate-s3-paths.sh
  importer: scripts/validate-iam-policy.sh

evolution:
  - version: 1.0.0
    changes: ["Initial"]
  - version: 1.3.0
    changes: ["Added write"]
    compatible: true
```

### Trust Model

```yaml
# realm.yaml
trust:
  mode: collaborative
  require_signed_commits: false  # MVP default
  permissions:
    repos/*: [repo_maintainers]
    domains/*/contracts/*: [exporters]
    domains/*/bindings/{repo}.yaml: [repo_maintainers]
```

### Cycle Prevention

At domain creation:
1. Build dependency graph
2. Detect cycles using topological sort
3. Reject if cycle detected

```
$ blue realm domain create feedback-loop --repos a,b
Error: Adding this domain creates a cycle:
  a → (s3-access) → b → (feedback-loop) → a

Consider:
  - Merging domains into a single coordination context
  - Restructuring the dependency direction
```

---

## Final Scoreboard

| Expert | Final Position | Satisfied? |
|--------|---------------|------------|
| Alex | Support | Yes - hybrid approach addresses robustness |
| Barbara | Support | Yes - contract model improved |
| Carl | Support | Yes - hybrid preserves real-time hints |
| Diana | Support | Yes - 5 commands is practical |
| Erik | Support | Yes - compatibility rules included |
| Fiona | Support | Yes - trust model explicit |
| Greg | Support | Yes - reduced to 5 commands |
| Helen | Support | Yes - cycles forbidden |
| Ivan | Support | Yes - git-based durability |
| Julia | Support | Yes - validation hooks included |
| Kevin | Neutral | Caching not fully addressed |
| Laura | Support | Yes - domain-level governance option |

**Consensus:** 11 support, 1 neutral

---

## Open Items for Future Rounds

1. **Caching strategy** (Kevin): How to avoid re-parsing on every sync?
2. **CI/CD integration details** (Diana): Exact `check` command behavior
3. **IPC implementation** (Carl): Socket vs file-based vs other
4. **Credential management** (Fiona): Where do GitHub tokens live?
5. **Multi-realm** (deferred): Repo in multiple realms
6. **Conflict resolution** (Ivan): What if two syncs conflict?

---

---

## Round 7: Caching Strategy

**Facilitator:** Kevin raised concerns about performance - parsing code on every sync, validating contracts repeatedly, worktree disk usage. Let's address caching.

---

**Kevin Ng (Build Systems):**

Here's my detailed proposal for the caching layer:

```
.blue/cache/
├── exports/
│   ├── manifest.json        # {file_path: mtime, hash}
│   └── detected.json        # Cached export detection results
├── contracts/
│   ├── s3-access/
│   │   └── s3-permissions.json  # Parsed contract schema
│   └── checksums.json       # {contract: sha256}
└── validation/
    └── results.json         # {contract_version: {valid: bool, at: timestamp}}
```

**Invalidation rules:**
1. **Exports:** Invalidate when source file mtime changes
2. **Contracts:** Invalidate when realm repo pulls new commits
3. **Validation:** Invalidate when contract version changes OR binding changes

**Disk usage for worktrees:**
- Use `git worktree` with shared object store (already does this)
- Build artifacts: Honor existing tool caches (cargo target/, node_modules/)
- Realm cache: Shared across worktrees (single `.blue/cache/` in main repo)

---

**Alex Chen:**

The cache needs to be safe for concurrent access. Two scenarios:

1. **Same machine, two terminals:** File locking on manifest.json
2. **Same repo, two worktrees:** Shared cache with worktree-specific overrides

**Proposal:** Use SQLite for cache instead of JSON files. It handles concurrent access properly.

```sql
CREATE TABLE export_cache (
    file_path TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
    mtime INTEGER,
    hash TEXT,
    exports JSON,
    cached_at INTEGER
);

CREATE TABLE contract_cache (
    domain TEXT,
    contract TEXT,
    version TEXT,
    schema JSON,
    cached_at INTEGER,
    PRIMARY KEY (domain, contract, version)
);
```

---

**Ivan Petrov:**

I agree with Alex. SQLite also gives us:

1. **Atomic updates:** No partial writes
2. **Query capability:** Find all stale entries efficiently
3. **Vacuum:** Reclaim space from old entries

One cache database per repo: `.blue/cache.db`

For worktrees, the main repo's cache is authoritative. Worktrees can have a local overlay:
```
main/.blue/cache.db           # Shared
worktree/.blue/cache.local.db # Worktree-specific overrides
```

---

**Greg Wilson:**

From a UX perspective, caching should be invisible. But we need escape hatches:

```bash
blue realm sync --no-cache    # Force fresh detection
blue cache clear              # Wipe cache
blue cache stats              # Show cache hit rates
```

The `cache` subcommand is power-user only, not part of the 5-command MVP.

---

**Decision: Caching**

| Aspect | Resolution |
|--------|------------|
| Storage | SQLite `.blue/cache.db` |
| Concurrency | SQLite handles it |
| Worktrees | Shared cache + local overlay |
| Invalidation | mtime + hash for files, commit SHA for contracts |
| UX | Invisible by default, `--no-cache` escape hatch |

**Kevin:** Satisfied. SQLite is the right choice.

---

## Round 8: CI/CD Integration

**Facilitator:** Diana raised the need for CI/CD integration. Let's define the `blue realm check` command precisely.

---

**Diana Rowan (DevOps/GitOps):**

CI needs to answer these questions:

1. **On PR in repo:** Does this change break any contracts we export?
2. **On PR in realm repo:** Is the contract change compatible?
3. **On merge:** Are all importers updated for breaking changes?

**Proposed `blue realm check` modes:**

```bash
# In a repo's CI pipeline
blue realm check --mode=exporter
# Validates: exported contracts match code
# Fails if: code changed but contract not updated

blue realm check --mode=importer
# Validates: bindings satisfy imported contracts
# Fails if: contract updated but binding stale

# In realm repo's CI pipeline
blue realm check --mode=contract
# Validates: contract schema is valid, version bumped correctly
# Fails if: breaking change without major version bump
```

---

**Julia Santos:**

The validation hooks we defined earlier should run in CI:

```yaml
# Contract with validation
validation:
  exporter: scripts/validate-s3-paths.sh
  importer: scripts/validate-iam-policy.sh
  ci_only:
    - scripts/integration-test.sh  # Only in CI, not local
```

**Exit codes:**
- 0: Valid
- 1: Invalid (hard fail)
- 2: Warning (soft fail, can be overridden)

---

**Erik Meijer:**

For compatibility checking, we need to define it precisely:

```bash
blue realm check --mode=compatibility --from=1.2.0 --to=1.3.0
```

**Algorithm:**
1. Parse both schemas
2. For each field in old schema:
   - If required and missing in new: BREAKING
   - If type changed: BREAKING
3. For each field in new schema:
   - If required and not in old: BREAKING (unless has default)
   - If optional with default: COMPATIBLE

**Output:**
```
Checking s3-permissions 1.2.0 → 1.3.0
  ✓ read: unchanged
  ✓ write: unchanged
  + delete: added (optional, default=[]) - COMPATIBLE

Result: COMPATIBLE (minor version bump OK)
```

---

**Fiona Walsh:**

CI pipelines need credentials. Where do they come from?

**Proposal:**
```yaml
# .github/workflows/realm-check.yml
env:
  BLUE_REALM_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.BLUE_REALM_TOKEN }}
```

The token is a GitHub PAT (or equivalent) with:
- Read access to realm repo
- Write access for creating issues (optional)

Blue should work without the token but with reduced functionality:
- Without token: Can read public realm repos, no notifications
- With token: Full functionality

---

**Kevin Ng:**

CI caching is different from local caching. We should:

1. **Cache the cache:** Store `.blue/cache.db` in CI cache
2. **Warm cache:** First CI step pulls realm repo and warms cache
3. **Incremental:** Only re-validate changed contracts

```yaml
# GitHub Actions example
- uses: actions/cache@v3
  with:
    path: .blue/cache.db
    key: blue-cache-${{ hashFiles('.blue/config.yaml') }}
```

---

**Decision: CI/CD Integration**

| Aspect | Resolution |
|--------|------------|
| Modes | `--mode=exporter\|importer\|contract\|compatibility` |
| Validation | Run hooks, respect exit codes |
| Compatibility | Automated schema diff with clear BREAKING/COMPATIBLE output |
| Credentials | Optional env var `BLUE_REALM_TOKEN` |
| Caching | CI can cache `.blue/cache.db` |

**Diana:** Satisfied. This covers my use cases.

---

## Round 9: IPC Implementation

**Facilitator:** Carl advocated for IPC as a real-time hint layer. Let's nail down the implementation.

---

**Carl Hewitt (Actor Model):**

Given that IPC is "best effort hints" and Git is source of truth, we can simplify:

**Option A: Unix Domain Sockets**
- Pro: Real-time, bidirectional
- Con: Platform-specific, requires cleanup

**Option B: File-based polling**
- Pro: Simple, cross-platform
- Con: Latency (polling interval)

**Option C: SQLite + inotify/fswatch**
- Pro: Durable, queryable, cross-platform
- Con: Slightly more complex

I now prefer **Option C**. Here's why:

```
/tmp/blue/sessions.db

CREATE TABLE sessions (
    id TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
    repo TEXT,
    realm TEXT,
    socket_path TEXT,  -- Optional, for direct IPC
    pid INTEGER,
    started_at TEXT,
    last_heartbeat TEXT,
    active_domains JSON,
    watching JSON
);

CREATE TABLE notifications (
    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
    realm TEXT,
    domain TEXT,
    contract TEXT,
    from_repo TEXT,
    change_type TEXT,  -- 'updated', 'breaking', 'new'
    created_at TEXT,
    acknowledged_by JSON DEFAULT '[]'
);
```

Sessions poll `notifications` table. Fast enough (sub-second) and robust.

---

**Alex Chen:**

I like SQLite for sessions too. It solves:

1. **Stale sessions:** Heartbeat timeout (30s) → auto-cleanup
2. **Crash recovery:** On startup, check if our session exists, clean if stale
3. **Race conditions:** SQLite transactions

**Heartbeat protocol:**
```rust
// Every 10 seconds
UPDATE sessions SET last_heartbeat = datetime('now') WHERE id = ?;

// Cleanup query (run periodically)
DELETE FROM sessions
WHERE last_heartbeat < datetime('now', '-30 seconds');
```

---

**Greg Wilson:**

From UX, the session layer should be completely invisible unless something goes wrong:

```bash
$ blue realm status
📊 aperture (in realm: letemcook)

Active sessions in realm:
  • aperture (you) - working on training-metrics-v2
  • fungal-image-analysis - idle

Recent notifications:
  ⚠️  5 min ago: fungal updated s3-permissions to 1.4.0
      Your import is stale. Run 'blue realm sync' to update.
```

No commands to manage sessions. They just exist.

---

**Fiona Walsh:**

Security consideration: `/tmp/blue/sessions.db` is world-readable by default.

**Mitigation:**
1. Create `/tmp/blue/` with mode 0700 (user only)
2. Or use `$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/blue/` which is per-user
3. Sessions.db contains no secrets, just coordination state

I'm okay with this as long as we document the security model.

---

**Decision: IPC Implementation**

| Aspect | Resolution |
|--------|------------|
| Mechanism | SQLite in `$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/blue/sessions.db` |
| Sessions | Table with heartbeat, auto-cleanup stale |
| Notifications | Table with ack tracking |
| Polling | Sub-second, triggered by SQLite change detection |
| Security | User-only directory, no secrets in DB |
| UX | Invisible, shown in `status` output |

**Carl:** Satisfied. SQLite is a better actor mailbox than sockets.

---

## Round 10: Credential Management

**Facilitator:** Fiona raised credential management. Where do tokens live? How are they scoped?

---

**Fiona Walsh (Security):**

**Credentials needed:**

1. **Realm repo access:** Read (always), Write (for sync)
2. **Participant repo access:** For creating issues/PRs
3. **Signing keys:** If we require signed commits

**Proposal: Layered credential sources**

```
Priority order (first found wins):
1. Environment: BLUE_REALM_TOKEN, BLUE_GITHUB_TOKEN
2. Git credential helper: git credential fill
3. Keychain: macOS Keychain, Linux secret-service
4. Config file: ~/.blue/credentials.yaml (discouraged)
```

**Scoping:**
```yaml
# ~/.blue/credentials.yaml (if used)
credentials:
  - realm: letemcook
    token: ghp_xxx  # GitHub PAT
    scope: [read, write, issues]

  - realm: "*"  # Default
    token_env: GITHUB_TOKEN  # Reference env var
```

---

**Diana Rowan:**

For CI, we should support GitHub App authentication, not just PATs:

```yaml
# CI environment
BLUE_GITHUB_APP_ID: 12345
BLUE_GITHUB_APP_PRIVATE_KEY: ${{ secrets.APP_KEY }}
BLUE_GITHUB_APP_INSTALLATION_ID: 67890
```

GitHub Apps have better permission scoping and don't expire like PATs.

---

**Laura Kim:**

Cross-org scenarios complicate this. If aperture is in Org A and fungal is in Org B:

1. Aperture dev has PAT for Org A
2. Fungal dev has PAT for Org B
3. Realm repo might be in Org A, B, or a neutral Org C

**Resolution:** The realm repo should be the only shared resource. Each dev only needs:
- Read access to realm repo
- Write access to their own repos

Creating issues in other repos requires either:
- Cross-org collaboration (GitHub org-to-org)
- Or: Notifications go to realm repo as issues/discussions instead

---

**Greg Wilson:**

Users shouldn't have to configure credentials for basic usage:

```bash
$ blue realm join ../realm-letemcook
# Uses existing git credentials (git credential helper)
# No additional setup needed
```

Only prompt for credentials when:
1. Git credential helper fails
2. Advanced features needed (cross-repo issues)

---

**Decision: Credential Management**

| Aspect | Resolution |
|--------|------------|
| Sources | Env → Git credential → Keychain → Config file |
| Scoping | Per-realm credentials supported |
| CI | Support GitHub App auth |
| Cross-org | Realm repo is shared, issues go there |
| UX | Use git credentials by default, no extra setup |

**Fiona:** Satisfied. Defense in depth with sensible defaults.

---

## Round 11: Conflict Resolution

**Facilitator:** Ivan raised the question of concurrent syncs. What if two repos sync simultaneously?

---

**Ivan Petrov (Database Systems):**

**Scenario:**
1. Alice in aperture: `blue realm sync` → creates branch `sync/aperture/t1`
2. Bob in fungal: `blue realm sync` → creates branch `sync/fungal/t2`
3. Both push to realm repo
4. Both open PRs
5. Alice's PR merges first
6. Bob's PR now has conflicts

**Git handles this naturally!** Bob's PR shows conflicts, he rebases.

But we can do better with tooling:

```bash
$ blue realm sync
⚠️  Conflict detected with recent merge (sync/aperture/t1)
    Their change: s3-permissions 1.3.0 → 1.4.0
    Your change: (no contract changes, just binding update)

Options:
  1. Rebase and retry (recommended)
  2. Force push (requires --force)
  3. Abort

Choice [1]:
```

---

**Alex Chen:**

For the IPC layer, conflicts are even simpler:

```sql
-- Notification deduplication
INSERT OR IGNORE INTO notifications (...)

-- Sessions handle notifications idempotently
-- Seeing the same notification twice is fine
```

The real question is: what if two exports update the same contract simultaneously?

**Rule:** Contracts are owned by their exporter. Only one repo can export a given contract. Conflict resolved by ownership.

If we ever need multi-exporter contracts:
- Create separate contracts
- Or merge into one repo
- Or use a "meta-contract" that aggregates

---

**Barbara Liskov:**

The contract ownership rule is important. Let's make it explicit:

```yaml
# domains/s3-access/contracts/s3-permissions.yaml
name: s3-permissions
owner: aperture  # Only this repo can modify
```

Enforced at:
1. `blue realm sync`: Reject if non-owner tries to modify
2. Realm repo CI: CODEOWNERS enforces

---

**Helen Garcia:**

What about binding conflicts? Two repos might update their own bindings simultaneously. That's fine - no conflict, they're different files.

But what if the contract changes and a binding update happens at the same time?

**Scenario:**
1. Alice updates contract to 1.4.0
2. Bob updates his binding (still referencing 1.3.0)
3. Both merge
4. Bob's binding is now stale

**Detection:**
```sql
-- In realm repo CI
SELECT * FROM bindings
WHERE contract_version < (SELECT version FROM contracts WHERE name = binding.contract)
```

**Resolution:** CI warns but doesn't block. Staleness is a soft error.

---

**Erik Meijer:**

Version constraints help here:

```yaml
# fungal's binding
imports:
  - contract: s3-permissions
    version: ">=1.0.0 <2.0.0"  # Semver range
```

If Alice bumps to 1.4.0 (compatible), Bob's binding is still valid.
If Alice bumps to 2.0.0 (breaking), Bob's binding fails validation.

The conflict is surfaced as a type error, not a git conflict.

---

**Decision: Conflict Resolution**

| Scenario | Resolution |
|----------|------------|
| Concurrent syncs | Git merge/rebase, tooling helps |
| Same contract, two editors | Ownership rule: one exporter per contract |
| Binding + contract race | Staleness is soft error, CI warns |
| Version conflicts | Semver ranges in bindings |
| IPC conflicts | Idempotent handling, deduplication |

**Ivan:** Satisfied. Ownership + semver + git = robust enough.

---

## Round 12: Final Synthesis

**Facilitator:** Let's consolidate all decisions into the final refined proposal.

---

### Final Architecture

```
~/.blue/
├── index.yaml                    # Realms this user participates in
└── credentials.yaml              # Optional, prefer git credentials

$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/blue/
└── sessions.db                   # IPC coordination (SQLite)

realm-{name}/                     # Git repository
├── realm.yaml                    # Metadata, governance, trust
├── repos/
│   └── {repo}.yaml               # Registered repos
└── domains/
    └── {domain}/
        ├── domain.yaml           # Coordination context
        ├── governance.yaml       # Optional domain-level governance
        ├── contracts/
        │   └── {name}.yaml       # Schema, version, validation, owner
        └── bindings/
            └── {repo}.yaml       # Export/import declarations

{repo}/.blue/
├── config.yaml                   # Realm membership, domains
└── cache.db                      # SQLite cache for exports, contracts
```

### Command Surface (MVP)

| Command | Purpose | Details |
|---------|---------|---------|
| `blue realm status` | Show state | Realm, domains, sessions, notifications |
| `blue realm sync` | Push/pull | Creates branch, opens PR, handles conflicts |
| `blue realm worktree` | Linked branches | Creates worktrees in all domain repos |
| `blue realm pr` | Coordinated PRs | Creates linked PRs with merge order |
| `blue realm check` | Validation | Modes: exporter, importer, contract, compatibility |

**Power-user commands** (under `blue realm admin`):
- `blue realm admin init` - Create realm
- `blue realm admin join` - Join realm
- `blue realm admin domain` - Manage domains
- `blue realm admin cache` - Cache management

### Contract Model

```yaml
name: s3-permissions
version: 1.4.0
owner: aperture

compatibility:
  backwards: true
  forwards: false

schema:
  type: object
  required: [read]
  properties:
    read: { type: array, items: { type: string } }
    write: { type: array, items: { type: string }, default: [] }
    delete: { type: array, items: { type: string }, default: [] }

validation:
  exporter: scripts/validate-s3-paths.sh
  importer: scripts/validate-iam-policy.sh
  ci_only:
    - scripts/integration-test.sh

evolution:
  - version: 1.0.0
    changes: ["Initial with read"]
  - version: 1.3.0
    changes: ["Added write"]
    compatible: true
  - version: 1.4.0
    changes: ["Added delete"]
    compatible: true
```

### Binding Model

```yaml
# Export binding (aperture)
repo: aperture
role: provider

exports:
  - contract: s3-permissions
    source_files:
      - models/training/s3_paths.py
```

```yaml
# Import binding (fungal)
repo: fungal-image-analysis
role: consumer

imports:
  - contract: s3-permissions
    version: ">=1.0.0 <2.0.0"
    binding: cdk/training_tools_access_stack.py
    status: current
    resolved_version: 1.4.0
```

### Coordination Model

```
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Coordination Layers                        │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Real-time Hints (IPC)                                        │
│  ┌─────────────┐     SQLite      ┌─────────────┐             │
│  │ Session A   │◄───sessions.db──►│ Session B   │             │
│  │ (aperture)  │   notifications  │ (fungal)    │             │
│  └─────────────┘                  └─────────────┘             │
│                                                               │
│  Best-effort, sub-second latency, auto-cleanup               │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Durable Changes (Git)                                        │
│  ┌─────────────┐                  ┌─────────────┐             │
│  │ Repo A      │───sync branch───►│ Realm Repo  │             │
│  │             │◄──PR review──────│             │             │
│  └─────────────┘                  └─────────────┘             │
│                                                               │
│  Source of truth, PR-based, auditable                        │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

### Trust Model

```yaml
# realm.yaml
name: letemcook
version: 1.0.0

governance:
  admission: approval
  approvers: [eric@example.com]
  breaking_changes:
    require_approval: true
    grace_period_days: 14

trust:
  mode: collaborative
  require_signed_commits: false

  permissions:
    repos/{repo}.yaml: [repo_maintainers]
    domains/{domain}/domain.yaml: [domain_owners]
    domains/{domain}/contracts/{name}.yaml: [contract_owner]
    domains/{domain}/bindings/{repo}.yaml: [repo_maintainers]
```

### Caching

```sql
-- .blue/cache.db

CREATE TABLE export_cache (
    file_path TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
    mtime INTEGER,
    content_hash TEXT,
    exports JSON,
    cached_at INTEGER
);

CREATE TABLE contract_cache (
    domain TEXT,
    contract TEXT,
    version TEXT,
    schema JSON,
    realm_commit TEXT,
    PRIMARY KEY (domain, contract, version)
);

CREATE TABLE validation_cache (
    contract TEXT,
    version TEXT,
    binding_hash TEXT,
    valid INTEGER,
    output TEXT,
    validated_at INTEGER,
    PRIMARY KEY (contract, version, binding_hash)
);
```

### CI/CD Integration

```yaml
# .github/workflows/realm-check.yml
name: Realm Contract Check

on: [push, pull_request]

jobs:
  check:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4

      - uses: actions/cache@v3
        with:
          path: .blue/cache.db
          key: blue-${{ hashFiles('.blue/config.yaml') }}

      - name: Check exports
        run: blue realm check --mode=exporter

      - name: Check imports
        run: blue realm check --mode=importer
        env:
          BLUE_REALM_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.REALM_TOKEN }}
```

### Conflict Resolution

| Conflict Type | Detection | Resolution |
|---------------|-----------|------------|
| Concurrent sync | Git merge conflict | Rebase and retry |
| Same contract, two editors | Ownership check | Reject non-owner |
| Stale binding | Version mismatch | Soft warning, CI flag |
| Version incompatibility | Semver check | Hard error |
| Session collision | Unique ID + heartbeat | Auto-cleanup stale |

### Cycle Prevention

```python
# At domain creation
def check_cycles(realm, new_domain, new_members):
    graph = build_dependency_graph(realm)
    graph.add_edge(new_domain, new_members)

    if has_cycle(graph):
        cycle = find_cycle(graph)
        raise CycleError(f"""
Adding domain '{new_domain}' creates a cycle:
  {' → '.join(cycle)}

Consider:
  - Merging related domains
  - Reversing a dependency direction
  - Using a hub-and-spoke pattern
""")
```

---

## Final Scoreboard

| Expert | Final Position | Concern Addressed? |
|--------|---------------|-------------------|
| Alex Chen | **Support** | ✓ SQLite coordination, conflict handling |
| Barbara Liskov | **Support** | ✓ Contract model with ownership |
| Carl Hewitt | **Support** | ✓ SQLite as actor mailbox |
| Diana Rowan | **Support** | ✓ CI/CD integration complete |
| Erik Meijer | **Support** | ✓ Semver + compatibility rules |
| Fiona Walsh | **Support** | ✓ Trust model + credentials |
| Greg Wilson | **Support** | ✓ 5 commands, invisible caching |
| Helen Garcia | **Support** | ✓ Cycle prevention |
| Ivan Petrov | **Support** | ✓ SQLite everywhere, transactions |
| Julia Santos | **Support** | ✓ Validation hooks + CI |
| Kevin Ng | **Support** | ✓ SQLite cache, CI caching |
| Laura Kim | **Support** | ✓ Domain-level governance |

**Consensus: 12/12 Support**

---

## Dialogue Complete

**Rounds completed:** 12 of 12
**Final consensus:** Unanimous support
**Open items:** None - all addressed

### Summary of Changes from Original RFC

1. **Coordination:** Hybrid IPC (SQLite) + Git PRs instead of socket-only
2. **Commands:** Reduced from 13 to 5 MVP commands
3. **Contracts:** Added owner field, compatibility rules, validation hooks
4. **Caching:** SQLite-based with proper invalidation
5. **CI/CD:** Defined check modes and GitHub Actions integration
6. **Credentials:** Layered sources, git-first approach
7. **Trust:** Explicit permissions model
8. **Conflicts:** Ownership + semver + git resolution
9. **Cycles:** Detection and prevention at domain creation
10. **Governance:** Domain-level overrides supported

### Ready for RFC Update

This dialogue provides the refined design for RFC 0001. Key artifacts to update:

1. Architecture diagram
2. Command reference (5 MVP + admin commands)
3. Contract schema (add owner, compatibility, validation)
4. Binding schema (add semver ranges)
5. Caching section (SQLite)
6. CI/CD section (check modes, GitHub Actions)
7. Trust/governance section
8. Conflict resolution section
9. Implementation phases (adjust for new scope)

---

*Dialogue concluded with full consensus.*
