Plain bd show <rig-id> answers from HQ and reports "never existed" for a live rig bead, with a hint that rules out the real cause #27
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
What happens
bd show ce-j7fjfrom the city root prints:ce-j7fjexists. It is open,in_progress, assigned tocelilo/gastown.furiosa, with a lease heartbeating.gc bd show ce-j7fjfinds it immediately and printsgc bd: answering from the rig "celilo" storefirst.Measured 2026-09-09 22:30Z.
Why it matters more than a wrong store
The store scoping is already known: plain
bdanswers from HQ, and HQ holds no rig beads. CLAUDE.md documents that forbd ready.The new part is the hint, which does not say "wrong store". It offers two explanations, "may have never existed" and "deleted/purged record", and both are false. A reader who takes the hint at face value concludes the bead was never filed or was destroyed, which is the opposite of the truth: the bead is live and someone is working it right now.
That is the empty-answer trap with an active push in the wrong direction. An operator hit exactly this today and reported the bead as non-existent. The next reasonable step after that conclusion is to re-file it, which produces the duplicate this repo has already seen several times.
bd history ce-j7fj, the command the hint recommends, also reads the HQ store, so following the hint confirms the wrong answer.Suggested fix
When a lookup misses in the current store and the ID carries a known rig prefix (
ce-,ga-,gs-), say so instead of guessing:Failing that, drop "may have never existed" from the hint whenever the ID's prefix does not match the store being queried. Saying nothing is better than ruling out the real cause.
Related
Same family as the store/scope traps already recorded in gc-scratch CLAUDE.md under "Tool traps in this city": a reporting command answers about a smaller set than you asked for and says nothing about the difference. This one goes further by naming two causes that are both wrong.