feat: expand methodology with 6 modern delivery practices (ADR 0023)

[vpciii]

Expands the methodology to explicitly cover:

• Deterministic Dev Environments
• Automated Quality Gates
• Continuous Deployment
• Continuous Refactoring
• Code Review Culture
• Documentation as Code

Also includes ADR 0023 which documents this decision and updates the CHANGELOG.md.

[claude]

Claude finished @vpciii's task in 2m 25s —— View job

---

Review: PR #22 — expand methodology with 6 modern delivery practices

Reviewed against this repo's own standards (the honesty rules in methodology.md, ADR 0018, ADR 0020, ADR 0022, the ADR template). The ADR is well-formed — clear context, real alternatives (including the "embed vs. number them" call), honest consequences, and an adoption-impact line that matches the CHANGELOG. The CHANGELOG entry is correct and lands under [Unreleased] as expected.

The substantive issues are all process drift of the "docs change in the same PR" / single-source kind — which is notable because this methodology polices exactly that.

🔴 Stale cross-references introduced by this PR (same-PR honesty rule, §"Keep the artifacts honest")

The PR grows the list from 11 to 17 practices but leaves two now-wrong counts behind:

• methodology.md:59 — the reading order still says "the practices (§1–§11) and why they exist." It should read §1–§17. This is made stale by the very diff that introduces it. Fix this →
• README.md:26 — the layout table describes methodology.md as "The canonical development methodology (11 practices + the reasoning + a decision guide)." README is not in this PR's diff, so it now contradicts the document. The same-PR rule binds it. Fix this →

🔴 Global summary not updated in the same PR (ADR 0018)

templates/global-CLAUDE.md is the canonical source of the always-loaded ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md summary. methodology.md's own "Changing this document" section and ADR 0018 require it to change in the same PR as any change it summarizes; its header comment repeats this. Several of the new practices are hard-rule material the summary currently omits — most clearly Automated Quality Gates (CI style enforcement) and Continuous Deployment. Either fold the summary-worthy ones into the "Hard rules" / decision-guide tables, or state explicitly in the ADR why these six are deliberately left out of the summary. As written, this is precisely the drift ADR 0018 (and the reviewer/CI gap ADR 0022) exist to catch. Fix this →

🟡 Single-source tension — new practices restate guidance that already lives elsewhere

The methodology insists "a fact lives in one place." ADR 0023's Option A rejection covers giving these their own headings, but three of the six largely re-state existing content rather than add new facts, creating future drift hazards:

• §15 Continuous Refactoring overlaps the existing decision-guide "restructure without changing behavior" row and §5's test-as-safety-net framing.
• §16 Code Review Culture overlaps the review-scope rules the methodology repeatedly defers to CONTRIBUTING.md (§2: "review-scope rules live in each project's CONTRIBUTING.md").
• §17 Documentation as Code restates the "Keep the artifacts honest" section and ADR 0020 (docs ride along in the same PR).

Not a blocker, but worth a sentence in each new section cross-linking the canonical home (and ideally the relevant ADR), so these read as emphasis rather than a second copy that can drift.

🟡 §14 Continuous Deployment vs. the tool-agnostic ethos

§14 mandates "Merging to main triggers a pipeline that deploys to production." That's more prescriptive than neighbors and brushes against "No premature tech-stack or tooling commitments" / "document the artifact, not the tool." The "(or a staging equivalent)" hedge helps; consider framing it as the principle (automated, zero-touch releases; deploy readiness) and leaving the pipeline itself to a project ADR, consistent with how §6/§11 treat tooling.

⚪ Minor formatting (consistency with the rest of the doc)

• New sections §12–§17 omit the blank line between the intro sentence and the bullet list that every existing practice uses (e.g. methodology.md:462→463). Harmless in most renderers but inconsistent.
• Trailing whitespace at methodology.md:471 (…Black, or GoFmt. ).

(If a markdown linter runs in CI, ignore the two above — I have no evidence of one here.)

---

Summary: The ADR and CHANGELOG are solid and the new practices are reasonable additions. The blocking-ish items are all the methodology's own same-PR/single-source rules turned on itself: two stale practice counts (methodology.md:59, README.md:26) and the un-updated global summary (ADR 0018). Address those three and the content tensions are minor.

[vpciii]

Withdrawing — status quo (the ADR's own Option B). An adversarial review BLOCKed this (docs/reviews/pr22_adversarial_review.md), and the methodology-consistent counter (#24) was then also BLOCKed for milder versions of the same sins. Run in both directions, the adversarial process showed the six-practice expansion over-reaches: most of it duplicates existing practices/ADRs, and the genuinely-new bits don't clear the bar for a numbered practice. No expansion lands.