creating-change-records

name	creating-change-records
description	Creates or updates Quick or Standard change records, adds the required files, and refreshes what each claim must prove for an evidence-backed pull request. Use when starting or revising a change record. Do not use for a one-off throwaway script, or for work that belongs in an existing record rather than a new one.

Creating Change Records

Overview

A change record keeps the whole story in Git, together: the scope, what the change must do, the plan, the trace from claim to evidence, the proof, and the release decision. Use the smallest record that still lets a doubting reviewer decide.

Decision contract

• Claim checked: the record carries every file its mode requires, with the required links, exit criteria, source-lineage notes, and plain status labels (pass, fail, gap, deferred, not applicable, planned) present and the internal links resolving.
• Artifact observed: the mode from risk.md and the templates/quick/ or templates/standard/ templates -> a Quick record (risk.md, proof.md) or Standard record (risk.md, basis.md, plan.md, trace.md, verification.md, ship.md) plus the validator result.
• Decision affected: block -- whether the packet is structurally complete and valid (python tools/ng.py validate pass/fail).
• Failure class: incomplete-record (a missing file, broken internal link, or proof command absent).
• Next action: add the missing file or link and rerun the validator; raise Quick to Standard or human review when proof cannot answer the reviewer.

When to Use

• You are starting a real AI-assisted change.
• You are updating a record after the scope, proof, risk, or release posture changed.
• You are preparing a pull request that needs evidence beyond the usual review notes.
• A preview, a self-check, a handoff, a lesson from operation (OPEX), or a supplier trust check is in play and needs a record.

When Not to Use

• The work leaves no lasting artifact and no need for review.
• The request is only to browse or explain existing docs.
• You only need to pick the mode / grade the change's risk, not author the record yet -- use rating-change-risk instead.

Inputs

• The chosen mode from risk.md or from the risk-rating skill.
• A questioning-attitude screen, when uncertainty, AI power, dependency trust, or release stakes are real.
• Templates under templates/quick/ or templates/standard/.
• The files the change affects and the proof commands.
• An existing record, if there is one.

Process

1. Run python tools/ng.py new <slug> --mode quick|standard.
2. Fill in only the parts of each file that help someone decide.
3. Add habit records (self-check, handoff, and the like) only when they change a decision or an action.
4. Link to the files affected, the tests, the reviews, the source-map rows, and the known gaps.
5. Keep status labels plain: pass, fail, gap, deferred, not applicable, or planned.
6. Run python tools/ng.py validate .nuclear/changes/<slug>.

Outputs

• Quick record: risk.md, proof.md.
• Standard record: risk.md, basis.md, plan.md, trace.md, verification.md, ship.md.
• Habit records such as turnover.md, self-check.md, opex.md, or supplier-trust.md when the stakes call for them.
• The checker result.

Verification

• The required files exist.
• The required links, exit criteria, and source-lineage notes are present.
• The proof or verification file states the evidence status.
• The links inside the record resolve.

Escalation

• Move from Quick to Standard when Quick proof cannot answer the reviewer's question.
• Move to human review when a stronger written mode is in play.
• Stop if the record turns into a long story with no links from claim to evidence.

Common Rationalizations

• "We will fill it in after the pull request." The evidence should shape the work, not dress it up afterward.
• "Everything is obvious." If it matters to a future review, save the assumption and the path to the evidence.
• "One big record is easier." One change per record keeps the review small enough to do well.

Red Flags

• A missing proof command or evidence link.
• Claims that reach past what the tests or the review evidence cover.
• Record files that repeat each other instead of linking.

Prompt

Create or update a Nuclear-grade change record.

Inputs:
- slug: <slug>
- mode: <quick|standard>
- scope: <summary>
- affected files/assets: <list>
- questioned assumptions: <list>
- what the change must prove: <command/review/evidence>
- safety-habit (HPI) records started: <turnover/self-check/opex/supplier-trust/none>

Use the repo templates. Keep the record short. Lean on links, and point at evidence. Include the required links, the conditions for being done, and a note on where the ideas come from. Do not imply formal assurance or compliance.

Source-lineage note

This change-record skill is an original Git-native workflow. It draws on public configuration, lifecycle, assurance, secure-development, and release-readiness sources mapped in docs/00-standards-foundation/source-map.md. It does not create a certified quality assurance program.