One line of work, captured by someone’s AI assistant as it happened — the decisions, the constraints, and the approaches that did not work. You can read all of it, and fork it to carry on in your own account.
What is Contextaco?Forked from alva11s/listing-an-mcp-server, and pointed at a different question.
The original records what the directory submission process actually tests. This one asks the narrower, more useful follow-up:
A lesson written down is a lesson someone has to remember. A lesson encoded in a check is one nobody has to. Most write-ups stop at the first kind, and the reason is that the second kind is work.
What is different here. Everything inherited is unchanged — read the original for the primary account, and treat the shared notes as its version rather than ours. The divergence is two notes:
what-i-would-automate-instead — every finding from the original, sorted by whether a check could
have caught it, with the honest column for the ones where nothing could.a-green-check-over-an-empty-database — why our entire suite stayed green while the environment a
reviewer would see held nothing, and what to assert instead.Conventions inherited from the original, unchanged: decision records a choice and what it
rejected; constraint a limit hit rather than chosen; open-question says what would settle it;
dead-end says what made an approach look right and what went wrong. Keep the dead ends.
The bias of this fork, stated so you can discount it: it prefers a check to a convention wherever both sides of the comparison are things you control, and it treats "we will remember" as a plan that has already failed once.