deepseek-harness/docs/rfc/implemented/process/2026-07-10-readme-known-limitations-gate.md

RFC: A gated Known-Limitations section in every package README

Status: implemented

Problem

The documentation standard assigns limitations to the package-README tier ("the per-package contract: config, semantics, limitations, extension points"), but nothing enforced that the section exists or shares a shape. Ten READMEs carried the content under five ad-hoc headings — "What is NOT here (TODO)", "What is NOT here", "Deferred (faithful-but-degraded)", "Limitations (MVP, documented deliberately)", "Known limitations (tracked TODOs)" — and the other forty-odd carried nothing, so a reader could not distinguish "this package has no known limitations" from "nobody wrote them down", and no grep could enumerate the repo's known gaps.

Decision

Every packages/<group>/<pkg>/README.md carries a canonical ## Known Limitations and Deferred Work section: a condensed bullet list of consumer-visible gaps (unimplemented features, platform caveats, deliberate MVP cuts) and consciously postponed work (TODO markers, RFC deferrals still open). A doc-sync gate, verify-readme-limitations (scripts/verify-readme-limitations.ts), enforces the shape per README: exactly one limitations-like heading, byte-equal to the canonical h2, with at least one top-level bullet. Near-miss headings at any level ("Limitations", "Deferred", "What is NOT here", …) fail the gate, so variant sections cannot creep back beside — or instead of — the canonical one.

A package with genuinely nothing to declare is whitelisted (NO_LIMITATIONS in the script) and must NOT carry the section. The inverted check keeps the whitelist honest in both directions: an empty or boilerplate section cannot satisfy the gate, and giving a whitelisted package real limitations forces the whitelist edit in the same change. Whitelist entries are validated against the scanned package set, so a package rename or removal fails loud instead of silently un-gating a README.

The gate checks presence, shape, and the whitelist; the bullets' truthfulness and specificity are governed by review under the documentation standard, like the rest of the README tier. The standing rule lives in packages/AGENTS.md.

Alternatives considered

• Free-form headings, gate only that "something limitations-like" exists — keeps the five variants, stays un-greppable, and needs the same near-miss heuristics anyway without buying uniformity.
• Require the section in ALL READMEs, allowing an empty body or "None." — boilerplate "None" rots silently as a package gains real limitations; the whitelist inversion turns "nothing declared" into an explicit, lintable claim that review can challenge.
• A word-count ceiling on the section — limitation lists are legitimately variable in length; package READMEs are deliberately unbudgeted (per the budget policy) and review governs their prose.

Consequences

• A new package cannot ship without either declaring its gaps or explicitly claiming it has none; a missing, drifted, or empty section fails doc-sync locally (pre-push) and in CI (readme-limitations in the run-gates doc-sync leaf set).
• The pre-existing variant sections are normalized to the canonical heading, and every package README now answers the limitations question one way or the other.
• One more fast tsx script in the doc-sync chain; no new dependency (plain node:fs glob + line scan).
• The canonical heading is enforced verbatim, so renaming it later is a mechanical one-script-plus-all-READMEs change guarded by the same gate.