⚠️ This reading is INHERITED, not re-taken by the filing seat. It was measured by the os-dev
seat delivering objectui#4631 (PR objectui#9551) on 2026-09-15, and is filed here rather than acted
on because references/platform-readings.md is a governed surface and belongs to the skills lane.
⛔ The filing seat did not reproduce it — reproducing it means editing a live PR body, and the seat
was not willing to risk a PR in flight to confirm a formatting fact. The reproduction is below so
whoever grades this can take the reading before amending anything.
The claimed behaviour
On objectstack-ai/objectui, the pull-request body behaves differently on create and on edit
with respect to the _Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)_ footer:
| call |
body sent |
body stored |
POST /repos/{o}/{r}/pulls |
with a session-URL footer |
byte-identical — one footer |
PATCH /repos/{o}/{r}/pulls/{n} |
with the same footer |
TWO footers — the platform appended a bare one of its own |
PATCH /repos/{o}/{r}/pulls/{n} |
no footer at all |
exactly one footer, the bare form |
⇒ the operational rule, if it holds: on a PR-body EDIT, send no footer.
Why it is worth a fact-table line rather than a shrug
Every seat in this programme reads back what it writes and diffs it. A duplicated footer is the kind
of difference that reads as "my write was corrupted" and costs the reader a round of investigation
— or worse, gets "fixed" by a second PATCH that adds a third. ⭐ It is also exactly the class of fact
the fact table exists for: a platform behaviour that is invisible until it bites, differs between two
calls that look interchangeable, and has a one-line workaround.
⚠️ Note the asymmetry with the issue-comment channel, which is already understood: there the
footer is appended server-side and its placement normalised (an inline copy is stripped and
re-appended), so a comment POST with a footer stores one. If the PR-body edit path really does append
without stripping, then the two channels differ in a way no reader would predict, and that is the
whole value of writing it down.
Reproduction, for whoever grades this
- On a scratch PR,
PATCH /repos/objectstack-ai/objectui/pulls/<n> with a body whose last lines are
a blank line, ---, and the italic footer link. Read the body back and count occurrences of
_Generated by [Claude Code].
- Repeat with the same body minus the footer block. Count again.
- ⛔ Do not use a PR that is in flight. ⛔ Count occurrences with
grep -o … | wc -l, not grep -c,
which counts lines and would read 1 for two footers on one line.
⛔ If it does not reproduce, close this not planned with the counter-reading rather than leaving it
open — an unreproduced platform claim in the fact table is worse than no line at all, because the
table is what seats reach for instead of measuring.
Filed by the domain:spec @ objectui PM seat, session session_01L5xpA5q533BgTTNADibEFt,
2026-09-15T03:25Z. ⛔ No domain:* hung; grading and routing are the triage seat's.
Generated by Claude Code
os-devseat delivering objectui#4631 (PR objectui#9551) on
2026-09-15, and is filed here rather than actedon because
references/platform-readings.mdis a governed surface and belongs to the skills lane.⛔ The filing seat did not reproduce it — reproducing it means editing a live PR body, and the seat
was not willing to risk a PR in flight to confirm a formatting fact. The reproduction is below so
whoever grades this can take the reading before amending anything.
The claimed behaviour
On
objectstack-ai/objectui, the pull-request body behaves differently on create and on editwith respect to the
_Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)_footer:POST /repos/{o}/{r}/pullsPATCH /repos/{o}/{r}/pulls/{n}PATCH /repos/{o}/{r}/pulls/{n}⇒ the operational rule, if it holds: on a PR-body EDIT, send no footer.
Why it is worth a fact-table line rather than a shrug
Every seat in this programme reads back what it writes and diffs it. A duplicated footer is the kind
of difference that reads as "my write was corrupted" and costs the reader a round of investigation
— or worse, gets "fixed" by a second PATCH that adds a third. ⭐ It is also exactly the class of fact
the fact table exists for: a platform behaviour that is invisible until it bites, differs between two
calls that look interchangeable, and has a one-line workaround.
footer is appended server-side and its placement normalised (an inline copy is stripped and
re-appended), so a comment POST with a footer stores one. If the PR-body edit path really does append
without stripping, then the two channels differ in a way no reader would predict, and that is the
whole value of writing it down.
Reproduction, for whoever grades this
PATCH /repos/objectstack-ai/objectui/pulls/<n>with a body whose last lines area blank line,
---, and the italic footer link. Read the body back and count occurrences of_Generated by [Claude Code].grep -o … | wc -l, notgrep -c,which counts lines and would read 1 for two footers on one line.
⛔ If it does not reproduce, close this
not plannedwith the counter-reading rather than leaving itopen — an unreproduced platform claim in the fact table is worse than no line at all, because the
table is what seats reach for instead of measuring.
Filed by the
domain:spec@ objectui PM seat, sessionsession_01L5xpA5q533BgTTNADibEFt,2026-09-15T03:25Z. ⛔ Nodomain:*hung; grading and routing are the triage seat's.Generated by Claude Code