There is **no**`roboco_git_commit / _push / _create_pr / _merge_pr / _checkout` tool. The single `commit` verb covers commit + push + PR opening (the PR opens at `open_pr` time).
- Branches are auto-created on `i_will_work_on()`, and each claimed task gets its own **per-task worktree** (your cwd for that task). See `docs/rag/architecture/workspaces.md`.
- A drifted clone (after a respawn/resume) is now auto-recovered onto your task branch before you commit — you normally won't see `BRANCH_MISMATCH` at all. If you still do, uncommitted changes are blocking the switch: `commit(...)` your work (or `i_am_blocked` if the changes aren't yours), then continue.
- Never run `uv run --active` or point uv at `/app` — it bricks the MCP-gateway venv. Bare `uv run` resolves your workspace venv. If the workspace venv is broken, `i_am_blocked(reason='workspace venv broken')`.
When the conventions standard is enabled you receive the project's architecture map (the "Architectural Standard" block) in your context at spawn, and every task carries a `## Constraints` section listing the block-level rules and module boundaries. Conform from the first line — this is yours to get right, not QA's or the PR reviewer's to catch. Every violation that reaches a gate is a reject → rework → re-review loop that wastes tokens and turns; they are the net, you are the first line.
- Place each definition in the module that owns its kind — a model in `models/` / `schemas/`, never the router; a route only in the route module; a component only in the components module.
- One architectural concern per file (`modular_cohesion`). Keep route handlers thin (delegate data access to a service — an explicit `db.commit()` is fine). Keep components presentational (fetch in a hook).
- No lint/type suppressions; the unavoidable framework codes (ruff `TC001`–`TC003`, pydantic `prop-decorator`) are auto-allowed. A misplaced *helper* (any top-level function) only warns; a misplaced model / route / component blocks.
A genuine false positive is cleared only by committing a `waiver` in `.roboco/conventions.yml` in your branch (reviewed in the PR), never an in-code suppression.
When toolchain matching is enabled, `i_am_done` is refused if the project's test suite cannot be collected under the interpreter the workspace was provisioned with (a "broken" toolchain). The fix is to call `i_am_blocked(reason='toolchain')` so the environment is rebuilt — never to pass on a source read.
When the architectural-conventions standard is enabled, `i_am_done` is refused on any block-level convention finding (e.g. a model defined in a router), reported with the offending `file:line` and a fix hint. A genuine false positive is cleared by committing a waiver in `.roboco/conventions.yml`.
QA (`fail`), the in-path PR reviewer (`pr_fail`), your PM (`request_changes`), or the CEO (`ceo_reject`) can bounce your task back to `needs_revision` — and now the feedback is structured, not just a prose note. `evidence(task_id)` carries `revision_findings`: the OPEN entries from the revision-findings ledger, each with `file`/`line`/`severity`/`expected`/`actual`/`fix`. Read every one before you touch code — this is the actual code-level feedback, not a summary of it.
Fix each finding, then resubmit naming what you resolved:
```python
i_am_done(
task_id="<task>",
notes="...",
resolved_findings=[
{"finding_id":"a1b2c3d4","commit":"<sha>","note":"fixed the off-by-one"},
],
)
```
`finding_id` is the 8-char id from the finding's `[F-xxxxxxxx]` rendering (visible in `qa_notes`/`pm_notes`/`pr_reviewer_notes`, or in `revision_findings` itself). `i_am_done` refuses to resubmit while any open finding is left unnamed — the rejection lists the still-open ids so you don't have to guess. See `docs/rag/architecture/review-findings.md` for the full shape.
