Work Records

A coding task’s Work Record includes real command evidence (exit code, real output), real file evidence (what changed), and real validation evidence (per-step pass/fail) — see Core Concepts → Work Records for the full model.

Product disclosure

This disclosure is part of the PawOS documentation for Work Records. It is written to make the product behavior understandable before a user relies on it, pays for it, connects an account, approves a plan, or authorizes a machine-affecting action.

What users see

• The Coding Workspace, Task Card, Plan Review card, affected files, status pills, proposed changes, permission summary, command output, diff surfaces, validation results, preview state, and final Work Record.
• For multi-file work, users should see the plan title, scope summary, per-step rationale, affected area, proposed diff when hunk data exists, and Approve, Reject, and Revise controls.
• During execution, users may also see terminal output, running processes, build/test evidence, browser preview state, screenshots, and real file-change summaries.

What PawOS does

• PawOS may inspect project structure, dependencies, import graphs, feature groupings, domain concepts, affected files, and coding memory before proposing work.
• Code edits use structured action requests such as applyCodeEdit and writeFile; applyCodeEdit uses context-anchored hunks against current on-disk content.
• Validation can include syntax checks, import checks, typecheck, lint, build, tests, process health, browser console/network checks, and visual evidence when those tools are available.

Permissions and boundaries

• Plan approval records intent only. It does not bypass applyCodeEdit confirmation, writeFile overwrite checks, command confirmation, git write confirmation, install confirmation, PATH/system confirmation, connector authorization, or deploy authorization.
• Commands are governed by allowlists and execution rules; PawOS is not a raw arbitrary shell.
• A generated diff is only authoritative when it comes from actual hunk data or a real git/file diff. The UI must not invent a diff for a step that has no patch.

Evidence and records

• A real coding completion should show file paths, changed content or diff stats, commands executed, exit codes, relevant output, validation results, and any screenshots or browser evidence used to confirm UI behavior.
• If validation was skipped because a script or config was absent, that skipped state should be disclosed.
• If a plan was rejected, there should be no planned mutation from that rejected plan.

Limitations and user responsibility

• Live Plan Review visual QA, real Pro/Pro Max account execution, and plan-to-execution lifecycle visualization may require an eligible running app/account environment.
• Some non-TypeScript projects remain editable but may not receive the same deep structural analysis as TypeScript/JavaScript projects.
• Whole-file writes can describe intended content, while fine-grained View Changes requires concrete patch hunk data or an actual diff source.