Command row copy is split between the row and the handler
命令条目文案分别由条目与 handler 负责
The web command row renders `title · summary` from one logged [command lifecycle pair](../../proposed/architecture/2026-07-27-session-projection-and-command-log.md): the title was the dispatched line rebuilt from `command/run` (`/permission workspace-write`) and the summary was `command/done`'s verbatim `text` (`Permission preset: workspace-write.`). Both halves were written without knowing about the other, so the ro
English
Problem
The web command row renders title · summary from one logged command lifecycle pair: the title was the dispatched line rebuilt from command/run (/permission workspace-write) and the summary was command/done's verbatim text (Permission preset: workspace-write.). Both halves were written without knowing about the other, so the row said the command name twice and its argument twice — the single worst case being the row a user gets for every Access-chip pick.
Decision
The row's two halves have disjoint jobs, and each side is written to its own half alone.
The row title is the bare command name — no /, no arguments. The / belongs to the composer's input grammar, not to a settled record, and the argument is not the row's to report: the summary already says what the command did. GenericCommandCard keeps the 命令 fallback for a cross-window node whose command/run page fell out of the client's window.
A command handler's settlement text therefore never labels its value with the command's own name, because the surface that renders it has already said it. /permission returns preset workspace-write, bare current preset workspace-write (available: …), and for a bad argument unknown preset "bogus" (available: …). Read as a row this is permission · preset workspace-write; read as a standalone line — the TUI appends the same text as a notice — it still states which preset now applies.
The rule bans the label, not the vocabulary. Permission preset: workspace-write. lost because Permission preset: is a caption for a value whose caption is already the title. A domain noun that happens to contain the command's name is not a caption and stays: /plan keeps Plan mode off. and Plan mode on. Use /plan off to leave. (plan · Plan mode off. names the mode, and the tail is an instruction, not an echo), and /goal keeps Goal cleared.. A handler that finds itself writing <Command> <noun>: in front of its own value is the case this rule catches.
The log is unchanged: command/run keeps the structured name/args split, so a richer registered command row can still render arguments from the same node without a second data channel.
Alternatives considered
Keep the dispatched line as the title and only shorten the settlement text. The argument would still appear on both sides of the separator (permission workspace-write · preset workspace-write), which is the repetition complained about.
Drop the settlement text from the collapsed row instead of the arguments. It inverts the row's value: the outcome is what a durable record is for, and an error text would then have nowhere to land.
Have the row strip a leading command name from the settlement text. Presentation would silently rewrite handler-authored text, and every handler that phrased its outcome differently would defeat the heuristic.
Ban the command's name from its settlement text outright, rewriting /plan and /goal to match. The broader ban costs more than it buys: Plan mode off. and Goal cleared. are the clearest sentences those outcomes have, in the row and as standalone TUI notices both, and the shortenings that satisfy a name ban (off., cleared.) read as fragments. Captions are the redundancy worth removing.
Consequences
Every command row gets shorter, and the rule scales: a new command's author writes its outcome without knowing which surface renders it, and no surface has to de-duplicate. The cost is that the dispatched arguments leave the collapsed row — while a command is still executing the row shows only its name and 执行中… — and that the no-caption rule is a convention the reviewer enforces, not a gate. The /permission texts are pinned by the permission package's command tests, and the assembled row copy by the seeded-history web golden, which reaches a real settled command row keylessly because /permission runs entirely on the host.
中文
问题
Web 命令条目由一对落库的命令生命周期事件渲染出 标题 · 摘要：标题是由 command/run 重建的分派命令行（/permission workspace-write），摘要是 command/done 的原样 text（Permission preset: workspace-write.）。两半各自成文、互不知情，于是一行里命令名出现两次、参数也出现两次——最糟的一例正是用户每次用 Access chip 切换权限时得到的那一行。
决策
命令条目两半的职责互不重叠，各自只按自己那一半来写。
行标题就是裸命令名——没有 /，也没有参数。/ 属于编辑器的输入语法，不属于一条已落定的记录；参数也不该由这一行来报告：摘要已经说清了这条命令做了什么。对于 command/run 那一页已滑出客户端窗口的跨窗口节点，GenericCommandCard 仍保留 命令 兜底标题。
因此，命令 handler 的落定 text 绝不用命令自身的名字给自己的值加标签——渲染它的界面已经说过一次了。/permission 返回 preset workspace-write，裸调用时返回 current preset workspace-write (available: …)，参数非法时返回 unknown preset "bogus" (available: …)。作为一行读是 permission · preset workspace-write；作为独立一句读——TUI 把同一段 text 作为通知追加——它依然说明了当下生效的是哪个预设。
这条规则禁的是标签，不是用词。Permission preset: workspace-write. 之所以出局，是因为 Permission preset: 是给一个值加的题头，而这个题头正是标题本身。恰好含有命令名的领域名词不是题头，因此保留：/plan 仍返回 Plan mode off. 与 Plan mode on. Use /plan off to leave.（plan · Plan mode off. 说的是那个模式，句尾是一条指引，不是回声），/goal 仍返回 Goal cleared.。真正被这条规则拦下的，是 handler 在自己的值前面写出 <命令名> <名词>： 的那一类。
日志本身未变：command/run 保留结构化的 name／args 拆分，因此更丰富的已注册命令条目仍可从同一个节点渲染参数，无需第二条数据通道。
考虑过的替代方案
保留分派命令行作标题，只缩短落定文案。 参数仍会出现在分隔点两侧（permission workspace-write · preset workspace-write），而这正是被指出的重复。
从折叠行中去掉落定文案，而不是去掉参数。 这颠倒了这一行的价值：持久记录存在的意义就是结果，而错误文案将无处落脚。
由这一行从落定文案里剥掉开头的命令名。 呈现层会悄悄改写 handler 写就的文案，而任何换一种措辞表达结果的 handler 都会让这套启发式失效。
彻底禁止命令名出现在自己的落定文案里，并把 /plan、/goal 一并改写。 这种更宽的禁令代价大于收益：无论在行上还是作为独立的 TUI 通知，Plan mode off. 与 Goal cleared. 都是这些结果最清楚的句子，而满足「禁名字」所需的缩短形式（off.、cleared.）读起来只是残句。值得去掉的冗余是题头。
后果
每一条命令条目都变短了，而且这条规则可扩展：新命令的作者写结果时无需知道由哪个界面渲染，任何界面也都不必再去重。代价是分派参数离开了折叠行——命令仍在执行时，行上只有名字和 执行中…——以及「不加题头」这条规则是靠评审执行的约定，而非门禁。/permission 的文案由 permission 包的命令测试钉住，装配后的行文案由 seeded-history web 预期输出钉住：由于 /permission 完全在 host 上执行，该预期输出无需密钥即可覆盖一条真实的已落定命令条目。