0 Fork 0

Files

T

Z User e45b68bb8b feat: IMAP mail sync with thread-to-contact matching (PRD §6.1)

Real IMAP connection via imapflow library:
- Connects to IMAP server (IMAPFlow, TLS on port 993)
- Fetches recent messages (configurable limit, default 20)
- Extracts: from, fromEmail, subject, date, snippet (200 chars)
- Thread-to-contact matching (PRD §6.1):
  1. Match sender email against persons table
  2. If no person match, extract domain and match against company.website
  3. Returns matchedCompany + matchedPerson for each email
- Audit-logged (action: crm.mailsync:imap)
- Zod validated (host, port, user, password, folder, limit)
- 502 on IMAP connection failure with detail
- 400 on validation failure

Tested: invalid creds → 502 'IMAP connection failed', missing host → 400

2026-10-27 22:50:50 +00:00

1.6 KiB

Executable File

Raw Permalink Blame History

Figure Contract For Experiment Packages

Use this before writing plotting code. The figure is part of the experiment's argument, not decoration after the fact.

Required working note

Write a short contract to $RUN/figures/figure_contract.md before generating figures:

Core conclusion:
Figure archetype:
Target output:
Final size:
Panel map:
  a:
  b:
  c:
Evidence hierarchy:
  hero evidence:
  validation evidence:
  controls / robustness:
Statistics needed:
Source data needed:
Reviewer risk:

Rules

The core conclusion must be one sentence with a verb.
Every panel must answer a distinct question.
If removing a panel does not weaken the argument, remove or merge it.
Give the main result the clearest panel; do not make every subplot equally important by default.
Keep controls and robustness panels visually quieter than the hero panel.

Figure archetypes

Pick one of these before plotting:

quantitative grid
schematic-led composite
image plate + quant
asymmetric mixed-modality figure

For most experiment-suite outputs, the default is quantitative grid. If the experiment involves microscopy, pathology, gels, or spatial overlays, use image plate + quant instead.

Reviewer-risk prompts

Before plotting, ask these privately:

Is the sample split actually comparable across methods?
Are the error bars / intervals defined?
Could a skeptical reader claim cherry-picking?
Does the figure need a direct disclosure marker because the numbers are simulated?
Would a simpler chart communicate the same claim more clearly?

1.6 KiB Executable File Raw Permalink Blame History