# RFC: Prune dead methods from the persistence seam

Status: implemented

> **Implementation note (scope narrowed from the original proposal).** This RFC proposed pruning dead methods from BOTH the persistence seam (`SessionPersistence.has()`/`.delete()`) and the bash seam (`BashExecutor.get()`/`.list()`). Only the **persistence** removal shipped. The bash `get()`/`.list()` removal was reverted before merge: each is a one-line accessor over the executor's already-tracked `tasks` map, and removing them forced `dsh-tool-bash`'s tests onto a ~35-line `onTaskDone`-based completion-tracking harness to replace the one-line `ctx.bash.get(id)` lookup — the migration cost dwarfed the surface removed. Per the [AGENTS.md "RFCs are proposals, not golden truth"](../../../../AGENTS.md) principle, that friction is evidence the method earns its keep (a test harness IS a consumer that programs against the seam), so `get()`/`list()` stay. The bash-seam analysis below is retained for the record but was NOT acted on; `BashTaskId`-branding those methods lands in the [branded-ids RFC](../architecture/2026-06-20-branded-ids.md) instead. The persistence removal stands: `has()`/`delete()` had only contract-test callers and no test-ergonomics cost to remove.

## Problem

A capability seam ([interface / implementation / consumer](../../implemented/architecture/2026-06-13-capability-seams.md)) carries abstract methods that no consumer calls. The seam exists to let implementations and consumers evolve independently — but a method no consumer programs against is not a seam, it is speculative surface every implementation must still implement and test.

### `SessionPersistence.has()` and `.delete()`

The abstract service declared its operations beyond create/append: `load`, `list`, `has`, `delete`. Production consumers of `ctx.sessionPersistence` use only two: the agent-loop resume path calls `load()` ([packages/core/agent-loop/src/index.ts:176](../../../../packages/core/agent-loop/src/index.ts)), and the ACP bridge calls `list()` for `session/list` ([packages/ui/acp/src/index.ts:494](../../../../packages/ui/acp/src/index.ts)). Grepping every `sessionPersistence.*` / `persistence.*` use across `packages/*/src` and `examples/` finds no `has(` and no `delete(` on the service. The `.has(`/`.delete(` calls in `packages/ui/acp/src/index.ts` are on the in-memory `SessionStore` and a local `Set` of loading ids, not persistence. The only callers of `has`/`delete` were the contract suites and per-backend specs.

`has()` was not just unused — it was the most intricate branch in the shared coordinator: a tracked-vs-untracked dual-probe (`loadLive(id, cwd)` for a live-tracked session vs `loadStored(id)` for an untracked one) with a multi-line rationale. `delete()` dragged the `deleteStored` backend hook that every backend had to implement. This is the [drop-mutable-session-summary](../../implemented/simplification/2026-06-19-drop-mutable-session-summary.md) pattern: a contract test exercised both, but no shipping code asks "is this session persisted?" or removes one.

## Decision

The methods nothing consumes are removed — from the abstract seam, the implementation, and the contract/spec suites that existed only to exercise them:

- `SessionPersistence.has()` / `.delete()` are gone: the abstract declarations, the coordinator's `has`/`delete`/`deleteCore`, and the `PersistenceBackend.deleteStored` hook (jsonl + sqlite each implemented `deleteStored` only to satisfy the hook — those implementations went too). The backends are the [dual-backend](../../implemented/architecture/2026-06-14-session-persistence.md) design and otherwise out of scope; removing a hook they implemented for no consumer is part of removing the hook, not a backend redesign.
- Every doc and source-comment reference is updated to the surviving four-method, `list()`-only contract — not only literal `has(`/`delete(`/`deleteStored` spellings but `{@link has}`/`{@link delete}` JSDoc links and "six public methods" counts — across the seam and backend READMEs, [docs/architecture.md](../../../architecture.md), the [session-persistence](../../implemented/architecture/2026-06-14-session-persistence.md) and [write-coordinator](../../implemented/architecture/2026-06-18-shared-persistence-write-coordinator.md) RFCs, and the coordinator/backends JSDoc.

## Alternatives considered

### Why not keep them as "the seam should be complete"?

The instinct that a persistence seam "should" offer delete is real — and it is exactly the speculative-completeness the pre-release stance warns against ([AGENTS.md](../../../../AGENTS.md): optimize for the correct foundation, not for hypothetical callers you do not have). `delete()` is one method to re-add the day a consumer needs it: a session-management UI that deletes old sessions will want it — add it then, designed against that UI's real needs (soft-delete? cascade? confirmation?), not guessed now.

Re-adding a seam method with a live consumer is cheap and better-designed than the speculative version, because the consumer pins the contract. Carrying it unused means every implementation (and every future backend) must implement and test a method that does nothing.

## Verification

`has`/`delete`/`deleteStored` are gone from the persistence seam, impl, and contract suites with no new dead exports; the remaining operations (`create`/`append`/`load`/`list`) are untouched, with ACP `session/list` and crash-recovery behaving identically; and the seam README and `docs/architecture.md` list only the surviving methods.

## Consequences

- **`delete()` is the kind of operation a product eventually wants.** True — but "eventually" is the point. Deleting it now and re-adding it against a real consumer is strictly better than shipping a guessed contract. The dual backends each shed a `deleteStored` impl, which is a bounded edit in otherwise-out-of-scope packages.
- **Low coupling.** The removal is confined to the persistence seam + impl + tests; no cross-package consumer references the removed methods, so there is no ripple beyond the docs.

Modest size, but it converts the seam from "what an implementation must provide for nobody" back to "exactly what a consumer uses."
