The current branch contains the addition of a new `entire policy` command. I'd like to suggest a few changes to the code in this branch:

The current branch contains the addition of a new entire policy command. I'd like to suggest a few changes to the code in this branch:
The current branch contains the addition of a new entire policy command. I'd like to suggest a few changes to the code in this branch:
- Pull in the base branch
checkpoint-format-compatand resolve the merge conflict - Based on feedback, the CLI command should be changed from
entire policy checkpointtoentire checkpoint policywhich would make it easier to understand and fit better into the existing CLI surface.
I now have everything I need. Here's my plan.
Situation
The merge is already staged in my working tree (trial merge). checkpoint-format-compat was rewritten since this branch forked from it, so the merge pulls in a lot of evolved work (tokens, labs, etc.). Only one real conflict: root.go — both branches added a command right after the checkpoint group (newPolicyCmd() here vs newTokensGroupCmd() there).
Plan — two commits, step-by-step
Commit 1 — the merge (faithful combine).
Resolve root.go by keeping both lines (newPolicyCmd() + newTokensGroupCmd()), then complete the merge commit. After this, the tree compiles and entire policy checkpoint still works — a clean, reviewable merge with no behavior rename mixed in.
Commit 2 — move entire policy checkpoint → entire checkpoint policy.
- Delete
policy_group.go(removes thepolicytop-level group /newPolicyCmd). git mv policy_checkpoint.go checkpoint_policy.go(follows the documented<noun>_<verb>.goconvention) and rename its symbols to the new order for an internally coherent file:newPolicyCheckpointCmd→newCheckpointPolicyCmd(withUse: "checkpoint"→Use: "policy"andHidden: trueso it stays hidden during development, since the parentcheckpointgroup is visible), plusrunPolicyCheckpoint→runCheckpointPolicy,policyCheckpointOptions→checkpointPolicyOptions,hasPolicyCheckpointUpdate→hasCheckpointPolicyUpdate,policyCheckpointError→checkpointPolicyError.- Register it in
checkpoint_group.go(cmd.AddCommand(newCheckpointPolicyCmd())); leave the group'sLonghelp unchanged (policy stays undocumented while hidden). - Remove the
newPolicyCmd()line fromroot.go. git mv policy_checkpoint_test.go checkpoint_policy_test.go; pointexecutePolicyCheckpointCmdatnewCheckpointGroupCmd()with thepolicyarg prefix, and update the renamed-symbol references.- Rewrite
root_test.go'sTestPolicyCommandIsHiddenDuringDevelopment→ finds["checkpoint","policy"]and asserts it'sHidden(rename the test func accordingly).
Verification before each commit: mise run fmt && mise run lint and the focused tests (go test ./cmd/entire/cli/ -run 'CheckpointPolicy|PolicyCommand' plus the checkpointpolicy package).
One judgment call I'm making: renaming the internal helpers (not just the constructor) so the file reads consistently in the new checkpoint policy order. Say the word if you'd rather keep that diff minimal and only rename the constructor.
Want me to proceed with commit 1 (the merge)?
Your organization has disabled Claude subscription access for Claude Code · Use an Anthropic API key instead, or ask your admin to enable access