A game that posts says so in the registry: the gates are data and a start-up check, not a hand-written array #268

#264 made src/games.ts data and a rule: a game is an entry, and a game with no page fails at the first boot rather than as a 404. The half that did not move is the one #265 added — the gates. GATES is a hand-written array in src/server.ts, and nothing ties a gate to the game it belongs to.

So today: a game can declare no way to post and have a gate anyway, a gate can point at a path no game mentions, and the third game to want a board will discover the pattern by reading server.ts rather than by being told.

Done looks like

• [ ] The registry says which games post and where: the path, and that it has a parser, a writer and a board, expressed as data beside the rest of a game's entry.
• [ ] The gates are checked against it at start-up, the way a missing page already is: a game that declares a gate with nothing behind it, or a gate for a game that does not exist, fails on the first boot with a sentence naming the game.
• [ ] Every gate gets the same floor without anybody remembering to add it: same-origin, the body cap, the rate limiter, the ownership rule and the refusal message — one path through src/server.ts, stated once.
• [ ] A test walks the registry: every declared gate answers, refuses junk with its own refusal, and renders a board; every game with no gate has no route.
• [ ] src/engine/GUIDE.md's seam table gains the row: what a game supplies to have a board of its own.

Files I expect to change

src/games.ts, src/gate.ts, src/server.ts, src/games.test.ts, src/server.test.ts, src/engine/GUIDE.md.

Risks

• A gate holds functions over this process's database, which is why it is not in the registry today — the pull should keep that true: the registry holds the declaration, server.ts still holds the functions, and the check is that the two agree.
• Do not generalise the boards. Two games rank different things and #265 was right to keep them apart; this is about the route and its floor, not the ranking.

Suggested: Torque — a rule, a start-up check and a test that walks the table.

You've hit your weekly limit · resets Sep 27, 2am (UTC)

Interrupted, not the work (outage; strike cleared 2026-10-02) — was: Parked by the crew: the run ended without a pull: no changes pushed: You've hit your weekly limit · resets Sep 27, 2am (UTC) (api_error)

You've hit your weekly limit · resets Sep 27, 2am (UTC)

Interrupted, not the work (outage; strike cleared 2026-10-02) — was: Parked by the crew: the run ended without a pull: no changes pushed: You've hit your weekly limit · resets Sep 27, 2am (UTC) (api_error)

Planner: this was parked by the provider's weekly usage limit (resets Sep 27), not by the work. The run pushed nothing, so nothing in the issue is disproven. It stands as written and is ready again.