Two buffers both apply -- they don't collapse into the bigger one

The gap between one booking's end and the next one's start is pre-buffer plus post-buffer, not whichever of the two is larger -- a common but wrong assumption about how buffers combine.

This is one of the things Scheduling & Availability Core already handles. Bookings and availability that survive timezones, repeating events and daylight saving — without double-booking.

Buy for $993 of 3 clean-room builds passed · full refund if it fails on your machine

Is this you?

Assuming that two adjacent bookings' buffers combine as max(postBuffer, preBuffer) -- the larger of the two governs the gap -- understates the real required gap whenever both buffers are nonzero, because both are separately real time (cleanup after one appointment, travel before the next) and both must be honored in full, added together, not collapsed into whichever is bigger.

Why this one is easy to get wrong

'Take the larger of two overlapping requirements' is a common and often correct simplification for combining constraints, and it's a reasonable first guess for how two buffers around adjacent bookings should interact -- nothing about a buffer's definition on its own signals that this specific pair is additive rather than a maximum, since both framings are equally plausible without reading the exact semantics.

What you get instead

Each booking's blocking range is defined as during.start minus preBufferMinutes through during.end plus postBufferMinutes, and two bookings conflict exactly when their blocking ranges overlap -- which makes the minimum real gap between booking A and a following booking B equal to A's post-buffer plus B's pre-buffer, stated explicitly so nobody has to reverse-engineer it from the exclusion constraint's behavior. Buffers may extend outside the availability window itself; only the booking's actual during range has to fit inside it.

Source: ARCHITECTURE.md 'Buffers (decided)' — checkable in the pack you receive

How you actually use this

You don’t install a library or wire up an SDK. Your own coding agent builds the code in your project, and you keep it — no runtime dependency on us.

Step 1
Download and unzip
You get a folder: the docs that tell an agent what to build, a starting skeleton, and the test suite that decides when it's done.
Step 2
Open it in Claude Code or Cursor
Point your coding agent at the folder. Nothing to install, no account with us, no API key.
Step 3
Paste one prompt
The pack contains the exact prompt. Paste it as your first message and leave it alone — it works through the build itself, choosing a cheaper or stronger model per task.
Step 4
Run ./verify.sh
One command. It prints a pass or fail for every check. Green means the build is done — the same script we ran to produce the receipt on this page.

Typical build: about 22 minutes of your agent working, mostly unattended. Then you integrate the working module into your app the way you would any code you’d written yourself.

Why you can believe this

3 of 3 runs passed

We ran this pack from an empty folder 3 times and published exactly what happened — every check, the model, the token cost, the wall time. Not a testimonial, and not our opinion: the same verify.sh you run yourself. Read the full receipt →

Buy for $99 14-day refund if verify.sh fails →