feat(skill): lineage — backward decision archaeology, with a tool

Ports the technique #11 asked for and ships the script #19 asks for: was this tried, what killed it, and is the killer still alive. The RED run did excellent archaeology unaided — fourteen steps, correct verdict, and it split the proposal into a goal worth keeping and a mechanism that had failed, which is the finding. What it never ran was `git log -S`, and what it leaned on hardest was the issue tracker. Both facts shaped the skill. The GREEN run then broke the tool's central claim, live. Asked about a feature this repo removed and argued about at length, `lineage.sh "per repo"` printed: no trace of "per repo" — that is a real finding: it means this is new here Flatly wrong; the term simply had a space in it. Worse, the skill's own anti-pattern table forbids that exact inference — "assuming absence means it was never considered" — so the tool was printing, in its own voice, the mistake the skill warns against. A no-match now says it is one string against one repo, and names the variants to try before anyone concludes novelty. The test asserts the refusal rather than the old message. Three more from the same run: - The tool searched `docs/adr/*` for decision records. This repo has no `docs/`, and this estate keeps decisions in the brain and in gitea comments — so that section silently searched nothing four times, and its null was indistinguishable from a real one. It now names both unsearchable sources on every run, and the skill makes `brain_query` a step: the single best artifact in the GREEN run came from the brain and nowhere else. - Step 1 steered readers toward path-scoped log and away from `-S`. Backwards. A function deleted from a file that still exists is the dominant removal shape, and `-S<identifier>` returns birth and death on one screen while the path search buries it. Rewritten to lead with the identifier. - "Which conditions still hold" had no method, and the run answered it by running commands against the live host in twenty seconds. Now a table: one command per claim, because "the record says X" and "X is true right now" are different answers and only the second is worth giving. Also fixed: the tool defaulted to the cwd and would return a confident null against the wrong repo in a worktree-heavy setup. It now prints which repo it searched, every run. Closes #11 Bump-Type: minor
feat(skill): adr — the house format, and how to record a decision you cannot make yet
2026-08-29 15:26:14 +02:00 · 2026-08-29 15:24:11 +02:00 · 2026-08-29 13:19:26 +00:00 · 2026-08-29 13:19:25 +00:00 · 2026-08-29 15:17:16 +02:00 · 2026-08-29 15:16:20 +02:00
93 changed files with 2809 additions and 927 deletions
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
  "name": "skills",
  "description": "Mathias's engineering skills library, plus the hooks and MCP servers that make it enforceable: TDD, clean code, debugging, specs, discovery, CI, and secret hygiene.",
-  "version": "0.9.0",
+  "version": "0.16.0",
  "author": {
    "name": "Mathias",
    "url": "https://git.d-ma.be/mathias"
@@ -94,26 +94,51 @@ jobs:
          git config user.name "${GITEA_ACTOR}"
          git config user.email "${GITEA_ACTOR}@noreply.gitea.d-ma.be"

-          # Claude Code gates plugin updates on plugin.json's version field:
-          # if it does not move, installed hosts never see the new tag. Bump
-          # it in the same commit train so the tag and the manifest agree —
-          # `task check` enforces that equality on every run.
+          # The tag goes up FIRST and on its own. It names the commit this run
+          # checked out and can never be rejected, however far main has moved.
+          git tag -a "$TAG" -m "release $TAG"
+          git push origin "$TAG"
+          echo "pushed $TAG"
+
+          # The manifest bump is a separate concern and must land on whatever
+          # main is NOW. The runner is maxParallel=1 and shared with other
+          # repos, so a job routinely starts several commits after its own —
+          # pushing this run's stale HEAD to main is then rejected
+          # non-fast-forward, which is how v0.10.0 ended up tagged with the
+          # manifest still reading 0.9.0.
+          #
+          # Claude Code gates plugin updates on this field: if it does not
+          # move, installed hosts never see the release. `task check` asserts
+          # the manifest is not behind the latest tag, so a failure here is a
+          # red main, not a cosmetic miss.
          manifest=.claude-plugin/plugin.json
          version="${TAG#v}"
-          current=$(sed -n 's/.*"version"[[:space:]]*:[[:space:]]*"\([^"]*\)".*/\1/p' "$manifest" | head -1)
-          git tag -a "$TAG" -m "release $TAG"

-          if [ "$current" != "$version" ]; then
+          for attempt in 1 2 3; do
+            git fetch --quiet origin main
+            git checkout --quiet -B release-bump origin/main
+
+            current=$(sed -n 's/.*"version"[[:space:]]*:[[:space:]]*"\([^"]*\)".*/\1/p' "$manifest" | head -1)
+            if [ "$current" = "$version" ]; then
+              echo "manifest already at $version"
+              exit 0
+            fi
+            # A later run may have bumped past us while this one waited.
+            if [ "$(sh bin/newer-version "$current" "$version")" = "$current" ]; then
+              echo "manifest is $current, already newer than $version — leaving it"
+              exit 0
+            fi
+
            sed -i "s/\"version\"[[:space:]]*:[[:space:]]*\"$current\"/\"version\": \"$version\"/" "$manifest"
            git add "$manifest"
            # The trailer below stops this push from re-triggering the tagger.
            git commit -m "chore(release): plugin.json version $version" -m "Skip-Release: true"
-            # Commit and tag go up in ONE push: the gate job runs `task check`
-            # on the bump commit, and that asserts manifest == latest tag. Two
-            # separate pushes leave a window where it legitimately fails.
-            git push origin HEAD:main "$TAG"
-            echo "bumped $manifest to $version"
-          else
-            git push origin "$TAG"
-          fi
-          echo "pushed $TAG"
+            if git push origin HEAD:main; then
+              echo "bumped $manifest to $version"
+              exit 0
+            fi
+            echo "main moved while bumping — retry $attempt"
+          done
+
+          echo "could not land the manifest bump after 3 attempts" >&2
+          exit 1
@@ -12,5 +12,22 @@
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://koala.tail30472e.ts.net:8444/mcp"
    }
+  },
+  "_parked": {
+    "_reason": "cad and gitea-mcp are proxied, reachable and AUTHENTICATING: tailscale serve 8445 -> 127.0.0.1:31877 and 8446 -> 127.0.0.1:30340; an MCP initialize with the correct bearer returns 200 from both (serverInfo gitea-mcp 0.1.0, cad aed2aaf). They stay parked only because nothing puts those two tokens into the session environment. Both live in the 1Password AgentSecrets vault, and by deliberate design (infra#224, closed) no single identity on koala reads both vaults: koala-homelab is HomeLab-only and resolves ~/.op-env, koala-agentsecrets-write is AgentSecrets-only and lives in ~/.op-agent-write.env. Adding an AgentSecrets reference to ~/.op-env does NOT degrade gracefully -- `op run` fails wholesale and every other token, BRAIN_MCP_TOKEN included, goes unresolved with it. Enabling needs a read-scoped AgentSecrets identity in the session-env path; see mathias/skills#32, #33.",
+    "cad": {
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://koala.tail30472e.ts.net:8445/mcp",
+      "headers": {
+        "Authorization": "Bearer ${CAD_MCP_TOKEN}"
+      }
+    },
+    "gitea": {
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://koala.tail30472e.ts.net:8446/mcp",
+      "headers": {
+        "Authorization": "Bearer ${GITEA_MCP_STATIC_TOKEN}"
+      }
+    }
  }
-}
+}
@@ -110,10 +110,25 @@ Antigravity and Mistral Vibe targets were removed — unused.
 task doctor      # or bin/doctor
 ```

-Reports dangling links, links resolving into a foreign checkout, skill-count
-mismatches, stray entries, and leftover per-skill Claude symlinks. Non-zero
-exit on drift. It also runs at session start via the plugin, so a drifting
-host says so rather than waiting to be discovered.
+Reports dangling links, links into a source nobody configured, skills in the
+checkout with no link, stray entries, leftover per-skill Claude symlinks, and a
+Claude Code plugin sitting on an older generation than the host already has.
+Non-zero exit on drift. It also runs at session start via the plugin, so a
+drifting host says so rather than waiting to be discovered.
+
+All of that compares copies already on the machine — deliberately, since it
+runs in a session hook where latency shows. That leaves one case invisible: a
+host where the checkout, the marketplace clone and the installed plugin all
+agree, and all three are a release behind origin.
+
+```bash
+task doctor -- --online     # or bin/doctor --online
+```
+
+One `git ls-remote` against origin, opt-in. Belongs in a scheduled per-host job,
+not the session hook. An unreachable remote is reported as its own fault rather
+than as staleness — "I could not check" and "you are behind" are different
+answers and only one of them is about the host.

 ## Versioning

@@ -130,13 +145,48 @@ before `task skills:install`; default is `main` for always-current.

 ## Contributing a skill

-1. Add a directory `<short-kebab-name>/`.
-2. Create `<short-kebab-name>/SKILL.md` — start with one-paragraph
-   purpose, then triggers ("use when …"), then mechanics.
-3. Add a row to `SKILLS_INDEX.md` (description + use-when).
-4. Commit directly to `main`. Conventional-commit prefix
+1. Add a directory `skills/<short-kebab-name>/`.
+2. Create `skills/<short-kebab-name>/SKILL.md` with this frontmatter — all four
+   keys are gated by `task check`, and the index table is generated from the
+   last three:
+
+   ```yaml
+   ---
+   name: <short-kebab-name>
+   surfaces: [claude-code, library]   # any of claude-code | library | chat
+   summary: "<one line for the index table>"
+   use_when: "<the trigger, for the index table>"
+   description: <the paragraph the model selects on>
+   ---
+   ```
+
+   Then: one-paragraph purpose, triggers ("use when …"), mechanics.
+3. Run `task index` and commit the regenerated `SKILLS_INDEX.md`. Do **not**
+   hand-edit the table — `task check` regenerates it and fails on a diff.
+4. Pressure-test it before shipping: run the scenario against a subagent that
+   does *not* have the skill, write the skill against what that run actually
+   did, then re-run with it. See `superpowers-writing-skills` and #19.
+5. Commit directly to `main`. Conventional-commit prefix
   (`feat:` / `fix:` / `docs:`). Add `Bump-Type: minor` footer when
   adding a new skill or expanding scope; default patch covers edits.

 This repo is markdown-only and public — never include secrets, client
 names, or anything under NDA in a skill.
+
+## Mode 2 routing candidates
+
+These notes used to sit in each SKILL.md as a `## Mode 2 Routing Note` section.
+They changed nothing about how the skill is invoked — several said so outright —
+and cost context on every load, so they live here instead. Nothing in the repo
+depends on this table; it is a record of which skills looked mechanical enough
+to route to a local model, should a routing layer ever exist.
+
+| Skill | Note |
+|---|---|
+| `cad-babysit` | Phases 2-4 (reading comments/logs, classifying fault vs outcome) are judgment-heavy and should stay Mode 1. Phase 1 (running `cad stuck` and grouping its output) is mechanical and a Mode 2 routing candidate once Plan 6 ships the routing pod. |
+| `code-review` | This skill is invoked identically in Mode 1 (cloud Claude) and Mode 2 (client-local with supervisor routing). The routing layer (Plan 6) does not exist yet; treat this skill as Mode 1 only for now. Findings format and severity classification are unchanged across modes. |
+| `debug` | This skill produces high-volume mechanical output (hypothesis enumeration) and is a candidate for Mode 2 routing to a local model in the future. Until Plan 6 ships the routing pod, treat as Mode 1 only. The hypothesis format and discipline are identical regardless of which model generates them. |
+| `feature-spec` | Spec writing requires interpretation of intent and tradeoff reasoning — work where Claude generally outperforms a 9-13B local model. This skill is intentionally **not** a Mode 2 routing candidate. In Mode 2, the routing layer should leave `feature-spec` calls on Claude. |
+| `session-retrospective` | Reading long session logs and pulling themes is high-volume, mechanical pattern-recognition work — a strong Mode 2 routing candidate. Until Plan 6 ships the routing pod, treat as Mode 1 only. |
+| `tdd` | This skill is invoked identically whether the agent is running in Mode 1 (cloud Claude, no routing) or Mode 2 (client-local, supervisor routing layer). The routing pod (Plan 6) does not exist yet; until it does, treat this skill as Mode 1 only. The discipline does not change between modes — only the model behind the call. |
+| `trainer` | Trainer is the same shape as `session-retrospective` — long-context reading, mechanical filtering — and is a Mode 2 routing candidate. Until Plan 6, treat as Mode 1 only. |
@@ -2,50 +2,57 @@

 This index lists all available engineering skills. Load the full SKILL.md on demand.

-| Skill | Description | Use when |
-|-------|-------------|----------|
-| `tdd` | Test-Driven Development enforcement | Starting any new feature or fixing a bug |
-| `clean-code` | Clean code principles with Go adaptation | Code review, refactoring, new code |
-| `solid` | SOLID principles with Go examples | Design review, architecture decisions |
-| `code-review` | Code smell detection + Go-specific checklist | Pre-merge review |
-| `refactoring` | Systematic refactoring methodology (Fowler) | When improving existing code |
-| `test-design` | Dave Farley test design scoring (Farley Index) | Reviewing or writing tests |
-| `cognitive-load` | Cognitive complexity analysis (CLI score) | Identifying hotspots, before refactoring |
-| `problem-analysis` | Deep problem understanding before coding | Starting any non-trivial task |
-| `user-stories` | Elephant Carpaccio story slicing | Breaking down features |
-| `atdd` | Acceptance Test-Driven Development workflow | Feature development with acceptance criteria |
-| `spec-driven-dev` | Spec-driven development for PMs | Writing specs and requirements |
-| `planning` | Planning and task breakdown | Sprint planning, task decomposition |
-| `gitea-ci` | Gitea CI/CD pipeline with act_runner, buildah, k3s, GitHub mirror | Setting up or debugging CI on this infra |
-| `debug` | Hypothesis-first debugging discipline | Any test failure or bug whose cause is not immediately obvious |
-| `feature-spec` | Implementation-level feature spec (tighter than spec-driven-dev) | Scoping one feature inside an already-specced project |
-| `experiment-spec` | Rigorous experiment spec — falsifiable hypothesis, quantitative acceptance, null-result protocol | Scoping a research/ML phase instead of a feature |
-| `playwright` | Playwright E2E testing — setup, HTMX patterns, SSE streams, CI wiring | Adding browser tests to any project with a web UI |
-| `session-retrospective` | Surface non-obvious learnings from a session log | After a coding session ends, before context is lost |
-| `trainer` | Two-phase brain curation (score candidates, write past quality gate) | Periodic brain pruning and curation |
-| `dream` | Reflective consolidation pass over an agent's memory directory | Pruning/merging memory files, rebuilding a memory index |
-| `grill-me` | Structured plan interrogation — Quick Poke, Full Grill, Pre-mortem | Stress-testing a plan before committing; end of Diamond 1; before promoting to pre-prod |
-| `own-the-task` | Delegation ownership — Intake → Brief → Plan → Execute | A task is handed over open-ended; "take this off my plate"; before a plan exists |
-| `telos-load` | Load TELOS intention substrate at session start | Starting any koala session; before architectural decisions; CAD pipeline entry |
-| `secret-hygiene` | Stop credentials rendering into the session transcript; safe rotation chain when one leaks | Before any kubectl/SOPS/token command; after a confirmed leak |
-| `regulatory-risk-assessment` | Structured risk register for regulated-industry features | Filing a CAD issue (needs Risk: level); features touching payments, auth, external APIs, user data |
-| `discovery-framing` | Problem-before-solution discovery/framing method | Framing/validating a problem before any solution; opportunity sizing |
-| `stage-gate-review` | Stage-gate product governance (go/no-go council) | Preparing a Product Council ask; building a go/no-go checklist; gate review |
-| `web-shot` | Screenshot a running web UI via a koala k3s Playwright job | Visual verification of a running UI when no local browser exists |
-| `cad-babysit` | Focused human-in-the-loop session working CAD's stuck queue (read-only) | Picking up whatever `cad stuck` flags, with a human present |
-| `superpowers-brainstorming` | Structured divergent brainstorming | Generating or expanding a set of ideas |
-| `superpowers-writing-plans` | Writing implementation plans | Planning substantial work before coding |
-| `superpowers-executing-plans` | Executing a written plan step by step | Running an approved plan to completion |
-| `superpowers-dispatching-parallel-agents` | Fan work out across parallel subagents | Decomposing work for concurrent agents |
-| `superpowers-subagent-driven-development` | Subagent-driven development workflow | Building via orchestrated subagents |
-| `superpowers-systematic-debugging` | Hypothesis-first systematic debugging | Diagnosing a failure methodically |
-| `superpowers-verification-before-completion` | Verify behavior before claiming done | Before marking any task complete |
-| `superpowers-requesting-code-review` | Requesting a code review well | Asking another agent/human to review |
-| `superpowers-receiving-code-review` | Acting on received review feedback | Responding to review comments |
-| `superpowers-finishing-a-development-branch` | Cleanly finishing/landing a dev branch | Wrapping a branch → merge/PR |
-| `superpowers-using-git-worktrees` | Isolating work with git worktrees | Parallel/isolated work in a worktree |
-| `superpowers-writing-skills` | Authoring new SKILL.md skills | Creating a new reusable skill |
-| `superpowers-using-superpowers` | Meta: orienting in the superpowers set | Learning how to use the superpowers skills |
+The table is **generated** from each skill's frontmatter (`summary`, `use_when`,
+`surfaces`) by `task index`, and `task check` fails if it is out of date. Edit
+the SKILL.md, not the table.
+
+<!-- BEGIN skills-table -->
+| Skill | Description | Use when | Surfaces |
+|-------|-------------|----------|----------|
+| `adr` | Architecture Decision Records — house format, and how to record a decision you cannot make yet | Recording an architectural decision; revisiting one; or deciding between options where the right answer genuinely is not knowable yet | claude-code, library |
+| `atdd` | Acceptance Test-Driven Development workflow | Feature development with acceptance criteria | claude-code, library |
+| `cad-babysit` | Focused human-in-the-loop session working CAD's stuck queue (read-only) | Picking up whatever `cad stuck` flags, with a human present | claude-code, library |
+| `clean-code` | Clean code principles with Go adaptation | Code review, refactoring, new code | claude-code, library |
+| `code-review` | Code smell detection + Go-specific checklist | Pre-merge review | claude-code, library |
+| `cognitive-load` | Cognitive complexity analysis (CLI score) | Identifying hotspots, before refactoring | claude-code, library |
+| `debug` | Hypothesis-first debugging discipline | Any test failure or bug whose cause is not immediately obvious — or a bug report with no failure text, which this skill refuses rather than guesses at | claude-code, library |
+| `discovery-framing` | Problem-before-solution discovery/framing method | Framing/validating a problem before any solution; opportunity sizing | claude-code, library |
+| `dream` | Reflective consolidation pass over an agent's memory directory | Pruning/merging memory files, rebuilding a memory index | claude-code, library, chat |
+| `experiment-spec` | Rigorous experiment spec — falsifiable hypothesis, quantitative acceptance, null-result protocol | Scoping a research/ML phase instead of a feature | claude-code, library |
+| `feature-spec` | Implementation-level feature spec (tighter than spec-driven-dev) | Scoping one feature inside an already-specced project | claude-code, library |
+| `gitea-ci` | Gitea CI/CD pipeline with act_runner, buildah, k3s, GitHub mirror | Setting up or debugging CI on this infra | claude-code, library |
+| `grill-me` | Structured plan interrogation — Quick Poke, Full Grill, Pre-mortem | Stress-testing a plan before committing; end of Diamond 1; before promoting to pre-prod | claude-code, library, chat |
+| `lineage` | Backward decision archaeology — was this tried before, and does the reason it failed still hold | Before proposing something that feels new; when an idea keeps resurfacing; when you inherit code whose reason is gone | claude-code, library |
+| `own-the-task` | Delegation ownership — Intake → Brief → Plan → Execute | A task is handed over open-ended; \"take this off my plate\"; before a plan exists | claude-code, library, chat |
+| `planning` | Planning and task breakdown | Sprint planning, task decomposition | claude-code, library |
+| `playwright` | Playwright E2E testing — setup, HTMX patterns, SSE streams, CI wiring | Adding browser tests to any project with a web UI | claude-code, library |
+| `problem-analysis` | Deep problem understanding before coding | Starting any non-trivial task | claude-code, library |
+| `refactoring` | Systematic refactoring methodology (Fowler) | When improving existing code | claude-code, library |
+| `regulatory-risk-assessment` | Structured risk register for regulated-industry features | Filing a CAD issue (needs Risk: level); features touching payments, auth, external APIs, user data | claude-code, library |
+| `secret-hygiene` | Stop credentials rendering into the session transcript; safe rotation chain when one leaks | Before any kubectl/SOPS/token command; after a confirmed leak | claude-code, library |
+| `session-retrospective` | Surface non-obvious learnings from a session log | After a coding session ends, before context is lost | claude-code, library |
+| `solid` | SOLID principles with Go examples | Design review, architecture decisions | claude-code, library |
+| `spec-driven-dev` | Spec-driven development for PMs | Writing specs and requirements | claude-code, library |
+| `stage-gate-review` | Stage-gate product governance (go/no-go council) | Preparing a Product Council ask; building a go/no-go checklist; gate review | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-brainstorming` | Structured divergent brainstorming | Generating or expanding a set of ideas | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-dispatching-parallel-agents` | Fan work out across parallel subagents | Decomposing work for concurrent agents | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-executing-plans` | Executing a written plan step by step | Running an approved plan to completion | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-finishing-a-development-branch` | Cleanly finishing/landing a dev branch | Wrapping a branch → merge/PR | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-receiving-code-review` | Acting on received review feedback | Responding to review comments | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-requesting-code-review` | Requesting a code review well | Asking another agent/human to review | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-subagent-driven-development` | Subagent-driven development workflow | Building via orchestrated subagents | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-using-git-worktrees` | Isolating work with git worktrees | Parallel/isolated work in a worktree | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-using-superpowers` | Meta: orienting in the superpowers set | Learning how to use the superpowers skills | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-verification-before-completion` | Verify behavior before claiming done | Before marking any task complete | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-writing-plans` | Writing implementation plans | Planning substantial work before coding | claude-code, library |
+| `superpowers-writing-skills` | Authoring new SKILL.md skills | Creating a new reusable skill | claude-code, library |
+| `tdd` | Test-Driven Development enforcement | Starting any new feature or fixing a bug | claude-code, library |
+| `telos-load` | Load TELOS intention substrate at session start | Starting any koala session; before architectural decisions; CAD pipeline entry | claude-code, library |
+| `test-design` | Dave Farley test design scoring (Farley Index) | Reviewing or writing tests | claude-code, library |
+| `trainer` | Two-phase brain curation (score candidates, write past quality gate) | Periodic brain pruning and curation | claude-code, library |
+| `user-stories` | Elephant Carpaccio story slicing | Breaking down features | claude-code, library |
+| `web-shot` | Screenshot a running web UI via a koala k3s Playwright job | Visual verification of a running UI when no local browser exists | claude-code, library |
+<!-- END skills-table -->

 ## Wiring into tools

@@ -61,8 +61,13 @@ tasks:
        done
        exit $fail

+  index:
+    desc: 'Regenerate SKILLS_INDEX.md''s table from skill frontmatter.'
+    cmds:
+      - "'{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/generate-index' '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}'"
+
  check:
-    desc: 'Structure gate — layout, frontmatter, manifest/tag parity. Runs in CI.'
+    desc: 'Structure gate — layout, frontmatter, surfaces, generated index, manifest/tag parity. Runs in CI.'
    cmds:
      - |
        fail=0
@@ -94,18 +99,39 @@ tasks:
          count=$((count + 1))
        done

-        # 3. SKILLS_INDEX.md lists exactly the skills that exist. Delegated
-        #    to bin/check-index so the rule is covered by
-        #    tests/check_index_test.sh rather than living untested here.
-        sh '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/check-index' '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}' || fail=1
+        # 3. SKILLS_INDEX.md's table is generated from frontmatter, so the
+        #    assertion is that regenerating it changes nothing. This replaces
+        #    bin/check-index: a generated table cannot drift in either
+        #    direction, so there is no separate rule left to check.
+        sh '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/generate-index' --check '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}' || fail=1

-        # 4. Plugin manifest version must match the latest tag, or installers
+        # 4. Every skill says which surfaces it ships to, and names only
+        #    surfaces that exist — a wrong value silently drops a skill from a
+        #    harness instead of erroring.
+        sh '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/check-surfaces' '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}' || fail=1
+
+        # 5. A documented session_log call must be one the tool would accept:
+        #    session_id is its only required field, and nine skills omitted it.
+        sh '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/check-session-log' '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}' || fail=1
+
+        # 6. Every skill says when it stops and hands back (#5). Skills whose
+        #    rule is not written yet are listed in bin/escalation-pending.txt,
+        #    which only shrinks.
+        sh '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/check-escalation' '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}' || fail=1
+
+        # 7. Plugin manifest version must match the latest tag, or installers
        #    never see the update (Claude Code gates updates on this field).
        if [ -f '{{.PLUGIN_MANIFEST}}' ]; then
          manifest_v=$(sed -n 's/.*"version"[[:space:]]*:[[:space:]]*"\([^"]*\)".*/\1/p' '{{.PLUGIN_MANIFEST}}' | head -1)
          tag_v=$(git -C '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}' describe --tags --abbrev=0 2>/dev/null | sed 's/^v//' || echo '')
-          if [ -n "$tag_v" ] && [ "$manifest_v" != "$tag_v" ]; then
-            echo "ERROR: plugin.json version ($manifest_v) != latest tag ($tag_v)" >&2
+          # Ordering, not equality. The fault this guards is the manifest
+          # failing to MOVE — a release tag whose manifest still names the old
+          # version, so no installed host ever sees the update. A manifest
+          # ahead of the newest tag this checkout knows about is the normal
+          # state between the tagger's bump commit and a tag fetch (#34).
+          if [ -n "$tag_v" ] && [ "$manifest_v" != "$tag_v" ] \
+             && [ "$(sh '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/newer-version' "$manifest_v" "$tag_v")" = "$tag_v" ]; then
+            echo "ERROR: plugin.json version ($manifest_v) is behind the latest tag ($tag_v) — installed hosts never see the update" >&2
            fail=1
          fi
        else
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# check-escalation — every skill states when it stops and hands back.
+#
+# #5 decided this belongs in the body, not the frontmatter: no harness reads
+# frontmatter beyond name/description, so a `failure_criteria:` key would be a
+# guarantee nothing honours. The model reads the body.
+#
+# #37 then had to define which skills need one, and every obvious answer was
+# bad: a hardcoded list rots, sniffing the text for "does it write anything" is
+# unfalsifiable, and a frontmatter flag is the rejected option wearing a hat.
+#
+# So there is no acting set. EVERY skill answers the question. A read-only skill
+# answers it in one line — "read-only; findings are the output, nothing is
+# handed back" — which turns an absence into a claim someone can disagree with.
+#
+# bin/escalation-pending.txt is a ratchet for skills whose real rule has not
+# been written yet (a stop condition nobody thought about is not worth
+# enforcing). It is self-cleaning: a listed skill that HAS a section fails, so
+# the list cannot outlive its reason.
+#
+# Usage: check-escalation [checkout-root]
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=${1:-$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)}
+PENDING="$ROOT/bin/escalation-pending.txt"
+fail=0
+
+listed() {
+  [ -f "$PENDING" ] || return 1
+  sed 's/#.*//' "$PENDING" | grep -qx "[[:space:]]*$1[[:space:]]*"
+}
+
+for dir in "$ROOT"/skills/*/; do
+  [ -f "$dir/SKILL.md" ] || continue
+  name=$(basename "$dir")
+
+  if grep -q '^## Escalation' "$dir/SKILL.md"; then
+    if listed "$name"; then
+      echo "ERROR: skills/$name has an Escalation section but is still in bin/escalation-pending.txt — remove it from the list" >&2
+      fail=1
+    fi
+    continue
+  fi
+
+  listed "$name" && continue
+  echo "ERROR: skills/$name has no '## Escalation' section — say when it stops and hands back, or say it never does" >&2
+  fail=1
+done
+
+# A pending entry for a skill that no longer exists is a stale exemption, and a
+# stale exemption is how a gate quietly stops covering something. Looped without
+# a pipe on purpose: a `while read` on the right of a pipe runs in a subshell,
+# so `fail=1` would be set in a process that exits before it is read.
+if [ -f "$PENDING" ]; then
+  entries=$(sed 's/#.*//' "$PENDING" | tr -d '[:blank:]' | grep -v '^$' || true)
+  for entry in $entries; do
+    [ -f "$ROOT/skills/$entry/SKILL.md" ] && continue
+    echo "ERROR: bin/escalation-pending.txt lists '$entry', which has no skills/$entry/SKILL.md" >&2
+    fail=1
+  done
+fi
+
+exit $fail
@@ -1,42 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/sh
-# check-index — asserts SKILLS_INDEX.md lists exactly the skills that exist.
-#
-# The index is hand-maintained and drifts silently in both directions: a skill
-# ships with no row (`dream` and `experiment-spec` did — their rows lived on
-# branches squash-merged after a directory reorg, so the SKILL.md landed and
-# the row did not, #15), or a row outlives the skill it names. Neither errors
-# anywhere; the library just misreports itself to every harness that reads it.
-#
-# Usage: check-index [checkout-root]   (defaults to this script's repo root)
-
-set -u
-
-ROOT=${1:-$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)}
-INDEX="$ROOT/SKILLS_INDEX.md"
-fail=0
-
-if [ ! -f "$INDEX" ]; then
-  echo "ERROR: missing SKILLS_INDEX.md" >&2
-  exit 1
-fi
-
-# A row is a table line whose first cell is the skill name in backticks.
-listed=$(sed -n 's/^|[[:space:]]*`\([^`]*\)`.*/\1/p' "$INDEX" | sort -u)
-
-for dir in "$ROOT"/skills/*/; do
-  name=$(basename "$dir")
-  [ -f "$dir/SKILL.md" ] || continue
-  printf '%s\n' "$listed" | grep -qx "$name" || {
-    echo "ERROR: skills/$name has no row in SKILLS_INDEX.md" >&2
-    fail=1
-  }
-done
-
-for name in $listed; do
-  [ -f "$ROOT/skills/$name/SKILL.md" ] || {
-    echo "ERROR: SKILLS_INDEX.md lists '$name', which has no skills/$name/SKILL.md" >&2
-    fail=1
-  }
-done
-
-exit $fail
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# check-session-log — a skill that documents a session_log call must document a
+# call the tool would actually accept.
+#
+# Nine skills documented the payload and none named `session_id`, which is the
+# tool's only REQUIRED field. An agent following any of them either failed the
+# call or invented an id — and invented ids do not group, so the pass-rate the
+# endpoint computes was being assembled from entries that could not be joined
+# (#36, found by a pressure test against `debug`).
+#
+# Also rejected: `duration_ms: <wall-clock>`. An agent does not observe a clock.
+# A documented field nobody can honestly populate gets fabricated or silently
+# dropped, and fabricated numbers in a metrics stream are worse than no numbers.
+#
+# Usage: check-session-log [checkout-root]
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=${1:-$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)}
+fail=0
+
+for dir in "$ROOT"/skills/*/; do
+  [ -f "$dir/SKILL.md" ] || continue
+  name=$(basename "$dir")
+
+  grep -q 'session_log' "$dir/SKILL.md" || continue
+
+  if ! grep -q 'session_id' "$dir/SKILL.md"; then
+    echo "ERROR: skills/$name documents session_log without session_id — the tool's only required field" >&2
+    fail=1
+  fi
+
+  if grep -q 'duration_ms:[[:space:]]*<' "$dir/SKILL.md"; then
+    echo "ERROR: skills/$name documents duration_ms as a placeholder an agent cannot measure — omit it or pass a real measurement" >&2
+    fail=1
+  fi
+done
+
+exit $fail
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# check-surfaces — every skill declares which surfaces it ships to, and only
+# names surfaces that exist.
+#
+# The repo distributes three ways: the Claude Code plugin, the symlinked
+# library (Crush/Pi/OpenCode), and claude.ai, which has no fetch path at all.
+# Treating every skill as belonging to all three installs skills that can never
+# fire — gitea-ci, playwright and web-shot have no shell or cluster in a chat
+# surface — and degrades selection for the ones that can (#29).
+#
+# Values are validated, not merely counted: a wrong surface silently removes a
+# skill from a harness rather than erroring, which is the failure mode this
+# whole file exists to prevent.
+#
+# Usage: check-surfaces [checkout-root]
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=${1:-$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)}
+ALLOWED='claude-code library chat'
+fail=0
+
+for dir in "$ROOT"/skills/*/; do
+  [ -f "$dir/SKILL.md" ] || continue
+  name=$(basename "$dir")
+
+  line=$(sed -n 's/^surfaces:[[:space:]]*//p' "$dir/SKILL.md" | head -1)
+  if [ -z "$line" ]; then
+    echo "ERROR: skills/$name declares no 'surfaces:' — say where it ships (${ALLOWED% *}, ${ALLOWED##* })" >&2
+    fail=1
+    continue
+  fi
+
+  values=$(printf '%s' "$line" | tr -d '[]' | tr ',' ' ')
+  count=0
+  for v in $values; do
+    count=$((count + 1))
+    case " $ALLOWED " in
+      *" $v "*) ;;
+      *) echo "ERROR: skills/$name names surface '$v', which does not exist — allowed: $ALLOWED" >&2; fail=1 ;;
+    esac
+  done
+  [ "$count" -gt 0 ] || {
+    echo "ERROR: skills/$name has an empty 'surfaces:' list — a skill that ships nowhere should be deleted, not declared" >&2
+    fail=1
+  }
+done
+
+exit $fail
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 #   doctor            human report, non-zero exit on drift
 #   doctor --quiet    print only when something is wrong (SessionStart hook)
 #   doctor --json     machine-readable findings
+#   doctor --online   ALSO ask origin for the latest tag (one network call)
 #
 # POSIX sh on purpose: it runs on macOS and Linux, before any toolchain is
 # guaranteed present, and inside a session-start hook where latency shows.
@@ -21,10 +22,12 @@ set -u

 QUIET=0
 JSON=0
+ONLINE=0
 for arg in "$@"; do
  case "$arg" in
-    --quiet) QUIET=1 ;;
-    --json)  JSON=1 ;;
+    --quiet)  QUIET=1 ;;
+    --json)   JSON=1 ;;
+    --online) ONLINE=1 ;;
    -h|--help)
      sed -n '2,20p' "$0" | sed 's/^# \{0,1\}//'
      exit 0 ;;
@@ -153,6 +156,13 @@ elif [ -d "$AGENTS_DIR" ]; then
  for dir in "$SKILLS_DIR"/*/; do
    [ -f "$dir/SKILL.md" ] || continue
    name=$(basename "$dir")
+    # Only skills that ship to the library belong here. A chat-only skill
+    # missing from a Crush directory is correct, not drift (#29).
+    surfaces=$(sed -n 's/^surfaces:[[:space:]]*//p' "$dir/SKILL.md" | head -1)
+    if [ -n "$surfaces" ] \
+       && ! printf '%s' "$surfaces" | tr -d '[]' | tr ',' ' ' | grep -qw library; then
+      continue
+    fi
    [ -L "$AGENTS_DIR/$name" ] \
      || add FAIL missing "$name is in the checkout but has no link in $AGENTS_DIR — re-run install.sh"
  done
@@ -252,16 +262,10 @@ manifest_version() {
 }

 # newer_version a b — echoes whichever sorts higher on major.minor.patch.
+# Lives in bin/newer-version because `task check` needs the same ordering (#34)
+# and a second copy is a second thing to get wrong.
 newer_version() {
-  printf '%s\n%s\n' "$1" "$2" | awk -F. '
-    { raw[NR] = $0; for (i = 1; i <= 3; i++) n[NR, i] = ($i == "" ? 0 : $i + 0) }
-    END {
-      for (i = 1; i <= 3; i++) {
-        if (n[1, i] > n[2, i]) { print raw[1]; exit }
-        if (n[1, i] < n[2, i]) { print raw[2]; exit }
-      }
-      print raw[1]
-    }'
+  sh "$SELF_DIR/newer-version" "$1" "$2"
 }

 installed_v=''
@@ -287,6 +291,42 @@ if [ -n "$installed_v" ] && [ -n "$available_v" ] && [ "$installed_v" != "$avail
  add FAIL plugin-version "Claude Code has skills@mathias $installed_v installed but $available_v is available on this host — /plugin update skills@mathias (a host stale enough to matter is running the old doctor, so the first detection may need this run by hand)"
 fi

+# --- optional: the release this host has never fetched ----------------------
+# Every check above compares copies already present, so a host whose checkout,
+# marketplace clone and installed plugin all agree reads as clean while sitting
+# a release behind origin (#38). Closing that needs a network call, which the
+# default run must not make — hence opt-in, for a scheduled per-host job rather
+# than the SessionStart hook.
+#
+# $DOCTOR_LATEST_TAG_CMD is the test seam; it prints the newest remote tag.
+if [ "$ONLINE" -eq 1 ]; then
+  if [ -n "${DOCTOR_LATEST_TAG_CMD:-}" ]; then
+    remote_tag=$(eval "$DOCTOR_LATEST_TAG_CMD" 2>/dev/null | tail -1 | tr -d '[:space:]')
+  else
+    # The URL is never printed: a remote rewritten by url.insteadOf can expand
+    # into a live token.
+    origin=$(git -C "$CHECKOUT" config --get remote.origin.url 2>/dev/null || true)
+    if [ -n "$origin" ]; then
+      remote_tag=$(git ls-remote --tags --refs "$origin" 2>/dev/null \
+        | sed 's#.*refs/tags/##' | sort -t. -k1,1n -k2,2n -k3,3n | tail -1 | tr -d '[:space:]')
+    else
+      remote_tag=''
+    fi
+  fi
+
+  if [ -z "$remote_tag" ]; then
+    # Not drift. A host that cannot reach origin has an unanswered question,
+    # not a stale library, and saying otherwise would make the two look alike.
+    add WARN offline "could not reach origin for the latest tag — this run proves nothing about staleness"
+  else
+    remote_v=${remote_tag#v}
+    if [ -n "$available_v" ] && [ "$remote_v" != "$available_v" ] \
+       && [ "$(newer_version "$available_v" "$remote_v")" = "$remote_v" ]; then
+      add FAIL behind "this host has $available_v; origin has released $remote_v — run 'task update' and '/plugin update skills@mathias'"
+    fi
+  fi
+fi
+
 # --- output -----------------------------------------------------------------
 if [ "$JSON" -eq 1 ]; then
  printf '{"checkout":"%s","expected":%s,"plugin":{"installed":"%s","available":"%s"},"findings":[%s]}\n' \
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Skills whose escalation rule has not been written yet (#37).
+#
+# This list only shrinks. A skill here is exempt from the '## Escalation'
+# requirement until someone writes its real stop conditions; a skill that HAS a
+# section and is still listed fails the gate, so the list cannot outlive its
+# reason.
+#
+# The ones already done were the advisory and read-only skills, where the honest
+# answer is a line. What is left is the acting set — skills that write files,
+# dispatch agents, touch credentials or move releases — and each of those needs
+# a rule someone thought about, not a rote paragraph. Per #19, one at a time.
+
+atdd
+dream
+experiment-spec
+feature-spec
+gitea-ci
+own-the-task
+planning
+playwright
+problem-analysis
+refactoring
+regulatory-risk-assessment
+secret-hygiene
+session-retrospective
+spec-driven-dev
+superpowers-brainstorming
+superpowers-dispatching-parallel-agents
+superpowers-executing-plans
+superpowers-finishing-a-development-branch
+superpowers-receiving-code-review
+superpowers-requesting-code-review
+superpowers-subagent-driven-development
+superpowers-using-git-worktrees
+superpowers-using-superpowers
+superpowers-verification-before-completion
+superpowers-writing-plans
+superpowers-writing-skills
+tdd
+trainer
+user-stories
+web-shot
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# generate-index — rebuild SKILLS_INDEX.md's table from skill frontmatter.
+#
+# The index was hand-maintained and drifted: `dream` and `experiment-spec`
+# shipped with no row at all, because their rows lived on branches that were
+# squash-merged after a directory reorg (#15). A gate catches that after the
+# fact; generating removes the class (#29).
+#
+# The curated summary and trigger live in each SKILL.md as `summary:` and
+# `use_when:` rather than being derived from `description:` — description is a
+# paragraph written for model selection, and truncating it produces a worse
+# table than the one being replaced.
+#
+# Everything outside the markers is left untouched: the wiring docs, the
+# relationships tree and the trigger table are prose, not data.
+#
+#   generate-index [root]           rewrite the table in place
+#   generate-index --check [root]   exit 1 if the table is out of date
+
+set -u
+
+CHECK=0
+if [ "${1:-}" = "--check" ]; then CHECK=1; shift; fi
+ROOT=${1:-$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)}
+INDEX="$ROOT/SKILLS_INDEX.md"
+
+BEGIN='<!-- BEGIN skills-table -->'
+END='<!-- END skills-table -->'
+
+[ -f "$INDEX" ] || { echo "ERROR: missing $INDEX" >&2; exit 1; }
+grep -qF "$BEGIN" "$INDEX" || { echo "ERROR: $INDEX has no $BEGIN marker" >&2; exit 1; }
+grep -qF "$END" "$INDEX" || { echo "ERROR: $INDEX has no $END marker" >&2; exit 1; }
+
+# field <file> <key> — a scalar frontmatter value, quotes stripped.
+field() {
+  sed -n "s/^$2:[[:space:]]*//p" "$1" | head -1 | sed 's/^"//; s/"$//'
+}
+
+table=$(mktemp)
+fail=0
+
+{
+  printf '| Skill | Description | Use when | Surfaces |\n'
+  printf '|-------|-------------|----------|----------|\n'
+} > "$table"
+
+for dir in "$ROOT"/skills/*/; do
+  [ -f "$dir/SKILL.md" ] || continue
+  name=$(basename "$dir")
+  summary=$(field "$dir/SKILL.md" summary)
+  use_when=$(field "$dir/SKILL.md" use_when)
+  surfaces=$(field "$dir/SKILL.md" surfaces | tr -d '[]')
+
+  if [ -z "$summary" ] || [ -z "$use_when" ]; then
+    echo "ERROR: skills/$name has no 'summary:'/'use_when:' — the index table is generated from them" >&2
+    fail=1
+    continue
+  fi
+  printf '| `%s` | %s | %s | %s |\n' "$name" "$summary" "$use_when" "$surfaces" >> "$table"
+done
+
+if [ "$fail" -ne 0 ]; then
+  rm -f "$table"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+out=$(mktemp)
+awk -v begin="$BEGIN" -v end="$END" -v tablefile="$table" '
+  $0 == begin { print; while ((getline line < tablefile) > 0) print line; skip = 1; next }
+  $0 == end   { print; skip = 0; next }
+  !skip       { print }
+' "$INDEX" > "$out"
+rm -f "$table"
+
+if [ "$CHECK" -eq 1 ]; then
+  if cmp -s "$out" "$INDEX"; then
+    rm -f "$out"
+    exit 0
+  fi
+  rm -f "$out"
+  echo "ERROR: SKILLS_INDEX.md is out of date — run 'task index' and commit the result" >&2
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+mv "$out" "$INDEX"
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# newer-version A B — echo whichever of two dotted versions sorts higher.
+# Equal versions echo A. Missing components count as zero, so 0.9 == 0.9.0.
+#
+# Exists because two callers need ordering rather than equality:
+#   - bin/doctor, comparing the installed plugin generation against the newest
+#     manifest on the host (#30);
+#   - task check, which must fail when plugin.json is BEHIND the latest tag and
+#     stay quiet when it is ahead — the normal state on a checkout that has not
+#     fetched the tag CI just pushed (#34).
+#
+# sort -V would do it in one line and is not portable enough for this fleet.
+
+set -u
+
+[ $# -eq 2 ] || { echo "usage: newer-version A B" >&2; exit 2; }
+
+printf '%s\n%s\n' "$1" "$2" | awk -F. '
+  { raw[NR] = $0; for (i = 1; i <= 3; i++) n[NR, i] = ($i == "" ? 0 : $i + 0) }
+  END {
+    for (i = 1; i <= 3; i++) {
+      if (n[1, i] > n[2, i]) { print raw[1]; exit }
+      if (n[1, i] < n[2, i]) { print raw[2]; exit }
+    }
+    print raw[1]
+  }'
@@ -131,6 +131,17 @@ wire_skills() {
      name="$(basename "$dir")"
      target="${dir%/}"

+      # A skill declares its surfaces; this installer serves exactly one of
+      # them. A chat-only skill linked into Crush can never fire and competes
+      # for selection with ones that can (#29). A source with no declaration
+      # is foreign — Anthropic's official set has no reason to know this
+      # convention — so silence means "link it".
+      surfaces="$(sed -n 's/^surfaces:[[:space:]]*//p' "$dir/SKILL.md" | head -1)"
+      if [ -n "$surfaces" ] && ! printf '%s' "$surfaces" | tr -d '[]' | tr ',' ' ' | grep -qw library; then
+        log "skipping $name — surfaces: $surfaces does not include the library"
+        continue
+      fi
+
      if printf '%s' "$desired" | grep -qx -- "$name"; then
        log "COLLISION: $name is offered by $target too; keeping $AGENTS_DIR/$name -> $(readlink "$AGENTS_DIR/$name" 2>/dev/null || echo '?')"
        continue
@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+---
+name: adr
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Architecture Decision Records — house format, and how to record a decision you cannot make yet"
+use_when: "Recording an architectural decision; revisiting one; or deciding between options where the right answer genuinely is not knowable yet"
+description: Write an Architecture Decision Record in this estate's format — YAML frontmatter, Status/Context/Decision/Consequences/Validation — including the case where the tradeoff is genuinely context-dependent and forcing a resolution would be worse than preserving the tension. Use when recording or superseding an architectural decision, or when a decision keeps getting re-litigated because nobody wrote down why.
+---
+
+# ADR
+
+## Overview
+
+An ADR is the *record* of a decision — the artifact someone reads in eight months when
+they are about to undo it without knowing why it exists. It does not confer the decision;
+a person with authority does that, and this skill never is that person.
+
+Two things make one useful, and neither is the prose quality: a **format consistent
+enough to grep across repos**, and an honest account of **what was not decided**.
+
+## Before you write
+
+Both of these change what goes in the ADR, so they are not cross-references, they are
+steps:
+
+1. **`lineage`** — was this decided before and reversed? The reason it was dropped is
+   usually the most valuable sentence in your Context, and if an earlier ADR exists,
+   yours supersedes it rather than ignoring it.
+2. **`grill-me`** (Full Grill) — find the hole now. It is cheaper here than in the
+   Consequences section of the ADR that supersedes yours.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Any choice where a reasonable alternative existed and was not taken
+- Superseding or amending an earlier ADR (never edit the old one — see Status)
+- A decision that keeps getting re-litigated, which means the reasoning was never recorded
+- A tradeoff that is genuinely context-dependent — see *Preserving a productive tension*
+
+**Do not use for:** implementation choices with no alternative worth naming, or anything
+a code comment answers. An ADR per function is an ADR nobody reads.
+
+## The format
+
+**Where it goes:** `docs/adr/NNNN-kebab-slug.md`, zero-padded to four digits, numbered
+sequentially within the repo. Frontmatter you cannot locate is not greppable, and half
+the value of the format is that `docs/adr/*` is a known path in every repo here.
+
+**The number is repo-local.** `cad` ADR-0002 and `infra` ADR-0002 are different
+documents. When referring across repos — including in `supersedes` — qualify it:
+`cad#0002`. Within a repo the bare number is fine.
+
+Frontmatter first. It exists so the corpus is machine-readable — "which ADRs does 0004
+supersede", "what is still `proposed`" — and a bespoke header block, however well
+written, cannot answer those.
+
+```markdown
+---
+adr:           0004
+title:         <the decision, as a sentence — not "database choice">
+status:        proposed | accepted | superseded | amended
+date:          2026-08-29
+deciders:      <who accepted it, by name — or "pending: <name>" while proposed>
+supersedes:    <adr number, or ->
+---
+
+# ADR-0004 — <same title>
+
+## Status
+
+**The frontmatter is authoritative for status and date.** This section exists for the one
+thing the frontmatter cannot hold: *why* it moved — what superseded it and on what
+evidence, or what accepting it was contingent on. If it would only restate the YAML,
+delete it.
+
+## Context
+
+The forces. What is true that makes this a decision rather than a default — constraints,
+the failure that prompted it, what was tried. Name the unknowns explicitly; a decision
+made under uncertainty is not weaker for saying so, it is auditable.
+
+## Decision
+
+One sentence of what was decided, then why *this* option rather than the named
+alternatives. Address the strongest case against, not the weakest.
+
+## Consequences
+
+**Positive:** what this buys.
+
+**Negative / watch:** what it costs, and the specific thing to watch that would tell you
+it was wrong. "Some added complexity" is not a consequence; "the event schema is now the
+coupling surface between cad and every executor — version it deliberately" is.
+
+## Validation
+
+How you will know. A link to the experiment or the metric that proves or kills it, and
+the condition that fires a revisit. An ADR with no validation section is a preference
+with a template around it.
+```
+
+## Preserving a productive tension
+
+Some tradeoffs are not unresolved because nobody thought hard enough. They are
+context-dependent, the context is not settled, and picking now means picking blind.
+Forcing resolution there produces a confident record that is wrong half the time.
+
+Record the tension instead, in the Decision section:
+
+```markdown
+## Decision
+
+Provisional: **<option A>**, on this reasoning: <what makes it safe to pick now>.
+
+<The strongest case for the option you did NOT take, and why it does not win today. The
+plain format demands this and a preserved tension does not get an exemption — the whole
+point is that the loser is still live.>
+
+### The tension, preserved
+
+- **Option A** — <what it assumes, what it costs>
+- **Option B** — <what it assumes, what it costs>
+
+**What we do not know:** <the variable that decides it>
+
+**Preservation strategy:** <what we build now so BOTH stay reachable. This is the
+technical content of the ADR, not a one-liner — enumerate it. It is usually the part both
+options need anyway, which is often most of the work: the schema, the interface seam, the
+idempotency key. Name each piece and say which option it keeps alive.>
+
+**Resolution triggers:** <plural, and one per unknown. Two independent unknowns do not
+collapse into one condition, and a trigger may exist that neither unknown implies.>
+```
+
+Two rules keep this from becoming an excuse:
+
+1. **A preserved tension still ships a decision.** "We will decide later" is not one.
+   Prefer the option whose correctness does not depend on the unknown, say so, and mark
+   it provisional.
+
+   **When no such option exists** — and often none does, because a tension is productive
+   precisely when both options are hostage to the same unknown — do not manufacture a
+   reason that one of them is. That reads as reasoned and will not be re-examined, which
+   makes it worse than an honest arbitrary pick. Fall back, in order: the option that is
+   cheaper to reverse; the one with the lower switching cost given your preservation
+   strategy; the one already built. Then **say that is why you picked it.** "Chosen
+   because it is the cheaper mistake" is a real justification and an auditable one.
+2. **The resolution trigger must be observable by someone who is not you.** "When it
+   becomes a problem" is not a trigger. "When executor count passes five and they are all
+   long-lived services in one cluster" is. A trigger nobody can evaluate is a decision
+   that quietly becomes permanent.
+
+`cad`'s ADR-0001 does this informally under *"Known refinements (recorded, deliberately
+not built yet)"* — sovereignty deferred to a 3-class model *"until a client actually opts
+into an EU provider"*. That clause is the pattern: option, cost, and the event that
+forces the choice.
+
+## Status discipline
+
+- **Never edit an accepted ADR to change its decision.** Write a new one and set
+  `supersedes`. The record of what was believed, and when, is the whole value.
+- **Amend** for corrections that do not change the decision (a broken link, a clarified
+  consequence). Note the amendment inline with its date.
+- **`proposed` is not a parking space.** An ADR that sits proposed for a month *with no
+  named decider* is a decision nobody is making; either accept it provisionally or close
+  it as declined. With a named decider it is a decision waiting on a person, which is a
+  different thing and is chased rather than closed.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Why it fails |
+|---|---|
+| Consequences that are all positive | Then it was not a decision, it was an announcement |
+| "We chose X because it is better" | Names no alternative and no force; unfalsifiable |
+| Written after the code shipped | Reverse-engineers a justification. Record the reasoning while it is still contested |
+| One ADR amended repeatedly | Destroys the history the format exists to keep |
+| No Validation section | Nothing distinguishes a good decision from a lucky one |
+| A tension "resolved" by picking arbitrarily | The next person re-litigates it, having lost the reasoning |
+
+## Escalation
+
+Writes a file, so it acts — but it decides nothing.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the deciders are not you — which, for an agent, is always. An
+ADR records a decision someone with authority made; writing one to *create* that
+authority is how a preference acquires a document number.
+
+So the deliverable is a draft marked `proposed` with **the person who must accept it named
+in `deciders` as `pending: <name>`**, and that hand-back stated in the response, not left
+implied. Naming the decider is the escalation, not a formality — an unnamed one is how a
+proposal sits for a month.
+
+That is the intended state for an agent-authored ADR, and it is not the parking-space
+failure below: a `proposed` ADR with a named decider is waiting on someone; one without is
+waiting on nobody.
+
+Also stop when the Context cannot be written without inventing a constraint. A missing
+force means the decision has not been thought through yet, and an ADR built on an
+invented one is worse than none: it will be cited.
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- `lineage` and `grill-me` — see *Before you write*; they change the content, so they are
+  steps rather than references.
+- `spec-driven-dev` / `feature-spec` — an ADR is the *why*; a spec is the *what*. If you
+  are describing behaviour, you are writing a spec.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: atdd
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Acceptance Test-Driven Development workflow"
+use_when: "Feature development with acceptance criteria"
 description: Implement user stories using the ATDD workflow — Red (failing acceptance test) → Green (minimal implementation) → Refactor. One story at a time.
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: cad-babysit
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Focused human-in-the-loop session working CAD's stuck queue (read-only)"
+use_when: "Picking up whatever `cad stuck` flags, with a human present"
 description: Focused human-in-the-loop session working CAD's stuck queue (cad-stuck output). Read-only — diagnoses, never dispatches, arms a label, or closes an issue. Use when picking up whatever CAD has run into trouble on, with a human present.
 ---

@@ -231,8 +234,8 @@ wrong" — it means "nothing on the known list is wrong."
 Call `session_log` once at the end of every phase to record the outcome.

 **At end of each phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "cad-babysit", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" |
-  "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root:
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "cad-babysit", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" |
+  "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root:
  "<absolute path>"}`

 **Phases for this skill:** query, read-comments, read-actions-logs, classify-fault-vs-outcome,
@@ -244,12 +247,6 @@ decide
 - `fail` — the phase could not be completed (e.g. `cad stuck` errored, Gitea was unreachable).
 - `skip` — phase intentionally skipped (e.g. Phase 3 skipped because Phase 2 was conclusive).

-## Mode 2 Routing Note
-
-Phases 2-4 (reading comments/logs, classifying fault vs outcome) are judgment-heavy and should
-stay Mode 1. Phase 1 (running `cad stuck` and grouping its output) is mechanical and a Mode 2
-routing candidate once Plan 6 ships the routing pod.
-
 ## Cross-References

 - Depends on `mathias/cad#14`'s `cad stuck` query — this skill is the ritual around it, not a
@@ -261,3 +258,13 @@ routing candidate once Plan 6 ships the routing pod.
 - `mathias/cad-atlas#11` renders the same `cad stuck` output as a pipeline overlay — read that
  instead of this skill's text output when a visual "where is everything stuck" view is wanted
  over working one row in depth.
+
+## Escalation
+
+Read-only by construction, and the Iron Laws above are the escalation rule: never close
+an issue, never dispatch, never write a label. Everything that is the operator's call
+leaves as a `DECISION NEEDED` block (question / options / recommendation / blocks).
+
+Stop and hand back when: the stuck queue is empty; a diagnosis needs a write you are not
+allowed to make; or two runs in a row produce the same finding, which means the finding
+is not being acted on and repeating it is noise.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: clean-code
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Clean code principles with Go adaptation"
+use_when: "Code review, refactoring, new code"
 description: Write code that humans can read, understand, and safely change. Apply SOLID, GRASP, and Clean Code principles during the REFACTOR phase of TDD.
 ---

@@ -278,5 +281,14 @@ During refactoring:

 - `references/clean-code.md` — detailed naming rules, object calisthenics
 - `references/code-smells.md` — comprehensive smell catalog with examples
+- `references/python-adaptation.md` — Python conventions: error chaining, dataclasses, the truthiness trap
 - Load `solid` skill for SOLID principles with Go examples
 - Load `refactoring` skill for systematic refactoring techniques
+
+## Escalation
+
+Advisory during the REFACTOR phase. Suggests; does not restructure behaviour.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the cleanup you are proposing changes behaviour. That is not
+refactoring, it is a change, and it needs its own failing test first — hand back to
+`tdd`.
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Clean Code: Python Adaptation
+
+The principles in `SKILL.md` are language-agnostic. This file covers the places where
+Python's idioms differ from the Go examples, and where following the Go shape produces
+bad Python.
+
+The canonical stack (ruff, mypy --strict, pytest, uv, pydantic-settings, src-layout)
+lives in `~/dev/.context/AGENT.md` and is not restated here — one source of truth, and
+it is not this file.
+
+## Reveal intent with types, not comments
+
+`mypy --strict` is the Python analogue of Go's compiler, and it is non-negotiable for
+the same reason: a type is a claim the machine checks, and a comment is a claim nobody
+checks. Two consequences for clean code specifically:
+
+- **`Any` is a hole in the argument.** Each one says "the reader is on their own here".
+  If a value is genuinely polymorphic, say so precisely — `Protocol`, a union, a
+  `TypeVar` — rather than surrendering.
+- **A `# type: ignore` needs the error code and a reason**: `# type: ignore[arg-type]  #
+  boto3 stubs lag the API`. A bare ignore is an unexplained exception to a rule the rest
+  of the file follows.
+
+## Errors: chain them, never swallow them
+
+Go's `fmt.Errorf("operation: %w", err)` is `raise` with `from`:
+
+```python
+# Bad — the original cause is gone, and so is the stack that produced it
+try:
+    row = fetch(invoice_id)
+except KeyError:
+    raise InvoiceNotFound(invoice_id)
+
+# Good — the chain survives; the traceback shows both
+try:
+    row = fetch(invoice_id)
+except KeyError as e:
+    raise InvoiceNotFound(invoice_id) from e
+```
+
+Two rules with no exceptions:
+
+- **Never bare `except:`.** It catches `KeyboardInterrupt` and `SystemExit` too, so it
+  turns Ctrl-C into a swallowed error. `except Exception` if you truly mean everything.
+- **Never a silent `pass`.** An exception handler that does nothing is a decision to
+  ignore a failure; if that is genuinely right, the handler needs a comment saying why,
+  and usually a log line. Most of the time it is a bug being stored for later.
+
+## Data classes over dicts
+
+A `dict[str, Any]` passed between functions is Go's `map[string]interface{}` — every
+reader has to reconstruct the shape from the code that writes it.
+
+```python
+# Bad: shape known only by reading every producer
+def total(invoice: dict[str, Any]) -> int: ...
+
+# Good: shape declared once, checked everywhere
+@dataclass(frozen=True, slots=True)
+class Invoice:
+    id: InvoiceId
+    lines: tuple[Line, ...]
+    currency: str  # ISO 4217
+
+def total(invoice: Invoice) -> Money: ...
+```
+
+`frozen=True` where the value is conceptually immutable — it makes accidental mutation
+an error rather than a surprise at a distance. Use `pydantic` models at the *boundary*
+(env config, HTTP payloads) where validation is the point, and dataclasses inside,
+where validation has already happened.
+
+## Two Python-specific traps that read as clean code
+
+**Mutable default arguments** are evaluated once, at definition:
+
+```python
+def add_line(line: Line, lines: list[Line] = []) -> list[Line]:  # shared across calls
+```
+
+Use `None` and build inside. Ruff catches this (`B006`); the point of naming it here is
+that the broken version looks tidier than the correct one.
+
+**Truthiness is not presence.** `if not amount:` is true for `0`, `0.0`, `""`, `[]` and
+`None` alike. For anything where zero is a legitimate value — money, counts, offsets —
+write `if amount is None:`. This is the single most common way a Python function
+silently mishandles a valid input.
+
+## Structure
+
+- `src/` layout, `pyproject.toml` only. A flat layout lets tests import the working
+  directory instead of the installed package, so the suite passes on a package that
+  cannot actually be installed.
+- Module names are the unit of cohesion, as Go packages are. `utils.py` is the Python
+  spelling of a god package: it has no reason to change because it has no subject.
+- Prefer functions to classes with one method. A class whose only job is to hold
+  constructor arguments and expose `run()` is a closure with ceremony.
+
+## See also
+
+- `references/clean-code.md` — the language-agnostic practices
+- `references/code-smells.md` — the smell catalogue, all of which apply here
+- `tdd/references/python.md` — the test-side conventions
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: code-review
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Code smell detection + Go-specific checklist"
+use_when: "Pre-merge review"
 description: Systematic code smell detection and Go-specific review checklist. Load before any pre-merge review.
 ---

@@ -11,6 +14,8 @@ Code review is smell detection and principle verification, not style policing. T

 **This skill is read-only analysis.** When you find issues, document them with specific file:line references and prioritize by architectural impact. For fixes, load the `refactoring` or `clean-code` skill.

+Three similarly-named skills cover orthogonal concerns, and landing on one is no reason to miss the others: this one is **what to check**, `superpowers-requesting-code-review` is **how to commission a reviewer**, and `superpowers-receiving-code-review` is **how to behave when the feedback arrives**.
+
 ## When to Use

 - Pre-merge review of any pull request
@@ -248,7 +253,7 @@ Pass-rate is computed downstream by the `/pass-rate` HTTP endpoint, which
 treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.

 **At end of each phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "code-review", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "code-review", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **Phases for this skill:** phase-0-iron-laws, phase-1-context, phase-2-architectural-analysis, phase-3-go-checklist, phase-4-code-smell-detection, phase-5-test-quality

@@ -257,7 +262,7 @@ treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.
 - `fail` — the phase's intended outcome was NOT reached.
 - `skip` — phase was skipped intentionally.

-**Why this matters:** the routing pod (Plan 6) reads pass-rate to decide whether to route a future call to a local model. If your skill never logs, the routing pod sees no data.
+**Why this matters:** pass-rate is what a future routing decision would be based on — whether a given call can be served by a local model instead of a cloud one. A skill that never logs contributes no evidence either way.

 ## Common Go Anti-Patterns

@@ -274,11 +279,18 @@ treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.

 ## References

+- `references/python-adaptation.md` — the Python anti-pattern table, and what ruff/mypy
+  should have caught before review
 - `clean-code/references/code-smells.md` — comprehensive smell catalog
 - Load `refactoring` skill when recommending fixes
 - Load `test-design` skill for reviewing test quality
 - Load `solid` skill for SOLID principle violations

-## Mode 2 Routing Note
+## Escalation

-This skill is invoked identically in Mode 1 (cloud Claude) and Mode 2 (client-local with supervisor routing). The routing layer (Plan 6) does not exist yet; treat this skill as Mode 1 only for now. Findings format and severity classification are unchanged across modes.
+Read-only analysis. Findings are the output; nothing is handed back mid-review.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the diff is large enough that a review would be a skim — say so
+and ask for it in parts, rather than producing confident coverage of a fraction of it; or
+the problem is structural rather than pointwise, in which case name it and hand off to
+`solid` or `refactoring` instead of filing twenty line-level comments about one cause.
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# Code Review: Python Anti-Patterns
+
+`SKILL.md` carries the Go anti-pattern table. This is the Python one. The review
+process, severity classification and output format above it are language-neutral and
+apply unchanged.
+
+Canonical stack in `~/dev/.context/AGENT.md`. Two gates decide most of this file:
+`ruff` and `mypy --strict`. **If a finding is something ruff or mypy already catches,
+the review comment is not "fix this line" — it is "why is the gate not running?"**
+
+## The table
+
+| Anti-pattern | What to look for | Why it matters |
+|---|---|---|
+| Bare `except:` | `except:` with no exception class | Swallows `KeyboardInterrupt` and `SystemExit`; Ctrl-C stops working |
+| Silent `pass` | `except X: pass` with no comment | A decision to ignore a failure, recorded nowhere |
+| Lost cause | `raise Y(...)` inside `except X as e` with no `from e` | Traceback loses the original failure — the Python analogue of a naked `fmt.Errorf` |
+| Mutable default | `def f(x, acc=[])` or `={}` | Evaluated once at definition; state leaks between calls |
+| Truthiness for presence | `if not amount:` where `0` is valid | Silently mishandles zero, empty string, empty list |
+| `Any` as an escape | `Any` in a signature that could be `Protocol`/union/`TypeVar` | Removes exactly the checking `--strict` was adopted for |
+| Unexplained ignore | bare `# type: ignore` | No error code, no reason; permanent by default |
+| `assert` in production code | `assert user.is_admin` outside tests | `python -O` strips asserts — the check vanishes in a tuned deployment |
+| Import-time side effects | connections, env reads, or I/O at module scope | Cannot be injected, cannot be tested, ordering-dependent |
+| Sync I/O in `async def` | `requests.get`, `time.sleep`, blocking file reads | Blocks the whole event loop; looks concurrent, is not |
+| Un-awaited coroutine | a call to an `async def` with no `await` | Silently does nothing; "coroutine was never awaited" is a warning, not an error |
+| `float` for money | `float` amounts, `round()` on currency | `0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3`; use `Decimal` or int minor units |
+| Broad `Exception` re-raise | `except Exception` around a whole function body | Turns a specific failure into an unclassifiable one |
+| Mutating a shared default/global | module-level `list`/`dict` mutated by functions | The Python spelling of shared mutable state |
+| `dict[str, Any]` as a domain type | dicts passed between layers | Shape known only by reading every producer; use a dataclass |
+| Star imports | `from x import *` | Breaks `--strict`, hides shadowing, defeats grep |
+| `os.path` string surgery | manual path joining, `+ "/"` | `pathlib` exists and is correct on every platform |
+| `subprocess(..., shell=True)` with interpolation | f-strings into a shell command | Injection; pass a list, no shell |
+
+## What to check that a linter cannot
+
+- **Does the test suite assert the failure mode, or only the happy path?** `pytest.raises`
+  with no `match=` accepts any message, including one from an unrelated bug.
+- **Are fixtures doing real work?** A `conftest.py` fixture with a `session` scope and
+  mutable state couples every test that touches it; failures then depend on ordering.
+- **Is the mock mocking a boundary or a collaborator you own?** The latter tests the mock.
+- **Does the type say what the code means?** `-> dict` and `-> tuple[int, int]` both pass
+  `--strict` and both tell the reader nothing. A named type is a review comment worth
+  making.
+- **Would `--strict` actually run on this file?** Check for a per-module override in
+  `pyproject.toml` silently exempting it. An exemption nobody revisits is a hole with a
+  changelog entry.
+
+## Severity in this context
+
+- **Blocking:** anything in the table above under security or correctness — `shell=True`
+  interpolation, `assert` as an authorization check, `float` money, sync I/O in async.
+- **Should fix:** typing escapes (`Any`, unexplained ignores), mutable defaults,
+  truthiness-for-presence.
+- **Consider:** structural comments — dataclass instead of dict, narrower Protocol.
+
+## See also
+
+- `clean-code/references/python-adaptation.md` — the style-level conventions
+- `solid/references/python-adaptation.md` — Protocol over ABC, DIP in Python
+- `tdd/references/python.md` — the test-side conventions this review checks against
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: cognitive-load
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Cognitive complexity analysis (CLI score)"
+use_when: "Identifying hotspots, before refactoring"
 description: Measure how much mental effort a codebase demands from developers. Use when identifying hotspots, before architectural decisions, or when code feels hard to understand.
 ---

@@ -344,3 +347,12 @@ type UserWriter interface {
 - Load `refactoring` skill for systematic techniques to reduce identified hotspots
 - Load `solid` skill for structural fixes (coupling, cohesion)
 - Load `clean-code` skill for naming improvements
+
+## Escalation
+
+Read-only measurement. The score is the output.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the measurement disagrees with the reader's lived experience of
+the code. A metric that says "fine" about code everyone finds hard is evidence about the
+metric, not about the code, and continuing to defend the number is how a measure becomes
+a target.
@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: debug
-description: Systematic hypothesis-first debugging. Generate 3-5 ranked hypotheses with verification steps before suggesting any fix. Use when encountering a bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior.
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Hypothesis-first debugging discipline"
+use_when: "Any test failure or bug whose cause is not immediately obvious — or a bug report with no failure text, which this skill refuses rather than guesses at"
+description: Systematic hypothesis-first debugging. Requires the failure itself — error text, stack, run id or log — and names what it needs and stops if the report has none, rather than hypothesising into a vacuum. Given evidence, generates 3-5 ranked, falsifiable hypotheses with verification steps before suggesting any fix. Use when encountering a bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior.
 ---

 # Debug
@@ -9,7 +12,7 @@ description: Systematic hypothesis-first debugging. Generate 3-5 ranked hypothes

 Debugging is hypothesis generation, not fix generation. The first instinct — "try this and see if it works" — wastes time and teaches nothing. A disciplined debug session produces a small set of ranked, falsifiable hypotheses, each with a concrete verification command. The fix comes after one hypothesis is confirmed, not before.

-**Core principle:** A hypothesis you cannot verify in one command is not a hypothesis — it is a guess.
+**Core principle:** A hypothesis you cannot verify with a single bounded, decisive observation is not a hypothesis — it is a guess. In a repo that observation is usually one command. Above one it may be an instrumented run, or partitioning the last twenty CI runs by trigger type; what makes it a hypothesis is that the observation *discriminates*, not that it fits on one line.

 ## When to Use

@@ -22,12 +25,65 @@ Debugging is hypothesis generation, not fix generation. The first instinct — "
 - Compile errors with clear messages (just fix the typo)
 - Already-diagnosed bugs where you know the cause (go straight to TDD with a regression test)

+### Is it actually diagnosed?
+
+That last exclusion is the one people get wrong, because a confident wrong diagnosis feels
+exactly like a right one. It is diagnosed if you can state the mechanism *and* name the
+observation that would have proved it wrong. If the evidence is "we changed X and it got
+better", that is correlation with a deployment, and this skill applies.
+
+The strongest tell is a run of failed fixes — see below. Three plausible fixes that did
+not eliminate the symptom is not bad luck, it is the diagnosis being wrong.
+
+### Intake: what you need before hypothesising
+
+Before generating anything, confirm you have the failure itself — the error text, the
+stack, the failing run's id, the log. If the report is "it's flaky again" with no
+artifact, **name the specific thing you need and stop**. Iron Law 1 forbids "try X and
+see"; hypothesising into a vacuum is the same failure with better grammar, and it is
+worse because the output looks like analysis.
+
+This is the rule `cad-babysit` already enforces from the other side: read the issue's own
+comments and the job log *first*.
+
 ## Iron Laws

 1. **Never suggest "try X and see what happens."** Every hypothesis must have a specific expected outcome if correct.
 2. **Generate 3-5 hypotheses, ordered by likelihood (most likely first).** Fewer than 3 means you stopped thinking; more than 5 means you are not prioritizing.
 3. **Diagnose only — do not fix in this skill.** The fix happens in a separate TDD cycle (load `tdd` skill) once a hypothesis is confirmed.

+## When the bug spans components
+
+A system with boundaries (CI → build → signing, API → service → database) hides the
+question "which component is wrong?" behind the question "why is the output wrong?".
+Specify, as a pre-step, what to log entering and leaving **each** boundary, plus
+whether config and environment actually propagated. One run *that reproduces the failure* narrows the search to a
+single component. On an intermittent fault a passing run narrows nothing, so leave the
+instrumentation in across several runs rather than concluding from one.
+
+This does not suspend Iron Law 2. Still emit 3-5 hypotheses — the boundary spec comes
+first in the output, and each hypothesis says which boundary observation would kill it.
+What the pre-step forbids is hypotheses that quietly assume a component is the faulty
+one before any evidence says so.
+
+## When several fixes have already failed
+
+Three or more plausible fixes that failed to eliminate a symptom is not a run of bad
+luck — it is evidence that nobody has identified the mechanism. (Fixes that changed
+nothing at all count double: they are stronger evidence of a misidentified mechanism
+than fixes that partially worked.) Each one has been narrowing a window rather than
+closing it, and a fourth guess buys another tenth of the rate plus a layer of
+interacting guards nobody can reason about.
+
+Intake still gates this section. A report of three failed fixes with no artifacts fires
+both rules at once, and intake wins: you cannot aim hypotheses at a premise you have no
+evidence about either. Ask for the log, then aim.
+
+Say that explicitly — the refusal is the finding, not a preamble to it. Then aim the
+hypotheses one level up: the premise those fixes share is itself the thing to falsify.
+This is not an exemption from the output format. It is the format, pointed at the
+assumption instead of at the symptom.
+
 ## Process

 ### Step 1: Read the failure
@@ -46,18 +102,28 @@ For each hypothesis, capture three things:
 - **Verification:** the single command or file inspection that confirms or denies it
 - **Expected outcome if correct:** the specific output you would see

-Order by likelihood. The most likely cause is hypothesis 1.
+Order by likelihood, most likely first. **The ordering is the ranking — do not also
+attach `high`/`medium`/`low` labels.** With five slots and three labels the labels stop
+discriminating (two hypotheses are genuinely both "high" and the label cannot say which
+comes first), and a reader then has two orderings that can disagree. Position already
+carries it.
+
+Where you can say *why* one outranks another — a prior brain entry, a matching symptom,
+a recent change in that area — say that instead of a label. That is information; a label
+is a restatement of the order it sits next to.

 ### Step 3: Output

 Use this format:

 ```
-HYPOTHESIS 1 (likelihood: high): <mechanism in one sentence>
-VERIFY: <exact command or file:line to inspect>
+HYPOTHESIS 1: <mechanism in one sentence>
+WHY FIRST: <what makes it likeliest — a matching symptom, a recent change, a brain entry>
+VERIFY: <exact command, or the bounded observation that discriminates>
 EXPECTED IF CORRECT: <specific output, value, or condition>

-HYPOTHESIS 2 (likelihood: medium): <mechanism>
+HYPOTHESIS 2: <mechanism>
+WHY FIRST: <or why it ranks here rather than first>
 VERIFY: <exact command>
 EXPECTED IF CORRECT: <specific output>

@@ -79,15 +145,15 @@ End with the recommendation, not a fix.
 **Output:**

 ```
-HYPOTHESIS 1 (likelihood: high): parser indexes into pages[0] before checking len(pages) > 0; empty PDFs produce a zero-page document
+HYPOTHESIS 1: parser indexes into pages[0] before checking len(pages) > 0; empty PDFs produce a zero-page document
 VERIFY: rg -n 'pages\[0\]' internal/parser/
 EXPECTED IF CORRECT: at least one site reads pages[0] without a preceding length check

-HYPOTHESIS 2 (likelihood: medium): the test fixture is a zero-byte file rather than a valid empty PDF; pdf library returns nil pages slice instead of empty
+HYPOTHESIS 2: the test fixture is a zero-byte file rather than a valid empty PDF; pdf library returns nil pages slice instead of empty
 VERIFY: ls -la testdata/empty.pdf && file testdata/empty.pdf
 EXPECTED IF CORRECT: file size 0 bytes or "data" rather than "PDF document"

-HYPOTHESIS 3 (likelihood: low): a recently changed dependency reordered the page-extraction API; pages[0] now refers to metadata, not content
+HYPOTHESIS 3: a recently changed dependency reordered the page-extraction API; pages[0] now refers to metadata, not content
 VERIFY: git log --oneline -10 -- go.sum | grep -i pdf
 EXPECTED IF CORRECT: a pdf-library bump in the last few commits

@@ -101,6 +167,7 @@ RECOMMENDED NEXT STEP: Run VERIFY for hypothesis 1 first.
 | "Maybe try restarting the service" | Not a mechanism. Not falsifiable. Teaches nothing if it works. |
 | "Could be a race condition" | Mechanism without specifics. Which two operations race? On what state? |
 | "Let me add some print statements and see" | Skips hypothesis generation. Generates noise, not understanding. |
+| Answering "what's the fix?" from a report with no artifact | Hypothesising into a vacuum. The output looks like analysis, which is what makes it worse than saying "I need the log". |
 | Single hypothesis presented as fact | If you are sure, write the regression test, do not run a debug skill. |
 | Mixing hypotheses with fix suggestions | The skill is diagnose-only. The fix is a TDD task on its hypothesis. |

@@ -109,7 +176,8 @@ RECOMMENDED NEXT STEP: Run VERIFY for hypothesis 1 first.
 The brain holds prior debug sessions across the project. Use it to skip rediscovering known failure modes.

 **At debug start:**
- Run `brain_query` with the error message snippet + the package name. Past sessions may have logged identical or similar failures with their resolved hypotheses.
+- Run `brain_query` with the error message snippet + the package name. On an intake stop you have neither — query the symptom and the component instead ("signed artifact missing CI"), which is worth doing precisely because it may name the artifact to ask for. Past sessions may have logged identical or similar failures with their resolved hypotheses.
+- **A hit is evidence, so cite it inline in the hypothesis it informs** — `(brain: <entry-name>)` — rather than mentioning it once at the top. If a prior entry is why a hypothesis ranks first, the reader needs that at the hypothesis, not in a preamble. If a prior entry contradicts your ranking, say so and rank it anyway if the evidence here is better; the brain records what was true then.

 **After a hypothesis is confirmed:**
 - Run `brain_write` with the failure signature → confirmed mechanism. Future debug sessions on the same area get the answer immediately.
@@ -124,23 +192,48 @@ Pass-rate is computed downstream by the `/pass-rate` HTTP endpoint, which
 treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.

 **At end of each phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "debug", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "debug", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

-**Phases for this skill:** read-failure, generate-hypotheses, output
+**Phases for this skill:** intake, read-failure, generate-hypotheses, output
+
+`intake` exists so that refusing correctly is recordable. A run that stops for want of a
+run id has done the right thing and logs `intake` / `pass`; without that phase the
+refusal logs as a failed `read-failure`, and a metric that penalises the skill's best
+behaviour teaches the next model to hypothesise into the vacuum instead.

 **Status semantics:**
 - `pass` — the phase's intended outcome was reached.
 - `fail` — the phase's intended outcome was NOT reached.
 - `skip` — phase was skipped intentionally.

-**Why this matters:** the routing pod (Plan 6) reads pass-rate to decide whether to route a future call to a local model. If your skill never logs, the routing pod sees no data.
-
-## Mode 2 Routing Note
-
-This skill produces high-volume mechanical output (hypothesis enumeration) and is a candidate for Mode 2 routing to a local model in the future. Until Plan 6 ships the routing pod, treat as Mode 1 only. The hypothesis format and discipline are identical regardless of which model generates them.
+**Why this matters:** pass-rate is what a future routing decision would be based on — whether a given call can be served by a local model instead of a cloud one. A skill that never logs contributes no evidence either way.

 ## Cross-References

 - After a hypothesis is confirmed, load `tdd` skill — write a failing regression test that proves the bug exists, then fix it.
 - For test failures specifically caused by mock-vs-real divergence, also load `tdd/references/testing-anti-patterns.md`.
 - Load `code-review` skill if the diagnosis surfaces a structural issue (god object, shotgun surgery) rather than a pointwise bug.
+
+Techniques kept in `debug/references/`, inherited from the deleted
+`superpowers-systematic-debugging` (#14):
+
+- `root-cause-tracing.md` — load when the failure surfaces far from its trigger and the
+  stack is the only thread back to it.
+- `defense-in-depth.md` — load after a root cause is confirmed, to decide which layers
+  should have caught it.
+- `condition-based-waiting.md` — load whenever a timeout appears anywhere in the report,
+  including as one of the fixes already tried. A bumped timeout is a symptom. Not during an
+  intake stop: if you are not analysing yet, a symptom-analysis reference is on the wrong
+  side of the gate.
+- `find-polluter.sh` — run when a test passes alone and fails in the suite, or when
+  something in the tree appears that no test admits to creating.
+
+## Escalation
+
+Diagnose only — Iron Law 3 is already an escalation rule: the fix is a separate TDD cycle,
+not this skill's output.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the report contains no failure text and no locator, in which case
+name the specific artifact you need (run id, job log, stack trace) and stop rather than
+hypothesising into a vacuum; or the evidence needed to discriminate between your top two
+hypotheses requires access you do not have.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: discovery-framing
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Problem-before-solution discovery/framing method"
+use_when: "Framing/validating a problem before any solution; opportunity sizing"
 description: Run the discovery / framing phase of product innovation — define and quantify a focused customer problem BEFORE any solution exists. Four movements: understand the problem space, learn about customers, identify and size problems, decide pursue/table/kill. Produces a problem brief per prioritized opportunity. Use when an idea is still vague, when someone is jumping to solutions before the problem is validated, when scoping early research, or when deciding which problems are worth pursuing. Trigger phrases include "frame the problem", "discovery", "problem statement", "is this worth building", "early research", "opportunity sizing", "we have an idea for", "how might we", "what problem are we solving".
 ---

@@ -149,3 +152,12 @@ hand-wavy. Crisp solution + fuzzy problem = reverse-engineered justification. St

 > Named instances of both war stories are client-tagged and held out of this public skill
 > pending client-store decision. The transferable lesson lives here; the wrapper stays out.
+
+## Escalation
+
+Advisory. Produces a problem brief; commits to nothing.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the evidence needed to size a problem requires talking to
+customers you cannot reach. Sizing a problem from assumptions and presenting it as
+discovery is worse than saying the number is unknown — it launders a guess into a brief
+that later decisions will cite.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: dream
+surfaces: [claude-code, library, chat]
+summary: "Reflective consolidation pass over an agent's memory directory"
+use_when: "Pruning/merging memory files, rebuilding a memory index"
 description: >
  Run a "dream" — a reflective memory consolidation pass over an agent's memory
  directory. Use this skill whenever the user says "dream", "run a dream", "consolidate
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: experiment-spec
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Rigorous experiment spec — falsifiable hypothesis, quantitative acceptance, null-result protocol"
+use_when: "Scoping a research/ML phase instead of a feature"
 description: Write a rigorous experiment spec for a research phase before any code or training runs. Use instead of feature-spec for scientific/ML research projects. Enforces falsifiable hypothesis, quantitative acceptance criteria, baseline comparison, and null-result protocol.
 ---

@@ -182,7 +185,7 @@ If silhouette ≤ 0.20:

 **After experiment concludes:**
 - `brain_write` to `jepa-fx/failures/` with any new failure modes discovered
- `session_log` with outcome
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "experiment-spec", phase: "conclude", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line outcome>"}`

 ## Cross-References

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: feature-spec
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Implementation-level feature spec (tighter than spec-driven-dev)"
+use_when: "Scoping one feature inside an already-specced project"
 description: Write a tight implementation-level spec for a single feature or component before coding it. Use after a project-level spec exists (see spec-driven-dev) and you need to nail down one feature inside it.
 ---

@@ -29,6 +32,90 @@ A feature spec is the implementation-level contract for one feature or component
 2. **An "Out of scope" section is mandatory.** If you do not draw the boundary, the implementer (you, future-you, or another agent) will guess wrong.
 3. **Every technical decision in "Technical approach" must have a rationale.** A decision is any choice where a reasonable alternative existed and was not taken. "Use Postgres" is not a decision; "use Postgres because the rest of the stack uses it and we need transactions across user + invoice" is.

+## EARS-lite acceptance criteria
+
+Measurable criteria answer "is it done?". They do not always answer "what should it do
+when X happens?" — and behavioural requirements written as prose are where ambiguity
+survives review. For any criterion that is conditional or event-driven, use EARS-lite
+instead of prose:
+
+```
+WHEN <trigger> THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+WHILE <state> THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+IF <unwanted condition> THEN THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+```
+
+There is a fourth, unconditional form. Use it for invariants — the properties that must
+hold with no trigger at all, which are usually the ones that matter most:
+
+```
+THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+```
+
+Worked, deliberately from a domain unlike whatever you are specifying:
+
+```
+THE SYSTEM SHALL reject a firmware image whose signature does not verify
+WHEN a sensor reports a temperature above the shutdown limit
+  THE SYSTEM SHALL open the contactor within 200ms
+WHILE the contactor is open
+  THE SYSTEM SHALL refuse every start command
+IF a sensor reading is missing or stale by more than one interval
+  THEN THE SYSTEM SHALL treat it as above the limit
+```
+
+The example is off-domain on purpose. An on-domain example gets copied: a spec written
+against an invoice-flavoured example inherited a requirement about extraction confidence
+that its feature request never mentioned, and the author only noticed on review. Read
+the shapes, not the content.
+
+Each conditional line names a trigger and one observable response, which usually maps
+onto a single test. The `WHILE` and unconditional forms are universally quantified —
+"every start command", "a firmware image" — so they map onto a property or a set of
+cases, not one assertion. That is still worth writing: it closes the requirements half
+of the audit trail, which is otherwise issue-body prose.
+
+**This is an option, not a replacement.** Threshold criteria ("p99 < 200ms under 100
+RPS") stay as they are — EARS phrasing adds nothing to a number. Use it for conditional
+behaviour, error handling, and state-dependent rules.
+
+## Context snapshot
+
+The executor of this spec will not see the conversation that produced it, and often
+cannot see the architecture document either — a different agent, a fresh session, a
+different machine. A spec that says "see the architecture doc" hands them a lookup they
+may not be able to perform.
+
+So inline the specific facts this spec depends on, not the whole document:
+
+```markdown
+## Context snapshot
+Taken from <source> @ <commit-or-date>. Re-check before implementing if stale.
+
+- The mailbox poller writes rows to `invoices` with `state = 'received'`.
+- The payment-file writer reads `invoices` and emits one file per batch.
+- Money is int64 minor units plus an ISO-4217 code; float is banned repo-wide.
+```
+
+Three rules keep this from becoming a second source of truth, which is the real
+objection to inlining and a good one:
+
+1. **Snapshot what the implementer cannot look up and cannot proceed without.** That is
+   wider than "facts this spec's decisions rest on" — a table name may underpin no
+   decision here and still be the thing that blocks writing the migration. It is still
+   narrower than the whole document: if a fact changes nothing and blocks nothing, leave
+   it out, and say what you left out so the omission reads as deliberate.
+2. **Always cite source and version.** A snapshot without provenance cannot be
+   revalidated, and an unrevalidatable copy is exactly the drift everyone fears.
+3. **If you could not read the source either, say so in those words.** Writing a spec
+   against a document you cannot open is common and is not a reason to skip the section
+   — it is a reason to mark the whole block `UNVERIFIED — reconstructed, not read`, and
+   to make confirming it the implementer's first task, before the first failing test.
+   An unmarked guess is the only genuinely dangerous version.
+4. **The snapshot is evidence, not authority.** Open the section with one line to that
+   effect — "where this disagrees with the source, the source wins and this spec is
+   stale" — rather than annotating each fact.
+
 ## Spec Template

 ```markdown
@@ -39,12 +126,21 @@ A feature spec is the implementation-level contract for one feature or component
 What problem does this feature solve? For whom? Why now?
 (2-4 sentences. If you cannot answer "why now," ask before writing the rest.)

+## Context snapshot
+[Facts the implementer cannot look up, with source and version. See "Context snapshot" above.]
+
 ## Success Criteria

 - [ ] Criterion 1 — measurable and verifiable
 - [ ] Criterion 2 — measurable and verifiable
 - [ ] Criterion 3 — measurable and verifiable

+### Behavioural criteria (EARS-lite)
+
+[Conditional and event-driven behaviour, one trigger and one observable response per
+line. Not checkboxes — these are properties, and several need more than one test each.
+Omit the subsection entirely if the feature has no conditional behaviour.]
+
 ## Constraints

 Non-negotiable requirements the solution must satisfy.
@@ -149,7 +245,7 @@ Pass-rate is computed downstream by the `/pass-rate` HTTP endpoint, which
 treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.

 **At end of each phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "feature-spec", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "feature-spec", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **Phases for this skill:** draft

@@ -158,11 +254,7 @@ treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.
 - `fail` — the phase's intended outcome was NOT reached (spec rejected, blocked on unresolved questions).
 - `skip` — phase was skipped intentionally.

-**Why this matters:** the routing pod (Plan 6) reads pass-rate to decide whether to route a future call to a local model. If your skill never logs, the routing pod sees no data.
-
-## Mode 2 Routing Note
-
-Spec writing requires interpretation of intent and tradeoff reasoning — work where Claude generally outperforms a 9-13B local model. This skill is intentionally **not** a Mode 2 routing candidate. In Mode 2, the routing layer should leave `feature-spec` calls on Claude.
+**Why this matters:** pass-rate is what a future routing decision would be based on — whether a given call can be served by a local model instead of a cloud one. A skill that never logs contributes no evidence either way.

 ## Cross-References

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: gitea-ci
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Gitea CI/CD pipeline with act_runner, buildah, k3s, GitHub mirror"
+use_when: "Setting up or debugging CI on this infra"
 description: End-to-end Gitea CI/CD setup with self-hosted act_runner, quality gate pipeline, shared buildctl image-build script, k3s deploy, and GitHub mirror. Covers act_runner-specific gotchas that are not documented anywhere.
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: grill-me
+surfaces: [claude-code, library, chat]
+summary: "Structured plan interrogation — Quick Poke, Full Grill, Pre-mortem"
+use_when: "Stress-testing a plan before committing; end of Diamond 1; before promoting to pre-prod"
 description: Critically interrogates plans, ideas, and proposals to make them sharper, more robust, and better grounded — with the explicit goal of producing a meaningfully better plan by the end. Use this skill whenever the user wants to stress-test a plan, prepare for hard questions, check if an idea is ready to act on, validate a hypothesis, or explicitly asks to be challenged, questioned, or grilled. Also trigger when a conversation has been exploring an idea for a while and it's time to converge — use this skill to check if the idea is actually ready. Trigger phrases include "grill me", "challenge this", "poke holes", "am I missing something", "is this ready", "stress-test this", "devil's advocate", "what am I not seeing".
 ---

@@ -145,3 +148,12 @@ This skill maps to the **convergence moments** in the Double Diamond workflow:
 - **Mid-Diamond 2 (Develop):** Use Quick Poke when an agent's experiment result is ambiguous and you're deciding whether to continue or pivot.

 The skill does NOT replace human judgment at convergence points — it sharpens the plan so that judgment is better informed.
+
+## Escalation
+
+Advisory. Produces sharper questions and a better plan; decides nothing.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the plan's weak point is a decision that is the operator's to
+make rather than a gap in reasoning — surface it as a question with options and a
+recommendation, and do not grill past it. Also stop when a round produces no new
+objection: interrogation past that point manufactures doubt rather than finding it.
@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+---
+name: lineage
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Backward decision archaeology — was this tried before, and does the reason it failed still hold"
+use_when: "Before proposing something that feels new; when an idea keeps resurfacing; when you inherit code whose reason is gone"
+description: Backward decision archaeology. Find out whether an idea was already tried here, why it was dropped, and whether that reason still applies — using git history, decision records and the issue tracker rather than asking whoever is still around. Use before proposing a change that feels novel, when inheriting unexplained code, or when the same idea keeps being re-litigated.
+---
+
+# Lineage
+
+## Overview
+
+Most "new" ideas in an established codebase are revivals. The valuable question is never
+"is this a good idea" in the abstract — it is **"was this tried, what killed it, and is
+the killer still alive?"**
+
+A past failure is not evidence against trying again. It is context for trying again
+differently, and the difference between those two readings is usually one commit message.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Before proposing something that feels new in a codebase older than you
+- When an idea keeps resurfacing and being re-argued from scratch
+- When you inherit code and cannot tell whether a constraint is load-bearing or vestigial
+- Before writing an ADR — the reason a thing was dropped belongs in your Context section
+
+**Do not use for:** code you wrote this week, or a question the current code answers.
+Archaeology on a live construction site is just reading.
+
+## The tool
+
+```sh
+skills/lineage/lineage.sh <term> [repo-path]
+```
+
+Runs the searches people skip because they are fiddly to type. In particular
+`git log -S<term>`, which finds commits where the term's **occurrence count changed** —
+so it surfaces the *removal* as well as the introduction. A plain `--grep` never finds a
+deletion, and the deletion is the whole point.
+
+It also lists files that once carried the term and no longer exist, and names the two
+sources it cannot search for you.
+
+**A no-match is not a finding.** The first version of this tool said a null meant "this is
+new here"; a pressure test caught it asserting exactly that about the most-discussed
+removed feature in this repo — the search term merely had a space in it. One string
+against one repo proves nothing. Try at least three variants (the identifier name, a
+one-word form, the name it would have had) and the brain and tracker searches before
+telling anyone an idea is novel. This is the same rule as the anti-patterns table below,
+and it is there because the tool broke it.
+
+Note also that `--grep` takes a regex and `-S` takes a literal string, so a term
+containing `.`, `[`, `*` or `+` matches differently in the two halves of the output.
+
+## The sequence
+
+**1. Search on the identifier, not the concept.** If the thing had a name in the code —
+a function, a flag, a config key — `git log --all -S<name>` typically returns exactly two
+commits, its birth and its death, on one screen. That is the fastest path to the answer in
+this whole sequence.
+
+Path-scoped log (`git log --all -- <file>`) is the weaker move and it is the one people
+reach for: a function deleted from a file that still exists is the *dominant* removal
+shape, and the path search buries it under every other commit that touched the file.
+
+Concept words are the fallback, and they are lossy — a term with a space in it will miss
+the record entirely. Try several spellings before you conclude anything.
+
+**2. Read the removal commit's full body, not its subject.**
+
+```sh
+git log -1 --format=%B <sha>
+git show --stat <sha>
+```
+
+This is where the answer almost always is. A subject line says *what*; the body says
+*why*, and the why is what you came for. Read the diff too — what was removed alongside
+it tells you how load-bearing it was.
+
+**3. Search outside git — that is where this estate keeps its reasoning.** Two sources,
+both routinely decisive, neither reachable from a commit log:
+
+- **The brain** (`brain_query`). Postmortems and generalized rules live there. In the run
+  that shaped this skill, the single best artifact — the rule abstracted from the incident,
+  with detection one-liners — came from the brain and from nowhere else.
+- **The issue tracker, including comments.** The commit records *that* something was
+  removed; the argument for it is usually in a comment. Search closed issues especially —
+  a closed issue is where a decision usually is.
+
+A git-only search finds the what and misses the why.
+
+**4. Test whether the failure conditions still hold — empirically, not from the record.**
+This is the step that makes the whole exercise worth doing, and it is the one that gets
+hand-waved. Write the conditions down as separate claims, then **run a command per claim**:
+
+| Claim from the record | How you check it today |
+|---|---|
+| "absolute links break across two path roots" | `readlink` one, `test -e` it on this host |
+| "it is gitignored, so nobody sees the rot" | `grep` the ignore file |
+| "the detector does not cover it" | `grep` the detector for the path it scans |
+
+Twenty seconds each, and it converts *"the record claims X"* into *"X is true right now"* —
+which is the only form of the answer worth giving. A constraint that has since been
+removed turns a dead idea live; one that is still true kills a revival on the spot.
+
+**5. Separate the mechanism from the goal.** A revival proposal usually bundles both, and
+they can have opposite verdicts: the goal is still worth wanting, the mechanism is the one
+that failed. Splitting them is often the whole finding — you end up agreeing with the
+proposer and rejecting their implementation, which is a far more useful answer than yes
+or no.
+
+## What "it was tried and failed" can mean
+
+| Reading | Tell | What to do |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Structurally impossible** | The removal commit says *why* it cannot work, not that it broke | Believe it. Look for a different mechanism for the same goal |
+| **Failed under conditions that changed** | The blocker names a version, a host, a tool that has since moved | Re-open it, citing what changed |
+| **Failed on execution** | It broke, was reverted, nobody diagnosed it | Genuinely undecided. The revival is legitimate; budget for the diagnosis |
+| **Never actually tried** | Discussed, an issue exists, no commit | There is no evidence either way. Say so rather than inheriting someone's pessimism |
+| **Still there, in a different shape** | The idea returned under another name | The most missable one — check before you build it twice |
+
+## Output
+
+Answer the question that was asked, then show your work:
+
+- **Verdict** — tried / not tried / tried and later restored differently
+- **The decisive artifact** — commit sha, issue number, or ADR, so the reader can check
+- **What killed it**, quoted from the source rather than paraphrased
+- **Whether that still applies**, per condition, not as a single yes or no
+
+If the decisive evidence is one commit message, quote it. A conclusion that makes the
+reader re-run your search has not saved them anything.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Why it fails |
+|---|---|
+| `--grep` only | Finds discussion, misses deletions. The deletion is the evidence |
+| Reading the commit subject and stopping | Subjects say what; you need why |
+| Treating a past failure as a verdict | Conditions change. That is the entire question |
+| Git-only search | The argument is usually in the issue tracker |
+| "It was tried and it failed" with no sha | Unverifiable, and it will be re-litigated next quarter |
+| Assuming absence means it was never considered | It may have been rejected in a conversation. Say what you searched |
+
+## Escalation
+
+Read-only. Reports what the record says; changes nothing and revives nothing.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the record is genuinely silent — no commit, no issue, no ADR.
+State what you searched and that nothing exists, rather than inferring intent from
+absence. Someone deciding not to build a thing and nobody ever considering it look
+identical in git, and only one of them is an argument.
+
+Also stop when the answer turns on why a *person* did something and the record does not
+say. Ask them. Reconstructing a colleague's reasoning from a diff is how a guess acquires
+a citation.
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- `adr` — what you find here belongs in the Context section of the ADR you are about to
+  write. If the thing was decided before, your ADR supersedes that one; say so.
+- `debug` — the same discipline aimed at a failure rather than a decision: evidence
+  before hypothesis, and the removal commit is evidence.
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# lineage.sh — decision archaeology for one term.
+#
+# Answers "why does X exist, was it tried before, and is this 'new' idea a
+# revival?"
+#
+# Its real value is that it makes you run `git log -S` at all — that is a nudge,
+# not a capability. -S finds commits where the term's occurrence COUNT changed,
+# so it surfaces a removal; --grep only finds people talking about one. On an
+# identifier name (`wire_claude_repo`) -S typically returns exactly two commits,
+# birth and death, which is the fastest path to the answer in this whole file.
+#
+# Note the two searches do not match the same way: --grep takes a regex, -S takes
+# a literal string. A term containing . [ * + behaves differently in each.
+#
+# Usage: lineage.sh <term> [repo-path]
+#
+# Read-only: nothing here writes, and it never touches the index or worktree.
+
+set -u
+
+[ $# -ge 1 ] || { echo "usage: lineage.sh <term> [repo-path]" >&2; exit 2; }
+TERM_=$1
+REPO=${2:-.}
+
+git -C "$REPO" rev-parse --git-dir >/dev/null 2>&1 || {
+  echo "lineage: $REPO is not a git repository" >&2; exit 2; }
+
+# Say which repo, always. The default is the cwd, and in a worktree-heavy setup
+# that is routinely not the repo the caller means — a confident null against the
+# wrong tree is the worst thing this tool can produce.
+TOPLEVEL=$(git -C "$REPO" rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || printf '%s' "$REPO")
+printf 'searching: %s   term: "%s"\n' "$TOPLEVEL" "$TERM_"
+
+FMT='%h  %ad  %an  %s'
+DATE='--date=short'
+found=0
+
+section() { printf '\n== %s ==\n' "$1"; }
+
+# 1. Commits whose MESSAGE mentions it — the stated reasoning.
+msgs=$(git -C "$REPO" log --all -i --grep="$TERM_" --format="$FMT" $DATE 2>/dev/null || true)
+if [ -n "$msgs" ]; then
+  found=1
+  section "Commits that talk about it (message)"
+  printf '%s\n' "$msgs"
+fi
+
+# 2. Commits where the term was ADDED or REMOVED — the actual history.
+#    -S counts occurrences, so a deletion shows up here and nowhere else.
+picks=$(git -C "$REPO" log --all -S"$TERM_" --format="$FMT" $DATE 2>/dev/null || true)
+if [ -n "$picks" ]; then
+  found=1
+  section "Commits where it appeared or disappeared (-S)"
+  printf '%s\n' "$picks"
+  printf '\n   Oldest is the introduction. Anything after it that removed the term is\n'
+  printf '   the interesting one: read that commit before proposing this again.\n'
+fi
+
+# 3. Files that once contained it and no longer exist.
+deleted=$(git -C "$REPO" log --all --diff-filter=D --name-only --format='%h' -S"$TERM_" 2>/dev/null \
+  | grep -v '^[0-9a-f]\{7,\}$' | grep -v '^$' | sort -u || true)
+if [ -n "$deleted" ]; then
+  found=1
+  section "Files deleted that carried it"
+  printf '%s\n' "$deleted"
+  printf '\n   Recover one with: git -C %s show <sha>^:<path>\n' "$REPO"
+fi
+
+# 4. Decision records naming it.
+docs=$(git -C "$REPO" grep -l -i "$TERM_" -- 'docs/adr/*' 'docs/decisions/*' 'docs/*.md' 'ADR*' 2>/dev/null || true)
+if [ -n "$docs" ]; then
+  found=1
+  section "Decision records naming it"
+  printf '%s\n' "$docs"
+fi
+
+# This estate keeps most of its reasoning OUTSIDE the repo, so the two searches
+# this tool cannot run are usually the decisive ones. Say so every time rather
+# than letting their absence read as a null result.
+section "Not searched here — do these by hand"
+printf 'brain:  brain_query "%s" — decisions and postmortems live there, not in docs/\n' "$TERM_"
+printf 'gitea:  closed issues and their COMMENTS. The argument for a removal is\n'
+printf '        usually in a comment; the commit only records that it happened.\n'
+
+if [ "$found" -eq 0 ]; then
+  printf '\nno match for the exact string "%s" in %s.\n' "$TERM_" "$TOPLEVEL"
+  printf 'This is NOT evidence the idea is new. It is one string against one repo.\n'
+  printf 'Before concluding anything, try: the identifier or function name; a\n'
+  printf 'one-word variant (spaces and punctuation break the match); the name it\n'
+  printf 'would have had; and the brain and issue searches above.\n'
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+printf '\n-- what this cannot tell you --------------------------------------------\n'
+printf 'Why it was removed, if it was. The commit subject is a summary; read the\n'
+printf 'body, the PR, and the issue it closed. A past failure under conditions that\n'
+printf 'no longer hold is not evidence against trying again — it is context for\n'
+printf 'trying again differently.\n'
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: own-the-task
+surfaces: [claude-code, library, chat]
+summary: "Delegation ownership — Intake → Brief → Plan → Execute"
+use_when: "A task is handed over open-ended; \"take this off my plate\"; before a plan exists"
 description: Take ownership of a delegated task like a hired employee — interview first, write a handover brief, propose a plan, then execute. Use whenever the user says "take this off my plate", "own this", "act as my AI employee", "interview me first", "ask me questions before you start", or delegates anything open-ended where the real goal, the why, and the definition of done are not yet on the table. Trigger even when "interview" is never said — any delegation where getting the intent wrong would waste the whole effort belongs here.
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: planning
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Planning and task breakdown"
+use_when: "Sprint planning, task decomposition"
 description: Decompose work into small, verifiable, ordered tasks. Use when you have a spec or clear requirements and need to break work into implementable units.
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: playwright
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Playwright E2E testing — setup, HTMX patterns, SSE streams, CI wiring"
+use_when: "Adding browser tests to any project with a web UI"
 description: Add and run Playwright E2E tests for any project with a web UI — covers setup, HTMX-specific patterns, SSE/streaming, Taskfile integration, and CI wiring.
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: problem-analysis
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Deep problem understanding before coding"
+use_when: "Starting any non-trivial task"
 description: Deeply understand a problem before coding begins. Identify the real problem, stakeholders, constraints, and success criteria. Use before starting any non-trivial feature.
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: refactoring
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Systematic refactoring methodology (Fowler)"
+use_when: "When improving existing code"
 description: Systematic refactoring methodology based on Martin Fowler's catalog. Apply during the REFACTOR phase of TDD, never while making code changes that modify behavior.
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: regulatory-risk-assessment
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Structured risk register for regulated-industry features"
+use_when: "Filing a CAD issue (needs Risk: level); features touching payments, auth, external APIs, user data"
 description: Produce a structured regulatory risk assessment / risk-register entry for regulated-industry features (banking, payments, PSD2/PSR, DORA, AML). Use when filing a CAD issue that needs a Risk:LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH level, or designing features touching payments, auth, data storage, or external APIs ("what are the risks?", "compliance gate", "risk register").
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: secret-hygiene
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Stop credentials rendering into the session transcript; safe rotation chain when one leaks"
+use_when: "Before any kubectl/SOPS/token command; after a confirmed leak"
 description: Prevent agent sessions from rendering credentials into the transcript, and recover safely when one leaks. Load BEFORE any command that touches credentials - kubectl exec/env/describe, kubectl get secret, whole-file SOPS decryption, token generation or rotation, envFrom inspection, or edits to encrypted config. Also load when a credential has already been exposed and a rotation chain is needed. Triggers - "rotate this token", "decrypt the config", "check the env var", "leaked credential", "did that print a secret", "why is this secret wrong".
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: session-retrospective
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Surface non-obvious learnings from a session log"
+use_when: "After a coding session ends, before context is lost"
 description: Review a completed coding session (from brain/sessions/*.jsonl) and surface non-obvious learnings worth preserving. Use after a session ends, before context is lost.
 ---

@@ -113,7 +116,7 @@ Pass-rate is computed downstream by the `/pass-rate` HTTP endpoint, which
 treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.

 **At end of each phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "session-retrospective", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "session-retrospective", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **Phases for this skill:** surfaced

@@ -122,11 +125,7 @@ treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.
 - `fail` — the phase's intended outcome was NOT reached (retrospective could not produce coherent candidates).
 - `skip` — phase was skipped intentionally (no novel learnings worth surfacing).

-**Why this matters:** the routing pod (Plan 6) reads pass-rate to decide whether to route a future call to a local model. If your skill never logs, the routing pod sees no data.
-
-## Mode 2 Routing Note
-
-Reading long session logs and pulling themes is high-volume, mechanical pattern-recognition work — a strong Mode 2 routing candidate. Until Plan 6 ships the routing pod, treat as Mode 1 only.
+**Why this matters:** pass-rate is what a future routing decision would be based on — whether a given call can be served by a local model instead of a cloud one. A skill that never logs contributes no evidence either way.

 ## Cross-References

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: solid
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "SOLID principles with Go examples"
+use_when: "Design review, architecture decisions"
 description: Apply SOLID design principles in Go. Use during architecture decisions, design reviews, and when adding new abstractions.
 ---

@@ -255,5 +258,15 @@ Domain types know nothing about HTTP, SQL, or external APIs.

 - `references/solid-principles.md` — canonical SOLID reference with TypeScript examples
 - `references/go-adaptation.md` — this workspace's Go-specific rewrite of each principle
+- `references/python-adaptation.md` — the Python rewrite: Protocol over ABC, and what does not carry over from Go
 - Load `clean-code` skill for naming and structure
 - Load `code-review` skill for detecting violations during review
+
+## Escalation
+
+Advisory. Names principle violations and suggests structure; writes no code.
+
+Stop and hand back when: applying a principle would require a change larger than the one
+under discussion. "This wants dependency inversion" on a two-line fix is a design
+conversation, not a review comment, and forcing it through as one is how a small change
+acquires an architecture.
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# SOLID Principles: Python Adaptation
+
+`references/go-adaptation.md` rewrites each principle for Go. This file does the same
+for Python, and marks the places where the Go rewrite's advice does *not* carry over.
+
+The canonical Python stack lives in `~/dev/.context/AGENT.md`; it is not restated here.
+
+## The one idea that changes everything: `Protocol`
+
+Go's interfaces are structural — a type satisfies one by having the methods, with no
+declaration. Python has the same thing since 3.8, and it is the right default:
+
+```python
+from typing import Protocol
+
+class InvoiceStore(Protocol):
+    def get(self, invoice_id: InvoiceId) -> Invoice: ...
+    def save(self, invoice: Invoice) -> None: ...
+```
+
+- **Define the Protocol where it is *consumed*, not where it is implemented.** This is
+  Go's "accept interfaces, return structs" and it is what makes DIP real: the high-level
+  module owns the abstraction, and the adapter depends on it rather than the reverse.
+- **Prefer `Protocol` to `ABC`.** An ABC forces implementers to inherit, which couples
+  them to your package and makes a third-party class impossible to adapt without a
+  wrapper. Use an ABC only when you genuinely need shared implementation, not just a
+  contract.
+- Add `@runtime_checkable` only if you actually call `isinstance` — and if you are
+  calling `isinstance` against a Protocol, check whether the real problem is a missing
+  polymorphic method (an LSP smell).
+
+## S — Single Responsibility
+
+Same as Go: the unit is the module, not just the class. `utils.py` is the Python god
+package — it cannot have one reason to change because it has no subject.
+
+Python-specific tell: a class whose `__init__` stores arguments and whose only other
+method is `run()` or `execute()`. That is a function with ceremony. Write the function.
+
+## O — Open/Closed
+
+Extension in Python usually means **passing behaviour in**, not subclassing:
+
+```python
+# Closed for modification: adding a rule does not touch this function
+def apply_rules(invoice: Invoice, rules: Sequence[Rule]) -> Invoice: ...
+```
+
+`functools.singledispatch` is the idiomatic open extension point when dispatch is on
+type and the set of types grows outside your module. Beware the alternative that looks
+Pythonic and is not: monkey-patching is modification pretending to be extension, and it
+is invisible at the call site.
+
+## L — Liskov
+
+The Python-specific violation is **signature widening/narrowing that the type checker
+would catch if you let it**. Under `mypy --strict`, an override that narrows a parameter
+type or widens a return type is an error — which means most LSP violations in Python are
+type errors you chose not to see. This is the strongest argument for `--strict` in a
+design document rather than a style one.
+
+Raising a *new* exception type in an override is the violation `mypy` will not catch:
+callers wrote `except StoreError`, and your subclass raises `TimeoutError`. Exceptions
+are part of the contract; Python just will not check them for you.
+
+## I — Interface Segregation
+
+Protocols make this cheap: define the narrow one you need at the call site.
+
+```python
+class InvoiceReader(Protocol):
+    def get(self, invoice_id: InvoiceId) -> Invoice: ...
+```
+
+A function that only reads should accept `InvoiceReader`, not the full `InvoiceStore`.
+The test double then implements one method instead of eight, which is the practical
+payoff and the reason this principle survives contact with real code.
+
+## D — Dependency Inversion
+
+Constructor injection, exactly as in Go. Two Python-specific hazards:
+
+- **Import-time side effects are hidden dependencies.** A module that opens a database
+  connection or reads an env var at import has a dependency nothing can inject and no
+  test can replace. Configuration belongs in `pydantic-settings` objects passed in.
+- **Default arguments are compile-time bindings.** `def send(client: Client = Client())`
+  constructs the default once, at definition, and welds it to every caller. Default to
+  `None` and construct inside, or require it.
+
+## What does not carry over from the Go rewrite
+
+- **"Return structs, accept interfaces"** — the returning half is about Go's zero values
+  and nil interfaces. In Python, returning a Protocol type is fine and often better.
+- **Small interfaces because of embedding** — Python has no embedding; composition is
+  explicit delegation, which is more verbose but reads honestly.
+- **Package-level responsibility as the unit of deployment** — Python packaging is much
+  looser. The module boundary is still the right unit for *reasoning*, but do not expect
+  it to be enforced.
+
+## See also
+
+- `references/solid-principles.md` — the canonical, language-neutral reference
+- `references/go-adaptation.md` — the Go rewrite; contrast is instructive
+- `clean-code/references/python-adaptation.md` — style-level Python conventions
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: spec-driven-dev
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Spec-driven development for PMs"
+use_when: "Writing specs and requirements"
 description: Write a structured specification before writing any code. Use when starting a new project, feature, or significant change. Adapted for a PM-first workflow where why comes before how.
 ---

@@ -197,6 +200,56 @@ Dev:     [full command]
 [Anything unresolved that needs input before implementation begins]
 ```

+## EARS-lite acceptance criteria
+
+Measurable criteria answer "is it done?". They do not always answer "what should it do
+when X happens?" — and behavioural requirements written as prose are where ambiguity
+survives review. For any criterion that is conditional or event-driven, use EARS-lite
+instead of prose:
+
+```
+WHEN <trigger> THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+WHILE <state> THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+IF <unwanted condition> THEN THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+```
+
+There is a fourth, unconditional form. Use it for invariants — the properties that must
+hold with no trigger at all, which are usually the ones that matter most:
+
+```
+THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+```
+
+Worked, deliberately from a domain unlike whatever you are specifying:
+
+```
+THE SYSTEM SHALL reject a firmware image whose signature does not verify
+WHEN a sensor reports a temperature above the shutdown limit
+  THE SYSTEM SHALL open the contactor within 200ms
+WHILE the contactor is open
+  THE SYSTEM SHALL refuse every start command
+IF a sensor reading is missing or stale by more than one interval
+  THEN THE SYSTEM SHALL treat it as above the limit
+```
+
+The example is off-domain on purpose. An on-domain example gets copied: a spec written
+against an invoice-flavoured example inherited a requirement about extraction confidence
+that its feature request never mentioned, and the author only noticed on review. Read
+the shapes, not the content.
+
+Each conditional line names a trigger and one observable response, which usually maps
+onto a single test. The `WHILE` and unconditional forms are universally quantified —
+"every start command", "a firmware image" — so they map onto a property or a set of
+cases, not one assertion. That is still worth writing: it closes the requirements half
+of the audit trail, which is otherwise issue-body prose.
+
+**This is an option, not a replacement.** Threshold criteria ("p99 < 200ms under 100
+RPS") stay as they are — EARS phrasing adds nothing to a number. Use it for conditional
+behaviour, error handling, and state-dependent rules.
+
+For the executor-facing handoff, `feature-spec` also carries a **Context snapshot**
+section — inline the architecture facts the implementer cannot look up.
+
 ## Reframing Vague Requirements

 When you receive a vague requirement, translate it into specific success criteria before writing any spec content:
@@ -279,7 +332,7 @@ Pass-rate is computed downstream by the `/pass-rate` HTTP endpoint, which
 treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.

 **At end of each phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "spec-driven-dev", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "spec-driven-dev", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **Phases for this skill:** specify, plan, tasks, implement

@@ -288,7 +341,7 @@ treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.
 - `fail` — the phase's intended outcome was NOT reached (gate blocked, rework required).
 - `skip` — phase was skipped intentionally.

-**Why this matters:** the routing pod (Plan 6) reads pass-rate to decide whether to route a future call to a local model. If your skill never logs, the routing pod sees no data.
+**Why this matters:** pass-rate is what a future routing decision would be based on — whether a given call can be served by a local model instead of a cloud one. A skill that never logs contributes no evidence either way.

 ## Cross-References

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: stage-gate-review
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Stage-gate product governance (go/no-go council)"
+use_when: "Preparing a Product Council ask; building a go/no-go checklist; gate review"
 description: Run or prepare a stage-gate product governance review — the go/no-go checkpoint where a council approves an initiative to advance through fixed innovation stages (Frame → Concept → Prototype → Validate → Scale), each gate guarded by a per-discipline readiness checklist. Use when preparing a Product Council / steering-group ask, building a go/no-go checklist, designing an innovation governance process, or auditing whether an initiative is genuinely ready to advance vs faking the gate. Trigger phrases include "stage gate", "product council", "go/no-go", "advance to the next stage", "is this ready to progress", "gate review", "phase gate", "innovation governance".
 ---

@@ -71,6 +74,9 @@ legal waived"), never silently dropped. Silent omission is the most common way a
 3. Mark every discipline: cleared / waived (with reason) / gap.
 4. If any gap is on a discipline that gates the whole bet, **do not bring the ask** — close
   the gap or bring a feedback-only ask instead.
+5. Load `grill-me` (Full Grill) on the ask before bringing it. A council's hard questions are
+   cheaper to answer in private first, and a gap found by grilling is a gap you close rather
+   than one the gate reports.

 **Chairing a review (you are the council):**
 1. Ask for the evidence behind each "cleared", not the claim. Claims are theatre.
@@ -145,3 +151,12 @@ stays in the client boundary**:
 - Council/forum names, internal stage labels, internal tooling, named contacts, strategy
  specifics, deal terms → client dir/org only, local models only, never the public brain.
 - This skill carries the **pattern**; the client carries the **wrapper**. Never merge them.
+
+## Escalation
+
+Advisory. Prepares or chairs a gate; the council decides, not this skill.
+
+Stop and hand back when: a discipline's evidence is missing rather than weak. A gap on a
+gating discipline means do not bring the ask — bring a feedback-only ask instead. Marking
+it "cleared with a note" is precisely the gate theatre the anti-patterns section is
+about.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: brainstorming
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Structured divergent brainstorming"
+use_when: "Generating or expanding a set of ideas"
 description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation."
 ---

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent.
 **Dispatch after:** Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/

 ```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
+Agent tool (`subagent_type: "general-purpose"`):
  description: "Review spec document"
  prompt: |
    You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: dispatching-parallel-agents
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Fan work out across parallel subagents"
+use_when: "Decomposing work for concurrent agents"
 description: Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
 ---

@@ -65,13 +68,30 @@ Each agent gets:

 ### 3. Dispatch in Parallel

-```typescript
-// In Claude Code / AI environment
-Task("Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures")
-Task("Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures")
-Task("Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures")
-// All three run concurrently
+Issue every dispatch in **one** message — several `Agent` tool uses in a single
+assistant turn run concurrently; one per turn runs them in series.
+
 ```
+Agent(description: "fix abort tests",   subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: ...)
+Agent(description: "fix batch tests",   subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: ...)
+Agent(description: "fix approval tests", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: ...)
+```
+
+Options that matter for this pattern:
+
+- `run_in_background: true` (the default) returns immediately and notifies on
+  completion. Set it to `false` only when your very next action depends on the result.
+- `isolation: "worktree"` gives an agent its own git worktree. Use it whenever two
+  agents might touch the same files — parallel writers to one tree is the failure this
+  skill's independence rule exists to avoid, and a worktree makes it structural rather
+  than a matter of discipline.
+- `model` overrides the model per agent; cheap mechanical fan-out does not need the
+  same model as the reasoning that planned it.
+
+For a fan-out with real structure — phases, a verify pass per finding, fan-in — the
+`Workflow` tool expresses it directly with `agent()`, `parallel()` and `pipeline()`.
+It spawns many agents and costs accordingly, so it runs **only on explicit opt-in from
+the operator**; do not reach for it just because a task looks parallel.

 ### 4. Review and Integrate

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: executing-plans
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Executing a written plan step by step"
+use_when: "Running an approved plan to completion"
 description: Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
 ---

@@ -11,14 +14,16 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.

 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."

-**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (such as Claude Code or Codex). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
+**Note:** This skill is the fallback for harnesses with no subagents. Claude Code has
+them — the `Agent` tool — so on this fleet prefer `superpowers-subagent-driven-development`
+and use this skill only where `Agent` is genuinely unavailable (Crush, Pi, OpenCode).

 ## The Process

 ### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
 1. Read plan file
 2. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
-3. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
+3. If concerns: Raise them with the operator before starting
 4. If no concerns: Create TodoWrite and proceed

 ### Step 2: Execute Tasks
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: finishing-a-development-branch
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Cleanly finishing/landing a dev branch"
+use_when: "Wrapping a branch → merge/PR"
 description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: receiving-code-review
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Acting on received review feedback"
+use_when: "Responding to review comments"
 description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
 ---

@@ -11,6 +14,8 @@ Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

 **Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

+This skill starts where `superpowers-requesting-code-review` ends. The substance of what a reviewer should have checked is `code-review`.
+
 ## The Response Pattern

 ```
@@ -27,7 +32,7 @@ WHEN receiving code review feedback:
 ## Forbidden Responses

 **NEVER:**
- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
+- "You're absolutely right!" (performative agreement, not evaluation)
 - "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
 - "Let me implement that now" (before verification)

@@ -49,7 +54,7 @@ WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.

 **Example:**
 ```
-your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
+the operator: "Fix 1-6"
 You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.

 ❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
@@ -58,7 +63,7 @@ You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.

 ## Source-Specific Handling

-### From your human partner
+### From the operator
 - **Trusted** - implement after understanding
 - **Still ask** if scope unclear
 - **No performative agreement**
@@ -79,11 +84,11 @@ IF suggestion seems wrong:
 IF can't easily verify:
  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"

-IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
-  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+IF conflicts with the operator's prior decisions:
+  Stop and discuss with the operator first
 ```

-**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
+**the operator's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"

 ## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

@@ -95,7 +100,7 @@ IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  IF used: Then implement properly
 ```

-**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
+**the operator's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."

 ## Implementation Order

@@ -118,13 +123,13 @@ Push back when:
 - Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
 - Technically incorrect for this stack
 - Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
+- Conflicts with the operator's architectural decisions

 **How to push back:**
 - Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
 - Ask specific questions
 - Reference working tests/code
- Involve your human partner if architectural
+- Involve the operator if architectural

 **Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

@@ -195,7 +200,7 @@ Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV ex

 **Unclear Item (Good):**
 ```
-your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
+the operator: "Fix items 1-6"
 You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
 ✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
 ```
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: requesting-code-review
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Requesting a code review well"
+use_when: "Asking another agent/human to review"
 description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
 ---

@@ -9,6 +12,8 @@ Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The revie

 **Core principle:** Review early, review often.

+This skill is the *commissioning* half. What the reviewer should look for is `code-review`; how to handle what comes back is `superpowers-receiving-code-review`.
+
 ## When to Request Review

 **Mandatory:**
@@ -31,7 +36,9 @@ HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

 **2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**

-Use Task tool with `general-purpose` type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
+Use the `Agent` tool with `subagent_type: "general-purpose"`, filling the template at
+`code-reviewer.md`. A reviewer needs no write access and benefits from none — if the
+harness offers a read-only agent type, prefer it.

 **Placeholders:**
 - `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Use this template when dispatching a code reviewer subagent.
 **Purpose:** Review completed work against requirements and code quality standards before it cascades into more work.

 ```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
+Agent tool (`subagent_type: "general-purpose"`):
  description: "Review code changes"
  prompt: |
    You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture,
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: subagent-driven-development
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Subagent-driven development workflow"
+use_when: "Building via orchestrated subagents"
 description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
 ---

@@ -11,7 +14,7 @@ Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after

 **Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration

-**Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.
+**Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with the operator between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.

 ## When to Use

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Use this template when dispatching a code quality reviewer subagent.
 **Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.**

 ```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
+Agent tool (`subagent_type: "general-purpose"`):
  Use template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

  DESCRIPTION: [task summary, from implementer's report]
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 Use this template when dispatching an implementer subagent.

 ```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
+Agent tool (`subagent_type: "general-purpose"`):
  description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
  prompt: |
    You are implementing Task N: [task name]
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Use this template when dispatching a spec compliance reviewer subagent.
 **Purpose:** Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)

 ```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
+Agent tool (`subagent_type: "general-purpose"`):
  description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
  prompt: |
    You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
@@ -1,119 +0,0 @@
-# Creation Log: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-Reference example of extracting, structuring, and bulletproofing a critical skill.
-
-## Source Material
-
-Extracted debugging framework from `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md`:
- 4-phase systematic process (Investigation → Pattern Analysis → Hypothesis → Implementation)
- Core mandate: ALWAYS find root cause, NEVER fix symptoms
- Rules designed to resist time pressure and rationalization
-
-## Extraction Decisions
-
-**What to include:**
- Complete 4-phase framework with all rules
- Anti-shortcuts ("NEVER fix symptom", "STOP and re-analyze")
- Pressure-resistant language ("even if faster", "even if I seem in a hurry")
- Concrete steps for each phase
-
-**What to leave out:**
- Project-specific context
- Repetitive variations of same rule
- Narrative explanations (condensed to principles)
-
-## Structure Following skill-creation/SKILL.md
-
-1. **Rich when_to_use** - Included symptoms and anti-patterns
-2. **Type: technique** - Concrete process with steps
-3. **Keywords** - "root cause", "symptom", "workaround", "debugging", "investigation"
-4. **Flowchart** - Decision point for "fix failed" → re-analyze vs add more fixes
-5. **Phase-by-phase breakdown** - Scannable checklist format
-6. **Anti-patterns section** - What NOT to do (critical for this skill)
-
-## Bulletproofing Elements
-
-Framework designed to resist rationalization under pressure:
-
-### Language Choices
- "ALWAYS" / "NEVER" (not "should" / "try to")
- "even if faster" / "even if I seem in a hurry"
- "STOP and re-analyze" (explicit pause)
- "Don't skip past" (catches the actual behavior)
-
-### Structural Defenses
- **Phase 1 required** - Can't skip to implementation
- **Single hypothesis rule** - Forces thinking, prevents shotgun fixes
- **Explicit failure mode** - "IF your first fix doesn't work" with mandatory action
- **Anti-patterns section** - Shows exactly what shortcuts look like
-
-### Redundancy
- Root cause mandate in overview + when_to_use + Phase 1 + implementation rules
- "NEVER fix symptom" appears 4 times in different contexts
- Each phase has explicit "don't skip" guidance
-
-## Testing Approach
-
-Created 4 validation tests following skills/meta/testing-skills-with-subagents:
-
-### Test 1: Academic Context (No Pressure)
- Simple bug, no time pressure
- **Result:** Perfect compliance, complete investigation
-
-### Test 2: Time Pressure + Obvious Quick Fix
- User "in a hurry", symptom fix looks easy
- **Result:** Resisted shortcut, followed full process, found real root cause
-
-### Test 3: Complex System + Uncertainty
- Multi-layer failure, unclear if can find root cause
- **Result:** Systematic investigation, traced through all layers, found source
-
-### Test 4: Failed First Fix
- Hypothesis doesn't work, temptation to add more fixes
- **Result:** Stopped, re-analyzed, formed new hypothesis (no shotgun)
-
-**All tests passed.** No rationalizations found.
-
-## Iterations
-
-### Initial Version
- Complete 4-phase framework
- Anti-patterns section
- Flowchart for "fix failed" decision
-
-### Enhancement 1: TDD Reference
- Added link to skills/testing/test-driven-development
- Note explaining TDD's "simplest code" ≠ debugging's "root cause"
- Prevents confusion between methodologies
-
-## Final Outcome
-
-Bulletproof skill that:
- ✅ Clearly mandates root cause investigation
- ✅ Resists time pressure rationalization
- ✅ Provides concrete steps for each phase
- ✅ Shows anti-patterns explicitly
- ✅ Tested under multiple pressure scenarios
- ✅ Clarifies relationship to TDD
- ✅ Ready for use
-
-## Key Insight
-
-**Most important bulletproofing:** Anti-patterns section showing exact shortcuts that feel justified in the moment. When Claude thinks "I'll just add this one quick fix", seeing that exact pattern listed as wrong creates cognitive friction.
-
-## Usage Example
-
-When encountering a bug:
-1. Load skill: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-2. Read overview (10 sec) - reminded of mandate
-3. Follow Phase 1 checklist - forced investigation
-4. If tempted to skip - see anti-pattern, stop
-5. Complete all phases - root cause found
-
-**Time investment:** 5-10 minutes
-**Time saved:** Hours of symptom-whack-a-mole
-
---
-
-*Created: 2025-10-03*
-*Purpose: Reference example for skill extraction and bulletproofing*
@@ -1,296 +0,0 @@
---
-name: systematic-debugging
-description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
---
-
-# Systematic Debugging
-
-## Overview
-
-Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
-
-**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
-
-**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
-
-## The Iron Law
-
-```
-NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
-```
-
-If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
-
-## When to Use
-
-Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
-
-**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
- You don't fully understand the issue
-
-**Don't skip when:**
- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
-
-## The Four Phases
-
-You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
-
-### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
-
-**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
-
-1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
-   - Don't skip past errors or warnings
-   - They often contain the exact solution
-   - Read stack traces completely
-   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
-
-2. **Reproduce Consistently**
-   - Can you trigger it reliably?
-   - What are the exact steps?
-   - Does it happen every time?
-   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
-
-3. **Check Recent Changes**
-   - What changed that could cause this?
-   - Git diff, recent commits
-   - New dependencies, config changes
-   - Environmental differences
-
-4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
-
-   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
-
-   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
-   ```
-   For EACH component boundary:
-     - Log what data enters component
-     - Log what data exits component
-     - Verify environment/config propagation
-     - Check state at each layer
-
-   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
-   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
-   THEN investigate that specific component
-   ```
-
-   **Example (multi-layer system):**
-   ```bash
-   # Layer 1: Workflow
-   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
-   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
-
-   # Layer 2: Build script
-   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
-   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
-
-   # Layer 3: Signing script
-   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
-   security list-keychains
-   security find-identity -v
-
-   # Layer 4: Actual signing
-   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
-   ```
-
-   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
-
-5. **Trace Data Flow**
-
-   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
-
-   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
-
-   **Quick version:**
-   - Where does bad value originate?
-   - What called this with bad value?
-   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
-   - Fix at source, not at symptom
-
-### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
-
-**Find the pattern before fixing:**
-
-1. **Find Working Examples**
-   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
-   - What works that's similar to what's broken?
-
-2. **Compare Against References**
-   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
-   - Don't skim - read every line
-   - Understand the pattern fully before applying
-
-3. **Identify Differences**
-   - What's different between working and broken?
-   - List every difference, however small
-   - Don't assume "that can't matter"
-
-4. **Understand Dependencies**
-   - What other components does this need?
-   - What settings, config, environment?
-   - What assumptions does it make?
-
-### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
-
-**Scientific method:**
-
-1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
-   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
-   - Write it down
-   - Be specific, not vague
-
-2. **Test Minimally**
-   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
-   - One variable at a time
-   - Don't fix multiple things at once
-
-3. **Verify Before Continuing**
-   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
-   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
-   - DON'T add more fixes on top
-
-4. **When You Don't Know**
-   - Say "I don't understand X"
-   - Don't pretend to know
-   - Ask for help
-   - Research more
-
-### Phase 4: Implementation
-
-**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
-
-1. **Create Failing Test Case**
-   - Simplest possible reproduction
-   - Automated test if possible
-   - One-off test script if no framework
-   - MUST have before fixing
-   - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests
-
-2. **Implement Single Fix**
-   - Address the root cause identified
-   - ONE change at a time
-   - No "while I'm here" improvements
-   - No bundled refactoring
-
-3. **Verify Fix**
-   - Test passes now?
-   - No other tests broken?
-   - Issue actually resolved?
-
-4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
-   - STOP
-   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
-   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
-   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
-   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
-
-5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
-
-   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
-   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
-   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
-   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
-
-   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
-   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
-   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
-   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
-
-   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
-
-   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
-
-## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
-
-If you catch yourself thinking:
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
-
-**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
-
-**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
-
-## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
-
-**Watch for these redirections:**
- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
-
-**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
-| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
-| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
-| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
-| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
-| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
-| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
-| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
-|-------|---------------|------------------|
-| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
-| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
-| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
-| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
-
-## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
-
-If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
-
-1. You've completed the process
-2. Document what you investigated
-3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
-4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
-
-**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
-
-## Supporting Techniques
-
-These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
-
- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
-
-**Related skills:**
- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
-
-## Real-World Impact
-
-From debugging sessions:
- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common
@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
-
-1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
-2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
-3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
-4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
-5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
-6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
-
-Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.
@@ -1,58 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
- Error rate: 100%
- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
-
-Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
-
-You quickly check the logs and see:
-```
-PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
-```
-
-You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
-
-**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
-1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
-2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
-3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
-4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
-5. Then form hypothesis and test
-
-**But the quick fix:**
- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
- Deploy: 3 minutes
- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
- Every minute costs $15k
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
- Another $525k lost during investigation
- Manager will be furious
- You look slow/incompetent
-
-**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
- Stop the bleeding immediately
- Investigate root cause after service restored
- Save $450k vs Option A
-
-**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
- If nothing obvious, add retry
- Investigate properly after restore
- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.
@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
-
-The test: `payment-processing.test.ts` fails with:
-```
-Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
-Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
-```
-
-**What you've tried:**
-1. Added `await sleep(100)` - didn't work
-2. Increased to `await sleep(500)` - didn't work
-3. Added `await sleep(1000)` - worked twice, failed third time
-4. Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
-5. Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
-6. Tried `await sleep(2000)` - still fails sometimes
-
-You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
-
-**Two approaches:**
-
-**Option A: Follow systematic debugging**
- Stop guessing with timeouts
- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
- Understand WHY status isn't updating
- Could take another 2-3 hours
- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
-
-**Option B: "Good enough" solution**
- Use `await sleep(5000)` - seems to work
- Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
- Commit and go to dinner
- File ticket to investigate later
- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.**
- Another 2-3 hours minimum
- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
- Miss dinner entirely
- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
-
-**B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket**
- Stops the immediate bleeding
- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
- 4 hours not completely wasted
- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
-
-**C) Quick investigation first**
- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
- If not obvious, use timeout solution
- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
- "Balanced" approach
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.
@@ -1,69 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're in a Zoom call with:
- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
- The tech lead
- Two other developers
-
-You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
-
-**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
-
-**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
-
-**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
-
-**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
-
-**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
-
-**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
-
-**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
-
-**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
-
-Your systematic debugging skill says:
- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
-
-But:
- Senior has way more experience
- Tech lead approved the approach
- Everyone wants to end the call
- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
- Insist on following systematic process
- Everyone frustrated with you
- Senior engineer annoyed
- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
-
-**B) Go along with senior's fix**
- They have 10 years experience
- Tech lead approved
- Entire team wants to move forward
- Being a "team player"
- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
-
-**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
- Quick 5-minute doc check
- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
- Shows you did "due diligence"
- Doesn't waste too much time
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: using-git-worktrees
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Isolating work with git worktrees"
+use_when: "Parallel/isolated work in a worktree"
 description: Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: using-superpowers
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Meta: orienting in the superpowers set"
+use_when: "Learning how to use the superpowers skills"
 description: Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring Skill tool invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions
 ---

@@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ When a skill says to dispatch a named agent type, use `@generalist` with the ful

 | Skill instruction | Gemini CLI equivalent |
 |-------------------|----------------------|
-| `Task tool (superpowers:implementer)` | `@generalist` with the filled `implementer-prompt.md` template |
-| `Task tool (superpowers:spec-reviewer)` | `@generalist` with the filled `spec-reviewer-prompt.md` template |
-| `Task tool (superpowers:code-reviewer)` | `@code-reviewer` (bundled agent) or `@generalist` with the filled review prompt |
-| `Task tool (superpowers:code-quality-reviewer)` | `@generalist` with the filled `code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` template |
-| `Task tool (general-purpose)` with inline prompt | `@generalist` with your inline prompt |
+| `Agent tool (superpowers:implementer)` | `@generalist` with the filled `implementer-prompt.md` template |
+| `Agent tool (superpowers:spec-reviewer)` | `@generalist` with the filled `spec-reviewer-prompt.md` template |
+| `Agent tool (superpowers:code-reviewer)` | `@code-reviewer` (bundled agent) or `@generalist` with the filled review prompt |
+| `Agent tool (superpowers:code-quality-reviewer)` | `@generalist` with the filled `code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` template |
+| `Agent tool (general-purpose)` with inline prompt | `@generalist` with your inline prompt |

 ### Prompt filling

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: verification-before-completion
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Verify behavior before claiming done"
+use_when: "Before marking any task complete"
 description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
 ---

@@ -108,7 +111,7 @@ Skip any step = lying, not verifying
 ## Why This Matters

 From 24 failure memories:
- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
+- the operator said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
 - Undefined functions shipped - would crash
 - Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
 - Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: writing-plans
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Writing implementation plans"
+use_when: "Planning substantial work before coding"
 description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
 ---

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Use this template when dispatching a plan document reviewer subagent.
 **Dispatch after:** The complete plan is written.

 ```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
+Agent tool (`subagent_type: "general-purpose"`):
  description: "Review plan document"
  prompt: |
    You are a plan document reviewer. Verify this plan is complete and ready for implementation.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: writing-skills
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Authoring new SKILL.md skills"
+use_when: "Creating a new reusable skill"
 description: Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
 ---

@@ -243,7 +246,7 @@ Always use subagents (50-100x context savings). REQUIRED: Use [other-skill-name]
 **Compress examples:**
 ```markdown
 # ❌ BAD: Verbose example (42 words)
-your human partner: "How did we handle authentication errors in React Router before?"
+the operator: "How did we handle authentication errors in React Router before?"
 You: I'll search past conversations for React Router authentication patterns.
 [Dispatch subagent with search query: "React Router authentication error handling 401"]

@@ -315,7 +318,7 @@ digraph when_flowchart {

 See @graphviz-conventions.dot for graphviz style rules.

-**Visualizing for your human partner:** Use `render-graphs.js` in this directory to render a skill's flowcharts to SVG:
+**Visualizing for the operator:** Use `render-graphs.js` in this directory to render a skill's flowcharts to SVG:
 ```bash
 ./render-graphs.js ../some-skill           # Each diagram separately
 ./render-graphs.js ../some-skill --combine # All diagrams in one SVG
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: tdd
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Test-Driven Development enforcement"
+use_when: "Starting any new feature or fixing a bug"
 description: Write failing tests first, then minimal code to pass. Non-negotiable for all new features and bug fixes.
 ---

@@ -97,13 +100,21 @@ go test -run TestRetryOperation_RetriesThreeTimes ./...
 ```

 Confirm:
- Test fails (not compilation errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature is missing (not typos)
+- Test fails, and fails because the feature is missing
+- The failure message is the one you expected
+- It is not failing on a typo in the test itself

 **Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.

-**Compilation errors?** Fix errors, re-run until it fails correctly.
+**Failing because the thing does not exist yet?** That is a legitimate red — a Go
+compile error for an undefined function, a Python `ImportError` for a module you have
+not written, a TypeScript "cannot find module". Read the message, confirm it names the
+unit you are about to build, and proceed to GREEN. **Do not write a stub to make the
+runner happier.** A stub is production code written before a failing test, which is the
+Iron Law with extra steps.
+
+**Failing on a typo or a broken import elsewhere?** Different thing. Fix it and re-run
+until the failure is the one above.

 ### GREEN - Minimal Code

@@ -163,6 +174,23 @@ Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

 Next failing test for next behavior.

+## Other languages
+
+The discipline above is language-neutral; the examples below it are Go, because Go is
+this fleet's default stack and one good example beats five mediocre ones.
+
+For anything else, the per-language conventions live in reference files — load the one
+you need rather than translating Go idioms by eye. Translation is where the mistakes
+happen: the Go table-driven exemplar below branches on a `wantErr` column inside the
+loop, which is idiomatic Go and an anti-pattern in pytest, where it produces a
+conditional assertion and folds two behaviours into one test.
+
+- `references/python.md` — pytest, `@pytest.mark.parametrize`, `mypy --strict` in the
+  RED gate, `pytest.raises(..., match=)`, fixtures vs helpers
+- `references/typescript.md` — vitest/jest, `it.each`, `expect(...).rejects`
+- `references/rust.md` — `#[cfg(test)]` modules, table-driven via arrays, `#[should_panic]`
+- `references/java.md` — JUnit 5, `@ParameterizedTest`, `assertThrows`
+
 ## Go-Specific TDD Notes

 ### Table-Driven Tests (Preferred Pattern)
@@ -326,12 +354,18 @@ Before marking work complete:
 - [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
 - [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
 - [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
- [ ] All tests pass: `go test ./...`
- [ ] Race detector clean: `go test -race ./...`
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] The language's static gate is clean — `go vet`, `mypy --strict`, `tsc --noEmit`,
+      `cargo clippy`. A red type-check is a red build; it does not wait for GREEN.
+- [ ] The language's concurrency gate is clean **where one exists and applies** —
+      `go test -race`, `cargo test` under Miri for unsafe code. There is no equivalent
+      for a pure Python function, and a checklist box that can never be ticked teaches
+      people to skip checklists. Tick it or strike it deliberately; do not leave it
+      hanging.
 - [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if crossing a system boundary)
 - [ ] Edge cases and errors covered

-Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
+Can't check **or deliberately strike** all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over. A box struck with a stated reason is answered; a box left hanging is not.

 ## When Stuck

@@ -340,7 +374,7 @@ Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
 | Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask Mathias. |
 | Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
 | Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
-| Test setup huge | Extract helpers with `t.Helper()`. Still complex? Simplify design. |
+| Test setup huge | Extract helpers (`t.Helper()` in Go, a local `__tracebackhide__ = True` in Python). Still complex? Simplify design. |

 ## Debugging Integration

@@ -372,20 +406,20 @@ Pass-rate is computed downstream by the `/pass-rate` HTTP endpoint, which
 treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.

 **At end of `red` phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "tdd", phase: "red", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "tdd", phase: "red", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **At end of `green` phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "tdd", phase: "green", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "tdd", phase: "green", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **At end of `refactor` phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "tdd", phase: "refactor", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "tdd", phase: "refactor", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **Status semantics:**
 - `pass` — the phase's intended outcome was reached (red: test fails as expected; green: test passes; refactor: tests still pass after refactor).
 - `fail` — the phase's intended outcome was NOT reached (test compiled when it shouldn't, test still fails after green attempt, refactor broke tests).
 - `skip` — phase was skipped intentionally (e.g. refactor not warranted).

-**Why this matters:** the routing pod (Plan 6) reads pass-rate to decide whether to route a future `tdd` call to a local model. If your skill never logs, the routing pod sees no data and may default-route or default-not-route in a way that doesn't reflect real performance.
+**Why this matters:** pass-rate is what a future routing decision would be based on — whether a `tdd` call can be served by a local model instead of a cloud one. A skill that never logs contributes no evidence either way, and a decision made on no evidence is a coin flip wearing a metric.

 ## Final Rule

@@ -395,7 +429,3 @@ Otherwise → not TDD
 ```

 No exceptions without Mathias's permission.
-
-## Mode 2 Routing Note
-
-This skill is invoked identically whether the agent is running in Mode 1 (cloud Claude, no routing) or Mode 2 (client-local, supervisor routing layer). The routing pod (Plan 6) does not exist yet; until it does, treat this skill as Mode 1 only. The discipline does not change between modes — only the model behind the call.
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# TDD in Java
+
+The Iron Law and Red-Green-Refactor in `SKILL.md` apply unchanged. This file replaces
+the Go-Specific TDD Notes for Java. JUnit 5 (Jupiter) throughout.
+
+## The first red is a compile error, and that is correct
+
+`cannot find symbol: method splitVat` is a legitimate red. Do not stub the method with
+`throw new UnsupportedOperationException()` to make the module compile — that is
+production code before a failing test.
+
+## Table-driven: `@ParameterizedTest`
+
+```java
+@ParameterizedTest(name = "{0}")
+@MethodSource("vatCases")
+void roundsHalfToEven(String name, long amountMinor, BigDecimal rate, long net, long vat) {
+    assertEquals(new Split(net, vat), VatSplitter.split(amountMinor, rate));
+}
+
+static Stream<Arguments> vatCases() {
+    return Stream.of(
+        Arguments.of("tie rounds down to even", 14L,    new BigDecimal("0.12"), 12L,    2L),
+        Arguments.of("tie rounds up to even",   42L,    new BigDecimal("0.12"), 38L,    4L),
+        Arguments.of("exact division",          12500L, new BigDecimal("0.25"), 10000L, 2500L)
+    );
+}
+```
+
+`name = "{0}"` puts the case label in the report — the `t.Run` analogue. `@CsvSource` is
+terser for primitives; `@MethodSource` is the one to use as soon as a case carries a
+`BigDecimal` or a domain object.
+
+## Error cases get their own test
+
+```java
+@Test
+void rejectsNegativeAmount() {
+    var e = assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class,
+                         () -> VatSplitter.split(-1, new BigDecimal("0.25")));
+    assertTrue(e.getMessage().contains("non-negative"));
+}
+```
+
+Assert on the message, not only the type — `IllegalArgumentException` is thrown by half
+the JDK, and a test that accepts any of them will keep passing for the wrong reason.
+
+## Money is `BigDecimal` or `long` minor units, never `double`
+
+`0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3` is not a rounding curiosity in a payments system, it is a defect.
+Where a rounding mode matters, state it: `setScale(0, RoundingMode.HALF_EVEN)`. Banker's
+rounding is the default expectation in Swedish accounting and is *not* Java's default.
+
+## Assertions
+
+Prefer AssertJ (`assertThat(x).isEqualTo(y)`) where the project already has it: the
+failure messages name the actual value. Where it does not, plain JUnit assertions are
+fine — do not add a dependency for aesthetics.
+
+`assertAll` is the closest analogue to Go's soft `assert`: it reports every failure in
+the group instead of stopping at the first.
+
+## Mocks
+
+Mockito is standard, and easy to overuse. Per `SKILL.md`, mock only across a system
+boundary. A mocked class you own tests the mock; a `@SpringBootTest` that mocks the
+repository tests neither the wiring nor the query.
+
+## Gates
+
+```bash
+./gradlew test            # the failing test
+./gradlew check           # static gate: compiler warnings, spotless, errorprone
+```
+
+Java has no `-race`. For concurrent code the honest substitutes are a stress test with
+`CountDownLatch` to force the interleaving, and jcstress for lock-free work. A pure
+function should strike that checklist box deliberately.
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+# TDD in Python
+
+The Iron Law, Red-Green-Refactor and the rationalization table in `SKILL.md` apply
+unchanged. This file replaces the Go-Specific TDD Notes for Python work.
+
+Canonical stack (`~/dev/.context/AGENT.md`): pytest + pytest-cov, `mypy --strict`, ruff,
+uv, src-layout. Not restated here — that table has one home.
+
+## The first red is an ImportError, and that is correct
+
+For a function that does not exist yet, the first run fails at collection:
+
+```
+E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'invoicing.vat'
+```
+
+That is a legitimate red. Read it, confirm it names the module you are about to write,
+and go to GREEN. **Do not create a stub raising `NotImplementedError` to make pytest
+collect.** A stub is production code written before a failing test.
+
+## Table-driven: `parametrize`, one behaviour per function
+
+```python
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+    ("amount_minor", "rate", "expected"),
+    [
+        pytest.param(14, Decimal("0.12"), (12, 2), id="tie-rounds-down-to-even"),
+        pytest.param(42, Decimal("0.12"), (38, 4), id="tie-rounds-up-to-even"),
+        pytest.param(12500, Decimal("0.25"), (10000, 2500), id="exact-division"),
+        pytest.param(0, Decimal("0.25"), (0, 0), id="zero-is-not-an-error"),
+    ],
+)
+def test_split_vat_rounds_half_to_even(
+    amount_minor: int, rate: Decimal, expected: tuple[int, int]
+) -> None:
+    assert split_vat(amount_minor, rate) == expected
+```
+
+`id=` is the analogue of Go's `t.Run` name: it is what appears in the failure output and
+what you pass to `pytest -k`.
+
+**Do not port Go's `wantErr` column.** The Go exemplar branches inside the loop —
+`if tt.wantErr { assert.Error } else { assert.NoError }`. Translated literally that
+gives a conditional assertion and folds two behaviours into one test, which `SKILL.md`'s
+own quality table forbids ("One thing. 'and' in name? Split it."). Error cases get
+their own function:
+
+```python
+def test_split_vat_rejects_negative_amount() -> None:
+    with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="amount_minor must be non-negative"):
+        split_vat(-1, Decimal("0.25"))
+```
+
+`match=` pins the message, not just the type. Go's `assert.Error` does not, and the
+stricter version is available here for free — use it.
+
+## `mypy --strict` is part of RED, not a chore after GREEN
+
+A red type-check is a red build.
+
+```bash
+uv run pytest tests/test_vat.py -x -q       # the failing test
+uv run mypy --strict src tests              # same gate, same phase
+```
+
+Under `--strict` every test function needs `-> None`, or it is an untyped def and the
+type-checker rejects the file — including the file that holds your failing test.
+
+## Layout and imports
+
+- `src/` layout, tests in a sibling `tests/`. This is the *opposite* of Go's
+  same-directory convention, and it buys black-box testing structurally: `from
+  invoicing.vat import split_vat` can only resolve against the installed package, so
+  the preference Go has to state explicitly is enforced here by the import system.
+- No `__init__.py` in `tests/` unless you need shared test packages; pytest's rootdir
+  handling copes, and an accidental package shadows names.
+- `conftest.py` holds fixtures shared across a directory. A fixture in a single test
+  file that only one test uses should be a plain function call instead — fixtures are
+  indirection, and indirection is only worth it at reuse.
+
+## No `require` vs `assert`
+
+Every pytest `assert` is fatal to its test; there is no continue-on-failure form. Where
+Go would use `assert` to collect several soft failures, either split the test or use
+`pytest.approx`/a single structural comparison:
+
+```python
+assert result == Invoice(id=InvoiceId("42"), net=10000, vat=2500)   # one assertion, whole shape
+```
+
+Comparing whole values beats three field assertions: the failure output shows the entire
+diff rather than the first field that differed.
+
+## Fixtures vs helpers
+
+- **Helper function** — when the setup is cheap and local. It reads top-to-bottom.
+- **Fixture** — when the setup is shared, or needs teardown, or needs a scope
+  (`session`, `module`) because it is expensive.
+- Set `__tracebackhide__ = True` in an assertion helper so failures point at the caller,
+  the way `t.Helper()` does in Go.
+
+## Coverage is not the concurrency gate
+
+`SKILL.md`'s checklist asks for the language's concurrency gate. Python has no `-race`
+equivalent, and pretending `pytest --cov` fills that slot is dishonest — coverage says
+which lines ran, not whether two threads can interleave badly. For a pure function,
+strike the box deliberately. For genuinely concurrent code (`asyncio`, threads), the
+substitute is a test that runs the interleaving you fear, plus `pytest-timeout` so a
+deadlock fails rather than hangs.
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+# TDD in Rust
+
+The Iron Law and Red-Green-Refactor in `SKILL.md` apply unchanged. This file replaces
+the Go-Specific TDD Notes for Rust.
+
+## The first red is a compile error, and that is correct
+
+```
+error[E0425]: cannot find function `split_vat` in this scope
+```
+
+Legitimate — the compiler is the test runner's first phase. Read it, confirm it names
+the item you are about to write, and go to GREEN. Do not write a `todo!()` stub first;
+that is production code before a failing test. (`todo!()` is fine *during* GREEN as a
+branch you have not reached yet.)
+
+## Where tests live
+
+- **Unit tests** in the same file, in `mod tests` behind `#[cfg(test)]`. They can reach
+  private items — the white-box option Go spells `package foo`.
+- **Integration tests** in `tests/`, which link the crate as an external consumer and see
+  only the public API. This is the black-box default `SKILL.md` prefers; use it unless
+  the behaviour under test is genuinely private.
+
+```rust
+#[cfg(test)]
+mod tests {
+    use super::*;
+
+    #[test]
+    fn tie_rounds_down_to_even() {
+        assert_eq!(split_vat(14, dec!(0.12)).unwrap(), (12, 2));
+    }
+}
+```
+
+## Table-driven: an array of cases
+
+```rust
+#[test]
+fn rounds_half_to_even() {
+    let cases = [
+        ("tie rounds down", 14u64, dec!(0.12), (12, 2)),
+        ("tie rounds up", 42, dec!(0.12), (38, 4)),
+        ("exact division", 12500, dec!(0.25), (10000, 2500)),
+    ];
+    for (name, amount, rate, want) in cases {
+        assert_eq!(split_vat(amount, rate).unwrap(), want, "case: {name}");
+    }
+}
+```
+
+The `"case: {name}"` message is the `t.Run` analogue — without it a failure names a line
+number and leaves you counting rows. If you want each case to be its own reported test,
+use `rstest`'s `#[case]`; that is a dependency, so justify it before adding it.
+
+## Error cases
+
+`Result` makes the Go `wantErr` column unnecessary — assert on the variant:
+
+```rust
+#[test]
+fn rejects_negative_amount() {
+    let err = split_vat_signed(-1, dec!(0.25)).unwrap_err();
+    assert!(matches!(err, VatError::NegativeAmount));
+}
+```
+
+`#[should_panic(expected = "...")]` is for genuine panics only — invariant violations,
+not expected error paths. A function whose contract includes "rejects negative input"
+should return `Err`, not panic, and a test that accepts a panic hides that design choice.
+
+## Gates
+
+```bash
+cargo test                    # the failing test
+cargo clippy -- -D warnings   # static gate, same phase as RED
+cargo fmt --check
+```
+
+`cargo test` compiles in debug, so integer overflow panics rather than wrapping — a
+release build will not. Where overflow matters, test the checked path explicitly
+(`checked_mul`), or you are testing debug-only behaviour.
+
+For unsafe code, `cargo +nightly miri test` is the nearest thing to Go's `-race`.
+Safe-only crates have no equivalent and should strike that checklist box deliberately.
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# TDD in TypeScript
+
+The Iron Law and Red-Green-Refactor in `SKILL.md` apply unchanged. This file replaces
+the Go-Specific TDD Notes for TypeScript.
+
+Vitest is the default; Jest differs only in imports and a few matcher names, both noted
+where it matters.
+
+## The first red is a resolution error, and that is correct
+
+```
+Error: Failed to resolve import "./vat" from "src/vat.test.ts"
+```
+
+Legitimate. Do not create an empty module or a stub throwing `new Error("not
+implemented")` to get past collection — that is production code before a failing test.
+
+## Table-driven: `it.each`
+
+```ts
+describe('splitVat', () => {
+  it.each([
+    { amountMinor: 14,    rate: 0.12, expected: [12, 2],        name: 'tie rounds down to even' },
+    { amountMinor: 42,    rate: 0.12, expected: [38, 4],        name: 'tie rounds up to even' },
+    { amountMinor: 12500, rate: 0.25, expected: [10000, 2500],  name: 'exact division' },
+  ])('$name', ({ amountMinor, rate, expected }) => {
+    expect(splitVat(amountMinor, rate)).toEqual(expected)
+  })
+})
+```
+
+`$name` interpolates into the test title, which is the `t.Run` analogue. Prefer the
+object form over the array form — a positional tuple with five entries is unreadable at
+the point of failure.
+
+**Do not port Go's `wantErr` column.** Error cases get their own test:
+
+```ts
+it('rejects a negative amount', () => {
+  expect(() => splitVat(-1, 0.25)).toThrow(/must be non-negative/)
+})
+
+it('rejects a negative amount (async)', async () => {
+  await expect(splitVat(-1, 0.25)).rejects.toThrow(/must be non-negative/)
+})
+```
+
+The `await` on the async form is load-bearing. Without it the assertion returns a
+promise nobody checks, the test passes, and it will keep passing after you break the
+code. This is the single most common false-green in a TypeScript suite.
+
+## `tsc --noEmit` is part of RED
+
+A red type-check is a red build:
+
+```bash
+npx vitest run src/vat.test.ts     # the failing test
+npx tsc --noEmit                   # same gate, same phase
+```
+
+Vitest transpiles without type-checking, so a suite can be green while the code does not
+compile. `tsc --noEmit` is not optional here — it is the half of the gate the runner
+does not perform.
+
+## Equality matchers are not interchangeable
+
+- `toBe` — `Object.is`. For primitives and identity.
+- `toEqual` — structural, and **ignores `undefined` properties**: `{a: 1, b: undefined}`
+  equals `{a: 1}`. That is a real hole when the bug you are hunting is a missing field.
+- `toStrictEqual` — structural, respects `undefined`, and checks class identity. Default
+  to this one; reach for `toEqual` deliberately.
+
+## Mocks
+
+`vi.mock` (Jest: `jest.mock`) is hoisted above imports, so a factory referencing an
+outer variable throws at runtime. Use `vi.hoisted` when the mock needs shared state.
+Per `SKILL.md`, mock only across a system boundary — a mocked module you own is a test
+of your mock.
+
+## Async and fake timers
+
+- `vi.useFakeTimers()` needs a matching `vi.useRealTimers()` in teardown, or the next
+  file inherits frozen time and fails somewhere unrelated.
+- Prefer condition polling (`await vi.waitFor(...)`) over a fixed `setTimeout` — an
+  arbitrary wait is a flake with a schedule.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: telos-load
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Load TELOS intention substrate at session start"
+use_when: "Starting any koala session; before architectural decisions; CAD pipeline entry"
 description: Load TELOS — the intention substrate (problems, goals, strategies, status) — into a session at start so every decision traces to a goal. Use when starting any koala session, before architectural decisions, or as the CAD pipeline entry point ("load TELOS", "what are we optimizing toward?").
 ---

@@ -79,3 +82,11 @@ created in a CAD session should trace to a TELOS GOAL. Every GOAL
 traces to a PROBLEM.

 Traceability chain: PROBLEM → GOAL → SPEC → TICKET → IMPL → TEST
+
+## Escalation
+
+Read-only. Loads intention context; changes nothing.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the brain is unreachable or returns nothing for the wing. Working
+from a remembered TELOS is the failure this skill exists to prevent — say the load failed
+rather than reconstructing it from memory.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: test-design
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Dave Farley test design scoring (Farley Index)"
+use_when: "Reviewing or writing tests"
 description: Evaluate test quality using Dave Farley's 8 Properties of Good Tests. Use when reviewing or writing tests to ensure they provide genuine verification.
 ---

@@ -306,3 +309,11 @@ Apply this checklist to every new test:
 - Load `tdd` skill for the full TDD workflow
 - Load `code-review` skill for test quality review during pre-merge review
 - See `clean-code/references/code-smells.md` for testing-specific smells
+
+## Escalation
+
+Read-only scoring of existing tests.
+
+Stop and hand back when: the tests are fine and the *design under test* is what makes them
+awkward. Hard-to-test is a design finding, not a test finding, and rewriting the tests
+around it hides the thing worth knowing.
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: trainer
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Two-phase brain curation (score candidates, write past quality gate)"
+use_when: "Periodic brain pruning and curation"
 description: Two-phase brain curation — scan session logs to score candidate learnings (READ), then write the ones that pass the quality gate as generalized knowledge entries (WRITE). Use periodically to keep the brain useful, not noisy.
 ---

@@ -228,10 +231,10 @@ Pass-rate is computed downstream by the `/pass-rate` HTTP endpoint, which
 treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.

 **At end of `read` phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "trainer", phase: "read", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "trainer", phase: "read", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **At end of `write` phase:**
- `session_log` with `{skill: "trainer", phase: "write", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root: "<absolute path>"}`
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "trainer", phase: "write", final_status: "pass" | "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root: "<absolute path>"}`

 **Phases for this skill:** read, write

@@ -240,11 +243,7 @@ treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.
 - `fail` — the phase's intended outcome was NOT reached.
 - `skip` — phase was skipped intentionally (e.g. no candidates passed the gate, write skipped).

-**Why this matters:** the routing pod (Plan 6) reads pass-rate to decide whether to route a future call to a local model. If your skill never logs, the routing pod sees no data.
-
-## Mode 2 Routing Note
-
-Trainer is the same shape as `session-retrospective` — long-context reading, mechanical filtering — and is a Mode 2 routing candidate. Until Plan 6, treat as Mode 1 only.
+**Why this matters:** pass-rate is what a future routing decision would be based on — whether a given call can be served by a local model instead of a cloud one. A skill that never logs contributes no evidence either way.

 ## Cross-References

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: user-stories
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Elephant Carpaccio story slicing"
+use_when: "Breaking down features"
 description: Decompose problems into thin, deliverable user stories using Elephant Carpaccio and INVEST criteria. Use after problem analysis, before planning and implementation.
 ---

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: web-shot
+surfaces: [claude-code, library]
+summary: "Screenshot a running web UI via a koala k3s Playwright job"
+use_when: "Visual verification of a running UI when no local browser exists"
 description: Screenshot any running web UI by spawning a one-shot Playwright Job on the koala k3s cluster. Auto-detects the calling host's Tailscale name so a dev server on flamingo:8099, iguana:3000 or koala:8181 just works. Use when the user asks for a screenshot, visual verification, "what does the UI look like", or any time chromium / firefox / a browser is requested but none is installed on the host.
 ---

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# Tests for bin/check-escalation.
+#
+# #5 asked whether SKILL.md needs first-class failure/escalation fields and
+# decided: not frontmatter (nothing reads it), a body section (the model reads
+# that). #37 then had to define WHICH skills need one, and every obvious answer
+# was bad — a hardcoded list rots, content sniffing is unfalsifiable, a
+# frontmatter flag is the rejected option through the back door.
+#
+# So there is no acting set. EVERY skill answers the question; a read-only one
+# answers it in a line. The classification problem disappears, and "this skill
+# never hands back" becomes a stated claim rather than an absence.
+#
+# bin/escalation-pending.txt is a ratchet for skills whose real rule has not
+# been written yet. It is self-cleaning: a skill that has a section AND is still
+# listed fails, so the list cannot silently outlive its reason.
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)
+SUT="$ROOT/bin/check-escalation"
+
+pass=0
+fail=0
+WORK=${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/check_escalation_test.$$
+
+if [ ! -f "$SUT" ]; then
+  printf 'FAIL: %s does not exist\n' "$SUT"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+cleanup() { rm -rf "$WORK"; }
+trap cleanup EXIT INT TERM
+
+# fixture <name> — an empty checkout with a bin/ for the pending list.
+fixture() {
+  _f="$WORK/$1"
+  mkdir -p "$_f/skills" "$_f/bin"
+  : > "$_f/bin/escalation-pending.txt"
+  printf '%s' "$_f"
+}
+
+# skill <root> <name> <has-section>
+skill() {
+  mkdir -p "$1/skills/$2"
+  {
+    printf -- '---\nname: %s\ndescription: d\n---\n\n# %s\n' "$2" "$2"
+    [ "$3" = yes ] && printf '\n## Escalation\n\nStop and hand back when X. Hand back by: saying so.\n'
+  } > "$1/skills/$2/SKILL.md"
+}
+
+# expect <rc> <label> <fixture> [needle]
+expect() {
+  _want=$1; _label=$2; _fx=$3; _needle=${4:-}
+  _out=$(sh "$SUT" "$_fx" 2>&1); _rc=$?
+  if [ "$_rc" -ne "$_want" ]; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (want rc=%s got %s)\n%s\n' "$_label" "$_want" "$_rc" "$_out"; return
+  fi
+  if [ -n "$_needle" ] && ! printf '%s' "$_out" | grep -q "$_needle"; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (rc ok, report never says %s)\n%s\n' "$_label" "$_needle" "$_out"; return
+  fi
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   %s\n' "$_label"
+}
+
+f=$(fixture ok); skill "$f" alpha yes
+expect 0 'a skill with an Escalation section passes' "$f"
+
+f=$(fixture missing); skill "$f" alpha no
+expect 1 'a skill with no section fails, naming it' "$f" 'alpha'
+
+f=$(fixture pending); skill "$f" alpha no; printf 'alpha\n' > "$f/bin/escalation-pending.txt"
+expect 0 'a listed skill is allowed through the ratchet' "$f"
+
+f=$(fixture done); skill "$f" alpha yes; printf 'alpha\n' > "$f/bin/escalation-pending.txt"
+expect 1 'a listed skill that now HAS a section fails — remove it from the list' "$f" 'escalation-pending'
+
+f=$(fixture stale); skill "$f" alpha yes; printf 'ghost\n' > "$f/bin/escalation-pending.txt"
+expect 1 'a listed skill that does not exist fails' "$f" 'ghost'
+
+f=$(fixture comments); skill "$f" alpha no
+printf '# a comment, and a blank line follow\n\nalpha\n' > "$f/bin/escalation-pending.txt"
+expect 0 'comments and blank lines in the list are ignored' "$f"
+
+printf '\ncheck_escalation: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
+[ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/sh
-# Tests for bin/check-index.
-#
-# The regression these exist for: SKILLS_INDEX.md is maintained by hand, and
-# two skills (`dream`, `experiment-spec`) shipped without a row — the index
-# rows lived on feature branches that were squash-merged after a directory
-# reorg, so the SKILL.md landed and the row did not (#15, #22). Nothing
-# errored; the index just quietly under-reported the library.
-
-set -u
-
-ROOT=$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)
-SUT="$ROOT/bin/check-index"
-
-pass=0
-fail=0
-WORK=${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/check_index_test.$$
-
-if [ ! -f "$SUT" ]; then
-  printf 'FAIL: %s does not exist\n' "$SUT"
-  exit 1
-fi
-
-cleanup() { rm -rf "$WORK"; }
-trap cleanup EXIT INT TERM
-
-# new_fixture <name> — a checkout with skills/alpha and skills/beta.
-new_fixture() {
-  _f="$WORK/$1"
-  mkdir -p "$_f/skills/alpha" "$_f/skills/beta"
-  printf -- '---\nname: alpha\ndescription: a\n---\n' > "$_f/skills/alpha/SKILL.md"
-  printf -- '---\nname: beta\ndescription: b\n---\n' > "$_f/skills/beta/SKILL.md"
-  printf '%s' "$_f"
-}
-
-index() {
-  _dir=$1; shift
-  printf '# Engineering Skills Index\n\n| Skill | Description | Use when |\n|---|---|---|\n' > "$_dir/SKILLS_INDEX.md"
-  for _n in "$@"; do
-    printf '| `%s` | desc | when |\n' "$_n" >> "$_dir/SKILLS_INDEX.md"
-  done
-}
-
-# expect <0|1> <label> <fixture> [grep-for]
-expect() {
-  _want=$1; _label=$2; _fx=$3; _needle=${4:-}
-  _out=$(sh "$SUT" "$_fx" 2>&1); _rc=$?
-  if [ "$_rc" -ne "$_want" ]; then
-    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (want rc=%s got %s)\n%s\n' "$_label" "$_want" "$_rc" "$_out"; return
-  fi
-  if [ -n "$_needle" ] && ! printf '%s' "$_out" | grep -q "$_needle"; then
-    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (rc ok, but report never names %s)\n%s\n' "$_label" "$_needle" "$_out"; return
-  fi
-  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   %s\n' "$_label"
-}
-
-fx=$(new_fixture complete); index "$fx" alpha beta
-expect 0 'every skill has a row' "$fx"
-
-fx=$(new_fixture missing); index "$fx" alpha
-expect 1 'a skill with no row is reported' "$fx" beta
-
-fx=$(new_fixture stale); index "$fx" alpha beta gamma
-expect 1 'a row for a skill that does not exist is reported' "$fx" gamma
-
-fx=$(new_fixture noindex)
-expect 1 'a missing index is reported' "$fx" SKILLS_INDEX.md
-
-printf '\ncheck_index: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
-[ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# Tests for bin/check-session-log.
+#
+# The regression: nine skills documented a session_log payload and not one of
+# them named `session_id` — the tool's ONLY required field. Every documented
+# call was incomplete, so an agent following any of them either failed the call
+# or invented an id, and invented ids do not group. Found by a pressure test
+# against `debug`, then found to be fleet-wide (#36).
+#
+# Also gated: `duration_ms: <wall-clock>`, which an agent cannot measure. A
+# documented field nobody can honestly populate gets fabricated or silently
+# dropped; both are worse than omitting it.
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)
+SUT="$ROOT/bin/check-session-log"
+
+pass=0
+fail=0
+WORK=${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/check_session_log_test.$$
+
+if [ ! -f "$SUT" ]; then
+  printf 'FAIL: %s does not exist\n' "$SUT"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+cleanup() { rm -rf "$WORK"; }
+trap cleanup EXIT INT TERM
+
+# fixture <name> <body> — a checkout with one skill whose SKILL.md is <body>.
+fixture() {
+  _f="$WORK/$1"
+  mkdir -p "$_f/skills/alpha"
+  printf -- '---\nname: alpha\ndescription: a\n---\n\n%s\n' "$2" > "$_f/skills/alpha/SKILL.md"
+  printf '%s' "$_f"
+}
+
+# expect <rc> <label> <fixture> [needle]
+expect() {
+  _want=$1; _label=$2; _fx=$3; _needle=${4:-}
+  _out=$(sh "$SUT" "$_fx" 2>&1); _rc=$?
+  if [ "$_rc" -ne "$_want" ]; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (want rc=%s got %s)\n%s\n' "$_label" "$_want" "$_rc" "$_out"; return
+  fi
+  if [ -n "$_needle" ] && ! printf '%s' "$_out" | grep -q "$_needle"; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (rc ok, report never says %s)\n%s\n' "$_label" "$_needle" "$_out"; return
+  fi
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   %s\n' "$_label"
+}
+
+expect 0 'a skill that never mentions session_log is fine' \
+  "$(fixture quiet 'Just a skill. No logging here.')"
+
+expect 0 'a documented call naming session_id passes' \
+  "$(fixture good 'Call `session_log` with `{session_id: "<id>", skill: "alpha", phase: "red", final_status: "pass"}`')"
+
+expect 1 'a documented call omitting session_id fails' \
+  "$(fixture bad 'Call `session_log` with `{skill: "alpha", phase: "red", final_status: "pass"}`')" \
+  'session_id'
+
+expect 1 'documenting duration_ms as wall-clock fails' \
+  "$(fixture clock 'Call `session_log` with `{session_id: "<id>", skill: "alpha", duration_ms: <wall-clock>}`')" \
+  'duration_ms'
+
+printf '\ncheck_session_log: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
+[ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# Tests for bin/check-surfaces.
+#
+# The repo ships to three surfaces — the Claude Code plugin, the symlinked
+# library (Crush/Pi/OpenCode) and claude.ai, which has no fetch path at all —
+# and used to treat every skill as belonging to all of them. gitea-ci,
+# playwright and web-shot cannot fire in a chat surface; a flat mirror installs
+# skills that can never trigger and degrades selection for the ones that can
+# (#29).
+#
+# The risk this gate exists for: a wrong `surfaces:` value silently removes a
+# skill from a harness rather than erroring. So presence is not enough — values
+# are validated against the allowed set.
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)
+SUT="$ROOT/bin/check-surfaces"
+
+pass=0
+fail=0
+WORK=${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/check_surfaces_test.$$
+
+if [ ! -f "$SUT" ]; then
+  printf 'FAIL: %s does not exist\n' "$SUT"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+cleanup() { rm -rf "$WORK"; }
+trap cleanup EXIT INT TERM
+
+# fixture <name> <surfaces-line-or-empty> — a checkout holding one skill.
+fixture() {
+  _f="$WORK/$1"
+  mkdir -p "$_f/skills/alpha"
+  if [ -n "$2" ]; then
+    printf -- '---\nname: alpha\n%s\ndescription: a\n---\n' "$2" > "$_f/skills/alpha/SKILL.md"
+  else
+    printf -- '---\nname: alpha\ndescription: a\n---\n' > "$_f/skills/alpha/SKILL.md"
+  fi
+  printf '%s' "$_f"
+}
+
+# expect <rc> <label> <fixture> [needle]
+expect() {
+  _want=$1; _label=$2; _fx=$3; _needle=${4:-}
+  _out=$(sh "$SUT" "$_fx" 2>&1); _rc=$?
+  if [ "$_rc" -ne "$_want" ]; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (want rc=%s got %s)\n%s\n' "$_label" "$_want" "$_rc" "$_out"; return
+  fi
+  if [ -n "$_needle" ] && ! printf '%s' "$_out" | grep -q "$_needle"; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (rc ok, report never says %s)\n%s\n' "$_label" "$_needle" "$_out"; return
+  fi
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   %s\n' "$_label"
+}
+
+expect 0 'the default pair is accepted'        "$(fixture ok 'surfaces: [claude-code, library]')"
+expect 0 'all three surfaces are accepted'     "$(fixture three 'surfaces: [claude-code, library, chat]')"
+expect 0 'a single surface is accepted'        "$(fixture one 'surfaces: [chat]')"
+expect 1 'a missing surfaces field fails'      "$(fixture missing '')" 'alpha'
+expect 1 'an unknown surface value fails'      "$(fixture bogus 'surfaces: [claude-code, desktop]')" 'desktop'
+expect 1 'an empty surfaces list fails'        "$(fixture empty 'surfaces: []')" 'alpha'
+
+printf '\ncheck_surfaces: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
+[ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -127,6 +127,13 @@ f=$(new_fixture missing); wire_clean "$f"
 rm -f "$f/home/.agents/skills/beta"
 assert_fails "$f" 'beta' 'a checkout skill with no link is reported'

+# ...but only for skills that ship to the library. A chat-only skill has no
+# business in a Crush directory, so its absence is correct, not drift (#29).
+f=$(new_fixture chatonly); wire_clean "$f"
+mkdir -p "$f/ck/skills/gamma"
+printf -- '---\nname: gamma\nsurfaces: [chat]\ndescription: g\n---\n' > "$f/ck/skills/gamma/SKILL.md"
+assert_clean "$f" 'a chat-only skill needs no library link'
+
 # --- 5. stray entry (the loose secret-hygiene.md that loaded nowhere) --------
 f=$(new_fixture stray); wire_clean "$f"
 printf 'orphan\n' > "$f/ck/skills/loose-note.md"
@@ -217,5 +224,72 @@ manifest "$f/ck" 0.7.0
 manifest "$f/home/.claude/plugins/marketplaces/mathias" 0.9.0
 assert_fails "$f" '0.9.0' 'a newer marketplace clone is reported'

+# --- 9. --online: the release this host has never fetched ------------------
+# Everything above compares copies already on the host, so a host where the
+# checkout, the marketplace clone and the installed plugin all agree reads as
+# clean while being a release behind origin. Offline by design (#30); this is
+# the opt-in that closes it (#38).
+#
+# The remote lookup is stubbed through $DOCTOR_LATEST_TAG_CMD so no test needs
+# a network or a real remote.
+
+online_fixture() {
+  _f=$(new_fixture "$1"); wire_clean "$_f"
+  installed_state "$_f" "$2"
+  manifest "$_f/ck" "$2"
+  printf '%s' "$_f"
+}
+
+# assert_online <fixture> <stub-tag> <want-rc> <needle> <label>
+assert_online() {
+  _out=$(HOME="$1/home" DOCTOR_CHECKOUT="$1/ck" \
+         DOCTOR_LATEST_TAG_CMD="printf %s\\n $2" sh "$DOCTOR" --online 2>&1); _rc=$?
+  if [ "$3" -eq 0 ] && [ "$_rc" -ne 0 ]; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s\n       exited %s on a current host\n       got: %s\n' "$5" "$_rc" "$_out"; return
+  fi
+  if [ "$3" -ne 0 ] && [ "$_rc" -eq 0 ]; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s\n       exited 0; staleness went unreported\n' "$5"; return
+  fi
+  if [ -n "$4" ] && ! printf '%s' "$_out" | grep -q -- "$4"; then
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s\n       report never mentions "%s"\n       got: %s\n' "$5" "$4" "$_out"; return
+  fi
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   %s\n' "$5"
+}
+
+f=$(online_fixture behind 0.8.0)
+assert_online "$f" v0.9.0 1 '0.9.0' '--online reports a release the host has not fetched'
+
+f=$(online_fixture current 0.9.0)
+assert_online "$f" v0.9.0 0 '' '--online stays quiet when the host is current'
+
+# A host AHEAD of the newest tag is the normal state between a release commit
+# and its tag; that is not drift (same reasoning as check's ordering rule).
+f=$(online_fixture ahead 0.9.1)
+assert_online "$f" v0.9.0 0 '' '--online does not complain about being ahead'
+
+# Without the flag, no lookup happens at all — the stub would report a newer
+# tag and must be ignored.
+f=$(online_fixture offline 0.8.0)
+_out=$(HOME="$f/home" DOCTOR_CHECKOUT="$f/ck" \
+       DOCTOR_LATEST_TAG_CMD="printf v9.9.9\\n" sh "$DOCTOR" 2>&1); _rc=$?
+if [ "$_rc" -eq 0 ]; then
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   the default run performs no remote lookup\n'
+else
+  fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL the default run performs no remote lookup\n       got: %s\n' "$_out"
+fi
+
+# A remote that cannot be reached is not drift and must not be reported as it.
+# An unreachable remote produces no output at all, so it gets its own run
+# rather than an empty stub argument — "prints nothing" and "prints an empty
+# string" are different things and only the first is the case under test.
+f=$(online_fixture unreachable 0.9.0)
+_out=$(HOME="$f/home" DOCTOR_CHECKOUT="$f/ck" \
+       DOCTOR_LATEST_TAG_CMD="true" sh "$DOCTOR" --online 2>&1); _rc=$?
+if [ "$_rc" -ne 0 ] && printf '%s' "$_out" | grep -q 'could not'; then
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   --online reports an unreachable remote as its own fault\n'
+else
+  fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL --online reports an unreachable remote as its own fault\n       rc=%s got: %s\n' "$_rc" "$_out"
+fi
+
 printf '\ndoctor: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
 [ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# Tests for bin/generate-index.
+#
+# SKILLS_INDEX.md was maintained by hand and drifted: two skills shipped with
+# no row at all (#15), because their rows lived on branches squash-merged after
+# a directory reorg. A gate caught drift after the fact; generating the table
+# from frontmatter removes the class entirely (#29) — the curated summary and
+# trigger now live next to the skill they describe, which is the same argument
+# that made a hand-maintained index the wrong shape.
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)
+SUT="$ROOT/bin/generate-index"
+
+pass=0
+fail=0
+WORK=${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/generate_index_test.$$
+
+if [ ! -f "$SUT" ]; then
+  printf 'FAIL: %s does not exist\n' "$SUT"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+cleanup() { rm -rf "$WORK"; }
+trap cleanup EXIT INT TERM
+
+ok() { pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   %s\n' "$1"; }
+no() { fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s\n%s\n' "$1" "${2:-}"; }
+
+# skill <root> <name> <surfaces> [summary] [use_when]
+skill() {
+  mkdir -p "$1/skills/$2"
+  {
+    printf -- '---\nname: %s\nsurfaces: %s\n' "$2" "$3"
+    [ $# -lt 4 ] || printf 'summary: "%s"\n' "$4"
+    [ $# -lt 5 ] || printf 'use_when: "%s"\n' "$5"
+    printf -- 'description: d\n---\n'
+  } > "$1/skills/$2/SKILL.md"
+}
+
+# fixture <name> — a root with an index carrying the generated-table markers.
+fixture() {
+  _f="$WORK/$1"
+  mkdir -p "$_f"
+  cat > "$_f/SKILLS_INDEX.md" <<'IDX'
+# Engineering Skills Index
+
+<!-- BEGIN skills-table -->
+<!-- END skills-table -->
+
+## Wiring
+prose that must survive regeneration
+IDX
+  printf '%s' "$_f"
+}
+
+f=$(fixture basic)
+skill "$f" beta '[claude-code, library]' 'B summary' 'when B'
+skill "$f" alpha '[chat]' 'A summary' 'when A'
+out=$(sh "$SUT" "$f" 2>&1); rc=$?
+if [ "$rc" -ne 0 ]; then
+  no 'generates a table' "$out"
+elif ! grep -q '^| `alpha` | A summary | when A |' "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md"; then
+  no 'generates a table' "$(cat "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md")"
+elif ! grep -q 'prose that must survive regeneration' "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md"; then
+  no 'content outside the markers survives' "$(cat "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md")"
+elif [ "$(grep -n '`alpha`' "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md" | cut -d: -f1)" -gt "$(grep -n '`beta`' "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md" | cut -d: -f1)" ]; then
+  no 'rows are sorted' "$(cat "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md")"
+else
+  ok 'generates a sorted table and leaves the rest of the file alone'
+fi
+
+# The surfaces a skill ships to are the point of #29, so they are visible.
+grep -q 'chat' "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md" \
+  && ok 'the row names the surfaces' \
+  || no 'the row names the surfaces' "$(cat "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md")"
+
+# Idempotent: a second run changes nothing.
+before=$(cat "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md")
+sh "$SUT" "$f" >/dev/null 2>&1
+[ "$before" = "$(cat "$f/SKILLS_INDEX.md")" ] \
+  && ok 'regeneration is idempotent' \
+  || no 'regeneration is idempotent'
+
+# --check is the CI gate: clean tree passes.
+sh "$SUT" --check "$f" >/dev/null 2>&1 \
+  && ok '--check passes on a generated index' \
+  || no '--check passes on a generated index'
+
+# ...and fails once a skill appears without regenerating.
+skill "$f" gamma '[library]' 'G summary' 'when G'
+if sh "$SUT" --check "$f" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
+  no '--check fails on a stale index'
+else
+  ok '--check fails on a stale index'
+fi
+
+# A skill with no curated summary is an error, not an empty cell: the table
+# cell is what a reader scans, and a blank one is worse than a missing row.
+f=$(fixture nosummary)
+skill "$f" alpha '[library]'
+out=$(sh "$SUT" "$f" 2>&1); rc=$?
+if [ "$rc" -eq 0 ]; then
+  no 'a missing summary is an error' "$out"
+elif ! printf '%s' "$out" | grep -q alpha; then
+  no 'a missing summary is an error' "$out"
+else
+  ok 'a missing summary is an error naming the skill'
+fi
+
+printf '\ngenerate_index: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
+[ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -156,5 +156,32 @@ else
  no 'configured sources are recorded for doctor' "$out"
 fi

+# --- 8. surfaces: the library link set is not "every skill" -----------------
+# claude.ai has no shell, no cluster and no checkout, so a chat-only skill
+# linked into Crush is a skill that can never fire, competing for selection
+# with ones that can (#29).
+f=$(new_fixture surfaces)
+mkdir -p "$f/ck/skills/chatonly"
+printf -- '---\nname: chatonly\nsurfaces: [chat]\ndescription: c\n---\n' > "$f/ck/skills/chatonly/SKILL.md"
+printf -- '---\nname: alpha\nsurfaces: [claude-code, library]\ndescription: a\n---\n' > "$f/ck/skills/alpha/SKILL.md"
+out=$(run_install "$f")
+if [ -L "$f/home/.agents/skills/alpha" ] && [ ! -e "$f/home/.agents/skills/chatonly" ]; then
+  ok 'a skill that does not ship to the library is not linked'
+else
+  no 'a skill that does not ship to the library is not linked' "$out"
+fi
+
+# A foreign source has no reason to know this convention, so no declaration
+# means "link it" — otherwise adding Anthropic's set would link nothing.
+f=$(new_fixture foreign)
+mkdir -p "$f/other/xlsx"
+printf -- '---\nname: xlsx\ndescription: x\n---\n' > "$f/other/xlsx/SKILL.md"
+out=$(run_install "$f" "$f/other")
+if [ -L "$f/home/.agents/skills/xlsx" ]; then
+  ok 'a source with no surfaces convention is linked as-is'
+else
+  no 'a source with no surfaces convention is linked as-is' "$out"
+fi
+
 printf '\ninstall: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
 [ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# Tests for skills/lineage/lineage.sh — the decision-archaeology helper.
+#
+# The techniques this automates are the ones people skip because they are
+# fiddly to type: `git log -S` to find when a thing was introduced AND removed,
+# --diff-filter=D to find files that once existed, and grepping decision records
+# for the term. A skill that only *describes* those is a skill that gets read and
+# not run (#11, #19's "small robust tools over prose").
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)
+SUT="$ROOT/skills/lineage/lineage.sh"
+
+pass=0
+fail=0
+WORK=${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/lineage_test.$$
+
+if [ ! -f "$SUT" ]; then
+  printf 'FAIL: %s does not exist\n' "$SUT"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+cleanup() { rm -rf "$WORK"; }
+trap cleanup EXIT INT TERM
+
+# A repo where a thing was built, written about, and then removed.
+mkdir -p "$WORK/repo/docs/adr"
+cd "$WORK/repo" || exit 1
+git init -q .
+git config user.email t@example.com
+git config user.name test
+
+printf 'func WidgetCache() {}\n' > cache.go
+git add -A && git commit -qm "feat: add WidgetCache for lookup speed"
+
+printf -- '---\nadr: 0001\ntitle: use a WidgetCache\n---\nWe chose WidgetCache over a database index.\n' > docs/adr/0001-widgetcache.md
+git add -A && git commit -qm "docs: record the WidgetCache decision"
+
+git rm -q cache.go
+git commit -qm "revert: drop WidgetCache, it went stale under concurrent writes"
+
+cd - >/dev/null || exit 1
+out=$(sh "$SUT" WidgetCache "$WORK/repo" 2>&1)
+
+check() {
+  if printf '%s' "$out" | grep -q "$1"; then
+    pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   %s\n' "$2"
+  else
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s\n       output had no %s\n%s\n' "$2" "$1" "$out"
+  fi
+}
+
+check 'add WidgetCache'            'finds the commit that introduced it'
+check 'drop WidgetCache'           'finds the commit that removed it — the revival question'
+check '0001-widgetcache.md'        'finds the decision record naming it'
+check 'cache.go'                   'names the file that no longer exists'
+
+# A no-match must NOT be reported as evidence the idea is new. The first version
+# of this tool said "it means this is new here" and a pressure test caught it
+# asserting exactly that about the most-discussed removed feature in this repo —
+# the search term simply had a space in it. That is the inference the skill's own
+# anti-pattern table forbids, printed in the tool's voice.
+out=$(sh "$SUT" NeverExisted "$WORK/repo" 2>&1)
+if printf '%s' "$out" | grep -q 'NOT evidence the idea is new' \
+   && printf '%s' "$out" | grep -qi 'identifier'; then
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   a no-match refuses to imply novelty and suggests other terms\n'
+else
+  fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL a no-match refuses to imply novelty and suggests other terms\n%s\n' "$out"
+fi
+
+# The repo actually searched is always stated — a confident null against the
+# wrong tree is this tool's worst failure mode, and the default is the cwd.
+out=$(sh "$SUT" WidgetCache "$WORK/repo" 2>&1)
+if printf '%s' "$out" | grep -q "searching: "; then
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   names the repo it searched\n'
+else
+  fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL names the repo it searched\n%s\n' "$out"
+fi
+
+# The sources it cannot reach are named every run, so their absence never reads
+# as a null result.
+if printf '%s' "$out" | grep -q 'brain_query' && printf '%s' "$out" | grep -qi 'closed issues'; then
+  pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   names the sources it cannot search\n'
+else
+  fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL names the sources it cannot search\n%s\n' "$out"
+fi
+
+printf '\nlineage: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
+[ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# Tests for bin/newer-version.
+#
+# Extracted from bin/doctor (#30) once `task check` needed the same comparison
+# (#34): check asserted plugin.json == latest tag, which is red on any checkout
+# that has not fetched the tag the CI tagger just pushed. The assertion it
+# actually wants is "not behind", and ordering needs a real comparison.
+
+set -u
+
+ROOT=$(CDPATH= cd -- "$(dirname -- "$0")/.." && pwd)
+SUT="$ROOT/bin/newer-version"
+
+pass=0
+fail=0
+
+if [ ! -f "$SUT" ]; then
+  printf 'FAIL: %s does not exist\n' "$SUT"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+# expect <winner> <a> <b> <label>
+expect() {
+  _got=$(sh "$SUT" "$2" "$3")
+  if [ "$_got" = "$1" ]; then
+    pass=$((pass + 1)); printf '  ok   %s\n' "$4"
+  else
+    fail=$((fail + 1)); printf '  FAIL %s (newer-version %s %s -> %s, want %s)\n' "$4" "$2" "$3" "$_got" "$1"
+  fi
+}
+
+expect 0.9.0  0.9.0  0.8.5  'higher minor wins, left'
+expect 0.9.0  0.8.5  0.9.0  'higher minor wins, right'
+expect 0.8.10 0.8.10 0.8.9  'numeric compare, not lexical — 10 beats 9'
+expect 1.0.0  1.0.0  0.99.99 'major dominates'
+expect 0.8.5  0.8.5  0.8.5  'equal returns the value'
+expect 0.9.1  0.9.1  0.9    'a missing component counts as zero'
+expect 0.9    0.9    0.9.0  'equal with a missing component returns the left, per contract'
+
+printf '\nnewer_version: %d passed, %d failed\n' "$pass" "$fail"
+[ "$fail" -eq 0 ]