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
54 changed files with 1951 additions and 119 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": "0.11.0",
+  "version": "0.16.0",
  "author": {
    "name": "Mathias",
    "url": "https://git.d-ma.be/mathias"
@@ -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
+Reports dangling links, links into a source nobody configured, skills in the
-mismatches, stray entries, and leftover per-skill Claude symlinks. Non-zero
+checkout with no link, stray entries, leftover per-skill Claude symlinks, and a
-exit on drift. It also runs at session start via the plugin, so a drifting
+Claude Code plugin sitting on an older generation than the host already has.
-host says so rather than waiting to be discovered.
+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>/`.
+1. Add a directory `skills/<short-kebab-name>/`.
-2. Create `<short-kebab-name>/SKILL.md` — start with one-paragraph
+2. Create `skills/<short-kebab-name>/SKILL.md` with this frontmatter — all four
-   purpose, then triggers ("use when …"), then mechanics.
+   keys are gated by `task check`, and the index table is generated from the
-3. Add a row to `SKILLS_INDEX.md` (description + use-when).
+   last three:
-4. Commit directly to `main`. Conventional-commit prefix
+
   ```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. |
@@ -9,18 +9,20 @@ 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 | 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 |
@@ -110,7 +110,16 @@ tasks:
        #    harness instead of erroring.
        sh '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/check-surfaces' '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}' || fail=1
-        # 5. Plugin manifest version must match the latest tag, or installers
+        # 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)
@@ -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 $fail
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
 #!/bin/sh
 # check-session-log — a skill that documents a session_log call must document a
 # call the tool would actually accept.
 #
 # Nine skills documented the payload and none named `session_id`, which is the
 # tool's only REQUIRED field. An agent following any of them either failed the
 # call or invented an id — and invented ids do not group, so the pass-rate the
 # endpoint computes was being assembled from entries that could not be joined
 # (#36, found by a pressure test against `debug`).
 #
 # Also rejected: `duration_ms: <wall-clock>`. An agent does not observe a clock.
 # A documented field nobody can honestly populate gets fabricated or silently
 # dropped, and fabricated numbers in a metrics stream are worse than no numbers.
 #
 # Usage: check-session-log [checkout-root]
 set -u
 ROOT=${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 $fail
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 #   doctor            human report, non-zero exit on drift
 #   doctor --quiet    print only when something is wrong (SessionStart hook)
 #   doctor --json     machine-readable findings
 #   doctor --online   ALSO ask origin for the latest tag (one network call)
 #
 # POSIX sh on purpose: it runs on macOS and Linux, before any toolchain is
 # guaranteed present, and inside a session-start hook where latency shows.
@@ -21,10 +22,12 @@ set -u
 QUIET=0
 JSON=0
 ONLINE=0
 for arg in "$@"; do
  case "$arg" in
    --quiet)  QUIET=1 ;;
    --json)   JSON=1 ;;
    --online) ONLINE=1 ;;
    -h|--help)
      sed -n '2,20p' "$0" | sed 's/^# \{0,1\}//'
      exit 0 ;;
@@ -288,6 +291,42 @@ if [ -n "$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 +1,204 @@
 ---
 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.
@@ -234,8 +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" |
+- `session_log` with `{session_id: "<this session's id>", skill: "cad-babysit", phase: "<phase-name>", final_status: "pass" |
-  "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", duration_ms: <wall-clock>, project_root:
+  "fail" | "skip", message: "<one-line summary>", project_root:
  "<absolute path>"}`
 **Phases for this skill:** query, read-comments, read-actions-logs, classify-fault-vs-outcome,
@@ -247,12 +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
@@ -264,3 +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.
@@ -281,5 +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
@@ -253,7 +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
@@ -262,7 +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
@@ -279,11 +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
@@ -347,3 +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.
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: debug
 surfaces: [claude-code, library]
 summary: "Hypothesis-first debugging discipline"
-use_when: "Any test failure or bug whose cause is not immediately obvious"
+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. Generate 3-5 ranked hypotheses with verification steps before suggesting any fix. Use when encountering a bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior.
+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
@@ -12,7 +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
@@ -25,6 +25,27 @@ 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.
@@ -36,8 +57,9 @@ Debugging is hypothesis generation, not fix generation. The first instinct — "
 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 of that narrows the search
+whether config and environment actually propagated. One run *that reproduces the failure* narrows the search to a
-to a single component.
+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.
@@ -53,6 +75,10 @@ than fixes that partially worked.) Each one has been narrowing a window rather t
 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
@@ -76,18 +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>
+HYPOTHESIS 1: <mechanism in one sentence>
-VERIFY: <exact command or file:line to inspect>
+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>
@@ -109,15 +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
@@ -131,6 +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. |
@@ -139,7 +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.
@@ -154,20 +192,21 @@ 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.
+**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.
 ## 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.
 ## Cross-References
@@ -183,6 +222,18 @@ Techniques kept in `debug/references/`, inherited from the deleted
 - `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.
+  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.
@@ -152,3 +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.
@@ -185,7 +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
@@ -245,7 +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
@@ -254,11 +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.
+**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.
 ## 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.
 ## Cross-References
@@ -148,3 +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'
@@ -116,7 +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
@@ -125,11 +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.
+**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.
 ## 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.
 ## Cross-References
@@ -258,5 +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
@@ -332,7 +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
@@ -341,7 +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
@@ -151,3 +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.
@@ -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.
@@ -68,13 +68,30 @@ Each agent gets:
 ### 3. Dispatch in Parallel
-```typescript
+Issue every dispatch in **one** message — several `Agent` tool uses in a single
-// In Claude Code / AI environment
+assistant turn run concurrently; one per turn runs them in series.
-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
 ```
 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
@@ -14,14 +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
@@ -54,7 +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
@@ -63,7 +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**
@@ -84,11 +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:
+IF conflicts with the operator's prior decisions:
-  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+  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
@@ -100,7 +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
@@ -123,13 +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"
@@ -200,7 +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."
 ```
@@ -36,7 +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,
@@ -14,7 +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.
@@ -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 |
+| `Agent 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 |
+| `Agent 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 |
+| `Agent 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 |
+| `Agent 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 (general-purpose)` with inline prompt | `@generalist` with your inline prompt |
 ### Prompt filling
@@ -111,7 +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
@@ -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.
@@ -246,7 +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"]
@@ -318,7 +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
@@ -100,13 +100,21 @@ go test -run TestRetryOperation_RetriesThreeTimes ./...
 ```
 Confirm:
- Test fails (not compilation errors)
+- Test fails, and fails because the feature is missing
- Failure message is expected
+- The failure message is the one you expected
- Fails because feature is missing (not typos)
+- 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
@@ -166,6 +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)
@@ -329,12 +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 ./...`
+- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Race detector clean: `go test -race ./...`
+- [ ] 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
@@ -343,7 +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
@@ -375,20 +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
@@ -398,7 +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.
@@ -82,3 +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.
@@ -309,3 +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.
@@ -231,10 +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
@@ -243,11 +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.
+**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.
 ## 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.
 ## Cross-References
@@ -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 ]
@@ -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"
 [ "$fail" -eq 0 ]
@@ -224,5 +224,72 @@ manifest "$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 +1,90 @@
 #!/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 ]