fix(debug): close the intake gate properly — and the contradiction it exposed

The GREEN run confirmed the gate works: given "builds are flaky again... what's
the fix?" with no run id and no log, it produced zero hypotheses and an ordered
list of artifacts, each justified by what it would discriminate. It also caught
that the retry already shipped in that pipeline is destroying the evidence
needed to diagnose it, which is a better finding than any hypothesis would have
been.

Then it found eight problems, and the first two are mine:

**The template contradicted the rule.** I banned high/medium/low labels in
Step 2 and left them in the Step 3 output template and all three worked-example
hypotheses. "Prose loses to a format block every time" — correct, and the
template is what gets imitated. Labels are gone from both; the slot is now WHY
FIRST, which asks for the evidence that sets the order rather than a restatement
of it.

**The description never mentioned the gate.** That is the text a harness shows
before an agent decides to load anything, and it read "Generate 3-5 ranked
hypotheses" — so an agent routing on the description alone does exactly the
thing this skill was rewritten to prevent. Both description and use_when now
lead with the refusal.

The rest:

- Intake vs the failed-fixes section pointed opposite ways for a report that
  fires both, and nothing stated precedence. Intake wins, and says so: you
  cannot aim hypotheses at a premise you have no evidence about either.
- "One run narrows the search to a single component" was overclaimed exactly
  where it gets used — CI flakiness. One run *that reproduces* narrows it; a
  passing run narrows nothing.
- session_log had no phase for a correct refusal, so an intake stop logged as a
  failed read-failure. A metric that penalises the skill's best behaviour trains
  the next model to guess. Added an `intake` phase.
- The Anti-Patterns table — the part people scan in a hurry — was missing the
  failure this whole rewrite is about: answering "what's the fix?" from a report
  with no artifact.
- brain_query told you to search on an error string you may have just refused to
  proceed without. Now: query symptom + component, which may itself name the
  artifact to ask for.
- condition-based-waiting was an unconditional load on any mention of a timeout,
  including during an intake stop, which is the wrong side of the gate.

Closes #36
Bump-Type: minor

.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -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": "0.13.3",
+  "version": "0.15.0",
   "author": {
     "name": "Mathias",
     "url": "https://git.d-ma.be/mathias"

README.md

@@ -110,10 +110,25 @@ Antigravity and Mistral Vibe targets were removed — unused.
 task doctor      # or bin/doctor
 ```
 
-Reports dangling links, links resolving into a foreign checkout, skill-count
-mismatches, stray entries, and leftover per-skill Claude symlinks. Non-zero
-exit on drift. It also runs at session start via the plugin, so a drifting
-host says so rather than waiting to be discovered.
+Reports dangling links, links into a source nobody configured, skills in the
+checkout with no link, stray entries, leftover per-skill Claude symlinks, and a
+Claude Code plugin sitting on an older generation than the host already has.
+Non-zero exit on drift. It also runs at session start via the plugin, so a
+drifting host says so rather than waiting to be discovered.
+
+All of that compares copies already on the machine — deliberately, since it
+runs in a session hook where latency shows. That leaves one case invisible: a
+host where the checkout, the marketplace clone and the installed plugin all
+agree, and all three are a release behind origin.
+
+```bash
+task doctor -- --online     # or bin/doctor --online
+```
+
+One `git ls-remote` against origin, opt-in. Belongs in a scheduled per-host job,
+not the session hook. An unreachable remote is reported as its own fault rather
+than as staleness — "I could not check" and "you are behind" are different
+answers and only one of them is about the host.
 
 ## Versioning
 

SKILLS_INDEX.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ the SKILL.md, not the table.
 | `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 |

Taskfile.yml

@@ -114,7 +114,12 @@ tasks:
         #    session_id is its only required field, and nine skills omitted it.
         sh '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}/bin/check-session-log' '{{.TASKFILE_DIR}}' || fail=1
 
-        # 6. Plugin manifest version must match the latest tag, or installers
+        # 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)

bin/check-escalation

@@ -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

bin/doctor

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 #   doctor            human report, non-zero exit on drift
 #   doctor --quiet    print only when something is wrong (SessionStart hook)
 #   doctor --json     machine-readable findings
+#   doctor --online   ALSO ask origin for the latest tag (one network call)
 #
 # POSIX sh on purpose: it runs on macOS and Linux, before any toolchain is
 # guaranteed present, and inside a session-start hook where latency shows.
@@ -21,10 +22,12 @@ set -u
 
 QUIET=0
 JSON=0
+ONLINE=0
 for arg in "$@"; do
   case "$arg" in
-    --quiet) QUIET=1 ;;
-    --json)  JSON=1 ;;
+    --quiet)  QUIET=1 ;;
+    --json)   JSON=1 ;;
+    --online) ONLINE=1 ;;
     -h|--help)
       sed -n '2,20p' "$0" | sed 's/^# \{0,1\}//'
       exit 0 ;;
@@ -288,6 +291,42 @@ if [ -n "$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' \

bin/escalation-pending.txt

@@ -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

skills/cad-babysit/SKILL.md

@@ -258,3 +258,13 @@ decide
 - `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.

skills/clean-code/SKILL.md

@@ -284,3 +284,11 @@ During refactoring:
 - `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`.

skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -285,3 +285,12 @@ treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.
 - Load `refactoring` skill when recommending fixes
 - Load `test-design` skill for reviewing test quality
 - Load `solid` skill for SOLID principle violations
+
+## Escalation
+
+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.

skills/cognitive-load/SKILL.md

@@ -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.

skills/debug/SKILL.md

@@ -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"
-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.
+use_when: "Any test failure or bug whose cause is not immediately obvious — or a bug report with no failure text, which this skill refuses rather than guesses at"
+description: Systematic hypothesis-first debugging. Requires the failure itself — error text, stack, run id or log — and names what it needs and stops if the report has none, rather than hypothesising into a vacuum. Given evidence, generates 3-5 ranked, falsifiable hypotheses with verification steps before suggesting any fix. Use when encountering a bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior.
 ---
 
 # Debug
@@ -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
-to a single component.
+whether config and environment actually propagated. One run *that reproduces the failure* narrows the search to a
+single component. On an intermittent fault a passing run narrows nothing, so leave the
+instrumentation in across several runs rather than concluding from one.
 
 This does not suspend Iron Law 2. Still emit 3-5 hypotheses — the boundary spec comes
 first in the output, and each hypothesis says which boundary observation would kill it.
@@ -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>
-VERIFY: <exact command or file:line to inspect>
+HYPOTHESIS 1: <mechanism in one sentence>
+WHY FIRST: <what makes it likeliest — a matching symptom, a recent change, a brain entry>
+VERIFY: <exact command, or the bounded observation that discriminates>
 EXPECTED IF CORRECT: <specific output, value, or condition>
 
-HYPOTHESIS 2 (likelihood: medium): <mechanism>
+HYPOTHESIS 2: <mechanism>
+WHY FIRST: <or why it ranks here rather than first>
 VERIFY: <exact command>
 EXPECTED IF CORRECT: <specific output>
 
@@ -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.
@@ -156,7 +194,12 @@ treats `pass` as success, `fail` as failure, `skip` as neither.
 **At end of each phase:**
 - `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.
@@ -179,6 +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.

skills/discovery-framing/SKILL.md

@@ -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.

skills/grill-me/SKILL.md

@@ -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.

skills/solid/SKILL.md

@@ -261,3 +261,12 @@ Domain types know nothing about HTTP, SQL, or external APIs.
 - `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.

skills/stage-gate-review/SKILL.md

@@ -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.

skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ Before marking work complete:
 - [ ] 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
 
@@ -374,7 +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
 

skills/telos-load/SKILL.md

@@ -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.

skills/test-design/SKILL.md

@@ -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.

tests/check_escalation_test.sh

@@ -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 ]

tests/doctor_test.sh

@@ -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 ]