refactor: drop cross-project spec-validation parser machinery

The fence-label -> parser fact, the specify/grounding-check/planner
parse gates, the parse-trace attestation, and all their cross-references
served a single real user (ailang). Convention over configuration: the
generic machinery is removed plugin-wide; the one consumer carries an
equivalent project-local directive in its own CLAUDE.md.

Archive under docs/plans and docs/specs left intact as time documents.

specify/SKILL.md

@@ -17,8 +17,7 @@ planner consumes: with review, but **without an interview**.
 
 It is the **sole home of the spec-production gates**: the
 feature-acceptance criterion, the write-spec step, the
-parse-every-block self-review, the `grounding-check` hard-gate, and
-the user-review gate. Whichever way design work enters — fresh
+`grounding-check` hard-gate, and the user-review gate. Whichever way design work enters — fresh
 through `brainstorm`'s discovery, or directly from sources that
 already resolve the design — it passes through `specify` to become a
 spec. `specify` carries the universal invariant **no plan without an
@@ -62,7 +61,7 @@ Triggers:
 
 **Skipping a gate is never permitted.** The interview is `brainstorm`'s,
 and its absence here is the whole point — but the *production gates*
-(criterion, parse-every-block, grounding-check, user-review) are
+(criterion, grounding-check, user-review) are
 non-negotiable regardless of how the work entered. "The issue looks
 exhaustive, skip the grounding-check" is the reactive-deference failure
 this skill must not reintroduce.
@@ -73,7 +72,7 @@ this skill must not reintroduce.
 THE SOURCES MUST RESOLVE EVERY LOAD-BEARING DESIGN DECISION BEFORE THE SPEC IS WRITTEN.
 IF WRITING THE SPEC FORCES A CHOICE BETWEEN PLAUSIBLE DESIGNS THE SOURCES DO NOT RESOLVE,
   STOP AND BOUNCE TO brainstorm. DO NOT SILENTLY PICK ONE.
-THE PRODUCTION GATES — ACCEPTANCE CRITERION, PARSE-EVERY-BLOCK, GROUNDING-CHECK, USER-REVIEW —
+THE PRODUCTION GATES — ACCEPTANCE CRITERION, GROUNDING-CHECK, USER-REVIEW —
   ARE NON-NEGOTIABLE REGARDLESS OF ENTRY PATH.
 NO PLAN, SCAFFOLDING, OR DOWNSTREAM SKILL UNTIL THE SPEC IS APPROVED — BY THE USER, OR
   (ONLY UNDER /boss WITH spec_auto_sign ENABLED) BY THE AUTO-SIGN GATE: ALL OBJECTIVE GATES GREEN
@@ -100,8 +99,7 @@ Before producing anything, establish what the sources actually say:
   files the design touches — rather than re-deriving it.
 - If the project has a design ledger (its CLAUDE.md project facts),
   walk to the contracts the work touches. Note any `status:
-  aspirational` source: its code is a target, not verified fact —
-  track it for the Step-4 parse gate.
+  aspirational` source: its code is a target, not verified fact.
 
 ### Step 1.5 — Precondition gate (bounce-back)
 
@@ -203,8 +201,8 @@ surface so no code to show" is the rationalisation to refuse.
 **Code lifted from an aspirational source is a hypothesis, not
 evidence.** If the concrete code here is lifted from a design-models
 file (or any `status: aspirational` source, per Step 1), it carries no
-validation by default. Treat it as the spec's most suspect bytes: it
-must clear the Step-4 parse-every-block gate before PASS.
+validation by default. Treat it as the spec's most suspect bytes: flag
+it as a target, not verified fact.
 
 ### Step 3 — Write the spec
 
@@ -258,15 +256,6 @@ Inline checklist (not a subagent dispatch):
    carry before → after code for every load-bearing change (plus the
    worked user-facing example for a surface cycle)? A load-bearing
    change described only in prose is a self-review failure to fix.
-6. **Parse-every-block gate.** Extract every fenced code block and run
-   it through the spec-validation parsers the project declares in its
-   CLAUDE.md project facts (a fence label with no parser is a documented
-   skip, never a silent pass; a malformed entry fails closed; the whole
-   gate is a no-op when the project declares no parsers). A parse
-   failure is a self-review failure — fix the spec; do not pass
-   unparsed bytes downstream. Paste the parse-trace into the chat: a
-   visible trace attests the gate fired; its absence means it was
-   skipped.
 
 Fix issues inline.
 
@@ -363,8 +352,7 @@ CLAUDE.md project facts):
        fork was silently picked (if one had been, `specify` would have
        bounced, so reaching here is the evidence; do not re-decide it).
      - Step 4 self-review clean, **including the placeholder scan** (no
-       `TBD` / `TODO` / incomplete section) and a pasted parse-trace
-       for every configured-label block.
+       `TBD` / `TODO` / incomplete section).
      - Step 5 `grounding-check` returned **`PASS`** — *not* an
        overridden `BLOCK`. An override needs a human; with no human in
        the loop a `BLOCK` can never be overridden, so any non-`PASS`
@@ -480,9 +468,8 @@ discipline `tdd` applies when behaviour is not test-specifiable.
 | "There's a small open fork but the sources mostly decide it — I'll pick the rest" | "Mostly decided" with one real fork left is an unresolved design, and a guessed design baked into a spec is harder to dislodge than an open question. That is the bounce-back trigger — stop and go to `brainstorm`. |
 | "Genuine doubt whether the sources resolve this — but bouncing feels like overkill" | Doubt about whether the sources resolve a decision *is* the fork signal. It resolves to a bounce, not a guess. The bounce is cheap (nothing is written yet); a wrong guess in a ratified spec is not. |
 | "The shape is clear from the prose, I don't need to paste the code" | If it's clear, pasting it is free; if pasting it is hard, it wasn't clear. The acceptance criterion is unjudgeable without the worked code. |
-| "The block obviously parses — I wrote it carefully" | Careful authoring is not a parse. A spec's code blocks are hypotheses until the live tool accepts them. If a parser is configured for the fence label, run it and paste the trace. |
 | "Just polishing a wording after PASS, no need to re-dispatch" | The grounding-check report attests to specific bytes. A polish edit changes the bytes; the attestation no longer covers them. Re-dispatch is cheap. |
-| "It's in a model doc / the design ledger, so it's canonical" | A `models` / RFC / proposal doc holds aspirational code — a target, not verified fact. Code lifted from a `status: aspirational` source must clear the Step-4 parse gate like any other block. |
+| "It's in a model doc / the design ledger, so it's canonical" | A `models` / RFC / proposal doc holds aspirational code — a target, not verified fact. Flag code lifted from a `status: aspirational` source as such; it is not ratified contract. |
 | "In `/boss` with auto-sign on, this spec looks solid — I'll sign and move on" | Your sense that it looks solid is the exact signal the auto-sign gate refuses to trust. Signing requires all objective gates green AND a unanimous `spec-skeptic` panel. If you find yourself wanting to sign on confidence, that is the cue to run the gate, not to skip it. |
 | "One lens blocked on something minor — I'll sign anyway since the rest passed" | The panel is unanimous-or-nothing by design. You never *sign over* a `BLOCK`. An editorial `BLOCK` you may *repair* (within the ≤ 2-round budget, with a full re-panel after); a design `BLOCK` routes to the human. Neither is overruling a juror — that is the whole point of replacing your eye with five independent ones. |
 
@@ -492,11 +479,8 @@ discipline `tdd` applies when behaviour is not test-specifiable.
 - "The sources are thorough, skip a gate" thoughts (any flavour)
 - A load-bearing change described in prose with no before → after code
   block; a surface cycle with no worked user-facing example
-- A spec carrying a code block whose fence label has a spec-validation
-  parser (the project's CLAUDE.md project facts), committed without a
-  parse-trace in the chat
 - Lifting code verbatim from a `status: aspirational` source without
-  flagging it for the Step-4 parse gate
+  flagging it as a target, not verified fact
 - Editing the spec file after a Step 5 PASS without re-dispatching
 - (auto-sign) About to sign a spec in the user's place on confidence —
   without all objective gates green AND a unanimous `spec-skeptic`