fix(issue,boss): bar tracker entries from carrying the loop's own dispatch

An issue or decision-log entry must state the situation, not the
orchestration loop's next move. "Next step: enter `specify`" — and its
role-periphrasis "hand it off to the spec writer next", which names no
skill — is Claude-Code session control-flow, meaningless to a tracker
reader who is not the loop. A distinct defect class from rule 4
reachability, and not curable by declarative phrasing: the content is
harness-native.

issue rule 1 retitled "No direct address" -> "Impersonal and
tool-neutral". The discriminator is status vs. dispatch, name-independent
(describes the work's condition -> keep; directs who runs what next ->
cut), and rule 1 now also bars first-person loop narration. boss § The
reference issue gains "Record the decision, not the dispatch". Triple-
encoded in both skills (rule/mechanic + table/rationalisation + red-flag).

Future-only; existing entries are not edited.

issue/SKILL.md

@@ -39,11 +39,37 @@ convention they lean on.
 
 These apply to every issue, on create and on edit.
 
-1. **No direct address.** Impersonal, declarative voice. No "you",
-   no imperative aimed at the reader. State the situation, not
-   instructions to a person.
-   - Avoid: "You need to fix the parser because you broke escaping."
-   - Use: "The parser drops backslash escapes in quoted strings."
+1. **Impersonal and tool-neutral.** Declarative voice — no "you", no
+   imperative aimed at the reader, and equally no first-person narration of
+   the loop's own acts ("I'll now run audit", "I'll hand this off next"):
+   an issue is nobody's monologue, neither addressed to a reader nor spoken
+   by the loop. State the situation, not what an actor does about it. The
+   issue is also a durable, tool-agnostic artefact, so it never carries the
+   orchestration loop's own next move — any direction of *what the loop runs
+   next*: most blatantly naming a skill or pipeline step ("enter `specify`",
+   "dispatch `implement`"), but equally a role-periphrasis for the same
+   hand-off that names nothing ("hand it to the spec writer next", "kick off
+   the next pipeline stage"). That is session control-flow, meaningless to a
+   tracker reader — a human months later, a different tool — who is not the
+   loop; rephrasing it in declarative voice does not save it, because the
+   *content* is harness-native.
+   - The discriminator is **status vs. dispatch**, not whether a skill is
+     named. A sentence stating *what is true of the work* — the next
+     **work** itself ("next: a breakout-style trend entry") or a durable
+     readiness **status** ("design settled — ready for spec production";
+     "implementation done — ready for audit", fine even when the phase-noun
+     is also a skill name; "blocked on #N") — is legitimate. A sentence
+     directing *who runs what next* is out **whether or not it names a
+     skill**. Apply it sentence by sentence: does it describe the work's
+     condition (keep) or an actor's next move (cut)? "What's next" otherwise
+     lives in the issue's open/labelled state, not a prose dispatch of the
+     next skill in the body.
+   - Avoid: "You need to fix the parser because you broke escaping." /
+     "Next step: enter `specify` from this comment." / "Ready to hand off to
+     the spec writer next."
+   - Use: "The parser drops backslash escapes in quoted strings." / "The
+     design is settled here — no open load-bearing fork remains; ready for
+     spec production."
 
 2. **Validated or flagged.** Every factual statement is either
    verified — carrying its evidence (command output, log line,
@@ -186,6 +212,7 @@ Notes:
 | Mistake | Why it's bad | Instead |
 |---|---|---|
 | "You should…" / reader-directed imperative | Breaks rule 1, ages badly | State the situation declaratively |
+| Orchestration next-step in title or body — directing who runs what next, whether a skill is named ("enter `specify`", "dispatch `implement`") or periphrased ("hand it to the spec writer next") | Harness session control-flow, invisible to a tracker reader who isn't the loop; declarative phrasing doesn't save it | Drop it — a tool-neutral readiness status ("ready for spec production"); the issue's open/labelled state carries "what's next" |
 | A guess written as fact | Misleads future actors | Flag it: "Claim (unverified): …" |
 | Title as a noun blob ("parser bug") | Not scannable | Imperative verb phrase |
 | `-d` body with a guessed flag (`--body`) | tea rejects it | `--description`/`-d` |
@@ -199,6 +226,11 @@ Notes:
 ## Red flags — STOP
 
 - The word "you" anywhere in title or body
+- An orchestration next-step in title or body — directing who runs what
+  next, whether a skill is named ("enter `specify`", "dispatch
+  `implement`") or periphrased ("hand it to the spec writer next") — in
+  place of a tool-neutral status (a tool-neutral statement of the next
+  *work*, or a readiness status, is not what this flags)
 - A factual statement with neither evidence nor a "claim" flag
 - A title that is a noun phrase or ends with a period
 - A reference with no resolvable locator (`#N`, a commit SHA, a URL, an