Under /boss only, when the orchestrator hits a durable deficiency in the
plugin itself (a skill, agent, convention, or pipeline/cascade gap)
mid-run, it files an issue against the plugin's own tracker and continues,
marking provenance with a body block — no new label, so the fixed work-type
vocabulary stays intact.
Adds the trigger and its evidence gate (a citable path:line inside the
plugin), dedupe-as-gate over open and recently-closed issues, and the
discipline that filing is neither a notify event nor a substitute for a due
bounce-back. Wires the new section into issue/SKILL.md (boss joins the
issue-filing callers) and docs/conventions.md (Issue-tracker pointer).
closes#9
docs/specs and docs/plans hold only the active cycle's artefacts: a spec/plan is committed while its cycle is live and git-rm'd in the cycle-close commit (after audit drift-clean), so HEAD shows only in-flight work while git history keeps the full text. No issue-posting, no gitignore branch — git history + the design ledger are the durable record.
Rewrites conventions.md § Lifecycle as the single source of truth; pipeline.md, design.md, README.md, specify, planner, glossary, brainstorm, issue, and the CLAUDE.md fragment follow it. Naming stays NNNN-slug.md (a within-cycle handle; recycling on an emptied directory is fine).
The profile was never parsed — it was prose the skill bodies told the model to read, so most slots were dead, constant across every project, or fiction (the whole pipeline block, including the "tdd is opt-in" claim, was enforced by nothing).
Split it in two: constants become fixed conventions named directly by the skills (new docs/conventions.md), and the few genuinely per-project facts move to each project's CLAUDE.md under '## Skills plugin: project facts'. tdd/fieldtest/docwriter are now always available; the only behavioural toggle left is spec auto-sign.
Delete docs/profile-schema.md and templates/project-profile.yml; add docs/conventions.md and a project-facts section to templates/CLAUDE.md.fragment; rewrite all SKILL/agent prose and the pipeline/design/migration/README/INSTALL docs accordingly.
The `spec-skeptic` `scope-fork` juror reads only the seeding issue plus
the spec. On the legitimate `specify` direct-entry path — a fork settled
in a long in-context design discussion — that resolution lives only in
ephemeral chat the juror cannot replay. When the issue body lags the
discussion (still lists the fork open), the juror correctly blocks, and
a design BLOCK escalates without self-correction. The result: auto-sign
was structurally almost unreachable for the in-context entry path.
Close the blind spot by giving the juror an auditable source instead of
weakening the gate. When `specify` enters in-context and a tracker issue
still lists a now-resolved fork as open, the orchestrator posts a
reconciliation comment recording each fork's resolution WITH provenance
(a record of the user's decision, never a fresh orchestrator one) before
writing the spec. The comment is persistent and audit-able — unlike a
carrier digest — so it, not the orchestrator's confidence, is what the
juror checks.
Separation of powers keeps it honest: the orchestrator writes the
comment, the adversarial juror enforces the provenance requirement. A
bare `decision: X` with no provenance does not resolve the fork — the
re-dispatched juror blocks on it. The escalation rule and the
three-field carrier are untouched; only the juror's information changes.
Mechanics:
- specify Step 1.5: reconciliation-comment sub-step, provenance format,
issue-less fallback (auto-sign -> human sign-off, no weak spec-note).
- spec-skeptic: replace the "quoted in the dispatch" drift; juror reads
the issue WITH comments via `issue_tracker.show_cmd`; provenance check.
- new profile slot `issue_tracker.show_cmd` (must render comments);
documented in schema + template.
- issue skill: `tea issues <idx>` is body-only; `--comments` required
(verified against tea 0.14.1 and Aura #55 — 180 vs 144 lines).
- consistency: design.md out-of-scope, README, pipeline.md, boss skill.
Rule 2 (validated-or-flagged) now suggests dropping in a fenced code
snippet where it sharpens the point — the input that triggers the
failure or the call as it should behave — preferred over a prose
paraphrase.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Unifies four issue-writing rules — impersonal voice, every claim
validated-with-evidence or flagged as a claim, imperative concise
title (checkboxes allowed for sub-points), and self-containment
(every reference directly resolvable, no unresolvable tags) — and
records the tea-CLI mechanics for create/edit/comment/close.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Brummel