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.
Brummel
268ee705f4