Skills/boss/SKILL.md

---
name: boss
description: User-invoked only (typed as `/boss`). Activates autonomous orchestrator mode — Claude picks the next iteration from the project's issue backlog, dispatches the appropriate skill, and continues until done-state or genuine bounce-back. Outside `/boss`, the default is interactive collaboration with the user, not autonomous queue execution.
---

# boss — autonomous orchestrator mode

> **Violating the letter of these rules is violating the spirit.**

## Overview

Autonomous orchestrator mode is how the orchestrator moves a
project forward when the user is away. Inside this mode, Claude
reads the project's issue backlog, picks the top item,
dispatches the right skill, integrates the result, and continues
to the next item — until the queue is empty (done-state) or a
real design fork forces a bounce-back to the user.

Outside this mode, the default is interactive collaboration:
the user asks; Claude answers or executes the specific request;
Claude stops. There is no autonomous picking from the backlog,
no multi-iteration sequence chained off a single user message.

This skill exists to make the mode-switch explicit. Without it,
autonomous behaviour and interactive behaviour both fight for
"default" in every fresh session, with the failure mode of an
interactive session silently turning into an autonomous one
(or vice versa).

## When to Use / Skipping

Trigger:

- The user explicitly types `/boss` in chat.

Never auto-invoked. Even if a skill-system convention says "if a
skill might apply, invoke it" — that does NOT apply here.
`/boss` is a deliberate mode switch performed by the user, not a
heuristic the orchestrator resolves on its own. A session that
wanders into autonomous behaviour without `/boss` is the exact
failure mode this skill exists to prevent.

May be exited mid-session by:

- The user signalling "stop", "pause", or "back to chat".
- A bounce-back trigger firing (see "Direction freedom" below).
- Done-state (the queue is empty and the done-state procedure has
  fired).

A fresh session always starts in interactive mode; the user
re-enters by typing `/boss` again.

## The Iron Law

```
NO AUTONOMOUS DISPATCH OUTSIDE A `/boss` SESSION.
DONE-STATE = QUEUE EMPTY, NOT SUB-GOAL COMPLETE.
BOUNCE-BACK ONLY ON THE FOUR NAMED TRIGGERS.
A NEW CYCLE NEVER STARTS AUTONOMOUSLY — IT IS A BOUNCE-BACK.
```

Universal rules (only-orchestrator-commits, main-is-sacrosanct,
language, RED-first for bugs) come from the project's `CLAUDE.md`
— and from the user-level `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md` identity/security
layer above it, loaded in every session. Both bind regardless of
mode; autonomy does not lift a user-level constraint (e.g. an
external-service-consent rule that names `/boss` explicitly). This
skill does not restate them — with one deliberate local refinement:
`main`-is-sacrosanct holds **below the session anchor**, and the
rollback sandbox (§ Direction freedom) is the one narrow `/boss`
exception, letting the orchestrator wind back its *own* unpushed
autonomous commits above that anchor.

## The Process

### Step 1 — Read the queue

The project's issue tracker is the forward queue. Read open
issues via the list command in the project's CLAUDE.md project
facts. If the project names no issue tracker there, it does not
have an autonomously addressable queue — bounce back to the user
with that diagnosis.

If the entire open backlog is empty: skip to Step 5
(done-state). Do not invent work; an empty queue is a real
signal that the cycle closed and there is nothing left.

### Step 2 — Pick the top item per direction-freedom rules

See "Direction freedom" below. The rules permit picking
autonomously when the path is clear. If the top item is a real
fork (two substantive options with no clear default), bounce
back to the user.

### Step 3 — Dispatch the appropriate downstream skill

Pipeline:

```
brainstorm → specify → planner → implement → audit → fieldtest
             specify → planner  (design settled in sources, no discovery)
                  +
                  debug (bug-triggered)
                  +
                  tdd → implement (mini)  (test-specifiable feature)
                  +
                  compiler-driven  (behaviour-preserving type/signature edit; observe-then-bounce)
                  +
                  docwriter (post-stability)
```

Match the chosen item to the right entry skill. If a spec exists
but no plan: `planner`. If a plan exists: `implement`. If a cycle
is closing: `audit`. If the iteration is a bug-fix: `debug`. For
new feature work with no spec or plan yet, run the **Entry-path
reflection** below before dispatching anything. Read each skill's
`SKILL.md` trigger section if unsure.

**Entry-path reflection (feature work).** Entry paths form an **ordered
cascade**, and the choice is made by reflection every time, not by
habit. The discriminator is no longer a single "design line": it adds a
**verification / enumeration axis** *ahead of* the settled-vs-fork
question, so each lighter path carries a **positive** trigger matched by
signature rather than being reached by elimination. Walk the cascade top
to bottom and take the **first** arm that matches; record the one-line
verdict ("observed bug → `debug`" / "design fork → `brainstorm`" /
"mechanical type-edit → `compiler-driven`" / "test-specifiable →
`tdd`" / "settled prose design → `specify`") in the loop.

```
route(task):
    observed bug                          -> debug          # RED-first gate, FIRST — never bypassed, even for a one-line fix
    forces a genuine design choice        -> brainstorm      # the only place doubt resolves "up"
    a type/signature edit at a definition
      site, propagating mechanically       -> compiler-driven  # observe-then-bounce; behaviour-preserving
    new behaviour as one honest assertion -> tdd
    else                                  -> spec-driven      # the deliberate heavy fallback (specify -> planner)
```

- **Observed bug → `debug`.** A regression of existing behaviour is
  RED-first, always, and this check is **first in the cascade** so a bug
  whose fix happens to be a one-line type edit cannot slip into the
  compiler-driven arm and bypass the RED-first gate. Dispatch
  autonomously, as a bug issue already is.
- **Forces a genuine design choice → `brainstorm`.** Writing the work
  down would force a choice between two or three plausible designs with
  real trade-offs. Discovery must resolve it first. Starting a fresh
  `brainstorm` cycle is itself a bounce-back per §"Direction freedom"
  trigger 4 — green-light the cycle (and the session shape) with the
  user first.
- **A type/signature edit at a definition site, propagating mechanically
  → `compiler-driven`.** The positive trigger is *syntactic and
  observable*: a carrier/newtype narrowing, a constructor or field
  rename, a signature change at a definition that the type checker then
  enumerates across N call sites — **behaviour preserved**. The arm is
  **observe-then-bounce** (its executor is `../implement` "The
  compiler-driven arm" + the `compiler-driven-edit` workflow): make the
  edit, build, run the suite; **clean build AND suite green unchanged →
  commit; a hole that forces a design decision → bounce to `specify` (or
  `tdd` if the hole turns out to be test-specifiable new behaviour, per
  the straddle rule); the suite not green-unchanged → bounce to `debug`,
  RED-first.** Entering on
  the observable trigger and letting a real run settle the verdict is
  what makes this sound — a mis-routed behaviour change fails the
  post-condition and bounces instead of shipping green-but-wrong.
  Dispatch autonomously; its bounces are reactive, not a pre-dispatch
  checkpoint.
- **New behaviour as one honest assertion → `tdd`.** The desired
  behaviour can be pinned by one minimal falsifiable assertion — "calling
  X with Y returns Z". Dispatch autonomously.
- **Else → spec-driven (`specify` → `planner`).** The deliberate heavy
  fallback for prose-design work the sources already settle (an
  exhaustive issue body, a long in-context discussion). `specify` is
  bounded (no interview); dispatch it autonomously and it signs through
  its own Step-6 gate — the Step-5 `grounding-check` `PASS` — escalating
  to a user-review pause (a problem-state notify, not a pre-dispatch
  checkpoint) only when grounding blocks with no human to override it.

**The straddle rule (a rule, not an example).** "Add an enum variant"
straddles the compiler-driven and the tdd/spec arms. Decide by what the
edit *encodes*, not by its surface shape: an arm that is **mechanical /
forwarding** — the type checker enumerates the sites and behaviour is
preserved (an exhaustiveness-only variant, a pass-through case) — is
**compiler-driven**; an arm that **encodes new behaviour** — a variant
whose handling is a new code path with new observable output — is
**tdd** (one assertion) or **spec-driven** (a real design). When unsure
which side a change falls on, that doubt is itself the signal it carries
behaviour: route up to tdd/spec, not down to compiler-driven.

The asymmetry in autonomy — `debug`, `compiler-driven`, `tdd`, and
`specify` all dispatch autonomously, while a fresh `brainstorm` cycle
bounces back — is **not** a ranking of the paths. It is a consequence of
context budget: the four are bounded (no open Q&A; `compiler-driven` and
`debug` self-settle on a run), whereas a fresh `brainstorm` is
high-context discovery the orchestrator cannot compact on its own (see
trigger 4). `specify` dispatched in `/boss` signs through its own Step-6
gate — the Step-5 `grounding-check` `PASS`, an independent agent's
verdict against currently-green tests, not the orchestrator's confidence;
the run then continues to `planner` without pausing. A no-override
grounding `BLOCK` escalates to the user-review pause (a final-sign-off
notify, not a pre-dispatch checkpoint). The judgement that used to gate
the sign now lives inside `specify` Step 1.5, which decides derivable
forks boldly — see §"Spec auto-sign" below. Do not let the asymmetry
harden into a reflex of routing borderline items to `brainstorm` "to be
safe" — that is the exact bias this reflection exists to break; walk the
cascade honestly each time. The one principled tilt is two-sided: a fork
`specify` can *derive* an answer for (from the sources, the code,
consistency, risk) is spec-driven work, decided inside `specify` (Step
1.5), **not** a `brainstorm` bounce; only a fork that needs genuine
discovery, or that hangs on a user preference no source settles,
resolves to `brainstorm`. The lighter arms
also bounce reactively: a `specify` or `tdd` that later reports the
design was not settled / not test-specifiable, or a `compiler-driven`
run that hits a hole, escalates — `specify` / `tdd` to `brainstorm` (a
fresh cycle, a trigger-4 bounce-back), `compiler-driven` to `specify` or
`tdd` (a hole — a design choice vs. test-specifiable new behaviour, per
the straddle rule) or `debug` (the regression).

All entry paths are always available — none is profile-gated. The
cascade is the order of decision: the lighter arms (`debug`,
`compiler-driven`, `tdd`) carry positive triggers and dispatch
autonomously, `specify` dispatches autonomously and pauses at its
sign-off gate, and a fresh `brainstorm` is the one path that bounces
back to the user before it starts.

If the working tree is mid-flight (uncommitted changes left over
from a previous session): inspect first, then resume the right
step. Do not restart from scratch.

### Step 4 — Loop, deciding on each agent output

For each dispatched skill's result, decide:

- **Continue** — agent output is good, next item is obvious,
  the queue is non-empty. Most common case.
- **Bounce-back** — one of the four named triggers fired (see
  "Notifications" below). Send a notify, stop the loop.
- **Done-state** — queue is empty AND the cycle is fully
  ratified (audit drift-clean, fieldtest clean if applicable).
  Go to Step 5. A `/boss` done-state means this run has nothing
  left to dispatch; it is **not** an automatic milestone close —
  closing a tracker milestone needs its end-to-end milestone
  fieldtest green and stays a deliberate manual act (see
  `../docs/pipeline.md` § Milestone-close gate).

If a term-drift is resolved during the loop — two names collapsed to
one, or a settled term not yet listed — record it in the project
glossary per `../docs/glossary-convention.md`: record reality, never
invent. This is the only glossary write authority outside the user.
Building a glossary from scratch (the `glossary` skill's bootstrap) is
*not* this authority — it is high-context, user-only work; when a project
lacks a glossary and drift is visible, recommend a bootstrap via
bounce-back, never run one autonomously.

### Step 5 — On done-state: Notify

Run the procedure named in "Done-state notifications" below.

## Direction freedom

The orchestrator has authority to choose the next iteration,
refactor, or feature without asking — and, under the bold stance, to
*decide* a load-bearing design fork it can derive an answer for rather
than bounce it (see `../specify/SKILL.md` Step 1.5). Wrong calls are
**contained or recovered**, not avoided by timidity: bad work is either
discarded before it reaches `main` (`git checkout -- <paths>` on the
working tree), or — once it is autonomous, committed, unpushed work — wound
back inside the rollback sandbox below. Being wrong is allowed; the cost
of a wrong call is bounded, and a bounded cost is cheaper than the
context-switch of asking.

The cost of asking "what should I do next" — context-switch for
the user, latency on my side — exceeds the expected cost of
discarding or rolling back a bad state. So when the queue is
non-empty and the path is clear, just pick and proceed.

### The reference issue (mandatory)

Every `/boss` run is anchored to a tracker issue — the one that seeded
the cycle, or one `specify` creates when the work was settled in pure
chat with no prior issue (`../specify/SKILL.md` Step 1.5). The run always
has exactly one such reference issue, and the orchestrator **comments its
fork decisions there as it goes**: each load-bearing fork it derives, the
chosen option, and the rationale (or, for a user decision minuted from
the discussion, the provenance). It is the run's decision log — three
things at once:

- the **user's after-the-fact audit**: how the orchestrator decided what
  it decided without them, in one auditable thread they can veto from;
- the orchestrator's **cross-run "issue memory"**: a later run reads the
  thread to see what was already tried and why;
- the **only surviving trace of an abandoned attempt** — because a
  rollback hard-drops the commits (below), the issue thread is what
  remains of the dead-ended line.

These decision-log comments are issue entries — they obey
`../issue/SKILL.md`: rule 1 (impersonal and tool-neutral) and rule 4 (the
reachability test). A later run or user lands on the **comment**, not the
chat that produced it, so each must be self-contained, reachable from the
tracker, and free of this loop's own control-flow.

- **Quote a user decision's provenance inline** — the words and the date
  ("`ja, mach B`" — 2026-06-28) — never a pointer at the chat ("settled
  in the discussion", "decided in-context"). The chat is unreachable from
  the tracker; a pointer to it strands every later reader.
- **Reproduce each fork's options and chosen rationale inline.** A bare
  label ("Approach B") indexes a set the reader cannot see — spell the
  options out, or name the choice on its own terms.
- **Tie a later comment to an earlier one by that comment's full URL, or
  restate the point** — never "above" / "logged above" / "the prior
  comment", which a reader on a direct comment-anchor link cannot resolve.
- **Record the decision, not the dispatch.** The comment logs what was
  decided and why, and may carry a durable, tool-neutral readiness status
  ("design settled — ready for spec production"). It never writes this
  loop's own next move into the issue — neither a named skill ("enter
  `specify` from here", "next: dispatch `implement`") nor a role-periphrasis
  for the same hand-off ("hand it to the spec writer next"). The test is
  dispatch vs. status: directing *who runs what next* is out even when it
  names no skill; the work's *condition* (settled, ready, blocked-on) stays.
  Which actor runs next is Step 3/4 of *this* loop, meaningless to a later
  reader who is not the loop; the issue's open/labelled state carries
  "what's next" (`../issue/SKILL.md` rule 1).

The provenance block in § Skill-system feedback shows the form:
provenance written into the issue body, never pointed at.

A run that reaches a fork decision without a reference issue to record it
on is a bug: create the seeding issue first (Step 1.5 mechanic), then
decide.

### The rollback sandbox

`main` stays sacrosanct **below the session anchor**. At the start of an
autonomous run the orchestrator notes the current `main` HEAD — the last
user-ratified state — as the **session anchor**. Everything it then
commits autonomously, this run, and has **not pushed**, is its own
sandbox above that anchor.

Inside the sandbox, and only there, the forward-only rule is relaxed:
when the orchestrator runs itself into a dead end — `implement` stays
`BLOCKED` after its re-loops, `audit` or `fieldtest` exposes that an
earlier derived fork was wrong, a line of work is not salvageable
forward — it MAY `git reset --hard` back toward the anchor, to the point
before the wrong turn, and try again differently. The boundaries are
hard:

- **Never below the anchor.** The anchor is the floor. User-ratified
  history is never rewound; the sandbox is only the orchestrator's own
  autonomous commits.
- **Never a pushed commit.** Pushing hands work to the outside; a pushed
  commit leaves the sandbox and reverts to forward-only (`git revert`),
  never `reset`. In practice the orchestrator does not push autonomously,
  so the sandbox is local.
- **Hard-drop, no parking.** A discarded attempt is gone — no
  `attempt-N` branch or tag is kept. The reference-issue thread is its
  trace; the transcript holds the rest. (The user's standing preference:
  what the orchestrator threw away, the user does not want to see.)
- **Rollback is an escalation response, not a reflex.** It is for a genuine
  dead end, not for flinching at the first agent that returns
  `DONE_WITH_CONCERNS`. Reach for it when forward correction is clearly
  more expensive or less safe than winding back and re-deciding.

Bounce back to the user only when:

- A queued option requires a real design judgement I have not
  made myself (genuine architectural fork, multiple substantive
  options none of which is clearly default).
- I have hit something genuinely unexpected that changes the
  project's direction (a fundamental design flaw, an external
  dependency failure, a discovered invariant violation).
- The user has explicitly asked for a checkpoint.
- **The next item on the queue is a new cycle** — i.e. a top-
  level work container (a milestone) that has no spec file yet and
  would require dispatching `brainstorm` to even begin.
  Continuing an open cycle (next iteration, audit, fieldtest,
  post-audit tidy) is autonomous; *starting* a new cycle is a
  bounce-back.

  **Why this is different from the other three triggers.**
  Cross-cycle work is high-context work. A fresh brainstorm
  alone routinely consumes tens of thousands of tokens on
  grounding-check reads, design Q&A, and spec drafting — on top
  of whatever context the just-closed cycle left behind. The
  orchestrator cannot compact its own context window; only the
  user can decide that the right shape for the next cycle is a
  fresh session rather than a continuation. A new cycle is
  therefore the natural checkpoint: stop, surface the
  candidate, let the user pick the session shape (continue here
  / spawn fresh / defer / pick a different backlog item).

A summary of what shipped is fine and welcome — but in
autonomous mode, follow it with the next dispatch, not a
question.

## Notifications

Two states call for a notify; nothing else does — plus a third,
narrow one for spec auto-sign:

1. **Done-state.** The autonomous queue is empty — the cycle
   closed, the audit ratified, and no further iteration is
   obvious from the spec or the backlog (or, in a user-scoped
   session, every objective the user named has been completed
   and there is nothing else queued). A finished sub-goal
   inside a still-open cycle is *not* done-state. If the next
   iteration is obvious and substantive, keep dispatching —
   "test suite landed", "audit clean before close-fixes",
   "iter N done with N+1 in scope" are internal progress, not
   notify events.

2. **Problem-state.** A bounce-back trigger per §"Direction
   freedom" — design fork the orchestrator cannot resolve, an
   unexpected invariant violation, an external dependency
   failure, the user has explicitly asked for a checkpoint, or
   the next backlog item is a new cycle (no spec yet) and
   starting it would force a fresh `brainstorm`.

3. **Auto-sign.** The
   orchestrator signed a spec in the user's place and is
   continuing the run — see §"Spec auto-sign". This is the one
   sanctioned mid-flow notify, and it is sanctioned *because it
   carries a decision*: the spec normally needs the user's
   signature, so the user retains a veto over what was signed
   without them. It is not a progress ping — it is the audit
   trail for a gate the user delegated. It does not stop the
   loop.

A user-specified stop trigger ("until X is done, then notify")
counts as done-state only if X is truly the last actionable
item in the autonomous queue at that moment. If hitting X
still leaves an open cycle with obvious follow-up iterations,
the right action is to continue past X without notifying —
the user's intent behind the trigger is "wake me when there's
nothing else to do", not "wake me at this specific checkpoint".

Mid-flow progress notifications burn the user's attention
without giving them a decision to make. When in doubt,
continue.

Filing skill-system feedback on the plugin's own tracker
(§ Skill-system feedback) is likewise not a notify event — it is
captured, not surfaced.

The notification command is `~/.claude/notify.sh` (the user-level
convention); it receives the message text as a single argument. If it
is unavailable, fall back to printing the notification in chat.

When notifying, the message body should be the actionable
summary: what the orchestrator needs from the user, in one
short line. Skip the "hi, I" framing — just the gist. The user
will see it on a phone and likely respond by returning to the
session.

By default, the orchestrator acts autonomous. The notification
is the exception, not the rule.

## Done-state notifications

When the trigger is **done-state** (autonomous work has wrapped
up, nothing left to do for the user to react to), send one
text via the configured notification command.

The text must be written for the **user-as-reader who did not
watch the orchestrator work**:

- **Language: same as the rest of the repo.** The notify push is
  permanent enough to be treated as project content; under the
  cross-project English-in-repos rule, it is English.
- **No technical internals.** Don't name crates, function
  identifiers, type names, agent names, or iteration codes
  (`ct.1.7`, `18a`, etc.). Describe the *change in the project*
  — what is now possible, fixed, or visible — not the mechanics.
- **No assumption of context.** The user is on their phone and
  has not seen this session. Lead with the result; the *why*
  is fine if it fits in one short clause.
- **Length: Telegram-pragmatic.** No hard cap, but a few
  sentences, not an essay. If the work covered multiple
  unrelated things, bullet them.
- **Tone: factual, not performative.** No celebration, no
  "I have successfully…". Just "X works now, Y is fixed, Z is
  new".

**Bounce-backs** (asking the user for a design judgement or
checkpoint) follow the same editorial rules but carry the
actionable ask, not a wrap-up summary.

## Spec auto-sign

Under `/boss`, the orchestrator signs a spec in the user's place
through `specify`'s Step-6 gate, which is owned and defined there.
(Outside `/boss`, the user signs every spec directly; there is no gate
to run.) A spec the gate cannot clear escalates to the human sign-off
pause. The boss-side contract is just this:

- **The signature is the `grounding-check` `PASS`, not the
  orchestrator's judgement.** Under `/boss` the autonomous signature is
  the Step-5 `grounding-check` returning `PASS` — an independent
  fresh-context agent's verdict against currently-green tests. "The spec
  looks good to me" is never a signature; that confidence is the exact
  signal the gate refuses to trust. The former obligatory five-lens
  `spec-skeptic` panel is **retired** (baseline tag
  `pre-autosign-rework`); the judgement it used to apply now lives
  upstream, in `specify` Step 1.5's bold-decide stance.
- **A no-override grounding `BLOCK` is never signed over.** With no human
  in the loop, a grounding `BLOCK` (or `INFRA_ERROR`) cannot be
  overridden, so it routes the spec to the human sign-off pause it would
  have hit anyway. That is the one objective denial of an autonomous
  sign.
- **Forks are decided upstream, boldly, and recorded.** `specify` Step
  1.5 decides every load-bearing fork it can *derive* an answer for
  (sources, code, existing-design consistency, risk) — pulling an ad-hoc
  `spec-skeptic` lens as a bias-breaker when it is unsure whether its
  leaning is judgement or bias — and records each decision in the run's
  **reference issue** (see § Direction freedom). Only a *pure-preference*
  fork, one only the user's taste can settle, bounces to the human. So a
  spec reaching the sign gate carries no unresolved judgement; the only
  thing the sign verifies is the objective grounding the check already
  verifies. Editorial roughness the old panel would have caught is let
  through deliberately — cheap to patch inline downstream, never worth an
  obligatory five-juror panel on every spec.
- **On a clean sign, do not stop.** Commit the spec (the auto-sign
  commit subject carries `(boss-signed)` so the act is auditable in
  history), fire the auto-sign notify, and continue to `planner` in
  the same run. The notify is informational-with-veto, not a pause.
- **The notify must be vetoable.** It follows the same editorial rules
  as a done-state notify (English, user-as-reader, no iteration codes
  or crate names) with one addition forced by its purpose: it must
  name, in the user's terms, *what capability the signed spec covers*,
  so the user can decide whether to veto. State plainly that the spec
  was signed without them, that the plan is proceeding, and that a
  reply vetoes. One example shape: "Signed off the spec for <plain
  capability> myself and started the implementation plan — reply to
  veto." No internals, but enough identity to act on.
- **A veto is a forward correction — or, within the run, a rollback.**
  If the user vetoes a spec already committed on `main`, undo it forward
  — revert the spec commit, discard the downstream working-tree work with
  `git checkout`, file the redirection. *Within* the autonomous run, the
  rollback sandbox (§ Direction freedom) is the additional remedy: the
  orchestrator may hard-reset its own unpushed `(boss-signed)` commit and
  the work built on it back toward the session anchor when it judges the
  fork was wrong — its own work only, never below the anchor, never a
  pushed commit.

## Skill-system feedback

A `/boss` run executes *through* the skill system, so the orchestrator is
the one actor positioned to notice when the **plugin itself** is the thing
that is broken — not the project it is working on, but the toolchain doing
the work. When it hits such a deficiency mid-run, it files it as an issue
against the **plugin's own tracker** and continues. The forward-queue
discipline that governs a project governs the plugin too: a shortcoming
that is not written down is one that recurs on the next run.

**What qualifies — a *durable plugin* deficiency.** Two conditions, both
required: the fault is in the plugin (a SKILL body, an agent, a
convention, the pipeline/cascade), and it would **recur** rather than
being a one-off. Positive triggers:

- A skill or convention is self-contradictory, or ambiguous enough that
  the orchestrator had to *guess* which reading was intended.
- A gate or agent returned a clearly wrong verdict traceable to a gap in
  its own instructions — not to a project bug (that is `debug`, on the
  project tracker).
- The entry cascade or pipeline had no path for a situation the
  orchestrator legitimately reached, forcing it to improvise.
- An agent-template field, a status-protocol value, or a cross-reference
  is missing, wrong, or dangling.

**What does NOT qualify.** One-off project-specific friction; a project's
own missing config or facts; anything honestly attributable to the
*project* rather than the *plugin*. When unsure whose fault it is, it is
the project's — do not file against the plugin on a hunch. The evidence
gate makes this objective: if you cannot point to the offending
`path:line` *inside the plugin* that produced the wrong reading, it is not
plugin feedback — route it as a project bug (`debug`) or let it go.

**Mechanics.**

- **Target the plugin's own tracker, not the project's.** The run's
  reference issue lives on the *project* tracker (§ Direction freedom);
  this is a *separate* artefact on the *plugin's* tracker. Append
  `--repo <plugin-slug>` to each `tea issues` call (the override flag the
  `issue` skill documents). The slug is this very plugin's repository —
  derive it from the plugin checkout's git remote
  (`git -C ~/dev/skills remote get-url origin`, the home the skills are
  symlinked from), currently `Brummel/Skills`, so a fork or rename needs
  no edit here.
- **When the project *is* the plugin, the two trackers still do not
  coincide.** The skills meta-repo is not driven through `/boss` — it has
  no project-facts queue (Step 1 finds no tracker) and is worked directly,
  never through its own pipeline — so "the plugin's tracker" and "the
  project's tracker" never resolve to the same place in a real run. (If a
  run ever did execute with the plugin as its project, plugin feedback
  would still take its *own* issue, distinct from the run's reference
  issue, carrying the provenance block.)
- **Write it through `../issue/SKILL.md`.** Imperative title, declarative
  voice, validated-or-flagged (cite the offending `path:line` inside the
  plugin), self-contained. Work-type label from the normal vocabulary —
  usually `idea`, `bug` if a gate misfired, `feature` if a path is
  missing. No label is minted for provenance.
- **Mark the provenance in the body.** The body opens with a block stating
  plainly that `/boss` filed it autonomously and which project the run was
  on, so any later reader knows no human vetted it at filing time — then
  the motivation and the problem description:

  ````
  > Filed autonomously by the `/boss` orchestrator while running on
  > project "<project>". No human was in the loop; this records a
  > skill-system deficiency the orchestrator hit mid-run.

  ## Motivation
  Why it matters — what the ambiguity or gap cost this run.

  ## Problem
  The deficiency itself, with the offending `path:line` in the plugin.
  ````

- **Dedupe, then file immediately.** The dedupe check is a gate in front
  of the create, not an optional sibling step. One-shot it first — list
  the plugin tracker's issues (`tea issues ls --repo <plugin-slug>`, open
  *and* recently-closed). On an open match, comment there instead of
  opening a duplicate. On a *closed* match, re-open or comment only if the
  deficiency has clearly regressed, and treat a `wontfix`/by-design close
  as a signal **not** to re-file — recurrence is exactly what the trigger
  selects for, so a re-hit is expected, and re-litigating a settled close
  is not the job. Otherwise create, the moment the deficiency is observed
  (the context is richest then), and resume. Filing is a side-effect; it
  never stops the loop.

**Never a substitute for a bounce-back.** Filing plugin feedback
discharges no decision, so it can never stand in for one the user owns. A
situation can match *both* a plugin deficiency *and* a bounce-back trigger
(§ Direction freedom) — most sharply when a self-contradictory skill
leaves a *load-bearing* decision the orchestrator cannot derive past, or
when the missing pipeline path is really a new cycle. There the
orchestrator **bounces**, and may file the plugin issue *as well*: the
issue captures the plugin gap, the bounce captures the call the user still
owns. The capturable deficiency (a route-around-able wrong verdict, an
improvised-past missing path, a dangling cross-reference) is
file-and-continue; the blocking one is file-*and*-bounce. "The cascade had
no path, so I'll file a gap and keep going" is the exact dodge this
forbids.

**Not a notify event.** Filing skill-system feedback is neither a
bounce-back (it asks the user for no decision) nor done-state. The filed
issue *is* the durable record; the user reviews the plugin tracker at
leisure. Notifying about it mid-run would be exactly the attention-burning
progress ping § Notifications forbids. It is also not a new outward-facing
action needing consent: it is the same issue-tracker write authority the
run already uses for its reference issue, pointed at a different repo.

**`/boss`-only.** In interactive mode the user is present, so a noticed
shortcoming is simply surfaced in chat and filed via the `issue` skill if
the user wants it — there is no autonomous filing to govern.

## Common Rationalisations

| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Iteration just landed cleanly, let me notify so user can see" | Mid-flow notifications burn user attention without giving them a decision to make. Iteration-clean is internal progress, not a notify event. |
| "Sub-goal of the cycle is done, that counts as done-state" | Done-state is queue-empty, not sub-goal-complete. If the next iteration is obvious and substantive, keep dispatching. |
| "Top of the backlog has two equally good options, I'll just pick one" | If both are substantive and the choice is non-obvious, that's a real fork — bounce back. The cost of a wrong pick (working-tree discard) is higher than the cost of one short ping to the user. |
| "User said 'until X then notify', X just completed, notify now" | Check whether X was actually the last actionable thing. If hitting X leaves an open cycle with obvious follow-up, the user's intent was "wake me when there's nothing else to do" — continue. |
| "Notify can name the iteration code — user will figure out what it means" | No. The notify text is for the user-as-reader who did not watch the orchestrator work. Iteration codes, crate names, function identifiers, type names — all internal, all banned. |
| "The previous cycle closed cleanly and the next backlog item is obvious — just dispatch `brainstorm` and keep going" | No. Starting a new cycle is itself a bounce-back. A fresh `brainstorm` is high-context work, and the orchestrator cannot compact its own context — only the user can decide whether the next cycle wants a fresh session or a continuation of this one. The "obviousness" of the candidate is irrelevant; the *cross-cycle hop* is the checkpoint, not the topic choice. |
| "It's the same broad area as the cycle I just closed, that's not really a new cycle" | If there is no spec file for it yet and it would route through `brainstorm` to get one, it IS a new cycle for this rule's purposes. The rule keys on "needs a fresh spec", not on subjective continuity. |
| "Feature work, so route it to `brainstorm` — that's the safe default" | The entry paths are an ordered cascade, none the default. Routing a settled design to `brainstorm` re-litigates decided choices; routing a test-specifiable item there wastes the test path; routing a behaviour-preserving type-edit there is the heavy-path gravity well this whole reflection exists to break. Walk the cascade and take the first matching positive trigger. The only tilt toward `brainstorm` is a genuinely unresolved fork — and that is a fork, not a default. |
| "It's just a mechanical rename across N files — run the full implement loop on it" | That is the `compiler-driven` arm's job, not the heavy loop. Route it there; the type checker enumerates the sites, and the done-signal (clean build AND suite green unchanged) is the gate. Funnelling a behaviour-preserving edit through the full per-task loop is the disproportionality the cascade was added to fix. |
| "The compiler-driven edit built clean — that's the done-signal, commit" | Clean build is only half. The done-signal is clean build **AND suite green unchanged**. A behaviour change can build clean; the unchanged-green suite is what catches it. No suite run, no commit — and if the suite isn't green-unchanged, bounce to `debug`. |
| "It's a bug but the fix is a one-line type edit — route it `compiler-driven`" | No. An observed bug is first in the cascade → `debug`, RED-first, regardless of how mechanical the fix looks. The bug-gate sits before the type-edit arm precisely so a regression cannot launder itself around RED-first. |
| "The issue is exhaustive but it's a new cycle, so bounce to the user before `specify`" | `specify` direct-entry is bounded and autonomously dispatchable — it is NOT the high-context `brainstorm` cycle that trigger 4 reserves for the user. Dispatch it; it will pause at its own user-review gate for sign-off. The pre-dispatch bounce is for an *open* design that needs discovery, not for a settled one that needs only production. |
| "`tdd` is the secondary skill, `brainstorm` is the real entry" | All entry paths are always available. The choice among them is the cascade, walked per item — not a habit of treating `brainstorm` as primary and the lighter arms as exceptions. The lighter arms exist to be reached; reaching past them by elimination is the failure the verification axis was added to prevent. |
| "This spec is clearly good — I'll sign it on my judgement" | Your judgement is not the signature; the Step-5 `grounding-check` `PASS` is. Run grounding and sign on the PASS. A no-override grounding `BLOCK` routes to the human — never signed over on confidence. (The old unanimous `spec-skeptic` panel is retired; do not re-introduce it as a gate.) |
| "There's an open fork — I'll bounce to `brainstorm` to be safe" | If you can *derive* an answer (sources, code, consistency, risk), decide it boldly and record it in the reference issue. Only a *pure-preference* fork bounces. Bouncing a derivable fork is exactly the timidity the bold stance retired; unsure if your leaning is bias, pull one ad-hoc `spec-skeptic` lens, then decide. |
| "I derived a fork but didn't bother logging it on the issue" | The reference-issue comment is mandatory. It is the user's only window into a call made without them — and, because a rollback hard-drops the commits, the only surviving trace of the attempt. No reference issue, no fork decision: create the seeding issue first. |
| "The user was in the discussion, so 'as decided in-context / above' is enough on the issue" | The decision log is read later by a run or user who was NOT in that discussion and may land on the comment alone. Quote the user's words + date inline, reproduce the fork's options and rationale, and link any sibling comment by its full URL — never "above" / "in-context". The chat is not reachable from the tracker (`../issue/SKILL.md` rule 4). |
| "I resolved the fork — I'll note that `specify` runs next so the thread is actionable" | The decision log records the decision and a tool-neutral readiness status, never this loop's dispatch. Directing who runs what next is session control-flow whether the skill is named ("dispatch `implement` next") or periphrased ("hand it to the spec writer") — meaningless to a later reader who isn't the loop, and declarative phrasing doesn't save it; "what's next" lives in the issue's open/labelled state (`../issue/SKILL.md` rule 1). |
| "Auto-sign let me continue, so I don't need to notify — it's just progress" | The auto-sign notify is mandatory and carries a decision (the user's veto over a signature made without them). It is the one sanctioned mid-flow notify precisely because it is not progress — it is the audit trail for a delegated gate. |
| "I hit a gap in the skill system itself — I should notify the user about it" | No. File it on the plugin's own tracker with an autonomous-provenance body block and continue (§ Skill-system feedback). It needs no mid-run decision, so notifying would be the attention-burning progress ping the notify discipline forbids; the filed issue is the durable record. |
| "Something was awkward this run — file it against the plugin tracker" | Only a *durable plugin* deficiency qualifies: the fault is the plugin's (not the project's) and it would recur on the next run. One-off project friction is not plugin feedback; when unsure whose fault it is, it is the project's. File on the plugin tracker (never the project's), dedupe against its issues first, and mark provenance in the body — never with a new label. |
| "The cascade had no path here — file a plugin issue and keep going" | If that same situation needs a design call only the user can make (trigger 1) or is a new cycle (trigger 4), filing the plugin gap does NOT discharge the bounce-back. Bounce first; file the gap too (§ Skill-system feedback). Plugin feedback is captured-not-surfaced precisely because it carries no decision — so it can never stand in for one that does. |

## Red Flags — STOP

- About to send a notify on an internal-progress event (test suite landed, audit clean before close-fixes, iter N done with N+1 in scope).
- About to dispatch the next skill without checking that the previous output was actually good.
- About to autonomously dispatch in a session where the user did NOT type `/boss`.
- About to send a notify that names a crate, an iteration code, or an agent.
- About to bounce back at every iteration boundary "just to be safe" — that's reactive deference, not direction freedom.
- About to dispatch `brainstorm` on a backlog issue that does not yet have a spec file, without first bouncing back to the user. New cycles never start autonomously.
- About to route feature work to `brainstorm` without walking the Entry-path cascade — defaulting to it because it "feels safer" than the lighter arms, rather than taking the first matching positive trigger. Routing a *settled* design, a *test-specifiable* item, or a *behaviour-preserving type-edit* to `brainstorm` is as much a failure as skipping discovery on an open one.
- About to route an observed bug to the `compiler-driven` arm because "the fix is mechanical" — a regression is `debug`, RED-first; the bug-gate is first in the cascade for exactly this reason.
- About to route a behaviour-encoding change to `compiler-driven` because it "looks mechanical" — apply the straddle rule: if the change encodes new behaviour it is `tdd` / `spec-driven`, and doubt means it carries behaviour.
- About to accept a `compiler-driven` edit on a clean build without confirming the suite is green *unchanged* — the conjunction is the done-signal; a green-but-wrong change builds clean.
- About to sign a spec under auto-sign on confidence rather than on the Step-5 `grounding-check` `PASS` that is the autonomous signature; or signing over a no-override grounding `BLOCK` / `INFRA_ERROR` instead of routing it to the human sign-off pause.
- About to re-introduce the retired `spec-skeptic` panel as a sign gate (a unanimous five-juror pass as a precondition) — it is now only the optional Step-1.5 bias-breaker; or to run any auto-sign path outside a `/boss` session, or to skip the mandatory auto-sign notify after signing.
- About to *decide* a fork that hangs on pure user preference (no derivable better) instead of bouncing it — or its inverse, bouncing a *derivable* fork to `brainstorm` out of timidity.
- About to make a fork decision without recording it on the run's reference issue, or to run autonomously with no reference issue at all.
- About to record a fork decision that points at the chat ("settled in the discussion", "decided in-context") or at an earlier comment by "above" / "logged above" — the decision log is tracker-reachable per `../issue/SKILL.md` rule 4: quote the provenance and reproduce the options inline, and link a sibling comment by its full URL.
- About to write this loop's next dispatch into a decision-log comment — whether a skill is named ("enter `specify` from here", "next: dispatch `implement`") or periphrased ("hand it to the spec writer next") — instead of a tool-neutral readiness status; which actor runs next is this loop's Step 3/4, not an issue fact (`../issue/SKILL.md` rule 1).
- About to `git reset` below the session anchor, or to `reset` a commit that has been pushed — the rollback sandbox is the orchestrator's *own unpushed* commits above the anchor only; user-ratified and pushed history is forward-only (`git revert`).
- About to notify the user about a skill-system deficiency instead of filing it on the plugin's own tracker and continuing (§ Skill-system feedback) — it is captured, never a notify event.
- About to file plugin feedback for one-off project friction rather than a durable plugin deficiency, against the *project's* tracker instead of the plugin's, without deduping against the plugin's issues, or marked with a new provenance label instead of the body block.
- About to file a plugin-feedback issue *instead of* a due bounce-back — filing captures the gap but discharges no decision; if a bounce-back trigger also fires, bounce (and file the gap too).

## Cross-references

- **Skill system index:** `../README.md` — skill table, agent
  roster, pipeline diagram.
- **Universal rules:** the project's `CLAUDE.md` — orchestrator
  role boundaries, commit discipline, design rationale,
  authority over skills, feature acceptance, RED-first for bugs.
  Plus the user-level `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md` (identity/security
  layer, loaded in every session, above the project file) — it
  carries constraints that bind autonomous runs too, including
  external-service-consent rules that `/boss` does not lift.
- **Queue:** the project's issue tracker — its CLAUDE.md project
  facts name the repo slug, the browsable URL, and the list command.
- **Issue-writing conventions:** `../issue/SKILL.md` — used both for the
  run's reference issue on the *project* tracker and for skill-system
  feedback filed on the *plugin's own* tracker (§ Skill-system feedback).
- **Glossary write-rule:** `../docs/glossary-convention.md` —
  record-reality discipline for the only autonomous glossary writer.
- **Spec auto-sign gate:** owned by `../specify` Step 6 — under `/boss`
  the autonomous signature is the Step-5 `grounding-check` `PASS`. The
  former obligatory `spec-skeptic` panel is retired; that agent
  (`../specify/agents/spec-skeptic.md`) survives as the optional
  Step-1.5 bias-breaker. See `../docs/conventions.md`.
- **Downstream skills dispatched:** `../brainstorm`,
  `../specify` (spec-production core; autonomously dispatchable for a
  settled design), `../planner`, `../implement`, `../audit`,
  `../fieldtest`, `../debug`, `../tdd` (test-specifiable feature,
  always available; autonomously dispatchable like `../debug`),
  `../docwriter`.
- **Compiler-driven arm:** the lighter `compiler-driven` cascade arm and
  its observe-then-bounce executor are owned by `../implement` ("The
  compiler-driven arm") and shipped as the `compiler-driven-edit`
  workflow. The selector arm here and that executor are co-located on
  purpose: a future edit re-routing the light path back through the full
  loop changes both cross-references and is a visible regression.