@deftai/directive-content 0.92.0 → 0.94.0

package/packs/strategies/strategies-pack-0.1.json

@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
         "research"
       ],
       "path": "strategies/research.md",
-      "body": "# Research Strategy\n\nLook before you leap — investigate the domain before planning.\n\nLegend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.\n\n**⚠️ See also**: [strategies/interview.md](./interview.md) | [strategies/discuss.md](./discuss.md) | [strategies/map.md](./map.md)\n\n> Adapted from [GSD](https://github.com/gsd-build/get-shit-done) research phase.\n\n---\n\n## When to Use\n\n- ~ Before planning a feature in an unfamiliar domain (auth, payments, real-time, etc.)\n- ~ When the feature involves libraries or APIs the agent hasn't used in this project\n- ? Skip for well-understood domains where the agent has strong existing context\n\n## Output\n\n! Before writing output artifacts, follow the [Preparatory Guard](./artifact-guards.md#preparatory-guard-light).\n\nProduce `vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json` with two mandatory narratives:\n\n! After emitting this scope vBRIEF, surface the GitHub-issue tracking hint from [emit-hints.md](./emit-hints.md) — name all three patterns (none / `--umbrella` / `--per-vbrief`).\n\n### `DontHandRoll` narrative\n\nProblems that look simple but have existing, battle-tested solutions.\n\n- ! For each problem area, specify: **problem**, **recommended library/tool**, **why not hand-roll**\n- ! Check the project's existing dependencies first -- don't add a library when one is already available\n- ~ Consult official docs for the recommended library (use Context7 or equivalent)\n\n**Example narrative content:**\n```\nProblem: JWT validation\nUse: jose\nRationale: Edge cases in token expiry, key rotation, algorithm confusion\n\nProblem: Email templates\nUse: react-email\nRationale: HTML email rendering is notoriously broken across clients\n\nProblem: Rate limiting\nUse: express-rate-limit\nRationale: IP spoofing, distributed state, Redis integration\n```\n\n### `CommonPitfalls` narrative\n\nWhat goes wrong in this domain, why, and how to avoid it.\n\n- ! For each pitfall: **what happens**, **why it happens**, **how to avoid it**, **warning signs**\n- ~ Informed by library docs, codebase patterns, and known failure modes\n- ~ Prioritize pitfalls that agents specifically tend to hit (stubs, missing error handling, hardcoded values)\n\n**Example narrative content:**\n```\nPitfall: Storing plain-text passwords\nWhat: User passwords saved without hashing\nWhy: Agent implements the happy path and forgets security\nAvoid: Use bcrypt/argon2, never store raw passwords\nWarning signs: No crypto import in auth module, password field stored as-is\n```\n\n### `IPRisk` narrative (#738)\n\n! When the project description, the `Don't Hand-Roll` survey, or the\nresearch notes reference third-party intellectual property (IP), the\nresearch phase MUST run the IP-risk heuristic from\n[`../references/ip-risk.md`](../references/ip-risk.md) -- canonical\nimplementation `scripts/ip_risk.py:detect_ip_terms` -- and persist a\nplain-English `IPRisk` narrative on the research vBRIEF.\n\nThe heuristic is permissive on purpose: recognizable IP names (Magic:\nThe Gathering, Pokemon, etc.), fictional-universe terms (Hogwarts,\nTatooine), branded characters, sports leagues, and trademarked products\nall trigger a hit.\n\n- ! When `detect_ip_terms` returns at least one hit, the research output\n  MUST: (1) ask the explicit monetization-intent question (personal vs\n  commercial); (2) emit `plain_risk_summary(hits, intent)` into the\n  `IPRisk` narrative; (3) plan to inject the protection scope items\n  (`ip_risk_scope_items(intent)`) at SPECIFICATION-generation time.\n- ! On `commercial` intent, surface the **non-optional** lawyer-\n  consultation recommendation in the research output -- this carries\n  forward into the interview output and the SPECIFICATION via the\n  `IPRisk` narrative.\n- ⊗ Treat the absence of detected terms as proof that the project is\n  IP-free. The heuristic only knows about the curated lists; when the\n  research scope is vague, ask the user directly whether the project is\n  based on a game / film / sports league / brand.\n- ⊗ Provide legal advice -- Deft is not a law firm. The only\n  recommendation it makes is **consult a lawyer**.\n\n---\n\n## How Research Feeds Downstream\n\n- ! **Planning** reads research before task decomposition — acceptance criteria account for pitfalls\n- ! **Execution** references \"Don't Hand-Roll\" — agent uses recommended libraries, not custom code\n- ~ **Verification** checks for pitfall warning signs during stub detection\n\n## Research Scope Rules\n\n- ! Research the **current feature only** — not the entire project\n- ! Time-box research — if it takes longer than the feature, scope is wrong\n- ⊗ Research as a reason to delay execution indefinitely\n- ~ Research persists as a vBRIEF in `vbrief/proposed/`\n\n---\n\n## Then: Chaining Gate\n\nAfter research is complete, return to the [chaining gate](./interview.md#chaining-gate)\nso the user can run additional preparatory strategies or proceed to spec generation.\n\n- ! On completion, register artifacts in `./vbrief/plan.vbrief.json`:\n  - Update `completedStrategies`: increment `runCount` for `\"research\"`,\n    append artifact path (`vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json`)\n  - Append the path to the flat `artifacts` array\n- ! Return to [interview.md Chaining Gate](./interview.md#chaining-gate)\n- ! The research findings MUST inform subsequent strategies and spec generation:\n  - \"Don't Hand-Roll\" items become constraints in the specification\n  - \"Common Pitfalls\" become acceptance criteria or NFRs\n- ⊗ End the session after research without returning to the chaining gate\n  or the invoking strategy's next-step menu\n\n! **Standalone context:** If invoked from a standalone strategy (e.g. map's\n  standalone next-step menu) rather than from the interview chaining gate,\n  return to the invoking strategy's menu instead.\n\n---\n\n## Workflow\n\n1. **Scope** -- Identify the domain and feature boundaries for research\n2. **Survey** -- Check existing project dependencies, official docs, and known pitfalls\n3. **Document** -- Produce `vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json` with `DontHandRoll` and `CommonPitfalls` narratives\n4. **Chain** -- Return to [interview.md Chaining Gate](./interview.md#chaining-gate), or -- if invoked from a standalone strategy (e.g. map's standalone next-step menu) -- return to the invoking strategy's menu per the [standalone-context rule](#then-chaining-gate) above\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- ⊗ Building custom solutions for solved problems\n- ⊗ Skipping research for unfamiliar domains (\"how hard can auth be?\")\n- ⊗ Research that produces a reading list instead of actionable guidance\n- ⊗ Research that doesn't flow into planning (written and never referenced)\n- ⊗ Ending after research without chaining into specification generation (chained mode; in standalone context, returning to the invoking strategy's menu satisfies the completion requirement per the [standalone-context rule](#then-chaining-gate))\n"
+      "body": "# Research Strategy\n\nLook before you leap — investigate the domain before planning.\n\nLegend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.\n\n**⚠️ See also**: [strategies/interview.md](./interview.md) | [strategies/discuss.md](./discuss.md) | [strategies/map.md](./map.md)\n\n> Adapted from [GSD](https://github.com/gsd-build/get-shit-done) research phase.\n\n---\n\n## When to Use\n\n- ~ Before planning a feature in an unfamiliar domain (auth, payments, real-time, etc.)\n- ~ When the feature involves libraries or APIs the agent hasn't used in this project\n- ? Skip for well-understood domains where the agent has strong existing context\n\n## Scope Confirmation Gate (#1273)\n\n! Before autonomous research begins, present one blocking scope-confirmation prompt and wait for the user's selection. Use the deterministic question contract: the final two numbered options MUST be `Discuss` and `Back`.\n\nPrompt:\n> \"What should this research focus on before I investigate autonomously?\"\n\n1. Confirm the inferred feature/domain scope (Recommended)\n2. Refine the feature boundary or priority areas\n3. Provide sample data, artifacts, constraints, or sensitive areas to account for\n4. Discuss\n5. Back\n\n- ! **Confirmed-scope postcondition (required before survey):** research MUST NOT start the survey until a confirmed research scope is recorded in notes. Confirmation is achieved by **any** of: option **1** (accept inferred scope as-is), or option **2**/**3** after free-form capture (the free-form answer **is** the confirmation of scope — it replaces option-1 confirmation; do not re-open option 1 after capture).\n- ! On option **1** (confirm inferred scope): record the inferred feature/domain as the confirmed research scope and proceed to the survey step.\n- ! On option **2** (refine boundary): ask a **follow-up free-form question** in the next message (one question only) to capture the refined feature boundary or priority areas; wait for the user's answer; record that free-form text as the **confirmed** research scope; then proceed to survey. ⊗ Proceed to survey after option 2 without collecting free-form refinement text. ⊗ Leave research blocked after option 2 with no follow-up path.\n- ! On option **3** (artifacts/constraints/sensitivity): ask a **follow-up free-form question** in the next message (one question only) for sample data paths, artifacts to analyze, constraints, or sensitive areas; wait for the user's answer; record provided artifacts/constraints/sensitivity flags **and** treat the current feature/domain (plus those inputs) as the **confirmed** research scope; then proceed to survey. ⊗ Proceed to survey after option 3 without collecting free-form artifact/constraint input. ⊗ Leave research blocked after option 3 with no follow-up path.\n- ! If the user declines free-form input after option 2 or 3 (empty answer / \"skip\" / \"none\"): re-present the Scope Confirmation Gate once; if they pick option **1**, confirm inferred scope and proceed; if they again decline capture without confirming, stop research and return to the chaining gate or invoking menu — do not survey on unconfirmed scope.\n- ! Record the confirmed scope, any provided artifacts, and any sensitivity flags in the research notes before the survey step.\n- ⊗ Start the survey from project description alone without a confirmed research scope (option 1 acceptance or option 2/3 free-form confirmation).\n\n## Output\n\n! Before writing output artifacts, follow the [Preparatory Guard](./artifact-guards.md#preparatory-guard-light).\n\nProduce `vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json` with two mandatory narratives:\n\n! After emitting this scope vBRIEF, surface the GitHub-issue tracking hint from [emit-hints.md](./emit-hints.md) — name all three patterns (none / `--umbrella` / `--per-vbrief`).\n\n### `DontHandRoll` narrative\n\nProblems that look simple but have existing, battle-tested solutions.\n\n- ! For each problem area, specify: **problem**, **recommended library/tool**, **why not hand-roll**\n- ! Check the project's existing dependencies first -- don't add a library when one is already available\n- ~ Consult official docs for the recommended library (use Context7 or equivalent)\n\n**Example narrative content:**\n```\nProblem: JWT validation\nUse: jose\nRationale: Edge cases in token expiry, key rotation, algorithm confusion\n\nProblem: Email templates\nUse: react-email\nRationale: HTML email rendering is notoriously broken across clients\n\nProblem: Rate limiting\nUse: express-rate-limit\nRationale: IP spoofing, distributed state, Redis integration\n```\n\n### `CommonPitfalls` narrative\n\nWhat goes wrong in this domain, why, and how to avoid it.\n\n- ! For each pitfall: **what happens**, **why it happens**, **how to avoid it**, **warning signs**\n- ~ Informed by library docs, codebase patterns, and known failure modes\n- ~ Prioritize pitfalls that agents specifically tend to hit (stubs, missing error handling, hardcoded values)\n\n**Example narrative content:**\n```\nPitfall: Storing plain-text passwords\nWhat: User passwords saved without hashing\nWhy: Agent implements the happy path and forgets security\nAvoid: Use bcrypt/argon2, never store raw passwords\nWarning signs: No crypto import in auth module, password field stored as-is\n```\n\n### `IPRisk` narrative (#738)\n\n! When the project description, the `Don't Hand-Roll` survey, or the\nresearch notes reference third-party intellectual property (IP), the\nresearch phase MUST run the IP-risk heuristic from\n[`../references/ip-risk.md`](../references/ip-risk.md) -- canonical\nimplementation `scripts/ip_risk.py:detect_ip_terms` -- and persist a\nplain-English `IPRisk` narrative on the research vBRIEF.\n\nThe heuristic is permissive on purpose: recognizable IP names (Magic:\nThe Gathering, Pokemon, etc.), fictional-universe terms (Hogwarts,\nTatooine), branded characters, sports leagues, and trademarked products\nall trigger a hit.\n\n- ! When `detect_ip_terms` returns at least one hit, the research output\n  MUST: (1) ask the explicit monetization-intent question (personal vs\n  commercial); (2) emit `plain_risk_summary(hits, intent)` into the\n  `IPRisk` narrative; (3) plan to inject the protection scope items\n  (`ip_risk_scope_items(intent)`) at SPECIFICATION-generation time.\n- ! On `commercial` intent, surface the **non-optional** lawyer-\n  consultation recommendation in the research output -- this carries\n  forward into the interview output and the SPECIFICATION via the\n  `IPRisk` narrative.\n- ⊗ Treat the absence of detected terms as proof that the project is\n  IP-free. The heuristic only knows about the curated lists; when the\n  research scope is vague, ask the user directly whether the project is\n  based on a game / film / sports league / brand.\n- ⊗ Provide legal advice -- Deft is not a law firm. The only\n  recommendation it makes is **consult a lawyer**.\n\n---\n\n## How Research Feeds Downstream\n\n- ! **Planning** reads research before task decomposition — acceptance criteria account for pitfalls\n- ! **Execution** references \"Don't Hand-Roll\" — agent uses recommended libraries, not custom code\n- ~ **Verification** checks for pitfall warning signs during stub detection\n\n## Research Scope Rules\n\n- ! Research the **current feature only** — not the entire project\n- ! Time-box research — if it takes longer than the feature, scope is wrong\n- ⊗ Research as a reason to delay execution indefinitely\n- ~ Research persists as a vBRIEF in `vbrief/proposed/`\n\n---\n\n## Then: Chaining Gate\n\nAfter research is complete, return to the [chaining gate](./interview.md#chaining-gate)\nso the user can run additional preparatory strategies or proceed to spec generation.\n\n- ! On completion, register artifacts in `./vbrief/plan.vbrief.json`:\n  - Update `completedStrategies`: increment `runCount` for `\"research\"`,\n    append artifact path (`vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json`)\n  - Append the path to the flat `artifacts` array\n- ! Return to [interview.md Chaining Gate](./interview.md#chaining-gate)\n- ! Present the chaining gate as a blocking question and wait for a user selection before any spec generation or additional scope vBRIEF generation.\n- ! Explain at handoff that `completedStrategies` records that research ran, while `vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json` remains a planning artifact in the scope lifecycle until a later strategy promotes or consumes it.\n- ! The research findings MUST inform subsequent strategies and spec generation:\n  - \"Don't Hand-Roll\" items become constraints in the specification\n  - \"Common Pitfalls\" become acceptance criteria or NFRs\n- ⊗ Generate implementation scope vBRIEFs directly from research findings or proceed to spec generation before the user chooses from the chaining gate.\n- ⊗ End the session after research without returning to the chaining gate\n  or the invoking strategy's next-step menu\n\n! **Standalone context:** If invoked from a standalone strategy (e.g. map's\n  standalone next-step menu) rather than from the interview chaining gate,\n  return to the invoking strategy's menu instead.\n\n---\n\n## Workflow\n\n1. **Scope confirmation** -- Ask the blocking scope-confirmation prompt, wait for the user, and record scope/artifact/sensitivity inputs\n2. **Survey** -- Check existing project dependencies, official docs, and known pitfalls\n3. **Document** -- Produce `vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json` with `DontHandRoll` and `CommonPitfalls` narratives\n4. **Chain** -- Return to [interview.md Chaining Gate](./interview.md#chaining-gate), or -- if invoked from a standalone strategy (e.g. map's standalone next-step menu) -- return to the invoking strategy's menu per the [standalone-context rule](#then-chaining-gate) above\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- ⊗ Building custom solutions for solved problems\n- ⊗ Skipping research for unfamiliar domains (\"how hard can auth be?\")\n- ⊗ Starting autonomous research before the Scope Confirmation Gate has captured or explicitly skipped user-provided artifacts/constraints\n- ⊗ Research that produces a reading list instead of actionable guidance\n- ⊗ Research that doesn't flow into planning (written and never referenced)\n- ⊗ Ending after research without chaining into specification generation (chained mode; in standalone context, returning to the invoking strategy's menu satisfies the completion requirement per the [standalone-context rule](#then-chaining-gate))\n"
     },
     {
       "id": "roadmap",

package/skills/deft-directive-pre-pr/SKILL.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Legend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.
 
 **See also**: [deft-directive-review-cycle](../deft-directive-review-cycle/SKILL.md) | [deft-directive-build](../deft-directive-build/SKILL.md) | [RWLDL tool](../../tools/RWLDL.md)
 
-> **Formerly `deft-rwldl`** -- renamed to clearly communicate the skill's purpose (iterative pre-PR quality loop).
+> **Formerly `deft-rwldl`** -- renamed and scoped to PR readiness. For the broader iterative quality improvement loop (micro/macro review), see [tools/RWLDL.md](../../tools/RWLDL.md).
 
 ## Branch-Protection Policy Guard
 
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ task verify:plan-sequence -- --target-kind <entry-kind> --target <entry-id>
 
 > **Invariant:** every change MUST pass the full gate at least once before merge. Pre-PR is the merge chokepoint — NOT every iteration commit.
 
-- ! **Iteration lane (Phases 2–3 loop):** use affected/static gates on changed paths — `vitest run --coverage <paths>`, relevant `verify:*` on touched files, `task coverage:hotspots` — instead of full `task check` on every RWLDL iteration.
+- ! **Iteration lane (Phases 2–3 loop):** use affected/static gates on changed paths — `vitest run --coverage <paths>`, relevant `verify:*` on touched files, `task coverage:hotspots` — instead of full `task check` on every pre-PR iteration.
 - ! **Merge chokepoint (Phase 3 Lint exit + final confirm):** run full `task check` once before push/PR; Phase 3c targeted coverage precedes but does not replace the full gate.
 - ! **Escape-rate safety (#1703 Tier-1):** before recommending fleet-wide fast-lane tightening, cite `#1703` Tier-1 telemetry (`helped/crud-metrics.jsonl`) and `task eval:health` — do NOT invent a separate escape-rate surface.
 - ~ **In-engine incrementality (#1713):** content-hash cache + runner-delegated affected selection are sibling work (#1713).
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ task verify:plan-sequence -- --target-kind <entry-kind> --target <entry-id>
 
 - ! Before pushing a branch for PR creation
 - ! After completing implementation but before the final merge-chokepoint `task check` (#1704)
-- ~ After addressing bot reviewer findings (run one RWLDL pass before pushing the fix batch)
+- ~ After addressing bot reviewer findings (run one pre-PR pass before pushing the fix batch)
 - ? During mid-implementation checkpoints on large changes
 
 ## Loop Phases
@@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ Each iteration proceeds through all phases in order. Do NOT skip phases or reord
 - ! When strengthening a rule (e.g. upgrading `~` to `!`), grep for the term in the full file and verify no weaker-strength duplicate remains
 - ~ Note any inconsistencies, missing RFC2119 markers, stale cross-references, or incomplete sections
 - ~ Check that CHANGELOG.md entries match the actual changes made
+- ! If the change alters **user-visible behavior**, apply [coding/docs.md](../../coding/docs.md) (#447): update the matching user-facing surface (CHANGELOG when user/operator-visible, CLI help / commands.md for new or changed verbs/flags, README/getting-started for install/first-run, skill/strategy triggers when entry points change) in this PR
+- ⊗ Claim documentation was updated without those files in the diff
+- ~ Pure internal refactors with no user-visible behavior change do not require user-facing doc updates
 
 ### Phase 2 -- Write
 
@@ -107,7 +110,7 @@ Each iteration proceeds through all phases in order. Do NOT skip phases or reord
 
 ! Run the merge-chokepoint gate and fix any failures (#1704).
 
-- ! Run full `task check` (fmt + lint + typecheck + tests + coverage + verify:*) — the merge chokepoint, not every RWLDL iteration
+- ! Run full `task check` (fmt + lint + typecheck + tests + coverage + verify:*) — the merge chokepoint, not every pre-PR iteration
 - ! Fix all failures before proceeding to Phase 3b
 - ~ If a lint fix requires changing a file, that counts as a change for the Loop phase
 
@@ -169,7 +172,7 @@ After exiting:
 
 ## Anti-Patterns
 
-- ⊗ Submit a PR without running the RWLDL loop -- every PR branch should pass at least one full cycle
+- ⊗ Submit a PR without running this pre-PR loop (Read-Write-Lint-Diff) -- every PR branch should pass at least one full cycle
 - ⊗ Exit the loop after the Lint phase without completing the Diff phase -- Diff catches scope creep and unintended changes that Lint cannot detect
 - ⊗ Skip the Read phase and jump directly to Lint -- Read catches semantic issues (missing content, wrong RFC2119 markers, incomplete acceptance criteria) that linters do not check
 - ⊗ Make out-of-scope fixes during Write -- this introduces scope creep that Diff will flag, forcing another iteration

package/skills/deft-directive-review-cycle/SKILL.md

@@ -1,11 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: deft-directive-review-cycle
 description: >-
-  Greptile / bot reviewer response and PR-shepherding workflow. Use when
-  running a review cycle or babysitting a PR to merge-ready -- audit process
-  prerequisites, fetch bot findings, fix all issues in a single batch commit,
-  and exit cleanly when no P0 or P1 issues remain. Supersedes Cursor global
-  babysit on Deft-managed repos (#2261).
+  Greptile / GitHub adapter for coding/review.md: babysit a PR to merge-ready
+  — audit process prerequisites, fetch bot findings, fix in one batch commit,
+  exit when no P0/P1 remain. Supersedes Cursor global babysit on Deft-managed
+  repos (#2261 / #1471).
 ---
 <!-- AUTO-GENERATED by task packs:render -- DO NOT EDIT MANUALLY -->
 <!-- Purpose: rendered skill -->
@@ -19,6 +18,14 @@ Structured workflow for responding to bot reviewer (Greptile) findings on a PR.
 
 Legend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.
 
+## Principle Authority (#1471 / #212)
+
+! Universal review-cycle principles live in [`coding/review.md`](../../coding/review.md) (RFC2119): read-all-findings, severity P0/P1/P2 + merge-blocking semantics, single batch commit, cross-file grep of changed terms, local structured-data validation (SHOULD), no push mid-review, exit when no P0/P1 remain (P2 non-blocking), and post-merge closing-keyword verification.
+
+! This skill is the **Greptile + GitHub adapter** only: polling cadence, confidence-score thresholds, check-run detection, dual-source fetch (`gh` + MCP) for Comments Outside Diff, fail-closed Step 6 `ReviewerStatus`, review-monitor lease, and merge gates. Apply `coding/review.md` for the process; do not restate that principle list inline.
+
+~ Future adapters (CodeRabbit, Codacy, host babysit) SHOULD implement the same `coding/review.md` principles with their own mechanics.
+
 ## Platform Requirements
 
 ! This skill requires **GitHub** as the SCM platform and the **GitHub CLI (`gh`)** to be installed and authenticated. PR comment fetching, check-run queries, and review submission all depend on `gh`.
@@ -97,7 +104,7 @@ gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/commits/<sha>/check-runs --jq '.check_runs[] | selec
 
 ! Before touching code, verify ALL prerequisites are satisfied. Fix any gaps first:
 
-1. ! Verify `skills/deft-directive-pre-pr/SKILL.md` was run before PR creation -- the PR branch should have passed at least one full RWLDL cycle. If not, run it now before proceeding.
+1. ! Verify `skills/deft-directive-pre-pr/SKILL.md` was run before PR creation -- the PR branch should have passed at least one full pre-PR cycle (Read-Write-Lint-Diff). If not, run it now before proceeding.
 2. ! `PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json` and `xbrief/` lifecycle folders have scope xBRIEF coverage for all changes in the PR
 3. ! `CHANGELOG.md` has entries under `[Unreleased]` for the PR's changes
 4. ! `task check` passes fully (fmt + lint + typecheck + tests + coverage ≥75%)
@@ -147,16 +154,13 @@ Both commands extract the "Comments Outside Diff" section with surrounding conte
 
 ### Step 2: Analyze ALL findings before changing anything
 
-! Before making any changes:
+! Apply [`coding/review.md`](../../coding/review.md) before any code change: read **all** findings, classify P0/P1/P2, and plan **one** batch. Do not start per-finding fixes mid-read.
+
+Greptile adapter analysis extras:
 
-- Read every finding across all files
 - Identify cross-file dependencies (a term, value, or field mentioned in multiple files)
-- Categorize by severity (P0, P1, P2 — where P0 is critical/blocking, P1 is a real defect, P2 is a style or non-blocking suggestion)
-- Plan a single coherent batch of fixes
 - ! **Scope-check each finding against the active story xBRIEF** (`plan.items[].narrative.Acceptance`) before coding — see Out-of-AC gate (#2881) below
 
-⊗ Start fixing individual findings as you encounter them.
-
 ### Out-of-AC findings / active-story scope gate (#2881)
 
 Babysit and review-cycle are **not** a second unbounded implementation mandate. When Greptile (or another reviewer) raises design-adjacent work outside the active story's acceptance criteria, default to follow-up — not silent redesign mid-babysit (PR #2871 / #2869 → #2880 recurrence).
@@ -188,10 +192,10 @@ Babysit and review-cycle are **not** a second unbounded implementation mandate.
 
 ### Step 3: Fix all findings in ONE batch commit
 
-! Apply ALL fixes across all files before committing:
+! Apply [`coding/review.md`](../../coding/review.md) single-batch, cross-file grep, and local structured-data validation rules. Land **all** in-scope fixes in one commit (or one intentional batch), never per-finding pushes.
+
+Greptile adapter pre-commit gate:
 
-- ! For any fix that touches a value, term, or field appearing in multiple files: grep for it across the full PR file set and update every occurrence in the same commit
-- ! Validate structured data files locally before committing (e.g. `python3 -m json.tool` for JSON, YAML lint for YAML) — do not rely on the bot to catch syntax errors
 - ! Before committing any Greptile fix, re-read the FULL current Greptile review and confirm all P0/P1 issues are addressed in the staged changes — this is the pre-commit gate that prevents per-finding fix commits
 - ! Run `task check` before committing
 - ! **Fail-loud completion claim (#1006)**: when reporting fix-batch completion (to the user, in the commit message, in a PR comment, or in a status message to a parent agent), MUST surface the OUTCOMES not the intent -- name the P0/P1 finding count addressed ("addressed 3/3 P0 findings, 2/2 P1 findings, 0 deferred" -- NOT "all findings addressed"), report the `task check` result with the test-collection counts ("task check: 412 collected, 412 passed, 0 skipped, 0 xfailed" -- NOT "task check passed"), and explicitly call out any finding intentionally deferred with the reason. Apply `coding/coding.md` `## Fail Loud: Completion Claims Require Outcome Verification (#1006)` to every claim emitted during the review cycle
@@ -200,8 +204,6 @@ Babysit and review-cycle are **not** a second unbounded implementation mandate.
 - ? **Pre-existing failure carve-out**: If `task check` fails due to a pre-existing issue unrelated to the PR's changes, a partial test suite run is acceptable ONLY if BOTH conditions are met: (a) the `task check` failure is pre-existing with an open GitHub issue number tracking it, AND (b) the PR description explicitly notes the failure and includes the issue reference (e.g. "task check: test_foo fails due to #NNN (pre-existing)"). Without both conditions, the full `task check` pass remains mandatory.
 - ~ Commit message: `fix: address Greptile review findings (batch)`
 
-⊗ Push individual fix commits per finding — always batch.
-
 ### Step 3b: Proactive test coverage scan
 
 ! After committing the fix batch but before pushing, scan the changed lines for untested code paths:
@@ -221,7 +223,9 @@ Babysit and review-cycle are **not** a second unbounded implementation mandate.
 
 ! After pushing, the agent MUST autonomously poll for review updates and continue the review cycle without stopping to ask the user. Do not pause for confirmation, do not ask "should I continue?", do not wait for user input between push and review completion. The review/fix loop is designed to run to the exit condition without human intervention.
 
-⊗ Push any additional commits — including unrelated fixes, doc updates, or lessons — while waiting for the bot to finish reviewing the current head. Every push re-triggers Greptile and resets the review clock. If you discover additional work while waiting, stage it locally but do NOT push until the current review completes.
+! Mid-review push rule: see [`coding/review.md`](../../coding/review.md) (no push while review in progress). Adapter rationale: every push re-triggers Greptile and resets the review clock.
+
+⊗ Push any additional commits — including unrelated fixes, doc updates, or lessons — while waiting for the bot to finish reviewing the current head. If you discover additional work while waiting, stage it locally but do NOT push until the current review completes.
 
 
 
@@ -266,7 +270,7 @@ Remediation:
    - `gh pr checks <N>`
    - `gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<N> -q .head.sha` for HEAD pin
    - `gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/commits/<sha>/check-runs` for Greptile terminal check-run
-5. Evaluate the same Step 6 fail-closed all-of (terminal check-run + HEAD SHA + Last reviewed commit + confidence > 3 + no P0/P1).
+5. Evaluate the same Step 6 fail-closed all-of (terminal check-run + HEAD SHA + Last reviewed commit + confidence meets resolved min (policy/dogfood/default; see Step 6 #3095) + no P0/P1).
 6. Surface missing-task once to the operator/parent on first detection; do not silently rebrand freestyle sleep as `pr:watch`.
 
 ⊗ Fake a successful `pr:watch` or `review-monitor:*` gate when every dual-invoke probe failed.
@@ -274,7 +278,7 @@ Remediation:
 ⊗ Invent ad-hoc `sleep` / main-session poll / OpenClaw cron loops outside Approach 1–3 when the skill already names this fallback (#2878 / statusreport#153 recurrence).
 ⊗ Skip Step 6 fail-closed fields because deterministic tasks are missing — the gh surfaces above remain mandatory.
 
-! When `clean_gate_holdout=ci_failures` and Greptile otherwise satisfies the probe-side Step 6 fields (SHA match on HEAD, confidence > 3, no P0/P1, not errored): **MUST NOT** idle-poll hoping CI heals. Treat Greptile CLEAN + CI red with the **same ownership** as a Greptile P0 for a merge-ready worker — one fix batch, re-push, re-probe.
+! When `clean_gate_holdout=ci_failures` and Greptile otherwise satisfies the probe-side Step 6 fields (SHA match on HEAD, confidence meets resolved min (policy/dogfood/default; see Step 6 #3095), no P0/P1, not errored): **MUST NOT** idle-poll hoping CI heals. Treat Greptile CLEAN + CI red with the **same ownership** as a Greptile P0 for a merge-ready worker — one fix batch, re-push, re-probe.
 
 ! On persistent `ci_failures` holdout: exit the Greptile wait immediately, fetch failing check annotations (`gh pr checks <N>`, CodeQL / required-check details, or `ci_failed_checks` from `pr:watch --json`), fix or escalate with evidence, then re-enter the review loop after CI is green.
 
@@ -320,6 +324,35 @@ Remediation:
 
 ⊗ Treat a stall as silent -- if the elapsed clock crosses the 10-minute threshold the agent MUST surface the menu, even if the agent is mid-poll. Continuing to poll past the threshold without user input is forbidden.
 
+### Owner Continuity Gate (#3090)
+
+! After any claim of `drive-to: merge-ready`, babysit, shepherd, or "driving review-cycle / merge" on an **open PR**, the **same turn** MUST end in exactly one of:
+
+- **A.** Approach 1 monitor live + sticky `<!-- deft:review-owner -->` lease registered (or #2878 gh-only lease equivalent). Parent yields with an **active** child / monitor and emits `review_cycle: in_progress:<pr>#<monitor_or_lease_ref>`.
+- **B.** Parent-retained ownership: parent does **not** mark the work complete; the next concrete action is an explicit dual-source poll/fix (Step 1 + Step 6). Emit `review_cycle: in_progress:<pr>#parent-retained` (or lease id when a sticky lease exists).
+- **C.** Explicit finish to caller/principal: `BLOCKED` / needs decision / `FAILED` with PR URL + HEAD SHA + why. Emit `review_cycle: skipped:<reason>` or keep `in_progress` only when a live owner remains; never freeform `started`.
+
+! **`review_cycle` evidence enum (portable — all consumers / handoffs / preamble §11 / swarm finish messages):** **only**
+  - `done` — Step 6 fail-closed all-of met on current HEAD (terminal check + HEAD pin + confidence bar + **0 P0/P1** via **dual-source**)
+  - `in_progress:<pr>#<monitor_or_lease_ref>` — verifiable sticky lease, registered monitor id, or documented `parent-retained` ownership
+  - `skipped:<reason>` — intentional skip (e.g. no-pr, operator cancel)
+  - `n/a` — work never entered review-cycle
+
+! Layer **L4** `status: pass` (or equivalent process-green handoff) is **illegal** unless `review_cycle: done` **or** `review_cycle: in_progress:…` with **verifiable** sticky lease / parent-retained ownership documented on that turn.
+
+! Opening a PR may use `in_progress` + lease; the **merge path** requires `done` (stricter product merge bars remain out of scope).
+
+! When dual-source fetch shows open P0/P1 under Step 6 / CLEAN evaluation: continue the fix loop **or** exit **BLOCKED** to the parent — never idle.
+
+! Optional machine gate: `deft verify:l4-owner --pr <N>` (or `task verify:l4-owner -- --pr <N>`; dual-invoke same order as other gates). Exit **0** only when a sticky lease is fresh on the PR **or** the caller asserts `--review-cycle done` after Step 6 (lease-or-done machine gate). `skipped` / `n/a` / parent-retained are process evidence only and do **not** satisfy this machine gate. Exit **1** on silent hold (no lease, no done). Pair with existing monitor-without-lease regression (#2797).
+
+⊗ End an owning turn with **0 children**, **no sticky lease**, and **no finish signal** after a drive-to-merge / babysit / shepherd claim (**silent hold**).
+⊗ Treat check-run **SUCCESS alone** as CLEAN or merge-ready while dual-source P0/P1 remain open.
+⊗ Emit freeform `review_cycle: started` / `pending` / `initiated` or L4 `status: pass` without **A** (or parent-retained **B** with explicit next action) or full Step 6 `done`.
+⊗ Solve Owner Continuity via host cron-as-Approach-1 or always-block-parent-until-merge — use A/B/C above (#2876 / #3090).
+
+~ **Eval / regression (#3090):** Given PR open + check SUCCESS + open inline P1s + agent text claims driving merge + turn ends with 0 subagents and no lease → **FAIL** (Owner Continuity Gate), not PASS.
+
 ### Review Monitoring
 ! **Background / independent dispatch (#1880 Gap D):** Long-running review-cycle owners and pollers (>~3 min) MUST be dispatched independently / in the background so the parent conversation stays interactive. On Cursor, use the Task tool background path (`run_in_background: true`). This generalizes the Approach-1 sub-agent monitor rule to implementation and fix workers as well — foreground dispatch is reserved for short tasks. The parent receives completion via `DONE` / `BLOCKED` / `FAILED` per `templates/agent-prompt-preamble.md` §11.
 
@@ -368,7 +401,7 @@ Remediation:
 
 1. ! Launch via the matching primitive: `start_agent` (Warp), `spawn_subagent` (grok-build / TUI / non-Warp), the Cursor `Task` tool with `run_in_background: true` (`cursor-composer` / `cursor-cloud-agent`, #1877), **or OpenClaw `sessions_spawn` (`openclaw`, #2876)** with a prompt that instructs it to poll for Greptile completion. For `spawn_subagent`, Cursor `Task`, and OpenClaw `sessions_spawn` the prompt MUST reference the canonical poller template `templates/swarm-greptile-poller-prompt.md` (with placeholders filled) plus the agent preamble; the working directory / context must be the PR branch (worktree or equivalent for hybrid).
 2. ! The sub-agent polls using the mechanism for its primitive: for `spawn_subagent` use `get_command_or_subagent_output` (adaptive cadence: ~20-30s first check after push, ~60s second, ~90s thereafter; Greptile typically lands in 3-7 min); for `start_agent` the native messaging path; for the Cursor `Task` tool the backgrounded-task completion-notification path; for OpenClaw `sessions_spawn` the host session completion / messaging channel (prefer `task pr:watch` inside the child when available). Front-load the first check to catch fast reviews.
-3. ! When the exit condition is met (Greptile review current on the HEAD commit SHA, confidence > 3, no P0/P1 remaining), the sub-agent reports completion back to the parent (via `send_message_to_agent`, the spawn_subagent result channel, or the OpenClaw sessions completion channel).
+3. ! When the exit condition is met (Greptile review current on the HEAD commit SHA, confidence meets resolved min (policy/dogfood/default; see Step 6 #3095), no P0/P1 remaining), the sub-agent reports completion back to the parent (via `send_message_to_agent`, the spawn_subagent result channel, or the OpenClaw sessions completion channel).
 4. ! The main conversation pane stays fully interactive during monitoring -- the user (or parent monitor) can continue other work.
 5. ! On receiving the completion message / result, the parent re-fetches findings (both gh pr view --comments and the secondary source) and proceeds to Step 5.
 
@@ -385,6 +418,11 @@ Remediation:
 
 ~ Recurrence: enterprize PR #43 (2026-08-02) — first monitor polled live, host settled empty/unknown; parent spawned a second same-`taskName` monitor; dual lease collision while PR stayed open. See also `meta/lessons.md` and FC04 / growth friction R1 + R10.
 
+
+### Completion latch on settle replay (#3092)
+
+! **Empty settle** is not a latch hit — use Empty announce ≠ done (#3044) above. When the parent has already emitted **one** consolidate for a monitor/leaf `runId` and the harness re-delivers an **identical or equivalent** non-empty settle for the same key, stay **silent** (no re-QC, no second final; host silent token when defined). Re-open only on new runId, principal reopen, or material new evidence. Full MUST: `templates/agent-prompt-preamble.md` §11.5.
+
 ### Single review-monitor lease (#3044 / #2814)
 
 ! **One sticky lease per PR:** ownership is the single sticky GitHub PR comment `<!-- deft:review-owner -->` (or the dual-invoke `review-monitor:register` form that writes it). Parallel ownership is forbidden.
@@ -448,7 +486,7 @@ NOTES: <short>
    - Second check: wait ~60 seconds, then poll
    - Subsequent checks: wait ~90 seconds, then poll
 2. ! Poll using `gh pr view <number> --comments` and `gh pr checks <number>` in the same shell session
-3. ! When the exit condition is met (Greptile review current, confidence > 3, no P0/P1), exit the loop and proceed to Step 5
+3. ! When the exit condition is met (Greptile review current, confidence meets resolved min (policy/dogfood/default; see Step 6 #3095), no P0/P1), exit the loop and proceed to Step 5
 4. ! If the user interrupts (Ctrl+C or equivalent), exit gracefully and report current review status
 
 ! Greptile may advance its review by **editing an existing PR issue comment** rather than creating a new PR review object. Do NOT rely solely on `pulls/{number}/reviews` — that endpoint may remain stale at an older commit SHA even after Greptile has reviewed the latest commit.
@@ -489,7 +527,7 @@ NOTES: <short>
     ```
 
    A missing or non-matching completion marker is `unknown`. See [`../../templates/swarm-greptile-poller-prompt.md`](../../templates/swarm-greptile-poller-prompt.md) `### Last reviewed commit:` for the canonical regex shared with the push-driven poller loop.
-4. ! **Confidence > 3** — the parsed `Confidence Score: X/5` is strictly greater than 3 (i.e. 4/5 or 5/5). A `confidence == 3`, an unparsed confidence, or an absent confidence is `unknown`.
+4. ! **Confidence meets resolved min (#3095)** — the parsed `Confidence Score: X/5` is **>=** the resolved floor from `plan.policy.review.minGreptileConfidence` (inspect: `task policy:show --field=minGreptileConfidence`; `pr:watch` / `pr:merge-ready` share this SoT). Resolution order: typed project policy > framework dogfood detect (framework source → **5**) > consumer default (**4**, legacy confidence > 3 / 4/5+). A score below the floor, an unparsed confidence, or an absent confidence is `unknown`. Directive dogfood MUST NOT exit CLEAN on 4/5.
 5. ! **No P0/P1 findings** — the triple-tier (+ Tier 2.5) detector reports zero P0 and zero P1 findings (P2 issues are non-blocking style suggestions and do not gate the loop).
 
 ! All five fields MUST hold on the SAME single fresh fetch. The agent MUST NOT assemble a "pass" by combining a terminal check-run observed on one poll with a confidence parsed on an earlier poll — the read is atomic per the SHA-pinned-AT-READ-TIME rule above.
@@ -564,6 +602,8 @@ task lifecycle:event -- emit plan:approved \
 
 ## Post-Merge Verification
 
+! Apply [`coding/review.md`](../../coding/review.md) post-merge closing-keyword verification. Adapter HOW for GitHub:
+
 ! After a PR is squash-merged, verify that all referenced issues were actually closed. Squash merges can silently fail to process closing keywords (`Closes #N`, `Fixes #N`) from the PR body (#167).
 
 1. ! For each issue referenced with a closing keyword in the PR body, run:
@@ -579,6 +619,10 @@ task lifecycle:event -- emit plan:approved \
 
 ## Anti-Patterns
 
+- ⊗ End owning turn with 0 children, no sticky lease, and no finish after drive-to-merge / babysit / shepherd claim — silent hold (#3090)
+- ⊗ Emit freeform `review_cycle: started` / `pending` / `initiated` or L4 `status: pass` without `done` or verifiable `in_progress:<pr>#…` lease/parent-retained (#3090)
+- ⊗ Treat check-run SUCCESS alone as CLEAN / merge-ready while dual-source P0/P1 remain (#3090)
+- ⊗ Ignore [`coding/review.md`](../../coding/review.md) while running this adapter — universal batch/severity/exit/post-merge rules live there
 - ⊗ Route PR shepherding to Cursor global `babysit` on Deft-managed repos when `.deft/core/` is installed -- use this review-cycle skill instead (#2261)
 - ⊗ Route OpenClaw babysit/shepherd/watch to main-session gh poll + cron when `sessions_spawn` is available -- use Approach 1 with `sessions_spawn` (#2876 / #2261)
 - ⊗ Treat OpenClaw `cron` alone as Approach 1 — cron/timer is Approach 2 only if spawn is unavailable (#2876)

package/skills/deft-directive-setup/SKILL.md

@@ -655,7 +655,9 @@ omit = [
 - **anything else** (discuss, yolo, speckit, research, brownfield, map, etc.) →
   1. ! Read `deft/strategies/{strategy-name}.md` **right now, in this same turn**
   2. ! Begin the strategy's workflow immediately — ask its first question
-  3. ! **STOP reading this section** — do NOT use the interview process below
+  3. ! For `research`, the first question is the strategy's Scope Confirmation Gate (#1273); ask it and wait before any autonomous research begins.
+  4. ! For `research`, after the research artifact is written, surface the strategy's Then: Chaining Gate and wait for a user selection; do NOT create scope xBRIEFs from research output unless the user later chooses a spec-generating path; do NOT fall through to the interview output path after research.
+  5. ! **STOP reading this section** — do NOT use the interview process below
 
 - ⊗ Default to interview without reading PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json
 - ⊗ Continue reading below when PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json specifies a non-interview strategy
@@ -760,8 +762,14 @@ Per [strategies/interview.md](../../strategies/interview.md#interview-rules-shar
 **Spec Structure (both paths):**
 - ! Overview, Architecture
 - ! Implementation Plan: scope xBRIEFs in `xbrief/proposed/` with phases and dependencies
-- ! Explicit dependency mapping between scopes (via xBRIEF `edges` or `references`)
+- ! Explicit dependency mapping MUST use the field consumers actually read for the scope shape:
+  - **Story-shaped scopes** (`plan.metadata.kind = "story"` or scopes intended for swarm allocation / decompose): sequential/blocked work MUST set `plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on` to an array of **resolvable story identifiers**. Swarm readiness, decompose, and queue traversal read **only** this field for story ordering — not `plan.metadata.dependencies` alone. ! Each `depends_on` entry MUST equal the blocking scope's `plan.id` when that field is set; otherwise the blocking artifact's **filename stem** (basename with `.xbrief.json` / `.vbrief.json` stripped — the same stem readiness uses as `story_id`). ⊗ Use rendered titles, free-form prose, date-only prefixes, or unstripped full filenames — those do not resolve and leave the generated scope blocked.
+  - **Phase/epic or cross-scope roadmap batches**: MAY also set plan-level `plan.metadata.dependencies` for roadmap/export readers.
+  - `edges` / `references` may supplement documentation but **do not** replace `plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on` for sequential story scopes.
+- ! When multiple scopes are produced in one Phase 3 pass, encode machine-readable dependency ordering before finishing the write: independent scopes use empty `plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on` (`[]`); sequential/blocked story scopes use non-empty `plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on`. Optionally mirror the same DAG in `plan.metadata.dependencies` for roadmap views.
 - ~ Scopes designed for parallel work by multiple agents
+- ⊗ Deposit sequential story-shaped scopes with only `plan.metadata.dependencies` / `edges` / `references` and missing `plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on` — orchestration will treat them as independent or reject readiness.
+- ⊗ Deposit multiple generated scope xBRIEFs with no dependency metadata and rely on filenames or human prose for ordering.
 - ! Testing Strategy and Deployment captured in narratives
 - ⊗ Write code — specification only
 

package/skills/deft-directive-swarm/SKILL.md

@@ -115,6 +115,12 @@ Large multi-host skills use a **host-neutral core** plus **one** per-host adapte
 ⊗ Multi-sentence progress-only first response after announce with zero tools / yield (#2943 text-repetition hang).
 ⊗ Treat thin DONE (no PR URL / merge evidence) as success (#2943).
 
+
+
+### Completion latch after first consolidate (#3092)
+
+! After the parent emits **one** user/caller-visible consolidate for a child `runId` / settle batch, **identical or equivalent completion replay** for the same key MUST be **silent** (no tools, no re-QC, no second final; host silent token when defined, e.g. OpenClaw `NO_REPLY`). Re-open only on new `runId`/batch, principal explicit reopen, or materially new evidence (new HEAD, new blocker class). Replay storms: at most one fail-loud note, then silent. Full MUST: `templates/agent-prompt-preamble.md` §11.5. Depth: `references/core-phase-5-6.md`. Orthogonal to empty settle ≠ done (#3044).
+
 ## Runtime Capability Detection (summary)
 
 ! Before selecting a launch method, probe the environment. Full probe text: [`references/core-phase-3.md`](references/core-phase-3.md).
@@ -152,6 +158,7 @@ Large multi-host skills use a **host-neutral core** plus **one** per-host adapte
 - ⊗ Prose-only phase handoff after cohort complete (“I will spawn…”) (#2934)
 - ⊗ Multi-sentence progress-only first response after leaf announce with zero tools / yield (#2943)
 - ⊗ Treat thin DONE (no PR URL / merge evidence) as success (#2943)
+- ⊗ Second+ user-visible consolidate for the same child runId without new evidence (#3092)
 - ⊗ Assign overlapping files to multiple agents
 - ⊗ Merge before Greptile exit condition (score > 3, no P0/P1)
 - ⊗ Skip Phase 0 approval before Phase 1

package/skills/deft-directive-swarm/references/core-ops.md

@@ -143,3 +143,5 @@ CONSTRAINTS:
 - ⊗ End a cohort phase-boundary turn with only narrative “I will spawn…” / “review next” and zero next-phase tool calls and no explicit terminal status (`blocked` / `awaiting-human` / `done`) (#2934)
 - ⊗ Multi-sentence progress-only first response after leaf completion announce (`subagent_announce` / parent-push) with zero tools / yield — tool-first ground-truth batch or host yield only (#2943 text-repetition hang)
 - ⊗ Treat thin DONE (completion without PR URL / merge evidence) as success — re-dispatch or take over after ground truth (#2943)
+- ⊗ Second+ user-visible consolidate / final for the same child `runId` / settle batch without new evidence or principal reopen — completion latch silent-replay path (`templates/agent-prompt-preamble.md` §11.5 / #3092)
+- ⊗ Full dual-source re-QC solely because the harness re-delivered the same settle event (#3092)

package/skills/deft-directive-swarm/references/core-phase-5-6.md

@@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ For each agent's PR:
 
 ! **Parent tool-first after leaf announce (#2943):** On the first parent turn after a leaf completion event (`subagent_announce` / parent-push / host completion notify), the parent MUST either (a) emit a **tool-first** ground-truth batch (`gh` / `git` / worktree or file status), or (b) **yield** (`sessions_yield` on OpenClaw, or host equivalent). ⊗ Multi-sentence progress-only first response with zero tools / yield — the text-repetition hang class.
 
+! **Completion latch after first consolidate (#3092):** After the parent has emitted **one** user/caller-visible consolidate for a child `runId` / settle batch (accept or reject), **identical or equivalent completion replay** for the same key MUST be **silent** (no tools, no re-QC, no second final; host silent token when defined, e.g. OpenClaw `NO_REPLY`). Re-open only on new `runId`/batch, principal explicit reopen, or **materially new** evidence (new HEAD, new blocker class) — not fat re-embeds of the same rollup. Replay storms: at most one fail-loud note, then silent. Full MUST + anti-patterns: `templates/agent-prompt-preamble.md` §11.5. Orthogonal to empty settle ≠ done (#3044).
+
 ### Complete xBRIEFs
 
 ! The cohort's story xBRIEFs are completed by the deterministic **cohort completion sweep** in Phase 6 (`task swarm:complete-cohort`, Phase 6 Step 1.5 below), which runs AFTER the merge cascade. Do NOT move story xBRIEFs out of `xbrief/active/` before their PRs merge — a pre-merge move creates premature state if the merge cascade fails. This section is where the monitor records, per story, what the post-merge sweep will finalize:

package/skills/deft-directive-xbrief/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+name: deft-directive-xbrief
+description: >-
+  Create and verify dense xBRIEF artifacts (json|md|both) at an explicit --out
+  path. On-demand pack templates for scope/playbook/mission/project styles.
+  Use when compressing SoT into xBRIEF or running xbrief:create /
+  xbrief:verify. Do NOT trigger on scope lifecycle
+  (promote/activate/complete).
+triggers:
+  - xbrief create
+  - xbrief verify
+  - create xbrief
+  - verify xbrief
+  - compress into xbrief
+  - xbrief:create
+  - xbrief:verify
+
+---
+<!-- AUTO-GENERATED by task packs:render -- DO NOT EDIT MANUALLY -->
+<!-- Purpose: rendered skill -->
+<!-- Source of truth: packs/skills/skills-pack-0.1.json -->
+<!-- Regenerate with: task packs:render -->
+<!-- Edit the source, not this file. Slice instead of loading every SKILL.md: task packs:slice skills by-trigger --trigger <kw> (or list) -->
+
+# Deft Directive xBRIEF — on-demand create/verify
+
+Create and verify dense xBRIEF artifacts (json|md|both) at an explicit path. Pack templates load on use — not an always-on novel.
+
+Legend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Need a dense SoT brief (scope, playbook, mission, project) without freestyling long prose
+- Operator or agent says `xbrief create`, `xbrief verify`, or `compress into xbrief`
+- ⊗ Scope lifecycle work (promote / activate / complete) — use scope:* / intake instead
+
+## How (CLI)
+
+```bash
+deft xbrief:create -- --format <json|md|both> --out <path> [--style scope|playbook|mission|project] [--title T] [--id ID] [--force]
+deft xbrief:verify -- --format <json|md|both> --out <path> [--style scope|playbook|mission|project]
+```
+
+- ! `--format` and `--out` are **required**
+- ! `both` writes a stem pair: `*.xbrief.json` + `*.xbrief.md`
+- ! Paths expand portably (`~`, `%USERPROFILE%`); writes stay under project root (fail closed)
+- ! create/verify **do not** move lifecycle folders
+
+## Pack on use
+
+- ~ Full grammar + templates: `task packs:slice skills by-trigger --trigger xbrief` (or this skill path)
+- ~ Schema spine: `content/vbrief/schemas/xbrief-core-0.8.schema.json`
+- ⊗ Dump pack novels into always-on bootstrap or into SoT artifacts
+
+## Create vs lifecycle
+
+| Verb | Meaning |
+|------|---------|
+| `xbrief:create` / `xbrief:verify` | Write or check an artifact at `--out` |
+| `scope:*` / intake | Lifecycle birth and folder/status transitions |
+| `xbrief:preflight` | Implementation-intent gate (unchanged) |
+
+## Token budget
+
+- ! Keep this skill postcard-sized; load pack/CLI help only when creating or verifying
+- ⊗ Inline full schema manuals or multi-style novels into the always-on body
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- ⊗ Overload `scope:promote` (or any lifecycle verb) to mean "compress text"
+- ⊗ Invent `xbrief:promote` for create
+- ⊗ Escape project root with `--out`
+- ⊗ Auto-write to personal memory stores from this skill
+
+## Exit
+
+deft-directive-xbrief complete — create/verify done; chain to scope:* only when lifecycle is intended.

package/strategies/research.md

@@ -22,6 +22,27 @@ Legend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.
 - ~ When the feature involves libraries or APIs the agent hasn't used in this project
 - ? Skip for well-understood domains where the agent has strong existing context
 
+## Scope Confirmation Gate (#1273)
+
+! Before autonomous research begins, present one blocking scope-confirmation prompt and wait for the user's selection. Use the deterministic question contract: the final two numbered options MUST be `Discuss` and `Back`.
+
+Prompt:
+> "What should this research focus on before I investigate autonomously?"
+
+1. Confirm the inferred feature/domain scope (Recommended)
+2. Refine the feature boundary or priority areas
+3. Provide sample data, artifacts, constraints, or sensitive areas to account for
+4. Discuss
+5. Back
+
+- ! **Confirmed-scope postcondition (required before survey):** research MUST NOT start the survey until a confirmed research scope is recorded in notes. Confirmation is achieved by **any** of: option **1** (accept inferred scope as-is), or option **2**/**3** after free-form capture (the free-form answer **is** the confirmation of scope — it replaces option-1 confirmation; do not re-open option 1 after capture).
+- ! On option **1** (confirm inferred scope): record the inferred feature/domain as the confirmed research scope and proceed to the survey step.
+- ! On option **2** (refine boundary): ask a **follow-up free-form question** in the next message (one question only) to capture the refined feature boundary or priority areas; wait for the user's answer; record that free-form text as the **confirmed** research scope; then proceed to survey. ⊗ Proceed to survey after option 2 without collecting free-form refinement text. ⊗ Leave research blocked after option 2 with no follow-up path.
+- ! On option **3** (artifacts/constraints/sensitivity): ask a **follow-up free-form question** in the next message (one question only) for sample data paths, artifacts to analyze, constraints, or sensitive areas; wait for the user's answer; record provided artifacts/constraints/sensitivity flags **and** treat the current feature/domain (plus those inputs) as the **confirmed** research scope; then proceed to survey. ⊗ Proceed to survey after option 3 without collecting free-form artifact/constraint input. ⊗ Leave research blocked after option 3 with no follow-up path.
+- ! If the user declines free-form input after option 2 or 3 (empty answer / "skip" / "none"): re-present the Scope Confirmation Gate once; if they pick option **1**, confirm inferred scope and proceed; if they again decline capture without confirming, stop research and return to the chaining gate or invoking menu — do not survey on unconfirmed scope.
+- ! Record the confirmed scope, any provided artifacts, and any sensitivity flags in the research notes before the survey step.
+- ⊗ Start the survey from project description alone without a confirmed research scope (option 1 acceptance or option 2/3 free-form confirmation).
+
 ## Output
 
 ! Before writing output artifacts, follow the [Preparatory Guard](./artifact-guards.md#preparatory-guard-light).
@@ -127,9 +148,12 @@ so the user can run additional preparatory strategies or proceed to spec generat
     append artifact path (`vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json`)
   - Append the path to the flat `artifacts` array
 - ! Return to [interview.md Chaining Gate](./interview.md#chaining-gate)
+- ! Present the chaining gate as a blocking question and wait for a user selection before any spec generation or additional scope vBRIEF generation.
+- ! Explain at handoff that `completedStrategies` records that research ran, while `vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json` remains a planning artifact in the scope lifecycle until a later strategy promotes or consumes it.
 - ! The research findings MUST inform subsequent strategies and spec generation:
   - "Don't Hand-Roll" items become constraints in the specification
   - "Common Pitfalls" become acceptance criteria or NFRs
+- ⊗ Generate implementation scope vBRIEFs directly from research findings or proceed to spec generation before the user chooses from the chaining gate.
 - ⊗ End the session after research without returning to the chaining gate
   or the invoking strategy's next-step menu
 
@@ -141,7 +165,7 @@ so the user can run additional preparatory strategies or proceed to spec generat
 
 ## Workflow
 
-1. **Scope** -- Identify the domain and feature boundaries for research
+1. **Scope confirmation** -- Ask the blocking scope-confirmation prompt, wait for the user, and record scope/artifact/sensitivity inputs
 2. **Survey** -- Check existing project dependencies, official docs, and known pitfalls
 3. **Document** -- Produce `vbrief/proposed/{feature}-research.vbrief.json` with `DontHandRoll` and `CommonPitfalls` narratives
 4. **Chain** -- Return to [interview.md Chaining Gate](./interview.md#chaining-gate), or -- if invoked from a standalone strategy (e.g. map's standalone next-step menu) -- return to the invoking strategy's menu per the [standalone-context rule](#then-chaining-gate) above
@@ -150,6 +174,7 @@ so the user can run additional preparatory strategies or proceed to spec generat
 
 - ⊗ Building custom solutions for solved problems
 - ⊗ Skipping research for unfamiliar domains ("how hard can auth be?")
+- ⊗ Starting autonomous research before the Scope Confirmation Gate has captured or explicitly skipped user-provided artifacts/constraints
 - ⊗ Research that produces a reading list instead of actionable guidance
 - ⊗ Research that doesn't flow into planning (written and never referenced)
 - ⊗ Ending after research without chaining into specification generation (chained mode; in standalone context, returning to the invoking strategy's menu satisfies the completion requirement per the [standalone-context rule](#then-chaining-gate))

package/tasks/verify.yml

@@ -496,6 +496,16 @@ tasks:
         vars:
           ENGINE_CMD: 'verify-review-monitor {{.CLI_ARGS}}'
 
+  l4-owner:
+    desc: "Owner Continuity / L4 owner gate (#3090): exit 0 only if sticky review-owner lease is fresh or --review-cycle done (forbid freeform started/pending). Three-state exit (0 ready / 1 silent hold / 2 config)."
+    dir: '{{.USER_WORKING_DIR}}'
+    deps:
+      - task: :engine:_ts-build
+    cmds:
+      - task: :engine:invoke
+        vars:
+          ENGINE_CMD: 'verify-l4-owner {{.CLI_ARGS}}'
+
   subagent-alive:
     desc: "Fail-closed worker liveness gate (#2824): missing/STALE heartbeats for in-flight drive-to:merge* workers exit 1 with REDISPATCH_OK. Three-state exit (0 alive / 1 stale-or-missing / 2 config error)."
     dir: '{{.USER_WORKING_DIR}}'

package/templates/agent-prompt-preamble.md

@@ -545,13 +545,46 @@ Every worker MUST send a final status message before exiting its tool loop, rega
 
 ! **Empty announce ≠ done / single review-monitor lease (#3044 / FC04 residual):** An empty settle, missing `STATUS:` line, or `status: unknown` from a review-monitor (`subagent_announce` with `(no output)` included) is **not** DONE/CLEAN/merge-ready. Parent MUST same-turn ground truth (`gh pr view` + checks + HEAD) and MUST NOT spawn a second monitor while the prior owner is running or only falsely settled. Prefer one sticky `<!-- deft:review-owner -->` lease and a non-empty `STATUS`/`HEAD`/`CHECKS`/`MERGE` handback. Full MUST language: `skills/deft-directive-review-cycle/SKILL.md` + OpenClaw host adapter residual.
 
+! **`review_cycle` evidence enum (#3090):** Handoffs, swarm finish messages, and L4 process claims MUST use only `done` | `in_progress:<pr>#<monitor_or_lease_ref>` | `skipped:<reason>` | `n/a`. Freeform `started` / `pending` / `initiated` is forbidden. L4 `status: pass` is illegal unless `review_cycle: done` (Step 6 fail-closed on HEAD) or `review_cycle: in_progress:…` with a verifiable sticky lease / parent-retained ownership. After a drive-to:merge-ready / babysit / shepherd claim, the same turn MUST end in Owner Continuity Gate A/B/C (monitor+lease, parent-retained next dual-source action, or explicit BLOCKED/FAILED finish) — never silent hold. Optional machine gate: `deft verify:l4-owner --pr <N>` / `task verify:l4-owner -- --pr <N>`. Full MUST language: `skills/deft-directive-review-cycle/SKILL.md` Owner Continuity Gate.
+
 ! **Parent tool-first after leaf completion (#2943):** When a parent / monitor receives a leaf completion event (`subagent_announce`, parent-push, or host completion notify), its **first response** MUST be a **tool-first** ground-truth batch (`gh` / `git` / worktree or file status) **or** a host **yield** (`sessions_yield` on OpenClaw, or equivalent). ⊗ Multi-sentence progress-only first response with zero tools / yield — the OpenClaw text-repetition hang class (#2943).
 
 ⊗ Treat thin DONE (no PR URL / merge evidence) as success (#2943).
 ⊗ Treat empty/unknown review-monitor settle as DONE without same-turn ground truth, or dual-spawn a second monitor while the first lease is live (#3044).
+⊗ Emit freeform `review_cycle: started` / `pending` / `initiated` or L4 `status: pass` without `done` or verifiable `in_progress:<pr>#…` (#3090).
 
 Per-step acks during the run are noise. ONE start message, ONE final message; intermediate messages only on `BLOCKED` / `FAILED`. The final message lets the dispatcher distinguish a clean exit from a silent timeout when the lifecycle event arrives.
 
+## 11.5 Completion latch — one consolidate per runId (#3092)
+
+Multi-agent **orchestrators** (OpenClaw parent seats, Cursor Task parents, grok-build swarm monitors, any parent that receives child settle / completion events) MUST apply a portable **completion latch**. Host-level announce dedupe is complementary and imperfect; this is the **agent-side** default when the same settled batch is re-delivered.
+
+### Completion latch (MUST)
+
+1. **One user- or caller-visible consolidate per child `runId` / settle batch** (or the explicit equivalent batch key the harness provides — e.g. spawn id, task id, announce id). Accept or reject for that batch still counts as the one consolidate.
+2. After that consolidate is emitted, **identical or equivalent completion replay** for the same key ⇒ **silent**: no tools, no re-QC, no second final answer. When the host defines a silent token (example: OpenClaw `NO_REPLY`), use it; otherwise emit no outbound user/caller message.
+3. **Re-open only when:**
+   - new `runId` / new child batch key, **or**
+   - caller / principal **explicit** steer to reopen, **or**
+   - the completion payload carries **materially new** evidence (new HEAD, new blocker class, new PR URL / merge state) — not a re-paste or fat re-embedding of the same rollup / full task text.
+4. If the harness **storms** replays with no new key: **at most one** fail-loud note to the caller (`completion replay storm; ignoring`), then silent. ⊗ Infinite consolidate loops.
+5. Fat completion payloads that re-embed full task text, prior prompts, or prior consolidate prose **MUST NOT** be treated as a new mission or as material new evidence.
+
+### Eval checklist (second settle same runId)
+
+Given: parent already emitted a consolidate for `runId=R` (or harness batch key `R`).  
+Second settle event for `R` arrives with the same claims / equivalent rollup.  
+**Expect:** silent / host silent-token path — **not** a new investigation narrative, dual-source re-fetch, or second user-visible final.
+
+### Normative anti-patterns
+
+- ⊗ Second+ user-visible "final" for the same settled `runId` without new evidence or explicit reopen
+- ⊗ Full dual-source / full test re-run solely because the settle event was delivered again
+- ⊗ Treating "send consolidated final **now**" wording on a **replay** as authorization to undo a prior consolidate for that batch
+- ⊗ Treating fat prompt / task-text re-embeds in completion payloads as a new mission (#3092)
+
+Cross-links: swarm Phase 5 completion-notification / parent handback (`skills/deft-directive-swarm/references/core-phase-5-6.md`); review-monitor empty-settle DoD remains #3044 (empty ≠ done) and is orthogonal — empty is not a latch hit; identical non-empty replay after a prior consolidate **is** a latch hit.
+
 ## 12. Session ritual + `task verify:cache-fresh` gates before `start_agent` (#1348 / #1127)
 
 Dispatchers (this orchestrator, swarm Phase 4 dispatch, monitor agents, scheduled / cloud runs) run in a headless worker context and MUST set `DEFT_SESSION_RITUAL_SKIP=1` for dispatched implementation workers. The interactive parent session remains responsible for `task session:start`; worker processes bypass the local `.deft/ritual-state.json` gate explicitly so they do not need per-clone interactive ritual state. When the bypass would hide a stale/missing ritual state, `task verify:session-ritual` prints a warning to stderr; preserve that warning in the dispatch log.