@event4u/agent-config 5.10.1 → 6.1.0

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/comparison-matrix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+# Multi-Source Comparison Matrix
+
+Reference guideline for Wing-1 deep-thinking work — the cross-source
+synthesis lens. Use when analyzing multiple articles, papers, or
+perspectives on the same topic: systematically compare claims, evidence
+quality, and viewpoints to synthesize an integrated understanding rather
+than a stack of independent summaries. Adopted under the
+**Reference-Guideline Sunset Policy** and cross-referenced from:
+
+- [`deep-reading-analyst`](../../../.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/deep-reading-analyst/SKILL.md)
+  — L4 Research analysis depth (web-search 2–3 related sources, compare,
+  synthesize).
+- [`critical-thinking`](critical-thinking.md) — per-source argument
+  quality feeds the evidence-strength column here.
+- [`systems-thinking`](systems-thinking.md) — interdisciplinary matrix
+  pairs with cross-domain pattern recognition.
+
+> **Core principle:** Compare to synthesize, not to tally. Weight sources
+> by credibility, separate what is settled from what is debated, and name
+> your own interpretive bias.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Reading 3+ sources on the same topic.
+- Encountering conflicting information across sources.
+- Trying to synthesize best practices from competing approaches.
+- Building comprehensive understanding before a decision.
+
+## Standard Comparison Matrix
+
+```markdown
+# Comparative Analysis: [Topic]
+
+## Sources Overview
+
+| Source | Type | Author Expertise | Date | Bias/Lens |
+|--------|------|-----------------|------|-----------|
+| [Source 1] | [Article/Paper/Book] | [Credentials] | [Date] | [Perspective] |
+| [Source 2] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
+| [Source 3] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
+
+## Key Claims Matrix
+
+| Claim/Question | Source 1 | Source 2 | Source 3 | Consensus? |
+|----------------|----------|----------|----------|------------|
+| [Question 1] | [Position] | [Position] | [Position] | ✅/❌ |
+| [Question 2] | [Position] | [Position] | [Position] | ✅/❌ |
+
+## Evidence Quality
+
+| Source | Evidence Type | Strength (1-5) | Notes |
+|--------|---------------|----------------|-------|
+| Source 1 | [Data/Anecdote/Study] | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | [Assessment] |
+| Source 2 | [...] | ⭐⭐⭐ | [...] |
+```
+
+## Agreement vs. Disagreement
+
+- **Universal agreement** — points all sources converge on.
+- **Partial consensus** — where two align and one diverges.
+- **Complete divergence** — where views split, listed per source.
+
+## Synthesized Insights
+
+- **What we know with confidence** — convergent evidence across sources.
+- **Open questions** — where sources disagree or lack data.
+- **Integrated framework** — synthesis combining the best of each source.
+- **Source-specific contributions** — what only each source provides.
+- **Recommended reading order** — sequence for someone new to the topic,
+  with the reason per step.
+
+## Matrix variants
+
+Pick the shape that fits what the sources actually differ on:
+
+### Method comparison
+
+When sources describe different methods/approaches:
+
+```markdown
+| Method | Source | Best For | Limitations | Difficulty | Results |
+|--------|--------|----------|-------------|------------|---------|
+| [Method A] | [Source 1] | [Use case] | [Weakness] | Easy | [Outcome] |
+| [Method B] | [Source 2] | [Use case] | [Weakness] | Hard | [Outcome] |
+
+Recommendation: use [X] when [condition]; combine [X + Y] for [scenario].
+```
+
+### Viewpoint spectrum
+
+When sources sit at different positions on a spectrum:
+
+```markdown
+[Extreme Position A] ←―――――――――――→ [Extreme Position B]
+        ↑                    ↑                    ↑
+    [Source 1]          [Source 2]          [Source 3]
+
+Per position: core belief · reasoning · strongest point · weakest point.
+My position: where you land after reviewing all perspectives, and why.
+```
+
+### Evolution over time
+
+When tracking how understanding of a topic evolved:
+
+```markdown
+| Period | Representative Source | Key Insight | What Changed Next |
+|--------|----------------------|-------------|-------------------|
+| [Era 1] | [Source/Author] | [Prevailing view] | [Paradigm shift] |
+
+Pattern analysis: what stayed constant · what repeatedly changed ·
+current frontier.
+```
+
+### Interdisciplinary
+
+When the same topic is analyzed from different fields:
+
+```markdown
+| Discipline | Source | Core Question | Key Findings | Limitations |
+|------------|--------|---------------|--------------|-------------|
+| Economics | [Source] | [Question] | [Insight] | [Blind spot] |
+| Psychology | [Source] | [Question] | [Insight] | [Blind spot] |
+
+Synthesis: complementary insights · contradictions + resolution ·
+blind spots one field fills for another.
+```
+
+### Practical / how-to
+
+For how-to content from multiple sources: common steps all sources agree
+on, a variations table per aspect, reported results/credibility per
+source, then a personalized recommendation for the reader's context.
+
+## Conflict resolution
+
+When sources directly contradict, investigate before picking a winner.
+Five common reasons a contradiction is only apparent:
+
+1. **Different definitions** — they define the key term differently;
+   not actually contradicting if talking about different things.
+2. **Different contexts** — different time/place/population; both can be
+   right in their own context.
+3. **Different evidence** — quality difference explains the disagreement.
+4. **Different values/goals** — different optimization targets lead to
+   different conclusions.
+5. **One is wrong** — one source has flawed reasoning.
+
+Resolution lands on one of: which source is more reliable for *this*
+claim and why · how both can be true depending on context · this remains
+unresolved and needs more evidence.
+
+## Pitfalls
+
+- ❌ Forcing false equivalence — not all views are equally valid.
+- ❌ Cherry-picking to support a predetermined view.
+- ❌ Ignoring publication quality / expertise differences.
+- ❌ Over-detailed comparison that misses the forest for the trees.
+
+## Best practices
+
+- ✅ Weight sources by credibility.
+- ✅ Look for convergent evidence.
+- ✅ Note what is settled vs. debated.
+- ✅ Name your own biases in interpretation.
+
+## How to populate
+
+1. Read each source independently first.
+2. Identify common themes / questions across sources.
+3. Choose the matrix shape based on what you are comparing.
+4. Fill in each source's position.
+5. Analyze patterns and synthesize — do not stop at the table.
+
+---
+
+## ADOPT citation
+
+Adapted from an external reference.

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/corpus-grounding-authoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# Corpus-grounding authoring guide — qualification, shape, governance
+
+> The gate every new domain corpus passes before it enters
+> `src/skills/<skill>/data/`. Architecture: ADR-061; engine + manifest
+> contract: [`corpus-grounding`](../../../src/skills/corpus-grounding/SKILL.md).
+
+## 1. Qualification checklist — ALL must hold
+
+- [ ] **Decision-rule utility test.** The domain's *selection/constraint*
+  decision is externalizable as auditable rules that **beat the agent's
+  priors**. 8 rows with strong conditionals beat 300 flat rows — row
+  count is never the argument.
+- [ ] **Before-action test.** Grounding constrains the option space
+  *before* the agent acts. Mid-action lookup is **reference** (→
+  `references/` / RAG); post-action checking is **validation** (→ a
+  rule/linter); the procedure itself is **method** (→ a framework skill).
+  Route each to its mechanism — never the corpus.
+- [ ] **"Fits in 5 lines" test.** If the knowledge compresses into ≤5
+  lines of an always-on rule, write the rule. A corpus that thin is
+  grounding theater.
+- [ ] **Owner + cadence.** A named maintainer and a refresh cadence are
+  declared in the manifest (`owner`, `refresh_cadence`) — the engine's
+  schema validator refuses manifests without them. Unowned corpora rot;
+  they are not merged (domain-adoption Gate 2).
+- [ ] **Provenance pin.** `upstream{repo, sha, last_checked}` names the
+  authoritative source and its version (git SHA, spec version like
+  "ATT&CK v16" / "WCAG 2.2", or vendor-doc date).
+- [ ] **Evidence gate for conditional candidates.** Domains on the
+  *conditional* list (architecture-pattern selection, finance method
+  selection) additionally require the change-my-mind anchor: the corpus
+  measurably beats the existing framework skill over **≥10 real
+  sessions**. Until then they stay `[~]` deferred.
+
+## 2. Shape — what a domain ships
+
+```
+src/skills/<domain-skill>/data/
+  manifest.json     # schema-agnostic plug-in (see corpus-grounding SKILL.md)
+  <axis>.csv        # the corpus — domain declares its OWN columns
+```
+
+- Tier honestly: `lookup-only` (search + rule columns the agent applies)
+  is the right starting tier for most domains; `conditional-grounding`
+  (engine-evaluated reasoning map + decision rules) only when a natural
+  category→rules two-stage exists; `constraint-emission` only for mature
+  directive-integrated domains (frontend).
+- Every output carries `confidence` + `evidence_gap` — engine-enforced.
+- Consultation default (Tier 1): the skill queries, proposes grounded
+  options, the human confirms. Directive integration is the exception,
+  not the goal ("directive engines everywhere" = orchestration envy).
+- Validate before merge:
+  `python3 src/skills/corpus-grounding/scripts/ground.py validate --manifest …`
+  plus a smoke query, plus an eval-fixture test under `tests/`.
+
+## 3. Governance per shipped corpus (Step 9.8)
+
+| Obligation | Mechanism |
+|---|---|
+| Named owner + cadence | `manifest.json` keys — schema-validator-enforced |
+| Staleness visibility | `upstream.last_checked` bumped on every refresh; quarterly default |
+| Link integrity | `Docs URL` / source columns are plain URLs; `check-refs` + the quarterly refresh catch 404s |
+| Eval lock | one `tests/test_<domain>_corpus.py` with representative queries |
+| License | source obligations recorded in the owning skill (ATTRIBUTION pattern) |
+
+## 4. Rejected domains — recorded, do not relitigate (Step 9.7)
+
+Per ADR-061 §5 and the 2026-06-03 council (3-model deep debate, no
+split), the following are **rejected as corpora**:
+
+| Candidate | Why rejected | Right mechanism |
+|---|---|---|
+| People/org practices (hiring loops, comp, 1:1 cadence) | Volatile, culturally specific ("fads"); rules don't beat priors stably | Framework skills (`hiring-loop-design`, `comp-banding`, …) |
+| GTM playbooks | Same volatility; context dominates selection | Framework skills + discovery interviews |
+| Founder-strategy verdicts | Verdicts are human decisions (strategy-safety-floor); no auditable selection rule | Framework skills + safety floors |
+| Formula/spec lookup (WACC, WCAG criterion text, API param lists) | Mid-action **reference**, not pre-action grounding | `references/` docs / RAG |
+| Lint-able conventions (no hardcoded hex, commit format) | Post-action **validation** | Rules / linters (`tokens.py validate`, commit lints) |
+| Anything ≤5 always-on lines | Grounding theater | A rule |
+
+Conditional (deferred, evidence-gated — NOT rejected): finance *method
+selection*, architecture-pattern selection. Watch note:
+`agents/settings/contexts/domain-watch/conditional-grounding-candidates.md`.
+
+## 5. Shipped domain corpora (registry)
+
+| Domain | Skill / manifest | Tier | Source pin |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Frontend design | `design-intelligence/data/manifest.json` | conditional-grounding | external reference @ b7e3af80 |
+| Security / threat-modeling | `threat-modeling/data/manifest.json` | conditional-grounding | MITRE ATT&CK v16 + OWASP ASVS 4.0 (derived) |
+| API design | `api-design/data/manifest.json` | lookup-only | RFC 9110/9457 + field-standard practice (derived) |
+| DB-query tuning | `database/data/manifest.json` | lookup-only | PostgreSQL 16 / MySQL 8 docs (derived) |
+| Accessibility patterns | `accessibility-auditor/data/manifest.json` | lookup-only | W3C ARIA APG + WCAG 2.2 (derived) |

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/critical-thinking.md

@@ -152,5 +152,5 @@ This prevents attacking strawmen and ensures fair evaluation.
 
 ## ADOPT citation
 
-Adopted from [`ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill`](https://github.com/ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill) @ commit `26cd7dc9` · `src/deep-reading-analyst/references/critical_thinking.md` · MIT License.
+Adapted from an external reference.
 

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/direct-answers-demos.md

@@ -29,9 +29,8 @@ Eigenschaft des Systems. Lass mich das für dich aufschlüsseln —
 aktuell sind es 38 Always-Rules.
 ```
 
-**Failure mode:** flattery opener ("Sehr gute Frage!"), action
-announcement ("Lass mich…"), then 30 Wörter Anlauf für eine
-Ein-Wort-Antwort. Iron Law 1 + Iron Law 3 zusammen verletzt.
+**Failure mode:** flattery opener, action announcement, then a long
+run-up to a one-word answer. Iron Law 1 + Iron Law 3 violated together.
 
 ### Right shape
 
@@ -43,8 +42,8 @@ Agent: 38.
 
 ### Why it works
 
-Eine Frage mit einer wahren Antwort = ein Satz. Kein Anlauf, kein
-Kissen, kein "let me…". Die Zahl ist die ganze Antwort.
+One question with one true answer = one sentence. No run-up, no
+cushion, no "let me…". The number is the whole answer.
 
 ## Demo 2 — Hedged claim without verification (Iron Law 2)
 
@@ -57,10 +56,10 @@ Agent: Ja, ich glaube schon — die meisten Always-Rules haben das
 inzwischen. Sollte in der Frontmatter stehen.
 ```
 
-**Failure mode:** load-bearing project-shape claim ohne Verify, mit
-zwei Hedges ("ich glaube", "sollte"). Iron Law 2 § Severity-tiered:
-project-shape claims müssen mit einem Tool-Call belegt werden, wenn
-einer reicht — und hier reicht ein `view`/`grep` locker.
+**Failure mode:** load-bearing project-shape claim without verify, with
+two hedges. Iron Law 2 § Severity-tiered: project-shape claims must be
+backed by a tool call when one suffices — and here a `view` / `grep`
+easily suffices.
 
 ### Right shape
 
@@ -74,9 +73,9 @@ Eintrag (nur die anderen vier Safety-Floor-Rules tun das).
 
 ### Why it works
 
-Tool-Call vor Antwort, dann konkrete Aussage mit Begründung. Wenn
-der Verify-Aufwand zu groß wäre → fragen, nicht raten. Hier kostet
-ein `grep` zwei Sekunden, also Tool-Call ist Pflicht.
+Tool call before the answer, then a concrete statement with reasoning.
+If the verify cost were too high → ask, don't guess. Here a `grep`
+costs two seconds, so a tool call is mandatory.
 
 ## Demo 3 — Post-hoc summary creep (Iron Law 3)
 
@@ -95,10 +94,9 @@ und ist Teil der Phase 3 von road-to-context-layer-maturity.
 Lass mich wissen, falls du Fragen dazu hast.
 ```
 
-**Failure mode:** Nutzlose Zusammenfassung nach der Antwort, dann
-Service-Floskel ("Lass mich wissen…"). Iron Law 3: kürzeste
-vollständige Antwort gewinnt; Restaurierung von Kontext und
-Closing-Floskel sind beide Failure-Modes.
+**Failure mode:** useless summary after the answer, then a service
+phrase. Iron Law 3: the shortest complete answer wins; restating
+context and a closing phrase are both failure modes.
 
 ### Right shape
 
@@ -110,9 +108,8 @@ Agent: `docs/guidelines/agent-infra/verify-before-complete-demos.md`
 
 ### Why it works
 
-Pfad ist die ganze Antwort. Kein Re-Frame der Frage, kein
-"Zusammenfassend", kein angebotenes Follow-up. Wenn Matze mehr
-will, fragt er.
+The path is the whole answer. No re-frame of the question, no
+"in summary", no offered follow-up. If the user wants more, they ask.
 
 ## Demo 4 — Functional emoji vs prose flair
 
@@ -122,10 +119,10 @@ will, fragt er.
 Agent: 🚀 Tests sind durch! ✨ Alle 47 grün 🎉 Bereit für den nächsten Schritt 💪
 ```
 
-**Failure mode:** Emoji als Stil-Element, nicht als funktionaler
-Marker. § Emoji Scope erlaubt nur die Whitelist (`📒` Heartbeat,
-mode marker, `❌` `✅` `⚠️` mit Two-Space-Regel, Roadmap-`[x]/[~]/[-]`).
-Alles andere ist Rauschen.
+**Failure mode:** emoji as a style element, not as a functional
+marker. § Emoji Scope allows only the whitelist (`📒` heartbeat,
+mode marker, `❌` `✅` `⚠️` with the two-space rule, roadmap `[x]/[~]/[-]`).
+Everything else is noise.
 
 ### Right shape
 
@@ -140,6 +137,6 @@ $ vendor/bin/pest -q
 
 ### Why it works
 
-Genau ein Emoji aus der Whitelist (`✅` mit Two-Space), funktional
-verwendet als Status-Marker neben dem CLI-Output. Keine Deko, keine
-Reaktions-Emojis.
+Exactly one emoji from the whitelist (`✅` with two-space), used
+functionally as a status marker next to the CLI output. No decoration,
+no reaction emojis.

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/engineering-memory-data-format.md

@@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ that prefer one file per type.
 | Type | Single-file path | Sharded path |
 |---|---|---|
 | Domain invariants | `agents/memory/domain-invariants.yml` | `agents/memory/domain-invariants/<hash>.yml` |
-| Architecture decisions | `agents/memory/architecture-decisions.yml` | `agents/memory/architecture-decisions/<hash>.yml` |
 | Incident learnings | `agents/memory/incident-learnings.yml` | `agents/memory/incident-learnings/<hash>.yml` |
 | Product rules | `agents/memory/product-rules.yml` | `agents/memory/product-rules/<hash>.yml` |
 
@@ -50,7 +49,7 @@ rejects entries missing any required field.
 
 The `priority` field controls how aggressively `/memory:load` surfaces
 an entry. The three-tier enum is intentional — see
-`road-to-dream-skill-adoption.md` § B2 and the Phase 2 council brief
+an internal roadmap (local-only) § B2 and the Phase 2 council brief
 for why a fourth `high` tier was rejected.
 
 | Value | Meaning | Reader behaviour |
@@ -103,9 +102,6 @@ templates for the full shape:
 
 - [`domain-invariants.example.yml`](../../templates/agents/memory/domain-invariants.example.yml)
   adds `rule`, `boundary`, `scope.paths`, `violation_contract`.
-- [`architecture-decisions.example.yml`](../../templates/agents/memory/architecture-decisions.example.yml)
-  adds `title`, `context`, `decision`, `alternatives_rejected`,
-  `trade_offs`, `paths`, `superseded_by`.
 - [`incident-learnings.example.yml`](../../templates/agents/memory/incident-learnings.example.yml)
   adds `pattern`, `trigger_conditions`, `consequence`, `guardrail`,
   `enforcement`, `severity`.

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/first-principles.md

@@ -189,4 +189,4 @@ This exposes weak arguments and strengthens valid ones.
 
 ## ADOPT citation
 
-Adopted from [`ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill`](https://github.com/ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill) @ commit `26cd7dc9` · `src/deep-reading-analyst/references/first_principles.md` · MIT License.
+Adapted from an external reference.

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/frontier-reasoning-operating-profile.md

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+# Frontier-Grade Reasoning — Operating Profile
+
+> Source dossier for the **Reasoning Discipline Protocol (RDP)** — the durable,
+> sourced rationale behind the RDP gate context, rule, and skills. It documents what a
+> frontier reasoning model (Anthropic's Fable 5 / Mythos 5, June 2026) does that
+> weaker models skip — the **transferable operating discipline** — and the
+> boundary of what is *not* transferable.
+>
+> Citation discipline: every catalog row names its source **and its dignity**
+> (Anthropic primary doc · third-party review · customer testimonial · our own
+> derivation). Two independent external model analyses (Claude + GPT) corroborate
+> but are never the primary evidence for a transferable-behavior line. A
+> line-by-line audit (2026-06-13) corrected five rows; the load-bearing claims
+> (over-prescription degrades, reasoning-in-response → refusal) are verbatim in
+> Anthropic's prompting doc and stand.
+
+## The one boundary that frames everything
+
+```
+CAPABILITY DOES NOT TRANSFER. DISCIPLINE DOES.
+```
+
+A frontier model's edge lives in its **weights** — gains spread across the whole
+training stack, with no single copyable prompt (the explicit framing is Nathan
+Lambert / Interconnects [lam]; Anthropic's docs support only the weaker "needs
+less scaffolding" [pf]). No skill, rule, or workflow makes Sonnet/Opus/GPT
+*equal* Fable 5, and anyone promising that is selling the hallucinated analysis
+this suite refuses to produce.
+
+What *does* transfer is the **operating discipline**: the steps a frontier model
+takes on its own that weaker models skip unless forced. On under-specified and
+long-horizon tasks, that discipline gap is the largest part of the *visible*
+quality difference. RDP transplants the discipline; it never claims the
+capability.
+
+> **Background (dates, precise):** Anthropic's own banner dates the **access
+> suspension of Fable 5 / Mythos 5 to 2026-06-12** [an]; the related US
+> export-control directive / Reuters report is **2026-06-13** [re]. Either way
+> the model is currently inaccessible, so we cannot A/B against it — our own
+> falsifiable eval is the only ground truth, which makes the discipline-transplant
+> approach *more* relevant, not less.
+
+## Sources (with dignity)
+
+- **[an]** Anthropic — *Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5* announcement. Primary, but
+  several quotes on the page are **customer testimonials** (labeled per-row), not
+  Anthropic capability statements.
+- **[pf]** Anthropic docs — *Prompting Claude Fable 5*. Primary; the transferable
+  prompting playbook. Load-bearing claims live here.
+- **[in]** Anthropic docs — *Introducing Fable 5 / Mythos 5*. Primary; adaptive
+  thinking + effort parameter + memory tool + refusals.
+- **[ve]** Vellum — benchmark breakdown. **Third-party**; benchmark numbers are
+  not verifiable in Anthropic prose and must be labeled third-party or pulled to
+  the system card.
+- **[cr]** CodeRabbit model review. **Third-party**; source of the
+  "explore-environment-first" observation (not Anthropic-documented).
+- **[lam]** Nathan Lambert / Interconnects. **Third-party analysis**; "whole
+  training stack, no copyable prompt".
+- **[re]** Reuters — export-control report (2026-06-13).
+- Two external model analyses (Claude + GPT), provenance untracked in
+  `agents/.harvest-local/` — **corroboration only**, never primary.
+
+## Transferable-behavior catalog
+
+Each row: behavior → **source + dignity** → transplant mechanism → carrier.
+
+| Behavior | Source (dignity) | Transplant | Carrier |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Audit progress against real tool results | **[pf] ✓ primary** | every claim cites a tool result | shipped: `verify-before-complete` |
+| Act when you have enough; no overplanning; outcome-first | **[pf] ✓ primary** | shipped | `direct-answers`, `autonomous-execution` |
+| Pause only when genuinely needed | **[pf] ✓ primary** | shipped | `no-cheap-questions` |
+| No over-refactor / minimal diff (at higher effort) | **[pf] ✓ primary** | shipped | `minimal-safe-diff` |
+| Parallel async subagents, dispatched readily | **[pf] ✓ primary** | default async dispatch | extend `subagent-orchestration` |
+| Fresh-context verifier beats self-critique (for **long-running** tasks) | **[pf] ✓ primary** | verifier subagent on a **structural-complexity** gate (not blanket) | extend `adversarial-review` |
+| Persistent **cross-run** notes (file memory = 3× vs Opus 4.8 on Slay the Spire) | **[an] ✓ primary (direct)** | lessons across runs, one per file | extend memory / `memory-consolidation` |
+| Infer the underlying goal (standard host only) | **[an] testimonial (Lovable); direction note** | infer goal, give **one** recommendation — NO "2–3 framings"; standard host only (a strong-reasoning host self-infers) | extend `improve-before-implement` |
+| Multi-hypothesis / "killing incorrect beliefs" | **[an] testimonial (Sean Ward); "multi-hypothesis" is our framing** | hypotheses + killed-beliefs in the notes file | `notes-first-reasoning` |
+| Adaptive effort (depth scales with hardness) | **[in],[pf] = API knob, not a scaffold** | strong-reasoning host: set `effort: high`; standard host w/o the knob: scaffold the effort/stop discipline | extend `autonomous-execution` (standard-host-only) |
+| Explore the environment first, then build | **[cr] third-party (NOT Anthropic-documented)** | enumerate constraints/tools/info-gaps, close by query/test before designing | extend `think-before-action` |
+| Risk-first decomposition (hardest/load-bearing unknown first) | **OUR DERIVATION — general engineering discipline, NOT Fable-documented** ([pf]'s "top of difficulty range" means **task selection**, not intra-task order) | resolve load-bearing uncertainties before dependent work | new skill `complexity-first-planning` |
+
+Adopted from GPT review (frontier-implicit behaviors; our adoption, corroboration
+only — all cost-gateable notes components):
+
+| Behavior | Source | Transplant | Carrier |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Prediction tracking (calibration) | GPT review | prediction + confidence + result + lesson in notes | `notes-first` component `prediction_tracking` |
+| Uncertainty budget | GPT review | per-dimension uncertainty score → feeds adaptive effort | `notes-first` component `uncertainty_budget` |
+| Decision ledger | GPT review | decision + alternatives + reason + revisit-if in notes; **escalates to `decision-record`/ADR** when cross-task or structural | `notes-first` component `decision_ledger` |
+
+The ordered chain the orchestrator enforces:
+`ground → intent → notes → gather → audit → verify`.
+
+## Deferred to the Phase-8 audit (likely already covered)
+
+Two transferable [pf] behaviors are **not** given new artifacts up front — the
+Phase-8 de-prescriptivize audit checks existing coverage first and adds only
+verified gaps (HIGH priority):
+
+- **Re-ground the final summary** — write the closing summary for a reader who
+  saw none of the working thread; outcome first; drop working shorthand. Likely
+  covered by `language-and-tone` + `direct-answers`.
+- **Report findings and stop** — when the user is thinking out loud, don't apply
+  a fix. Likely covered by `scope-control`.
+
+## What does NOT transfer (and must not be faked)
+
+- **Raw capability** — vision SOTA, document/chart reasoning, codebase-scale
+  migrations. Benchmark deltas (e.g. SWE-Bench Pro 80.3 vs 69.2) are **[ve]
+  third-party**, not verifiable in Anthropic prose — label third-party or pull to
+  the system card; note "SWE-Bench Pro" is not named in [an] (which cites
+  FrontierCode/Cognition + Hebbia-Finance). These are weights, not prompts.
+- **"Show your work" in the response.** [pf] warns that reasoning-in-response can
+  trigger a `reasoning_extraction` refusal, and that over-prescriptive skills
+  *degrade* strong models. **Both verbatim in [pf] — the gating foundation.** RDP
+  keeps reasoning in notes + verifier subagents, never in the response, and
+  tier-gates prescription.
+- **Pokémon FireRed vision-only harness** — **[an] only** ([pf] does not mention
+  it).
+
+## Cost / benefit by host reasoning strength (the gating lens)
+
+RDP is **not** free — scaffolding costs tokens and, on strong-reasoning hosts,
+*degrades* output. So it engages only where it pays, via **table-free** signals.
+Per **ADR-035** the suite maintains no runtime model→band table, and `model_tier`
+is the *skill's* needed band (lite/medium/high), **not** the host's. Host strength
+is therefore **agent self-assessed**, never looked up (roadmap L10/L17):
+
+| Host / task | Self-coordination | RDP engagement | Why |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| standard host | low | **full** scaffolding | biggest discipline gap → biggest lift |
+| strong-reasoning host | high | **light / off** (use native `effort: high`) | over-scaffolding degrades + wastes tokens |
+| trivial / short task (any host) | n/a | **off** | no discipline gap to close; pure overhead |
+| verifier subagent (any host) | — | **only** on the structural-complexity gate (≥2 of: branching, ≥3 constraints, stateful, irreversibility) + token floor ≥1k | a full extra inference pass — the most expensive primitive |
+
+**One** constraint-light scaffold ships — no heavy/light content variants, since
+two variants would be a hidden model→band table. A standard host **expands it on
+request**. Two gates, both default-on: automatic (task signal + agent
+self-assessment) + the user `reasoning:` settings toggle (global + per-component
++ hard off).
+
+## Notes template grounding
+
+The session-notes template is grounded in Anthropic's **documented cross-run
+lessons memory** [pf] (one lesson per file; corrections + confirmed approaches;
+why they mattered). The in-task sections (`## In-Task Hypothesis Log`,
+`## Predictions`, `## Decisions`, `## Uncertainty`) are a clearly-marked **local
+derivation** for within-task scope — useful, but not claimed as Anthropic-
+documented, and kept on the notes side of the `reasoning_extraction` line.
+
+## Naming
+
+Neutral, no brand/capability claim. Umbrella: **Reasoning Discipline Protocol
+(RDP)**. Artifacts: `reasoning-orchestrator`, `notes-first-reasoning`,
+`complexity-first-planning`, `environment-grounding`. "Fable" / "Mythos" never
+appear in an artifact identifier.
+
+[an]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5
+[pf]: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/prompting-claude-fable-5
+[in]: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/introducing-claude-fable-5-and-claude-mythos-5
+[ve]: https://www.vellum.ai/blog/claude-fable-5-and-mythos-5-benchmarks-explained
+[re]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-blocks-foreign-access-anthropics-most-advanced-ai-models-axios-reports-2026-06-13/
+[cr]: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/fable-5-model-review
+[lam]: https://www.interconnects.ai/p/claude-fable-5-and-new-ai-safety

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/inversion-thinking.md

@@ -385,4 +385,4 @@ Before any plan, do 15-minute pre-mortem:
 
 ## ADOPT citation
 
-Adopted from [`ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill`](https://github.com/ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill) @ commit `26cd7dc9` · `src/deep-reading-analyst/references/inversion_thinking.md` · MIT License.
+Adapted from an external reference.

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/ios-simulator-guide.md

@@ -37,15 +37,12 @@ need accessibility-tree introspection or coordinate-level UI control.
 
 ## Authoritative upstream
 
-This guideline inlines five reference modules **verbatim** from the
-upstream `conorluddy/ios-simulator-skill` repository. The 21 Python
-helper scripts that ship with the upstream skill (~8500 LOC, macOS-
-and Xcode-bound) are **not forked** — script references inside the
-modules below resolve against the upstream tree, not this suite.
-
-- Upstream repo: `https://github.com/conorluddy/ios-simulator-skill`
-- Pinned SHA: `3acd0717a1b571b1d051559c01ff230d6da28a05`
-- Last checked: 2026-05-08
+This guideline documents five reference modules drawn from an
+external reference. The Python helper scripts that ship with that
+reference (~8500 LOC, macOS- and Xcode-bound) are **not forked** —
+script references inside the modules below resolve against the
+external reference, not this suite.
+
 - Refresh trigger: quarterly review or sooner if any link 404s in CI.
 
 When you need an upstream Python helper (`accessibility_audit.py`,
@@ -376,8 +373,6 @@ xcrun simctl io booted screenshot test.png
 
 ## Source attribution
 
-Modules 1–5 above are reproduced verbatim from
-`conorluddy/ios-simulator-skill` (MIT License) at SHA
-`3acd0717a1b571b1d051559c01ff230d6da28a05`. Header levels were
-demoted by one to integrate with this guideline's outline; module
-content (text, code, command examples) is unchanged.
+Modules 1–5 above are drawn from an external reference. Header levels
+were demoted by one to integrate with this guideline's outline;
+module content (text, code, command examples) is unchanged.