@eventmodelers/cli 1.0.21 → 1.0.22

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@eventmodelers/cli",
-  "version": "1.0.21",
+  "version": "1.0.22",
   "description": "Eventmodelers CLI — real-time Claude agent + skills for Claude Code, for any stack (Node, Supabase, Axon, Cratis, or modeling-only)",
   "type": "module",
   "bin": {

package/shared/skills/learn-eventmodelers-api/SKILL.md

@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ READMODEL      // Query result / materialized view
 SCENARIO       // GWT scenario
 LANE           // Timeline row
 SLICE_BORDER   // Slice boundary marker
+MARKDOWN       // Free-text markdown note — the content type a `feedback` lane accepts (see §2)
 ```
 
 ---
@@ -283,6 +284,33 @@ Drop a node into a timeline cell. Validates placement rules. If the node was alr
 
 ---
 
+### Feedback lanes and MARKDOWN nodes (free-text notes)
+
+A chapter has no `feedback` lane by default — add one first via the lanes endpoint above (`{"type": "feedback", "label": "Notes"}`), which returns a `laneId`. This is a normal row in `meta.timelineData.rows` (`type: "feedback"`) alongside `actor`/`interaction`/`swimlane`/`spec`.
+
+Place a free-text markdown note in that lane the same way any other node is placed — a plain `node:created` event through `POST .../nodes/events` (§3), **not** the cell-drop endpoint above. `cellId` is `"<feedbackRowId>-<columnId>"`, same convention as every other lane:
+
+```json
+{
+  "id": "<event-uuid>",
+  "eventType": "node:created",
+  "nodeId": "<node-uuid>",
+  "boardId": "<boardId>",
+  "timestamp": 1234567890,
+  "chapterId": "<chapterId>",
+  "cellId": "<feedbackRowId>-<columnId>",
+  "meta": {
+    "type": "MARKDOWN",
+    "title": "Modeling Reasoning — <Chapter Name>",
+    "description": "# Heading\n\nFull markdown body here — headings, lists, bold, etc. all render."
+  }
+}
+```
+
+The node's content lives in `meta.description` (a plain string of markdown source) — **not** `meta.content`; that field is silently accepted and stored but never rendered, producing a visibly empty note. There is no `fields[]` array on this element type, and no separate render/sketch call is needed (unlike SCREEN/HTML_SCREEN). `node.type` comes back as `"markdown"` (lowercase) on read.
+
+---
+
 ## 3. Nodes
 
 **File**: `src/slices/change/api-nodes/routes.ts`
@@ -314,6 +342,7 @@ interface NodeChangeEvent {
       backgroundColor?: string
       title?: string
       url?: string
+      linkedTo?: string            // origin node id — marks this node as a linked copy (see below)
       // ...other node data fields
       // Do NOT set a "type" here — the server derives the node's render type from
       // meta.type automatically. Setting one yourself risks it being read as the
@@ -363,12 +392,29 @@ Auto-connect a node to its timeline neighbors — mirrors the frontend's auto-co
 
 Incompatible or already-connected neighbors are reported in `skipped`, not an error. Returns an empty result for nodes not placed on any timeline, or not a connectable element type (e.g. SCENARIO/spec nodes are never auto-connected).
 
+**Known gap**: the "own column already has a SCREEN" guard checks only for a SCREEN specifically — not an AUTOMATION. Placing an AUTOMATION in a COMMAND's own column, with a SCREEN sitting in the previous column, wires *both* into the COMMAND, leaving it with two issuers. A command is never issued by more than one thing — see `place-element` Step 7c for the check-and-fix.
+
+**Connections (both auto-connect and `set_connection`) only ever pair nodes on the same timeline** — a node in Chapter A can never be wired directly to a node in Chapter B, even when the type pair is otherwise valid (e.g. EVENT→READMODEL). No direct cross-timeline connection is possible.
+
+**The supported workaround is a linked copy**: place a copy of the source EVENT into its own swimlane on the *consuming* timeline, with `node.data.linkedTo` set to the origin node's id (see `linkedTo` in the `NodeChangeEvent` shape above; `eventmodeling-checking-completeness` documents how to recognize one when reading the board — it's an intentional copy, never a duplicate to clean up). Once the copy exists on the consuming timeline, it's a same-timeline node like any other and can be wired normally (e.g. linked-EVENT→READMODEL→SCREEN) to satisfy that context's local data need. Only fall back to documenting an integration gap when a linked copy genuinely isn't the right shape for the need (e.g. the consuming context needs live/aggregate data no single event copy can represent).
+
 **Response**:
 - `200` — `{ connected: [{edgeId, source, target, created}], skipped: [{nodeId, reason}] }`
 - `404` — node not found
 
 ---
 
+### POST `/api/org/:orgId/boards/:boardId/connections`
+Create a single type-checked directed edge between two existing nodes — the REST fallback for `set_connection`.
+
+**Request body**: `{ source: string, target: string }` (node ids)
+
+**Response**: `200`/`201` — `{ edgeId, source, target }` on success · `400` — the pair is not one of the allowed type combinations · `404` — a node id doesn't exist
+
+**`EVENT → READMODEL` is exempt from column ordering** — an event in a later column can connect to a read model in an earlier column, and vice versa. A read model is a continuously-listening projection, not a point-in-time action, so it can be fed by an event anywhere on its timeline. Every other pair (`SCREEN → COMMAND`, `COMMAND → EVENT`, `READMODEL → SCREEN`, `READMODEL → AUTOMATION`, `AUTOMATION → COMMAND`) is still forward-only. If a connection you expect to work gets rejected, retry once before concluding it's blocked — a transient rejection has been observed on an otherwise-valid pair.
+
+---
+
 ## 4. Images
 
 **File**: `src/slices/change/api-images/routes.ts`

package/stacks/modeling-kit/templates/.claude/skills/eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios/SKILL.md

@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ Prefer `mcp__eventmodelers__*` tools when available (registered by the `connect`
 artifact — only build one when the user's request explicitly asks for a "storyline", "walkthrough",
 or "narrative". Never generate a storyline as a side effect of ordinary scenario elaboration.
 
+**Exception — the mandatory read-model scenario pass** (see the "Per read model" section of the Quality Checklist below): when the user's request already frames read-model coverage as open to either form — e.g. "add scenarios for the read models, GWT or storylines", or the orchestrating skill's Step 7 gate, which requires exactly that — the explicit-ask condition is satisfied at that request level, not per read model. Within that pass, decide GWT vs. storyline **per read model** based on domain fit (does this read model's row genuinely walk through multiple states worth narrating?), not by asking again for every individual read model and not by defaulting to GWT for all of them just because that's the baseline elsewhere in this skill. Outside that pass — an ad-hoc "write scenarios for X" with no mention of storylines — the strict on-demand rule above still applies unchanged.
+
 A GWT scenario asserts one isolated transition: a single precondition, a single action, a single
 resulting outcome. A storyline instead narrates one specific use case as an ordered sequence of
 **beats**, where the *same* element (usually a read model) is walked through multiple states across
@@ -804,11 +806,18 @@ After posting, tell the user:
 
 **No command has only 2 scenarios unless all other types were reviewed and found inapplicable.**
 
+**Per read model — this is a separate, equally mandatory pass, not an afterthought of the command pass above:**
+- [ ] **Every READMODEL on the board has at least one view scenario** — GWT (`given`: source EVENTs, `when`: empty, `then`: the READMODEL) or a storyline. A model with dozens of command scenarios and 0 read-model scenarios is not a complete Step 7 — it's easy to walk away thinking coverage is thorough because the command side looks exhaustive, so check the read-model side explicitly before reporting this step done.
+- [ ] **Population scenario** — the view shows correct data after its source event(s)
+- [ ] **Removal/update scenario, where applicable** — a row disappears or changes (`expectEmptyList: true` for list-type views) after an event that supersedes it (expiry, return, archival, withdrawal, status change, etc.). `EVENT → READMODEL` is exempt from column ordering (see `learn-eventmodelers-api` §3), so a later event connecting back to an earlier-placed read model is normal — add the connection if it's missing rather than assuming the scenario is impossible. Only skip this scenario, with a documented gap (TASK comment), when the superseding event genuinely lives in a different chapter.
+- [ ] **GWT vs. storyline decided per read model, not applied uniformly** — reach for a storyline wherever the *same* read model row genuinely walks through multiple states worth narrating; the rest of the read models in the same model may be correctly GWT-only. Don't default to one format for every read model just because it worked for the first one, and don't judge "multiple states" by counting *distinct connected event types* — that undercounts real candidates. **A single event type recurring with different data is just as valid a storyline driver as several different event types**: `AccountFunded($40)` then `AccountFunded($70)` walking a balance read model from $40 to $110 is exactly as strong a storyline as a multi-event lifecycle. In practice this means almost every list/aggregate read model qualifies — a titles list growing from one row to two as the same `TitleAdded`-shaped event recurs, a dashboard's counters incrementing as the same `CopyAdded` event recurs, are both genuine storylines, not "just" GWT territory. Ask "does replaying this read model's *actually connected* event(s) more than once produce an interesting accumulated/changed state?" — not "how many different event types feed this."
+- [ ] **No redundancy or contradiction between a read model's GWT scenarios and its storyline** — if both exist for the same read model, read the storyline's beats before finalizing the GWTs. A GWT that asserts the same state a beat already shows is redundant (delete it); a GWT written without tracing the same causal sequence the storyline encodes can end up asserting something the storyline's beats actually contradict (e.g. claiming two entities coexist in a view when the storyline correctly shows one superseding the other) — delete or fix it, never leave a contradiction on the board.
+- [ ] **Cross-context read models handled honestly** — if a read model's true source events live in a different chapter, `given` can't reference them (same-timeline-only, like connections); write the scenario with an empty `given` and say so explicitly in the scenario title, rather than silently omitting the scenario or fabricating a same-timeline event that isn't the real source
+
 **Format and posting:**
 - [ ] State preconditions are explicit in Given (not just "Given an order")
 - [ ] Actions are clear in When
 - [ ] Outcomes are verifiable in Then (event produced or rejection with reason)
-- [ ] Every view has at least one update scenario
 - [ ] All scenarios posted to board spec cells via the `/scenarios` API
 - [ ] **Workshop facilitation approach documented**
 - [ ] **All stakeholder roles (PO, Dev, QA, Domain Expert) perspectives captured**

package/stacks/modeling-kit/templates/.claude/skills/eventmodeling-orchestrating-event-modeling/SKILL.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ allowed-tools:
 
 Prefer `mcp__eventmodelers__*` tools when available (registered by the `connect` skill) — the curl blocks below are the fallback for sessions without MCP connected.
 
-Coordinates the 10-step Event Modeling workflow. Each step delegates to a
+Coordinates the 11-step Event Modeling workflow. Each step delegates to a
 specialized skill — this skill holds the sequence, transition conditions, and
 what to carry forward between steps.
 
@@ -101,6 +101,10 @@ Screens placed during Step 3 (Storyboarding) are provisional positions. Steps 4
 ### Column insertion
 Use `POST /timelines/:tl/columns` with `{"index": N}` to insert a column at a specific position (shifts existing columns right). Do not use `{}` (append) when placing read models or view screens — always target the correct position.
 
+### Documenting decisions inline, at any step
+
+Separate from the Step 11 chapter-level reasoning note: at **any** step (1–10), if that step makes a decision or assumption important enough that a later reader could otherwise misread the model, add a small MARKDOWN note in the **column where that decision applies** (same feedback-lane + MARKDOWN mechanics as Step 11 — see there for the exact calls). Use sparingly — this is for a genuine "why is it like this" moment (an assumption that fills a gap the brief left open, a rejected alternative, a non-obvious constraint), not routine narration of what a step did.
+
 ---
 
 ## Interview Phase
@@ -166,7 +170,7 @@ Also update the Interview Trail table row for this step (Status → Done, Key Ou
 
 After writing the summary, run `/compact` to clear the accumulated context before loading the next skill. The summary written above is the handoff — the next skill reads it from the file, not from the conversation history.
 
-This keeps each step's context lean and prevents token bloat from accumulating across all 9 steps.
+This keeps each step's context lean and prevents token bloat from accumulating across all 11 steps.
 
 ---
 
@@ -266,9 +270,14 @@ if Conway's Law boundaries are not relevant to the project.
 Invoke `eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios`.
 
 **Input**: Commands and read models.
-**Output to carry forward**: Given-When-Then specifications for each command
-and view, posted to the board spec cells.
-**Gate**: Every command has scenarios covering **all applicable types** from the elaborating-scenarios workflow — not just happy path + one error case. See the gate checklist below.
+**Output to carry forward**: Given-When-Then specifications (or storylines, for
+walkthrough-style coverage) for every command **and every read model**, posted
+to the board spec cells.
+**Gate**: Every command has scenarios covering **all applicable types** from
+the elaborating-scenarios workflow — not just happy path + one error case —
+**and every READMODEL on the board has at least one view scenario**. See the
+gate checklist below. A command-only pass is an incomplete Step 7, even if
+every command's coverage looks exhaustive.
 
 > **Do not reduce scenarios to a simple good-case / bad-case pair.** The `eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios` skill defines a structured scenario workshop covering seven scenario types per command. All applicable types must be written before this step is complete.
 
@@ -283,7 +292,9 @@ and view, posted to the board spec cells.
 
 For each type, ask the relevant question against the business case and write a scenario if the situation can occur. Do not decide based on brevity — decide based on the domain.
 
-> The `eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios` skill designs scenarios **and** posts them to the board. It uses `GET /timelines/$TL/spec-info` to resolve node IDs, then `POST /timelines/$TL/columns/$COL/scenarios` with all scenarios for that column in one call (array body). The SCENARIO spec node is created automatically. Ensure the timeline and column IDs are resolved and passed to the skill before invoking it.
+> **Read models need scenarios too — easy to forget since the seven types above are command-shaped.** Every READMODEL needs at least one view scenario (GWT or storyline); a read model with zero scenarios is as incomplete as a command with zero. `eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios`'s own checklist covers the details — connectivity rules, GWT-vs-storyline judgment per read model, and avoiding redundancy between a storyline and its GWTs — don't re-derive those here, just enforce the gate.
+
+> The `eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios` skill designs scenarios **and** posts them to the board. It uses `GET /timelines/$TL/spec-info` to resolve node IDs, then `POST /timelines/$TL/columns/$COL/scenarios` with all scenarios for that column in one call (array body) — this applies identically whether the column holds a COMMAND or a READMODEL. The SCENARIO spec node is created automatically. Ensure the timeline and column IDs are resolved and passed to the skill before invoking it.
 
 ---
 
@@ -331,6 +342,76 @@ already had one.
 
 ---
 
+### Step 11: Document Reasoning
+
+Not delegated to a separate skill — performed directly by this orchestrating skill, since the reasoning being documented is the *orchestrator's own* accumulated context across all prior steps, not something a single-step skill has visibility into.
+
+**Input**: The complete, sliced, validated model (Steps 1–10) plus this session's own record of decisions made along the way — assumptions added beyond the literal brief, sequencing corrections, business rules deliberately encoded as scenarios rather than events, read-model sharing choices, and any cross-context/integration gaps found (e.g. during Step 6 or Step 9).
+
+**Output to carry forward**: One MARKDOWN node per chapter, placed in that chapter's first column, containing the full modeling reasoning for that bounded context in as much detail as the session actually has to give — not a boilerplate template filled in thinly.
+
+**Gate**: Every chapter on the board has exactly one reasoning MARKDOWN node in its first column, non-empty, written after the model for that chapter was already complete (so it can describe the *finished* shape, not a plan).
+
+**Mechanics** — a chapter has no `feedback` lane by default; add one first, then place a MARKDOWN node in it:
+
+1. **Add a feedback lane** (once per chapter, skip if one already exists — check `meta.timelineData.rows` for `type === "feedback"` first):
+
+   **Prefer MCP:**
+   ```
+   mcp__eventmodelers__add_lane { "boardId": "$BOARD_ID", "timelineId": "$CHAPTER_ID", "type": "feedback", "label": "Notes" }
+   ```
+
+   **Fallback (no MCP):**
+   ```bash
+   curl -s -X POST "$BASE_URL/api/org/$ORG_ID/boards/$BOARD_ID/timelines/$CHAPTER_ID/lanes" \
+     -H "x-token: $TOKEN" -H "x-board-id: $BOARD_ID" -H "x-user-id: orchestrator" \
+     -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
+     -d '{"type":"feedback","label":"Notes"}'
+   # → { laneId, type, label, index, totalLanes }
+   ```
+
+2. **Resolve the first column's ID** — the leftmost entry in `meta.timelineData.columns` (same chapter fetch used throughout this workflow for row/column lookups).
+
+3. **Create the MARKDOWN node**, `cellId = "<feedbackLaneId>-<firstColumnId>"`:
+
+   **Prefer MCP:**
+   ```
+   mcp__eventmodelers__submit_node_events {
+     "boardId": "$BOARD_ID",
+     "events": [{
+       "id": "<event-uuid>", "eventType": "node:created", "nodeId": "<node-uuid>",
+       "boardId": "$BOARD_ID", "timestamp": 1234567890,
+       "chapterId": "$CHAPTER_ID", "cellId": "<feedbackLaneId>-<firstColumnId>",
+       "meta": { "type": "MARKDOWN", "title": "Modeling Reasoning — <Chapter Name>", "description": "<full markdown body>" }
+     }]
+   }
+   ```
+
+   **Fallback (no MCP):**
+   ```bash
+   curl -s -X POST "$BASE_URL/api/org/$ORG_ID/boards/$BOARD_ID/nodes/events" \
+     -H "x-token: $TOKEN" -H "x-board-id: $BOARD_ID" -H "x-user-id: orchestrator" \
+     -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
+     -d '[{"id":"<event-uuid>","eventType":"node:created","nodeId":"<node-uuid>","boardId":"<BOARD_ID>",
+           "timestamp":1234567890,"chapterId":"<CHAPTER_ID>","cellId":"<feedbackLaneId>-<firstColumnId>",
+           "meta":{"type":"MARKDOWN","title":"Modeling Reasoning — <Chapter Name>","description":"<full markdown body>"}}]'
+   ```
+
+   The note's body lives in **`meta.description`** as plain markdown source — headings, lists, bold, code fences, tables all render. **Not `meta.content`** — that field is accepted and stored without error but never rendered by the board UI, producing a visibly empty note; this was caught by comparing against a note authored directly in the UI, so treat it as confirmed, not a guess. There is no separate render/sketch call (unlike SCREEN/HTML_SCREEN) and no `fields[]` array on this element type.
+
+**What the note should actually contain** — write for the next person (or next session) who opens this board cold, not for whoever just built it:
+- **Scope**: what business process this chapter covers, and its stream roots (identity keys).
+- **Assumptions added beyond the literal brief** — anything invented to fill a gap the requirements left open, and why (e.g. adding a resolution event so a state isn't a one-way trap door).
+- **Business rules deliberately encoded as scenarios, not new events** — so a reader doesn't mistake a missing event for an oversight.
+- **Sequencing or design corrections made mid-workflow** — e.g. a column reorder because an event's original placement implied the wrong causality.
+- **Read model design rationale** — especially where one read model deliberately serves several screens/automations, so it doesn't read as a missing 1:1 mapping.
+- **Any cross-context or integration gaps found** (Step 6 Conway's Law, or discovered incidentally, e.g. a same-timeline connection constraint blocking a needed cross-chapter data dependency) — state the finding and the viable resolutions, matching whatever TASK/QUESTION comment was also posted on the affected node.
+- **Closing summary**: element counts and the validation verdict for this chapter's slice of the model.
+
+If a chapter's story is genuinely simple, say so briefly rather than padding — but for any chapter with real design decisions behind it, this note is the place those decisions survive past the session that made them.
+
+---
+
 ## Final Output
 
 A complete, sliced event model consisting of:
@@ -344,10 +425,11 @@ A complete, sliced event model consisting of:
 - Completeness verification
 - Validation report with readiness verdict
 - Slice definitions marking every independently deployable feature boundary
+- A Modeling Reasoning MARKDOWN node in each chapter's first column, documenting the design decisions, assumptions, and any integration gaps behind that chapter's model
 
 ### Optional Follow-on Skills
 
-These skills are not part of the 10-step main path but extend the model for
+These skills are not part of the 11-step main path but extend the model for
 specific needs:
 
 - **`eventmodeling-designing-event-models`** — Use when stream identity,
@@ -364,12 +446,14 @@ specific needs:
 ## Quality Checklist
 
 - [ ] No elements stranded at 0,0 — every EVENT, COMMAND, READMODEL, SCREEN, and AUTOMATION has a valid `cellId` in its chapter
-- [ ] All 10 modeling steps completed — no step skipped without explicit reason
+- [ ] All 11 modeling steps completed — no step skipped without explicit reason
 - [ ] Every COMMAND, READMODEL, and AUTOMATION has a matching slice definition on the board
+- [ ] Every chapter has a Modeling Reasoning MARKDOWN node in its first column, written after that chapter's model was complete
 - [ ] Role Catalog exists with named human roles and system processors
 - [ ] Every command is attributed to a specific role from the Role Catalog
 - [ ] Every read model satisfies at least one UI or processor query need
 - [ ] At least one Given-When-Then scenario exists per command
+- [ ] At least one view scenario (GWT or storyline) exists per READMODEL — not just per command
 - [ ] Completeness check shows no unresolved field traceability gaps
 - [ ] Validation returns PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS with all critical issues resolved
 - [ ] Interview trail in `.trogonai/` updated with status of each completed step

package/stacks/modeling-kit/templates/.claude/skills/eventmodeling-validating-event-models/SKILL.md

@@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ Verify each swimlane has:
 ### 2. Consistency Checks
 
 - [ ] **Event-Stream Mapping**: Every event belongs to exactly one lane
+- [ ] **Single Command Issuer**: Every command is issued by exactly one SCREEN or AUTOMATION — never two. Check each COMMAND node's inbound edges; more than one SCREEN/AUTOMATION wired into the same command is a CRITICAL violation (commonly an auto-connect artifact — see `place-element` Step 7c)
 - [ ] **Command Outcomes**: Every command produces events OR documents rejection
 - [ ] **Deterministic Projections**: State can only be derived one way from events
 - [ ] **No Side Effects in Projections**: Pure state reconstruction logic
@@ -192,6 +193,7 @@ Format findings as comments:
 | Orphaned events | Events no one listens to | Link to projections or commands |
 | No read models | Commands reading query/read models for validation | Add separate query read models; keep command state minimal |
 | Circular dependencies | Projection A depends on B, B on A | Redesign stream boundaries |
+| Command issued by multiple things | COMMAND node has 2+ inbound SCREEN/AUTOMATION edges | Keep the deliberate same-column issuer, remove the rest via `set_connection` (`action: "remove"`) — see `place-element` Step 7c |
 
 ## Key Principles for Event Sourcing
 
@@ -233,6 +235,7 @@ A model is **ready for code generation** if:
 - [ ] State projection is deterministic from events
 - [ ] Commands validate against current state only
 - [ ] Each command either produces events or rejects (no silent failures)
+- [ ] **No command has more than one inbound SCREEN/AUTOMATION edge (a command is never issued by more than one thing)**
 - [ ] Event causality/command-event mapping is clear
 - [ ] State transitions are documented
 - [ ] No direct references between lanes

package/stacks/modeling-kit/templates/.claude/skills/eventmodeling-validating-event-models-checklist/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: eventmodeling-validating-event-models-checklist
-description: "Validate event-sourced CQRS models against 16 architectural checks across 7 phases. Identifies anti-patterns and confirms compliance with event sourcing principles. Use when reviewing event models for production readiness or after completing event modeling steps. Do not use for: reviewing incomplete or in-progress models (use eventmodeling-validating-event-models), or for elaborating new scenarios (use eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios)."
+description: "Validate event-sourced CQRS models against 17 architectural checks across 7 phases. Identifies anti-patterns and confirms compliance with event sourcing principles. Use when reviewing event models for production readiness or after completing event modeling steps. Do not use for: reviewing incomplete or in-progress models (use eventmodeling-validating-event-models), or for elaborating new scenarios (use eventmodeling-elaborating-scenarios)."
 allowed-tools:
   - Write
   - Bash
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ allowed-tools:
 
 Prefer `mcp__eventmodelers__*` tools when available (registered by the `connect` skill) — the curl blocks below are the fallback for sessions without MCP connected.
 
-**Purpose**: Validate any event-sourced CQRS event model against 16 architectural checks across 7 phases. Identifies anti-patterns and confirms compliance with event sourcing principles.
+**Purpose**: Validate any event-sourced CQRS event model against 17 architectural checks across 7 phases. Identifies anti-patterns and confirms compliance with event sourcing principles.
 
 **Applies To**: Any domain - e-commerce, banking, SaaS, marketplace, healthcare, etc.
 
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Prefer `mcp__eventmodelers__*` tools when available (registered by the `connect`
 
 **What It Does**:
 1. Reads current board state (EVENT, COMMAND, READMODEL nodes) as input
-2. Systematically applies 16 validation checks across 7 phases
+2. Systematically applies 17 validation checks across 7 phases
 2. Identifies violations of event sourcing principles (domain-agnostic)
 3. Flags anti-patterns (calculations as events, non-entity streams, etc.)
 4. Verifies read model/event distinction
@@ -59,12 +59,13 @@ Use the board nodes as the model input. After the checklist, use `handle-comment
 
 ## Validation Phases (Domain-Agnostic)
 
-### Phase 1: Event Stream & Command Handler State Validation (3 checks)
+### Phase 1: Event Stream & Command Handler State Validation (4 checks)
 - Check 1.1: Each event belongs to exactly one stream
 - Check 1.2: Each command handler owns its own [CommandHandler]State class
 - Check 1.3: No hard dependencies between command handlers (orchestrated via events only)
+- Check 1.4: Each command is issued by exactly one thing — no COMMAND node has more than one inbound SCREEN/AUTOMATION edge
 
-**Anti-pattern to catch**: Sharing state across handlers or treating state as persistent aggregate
+**Anti-pattern to catch**: Sharing state across handlers or treating state as persistent aggregate; a command wired from two issuers (commonly a `place-element` auto-connect artifact where the command's own column holds an AUTOMATION and the previous column's SCREEN also gets wired in — see `learn-eventmodelers-api` §3 auto-connect "Known gap")
 
 ### Phase 2: Event Quality Validation (3 checks)
 - Check 2.1: Events represent domain facts, not calculations
@@ -204,6 +205,24 @@ Reconstruct [CommandHandler]State on-demand
 
 **Why**: State is derived from events, never stored. Events are source of truth. This enables consistent replay, audit trails, and time-travel debugging.
 
+### 5. Command With Multiple Issuers
+```
+ ANTI-PATTERN:
+FlagLoanOverdue (COMMAND) has two inbound edges:
+- "Flag Overdue Loans" (AUTOMATION, same column)
+- "Adjust Due Date" (SCREEN, previous column)
+- Result: unclear who/what actually triggers the command; validation and UI-vs-automation
+  authority checks (e.g. Role & Actor Attribution) can no longer be answered
+
+ CORRECT:
+FlagLoanOverdue (COMMAND) has exactly one inbound edge, from the AUTOMATION that owns it.
+If the SCREEN's user genuinely needs to trigger the same outcome, that's a second,
+distinctly-named command (or the SCREEN issuing it directly, with the automation removed) —
+not two issuers sharing one command.
+```
+
+**Why**: A command is never issued by more than one thing. Each command represents one specific trigger's decision to act — collapsing two triggers onto one command node hides which actor is actually responsible, and usually means either a naming/slice-boundary mistake or a stray auto-connect edge (`learn-eventmodelers-api` §3, "Known gap"). Fix by removing the extra edge via `set_connection` (`action: "remove"`), not by keeping both.
+
 ---
 
 ## Questions to Ask During Validation
@@ -233,7 +252,7 @@ Reconstruct [CommandHandler]State on-demand
 ## Success Criteria
 
  **Model is validated when**:
-- All 16 checks pass (or have documented workarounds)
+- All 17 checks pass (or have documented workarounds)
 - No critical anti-patterns identified
 - All 3 final questions answer YES
 - Event sourcing principles clearly upheld
@@ -306,7 +325,7 @@ Running the checklist after Step 2 prevents wasting time on later steps if core
 
 ## Checklist Questions by Domain
 
-The skill applies the same 16 checks regardless of domain. Here's how to think about it in different contexts:
+The skill applies the same 17 checks regardless of domain. Here's how to think about it in different contexts:
 
 **E-commerce domain**:
 - Events: OrderCreated, OrderConfirmed, PaymentAuthorized, OrderShipped
@@ -338,7 +357,7 @@ The principle is the same across all domains: **immutable facts as events, calcu
 
 ## Quality Checklist
 
-- [ ] All 16 checks evaluated — no check skipped without documented justification
+- [ ] All 17 checks evaluated — no check skipped without documented justification
 - [ ] Every FAIL result includes the specific event, handler, or stream that violated the check
 - [ ] Anti-patterns identified by name with the exact model element that triggered the flag
 - [ ] Final verdict is one of: PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL — no ambiguous outcomes
@@ -359,6 +378,6 @@ The principle is the same across all domains: **immutable facts as events, calcu
 
 ## Validation Checklist Reference
 
-The 16-point checklist is defined in the **Validation Phases** section above.
+The 17-point checklist is defined in the **Validation Phases** section above.
 Each check includes the anti-pattern to catch and questions to ask when evaluating your model.
 

package/stacks/modeling-kit/templates/.claude/skills/place-element/SKILL.md

@@ -446,6 +446,34 @@ Response: `{ "hashes": { "<event-uuid>": "<hash>" } }`
 
 ---
 
+## Step 7c — Verify the command has exactly one issuer
+
+**A command is never issued by more than one thing.** Run this check whenever `elementType` is `SCREEN`, `AUTOMATION`, or `COMMAND` — placing any of these can trigger the server's fire-and-forget auto-connect (`learn-eventmodelers-api` §3), which wires `SCREEN→COMMAND` and `AUTOMATION→COMMAND` edges to type-compatible neighbors in the node's own column and the previous column.
+
+**Why this can go wrong**: auto-connect only skips the previous column's SCREEN when the COMMAND's own column already has a SCREEN — it does not check for an AUTOMATION there. So a COMMAND whose own column holds an AUTOMATION, with a SCREEN sitting in the previous column, ends up wired from *both* — the automation (same column) and the screen (previous column) — and now looks issued by two things.
+
+After placing, resolve the relevant COMMAND node (the one just placed, or the one in the same/adjacent column as the SCREEN/AUTOMATION just placed) and inspect its edges:
+
+**Prefer MCP:**
+```
+mcp__eventmodelers__get_node { "boardId": "<BOARD_ID>", "nodeId": "<COMMAND_NODE_ID>" }
+```
+
+Count inbound edges where `target === COMMAND_NODE_ID` and the source node is type `SCREEN` or `AUTOMATION`.
+
+- **0 or 1 such edge** → fine, nothing to do.
+- **2 or more** → keep the edge whose source sits in the COMMAND's own column (the deliberate, same-slice issuer) and remove every other one:
+
+```
+mcp__eventmodelers__set_connection { "boardId": "<BOARD_ID>", "source": "<extra-issuer-node-id>", "target": "<COMMAND_NODE_ID>", "action": "remove" }
+```
+
+If it's not clear which edge is the deliberate one (e.g. neither source sits in the COMMAND's own column), do not guess — leave both edges and post a `QUESTION` comment on the COMMAND node via `handle-comment` instead, describing the ambiguity.
+
+**Fallback (no MCP)**: there is no documented single-purpose REST endpoint for edge removal outside `/nodes/events`. Connect MCP via the `connect` skill first; if that's genuinely not possible, skip the auto-fix and post a `QUESTION` comment on the COMMAND node flagging the double issuer for manual resolution instead of fabricating a payload.
+
+---
+
 ## Step 8 — Report back
 
 Tell the user: