@gtrabanco/pi-agentic-workflow 0.11.2 → 0.12.0

package/skills/review-spec/references/OUTPUT.md

@@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ not authority.
 | Verdict | Who repairs | What happens next |
 |---|---|---|
 | `SPEC-REVIEW-PASS` | nobody | `/plan-feature <NN-slug>` binds this receipt + exact snapshot digest |
-| `SPEC-REVIEW-FAIL` | `design-feature` (the author) | one root-caused repair batch → new revision → re-review of the new snapshot |
-| `NEEDS-DESIGN` | the human, through `design-feature` | dated `## Amendments`/`Product decisions` entry → new revision → re-review |
+| `SPEC-REVIEW-FAIL` | `design-feature` (the author) | one root-caused repair batch → new revision → next cycle (default re-review; a recorded wording-only batch skips it) |
+| `NEEDS-DESIGN` | the human, through `design-feature` | dated `## Amendments`/`Product decisions` entry → new revision → next cycle |
 
 A finding whose `class` is `plan`, `source`, `environment`, or `runtime` does not
 become work here: record it, keep it open, and route it to its owner (`review-plan`
@@ -117,8 +117,11 @@ schedules nothing.
 Repeating this review follows the no-progress and convergence rules in
 `pre-execution-review/references/POLICY.md` §4: a repeat needs a
 changed snapshot or a named falsifiable question plus a new evidence route, and
-entering a second repair/re-review cycle prints `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY` before any
-further edit. A `design-feature` repair turn re-reads the union of open findings
+a second consecutive repair/re-review cycle prints `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY` before
+any further edit. A third cycle never starts without explicit user instruction:
+the orchestrator's `stop-review-loop-cap` refusal stops the invocation and names
+`design-feature` as the human route, and a PASS resets the count. A
+`design-feature` repair turn re-reads the union of open findings
 from `planning-findings.md`, not just the newest receipt, so nothing recorded here
 is ever lost between cycles.
 
@@ -150,7 +153,8 @@ On FAIL or NEEDS-DESIGN, name every finding id once, in order, joined with ` + `
 
 ```
 → Next: /design-feature <NN-slug> "<instruction>" — one repair batch for F1 + F2 + F4,
-    then /review-spec <NN-slug> re-reviews the new artifact revision
+    then /review-spec <NN-slug> judges the new artifact revision
+  · a third cycle → explicit user instruction first; the decider refuses it (`stop-review-loop-cap`) and names design-feature
   · a product choice is missing → answer it in the instruction; nothing here chooses for you
   · finding class is plan/source/environment/runtime → route to its owner, do not edit the SPEC
 ```

package/skills/verification-contract/SKILL.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: verification-contract
 user-invocable: false
-version: 1.2.1
+version: 1.3.0
 author: "Gabriel Trabanco <gtrabanco@users.noreply.github.com>"
 license: MIT
 description: >
@@ -88,6 +88,12 @@ a cover-up. The sole legitimate amendment is a **proven mis-encoding of external
 documented semantics of the platform/library/language, cited from authoritative documentation — not a product decision change. Even that surfaces as a
 **finding plus a SPEC amendment**, never a silent edit to go green.
 
+The deterministic backstop for this rule is the feature 60 path-protection
+checkpoint (`path-protection@1` in the turn contract): the Tier 1 gate fails a
+protected-path change with no recorded justification/approval, and the pi guard
+blocks the write before it lands. This manifest is the finish line those
+recorded escapes are checked against.
+
 Prevention rides the research gate (**research-before-encode**): platform
 semantics are verified against authoritative documentation **before a test encodes them**, so **adding stronger tests stays allowed**; **editing expectations never** (except the proven-mis-encoding path above).