@hanzlaa/rcode 2.1.0

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-checkpoint-preview/step-03-detail-pass.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Step 3: Detail Pass
+
+Display: `Orientation → Walkthrough → [Detail Pass] → Testing`
+
+## Follow Global Step Rules in SKILL.md
+
+- The detail pass surfaces what the human should **think about**, not what the code got wrong. Machine hardening already handled correctness. This activates risk awareness.
+- The LLM detects risk category by pattern. The human judges significance. Do not assign severity scores or numeric rankings — ordering by blast radius (below) is sequencing for readability, not a severity judgment.
+- If no high-risk spots exist, say so explicitly. Do not invent findings.
+
+## IDENTIFY RISK SPOTS
+
+Scan the diff for changes touching risk-sensitive patterns. Look for 2–5 spots where a mistake would have the highest blast radius — not the most complex code, but the code where being wrong costs the most.
+
+Risk categories to detect:
+
+- `[auth]` — authentication, authorization, session, token, permission, access control
+- `[public API]` — new/changed endpoints, exports, public methods, interface contracts
+- `[schema]` — database migrations, schema changes, data model modifications, serialization
+- `[billing]` — payment, pricing, subscription, metering, usage tracking
+- `[infra]` — deployment, CI/CD, environment variables, config files, infrastructure
+- `[security]` — input validation, sanitization, crypto, secrets, CORS, CSP
+- `[config]` — feature flags, environment-dependent behavior, defaults
+- `[other]` — anything risk-sensitive that doesn't fit the above (e.g., concurrency, data privacy, backwards compatibility). Use a descriptive tag.
+
+Sequence spots so the highest blast radius comes first (how much breaks if this is wrong), not by diff order or file order. If more than 5 spots qualify, show the top 5 and note: "N additional spots omitted — ask if you want the full list."
+
+If the change has no spots matching these patterns, state: "No high-risk spots found in this change — the diff speaks for itself." Do not force findings.
+
+## SURFACE MACHINE HARDENING FINDINGS
+
+Check whether the spec has a `## Spec Change Log` section with entries (populated by adversarial review loops).
+
+- **If entries exist:** Read them. Surface findings that are instructive for the human reviewer — not bugs that were already fixed, but decisions the review loop flagged that the human should be aware of. Format: brief summary of what was flagged and what was decided.
+- **If no entries or no spec:** Skip this section entirely. Do not mention it.
+
+## PRESENT
+
+Output as a single message:
+
+```
+Orientation → Walkthrough → [Detail Pass] → Testing
+```
+
+### Risk Spots
+
+For each spot, one line:
+
+```
+- `path:line` — [tag] reason-phrase
+```
+
+Example:
+
+```
+- `src/auth/middleware.ts:42` — [auth] New token validation bypasses rate limiter
+- `migrations/003_add_index.sql:7` — [schema] Index on high-write table, check lock behavior
+- `api/routes/billing.ts:118` — [billing] Metering calculation changed, verify idempotency
+```
+
+### Machine Hardening (only if findings exist)
+
+```
+### Machine Hardening
+
+- Finding summary — what was flagged, what was decided
+- ...
+```
+
+### Closing menu
+
+End the message with:
+
+```
+---
+
+You've seen the design and the risk landscape. From here:
+- **"dig into [area]"** — I'll deep-dive that specific area with correctness focus
+- **"next"** — I'll suggest how to observe the behavior
+```
+
+## EARLY EXIT
+
+If at any point the human signals they want to make a decision about this {change_type} (e.g., "let's ship it", "this needs a rethink", "I'm done reviewing", or anything suggesting they're ready to decide), confirm their intent:
+
+- If they want to **approve and ship** → read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`
+- If they want to **reject and rework** → read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`
+- If you misread them → acknowledge and continue the current step.
+
+## TARGETED RE-REVIEW
+
+When the human says "dig into [area]" (e.g., "dig into the auth changes", "dig into the schema migration"):
+
+1. If the specified area does not map to any code in the diff, say so: "I don't see [area] in this change — did you mean something else?" Return to the closing menu.
+2. Identify all code locations in the diff relevant to the specified area.
+3. Read each location in full context (not just the diff hunk — read surrounding code).
+4. Shift to **correctness mode**: trace edge cases, check boundary conditions, verify error handling, look for off-by-one errors, race conditions, resource leaks.
+5. Present findings as a compact list — each finding is `path:line` + what you found + why it matters.
+6. If nothing concerning is found, say so: "Looked closely at [area] — nothing concerning. The implementation is solid."
+7. After presenting, show only the closing menu (not the full risk spots list again).
+
+The human can trigger multiple targeted re-reviews. Each time, present new findings and the closing menu only.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-04-testing.md`

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-checkpoint-preview/step-04-testing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+# Step 4: Testing
+
+Display: `Orientation → Walkthrough → Detail Pass → [Testing]`
+
+## Follow Global Step Rules in SKILL.md
+
+- This is **experiential**, not analytical. The detail pass asked "did you think about X?" — this says "you could see X with your own eyes."
+- Do not prescribe. The human decides whether observing the behavior is worth their time. Frame suggestions as options, not obligations.
+- Do not duplicate CI, test suites, or automated checks. Assume those exist and work. This is about manual observation — the kind of confidence-building no automated test provides.
+- If the change has no user-visible behavior, say so explicitly. Do not invent observations.
+
+## IDENTIFY OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR
+
+Scan the diff and spec for changes that produce behavior a human could directly observe. Categories to look for:
+
+- **UI changes** — new screens, modified layouts, changed interactions, error states
+- **CLI/terminal output** — new commands, changed output, new flags or options
+- **API responses** — new endpoints, changed payloads, different status codes
+- **State changes** — database records, file system artifacts, config effects
+- **Error paths** — bad input, missing dependencies, edge conditions
+
+For each observable behavior, determine:
+
+1. **What to do** — the specific action (command to run, button to click, request to send)
+2. **What to expect** — the observable result that confirms the change works
+3. **Why bother** — one phrase connecting this observation to the change's intent (omit if obvious from context)
+
+Target 2–5 suggestions for a typical change. If more than 5 qualify, prioritize by how much confidence the observation provides relative to effort. A change with zero observable behavior is fine — do not pad with trivial observations.
+
+## PRESENT
+
+Output as a single message:
+
+```
+Orientation → Walkthrough → Detail Pass → [Testing]
+```
+
+Then the testing suggestions using this format:
+
+```
+### How to See It Working
+
+**{Brief description}**
+Do: {specific action}
+Expect: {observable result}
+
+**{Brief description}**
+Do: {specific action}
+Expect: {observable result}
+```
+
+Include code blocks for commands or requests where helpful.
+
+If the change has no observable behavior, replace the suggestions with:
+
+```
+### How to See It Working
+
+This change is internal — no user-visible behavior to observe. The diff and tests tell the full story.
+```
+
+### Closing
+
+End the message with:
+
+```
+---
+
+You've seen the change and how to verify it. When you're ready to make a call, just say so.
+```
+
+## NEXT
+
+When the human signals they're ready to make a decision about this {change_type}, read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-checkpoint-preview/step-05-wrapup.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Step 5: Wrap-Up
+
+Display: `Orientation → Walkthrough → Detail Pass → Testing → [Wrap-Up]`
+
+## Follow Global Step Rules in SKILL.md
+
+## PROMPT FOR DECISION
+
+```
+---
+
+Review complete. What's the call on this {change_type}?
+- **Approve** — ship it (I can help with interactive patching first if needed)
+- **Rework** — back to the drawing board (revert, revise the spec, try a different approach)
+- **Discuss** — something's still on your mind
+```
+
+HALT — do not proceed until the user makes their choice.
+
+## ACT ON DECISION
+
+- **Approve**: Acknowledge briefly. If the human wants to patch something before shipping, help apply the fix interactively. If reviewing a PR, offer to approve via `gh pr review --approve` — but confirm with the human before executing, since this is a visible action on a shared resource.
+- **Rework**: Ask what went wrong — was it the approach, the spec, or the implementation? Help the human decide on next steps (revert commit, open an issue, revise the spec, etc.). Help draft specific, actionable feedback tied to `path:line` locations if the change is a PR from someone else.
+- **Discuss**: Open conversation — answer questions, explore concerns, dig into any aspect. After discussion, return to the decision prompt above.

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+name: rihal-code-review
+description: >
+  Review code changes using parallel adversarial review layers and produce
+  actionable findings. Activates when the user says "review this code", "run
+  code review", "do a PR review", "review the diff", "critique this
+  implementation", or "CR". Do NOT use for documentation review (use
+  rihal-validate-prd or editorial skills).
+---
+
+## Workflow
+
+Follow the instructions in ./workflow.md.
+
+## Output Format
+
+- Produces review report with severity per finding: Critical / High / Medium / Low
+- Report table: File:Line | Severity | Issue | Suggested Fix
+- Final verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / BLOCK
+- Saved to .rihal/artifacts/reviews/{pr-id}.md
+- Do NOT silently fix issues — the author must decide
+
+## Examples
+
+### Happy Path
+**Input:** "Run code review on this PR diff"
+**Expected behavior:** Load diff, run parallel reviews (blind hunter, edge case hunter, acceptance auditor), triage findings, produce verdict.
+
+### Edge Case: Diff Too Large
+**Input:** (diff is 2000+ lines)
+**Expected behavior:** Report: "Diff is too large for a single review (2000+ lines). Split into smaller PRs, or pick 3-4 focus areas to review first."

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-code-review/steps/step-01-gather-context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+diff_output: '' # set at runtime
+spec_file: '' # set at runtime (path or empty)
+review_mode: '' # set at runtime: "full" or "no-spec"
+story_key: '' # set at runtime when discovered from sprint status
+---
+
+# Step 1: Gather Context
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- The prompt that triggered this workflow IS the intent — not a hint.
+- Do not modify any files. This step is read-only.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. **Detect review intent from invocation text.** Check the triggering prompt for phrases that map to a review mode:
+   - "staged" / "staged changes" → Staged changes only
+   - "uncommitted" / "working tree" / "all changes" → Uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged)
+   - "branch diff" / "vs main" / "against main" / "compared to {branch}" → Branch diff (extract base branch if mentioned)
+   - "commit range" / "last N commits" / "{sha}..{sha}" → Specific commit range
+   - "this diff" / "provided diff" / "paste" → User-provided diff (do not match bare "diff" — it appears in other modes)
+   - When multiple phrases match, prefer the most specific match (e.g., "branch diff" over bare "diff").
+   - **If a clear match is found:** Announce the detected mode (e.g., "Detected intent: review staged changes only") and proceed directly to constructing `{diff_output}` using the corresponding sub-case from instruction 3. Skip to instruction 4 (spec question).
+   - **If no match from invocation text, check sprint tracking.** Look for a sprint status file (`*sprint-status*`) in `{implementation_artifacts}` or `{planning_artifacts}`. If found, scan for any story with status `review`. Handle as follows:
+     - **Exactly one `review` story:** Set `{story_key}` to the story's key (e.g., `1-2-user-auth`). Suggest it: "I found story {{story-id}} in `review` status. Would you like to review its changes? [Y] Yes / [N] No, let me choose". If confirmed, use the story context to determine the diff source (branch name derived from story slug, or uncommitted changes). If declined, clear `{story_key}` and fall through to instruction 2.
+     - **Multiple `review` stories:** Present them as numbered options alongside a manual choice option. Wait for user selection. If the user selects a story, set `{story_key}` to the selected story's key and use the selected story's context to determine the diff source as in the single-story case above, and proceed to instruction 3. If the user selects the manual choice, clear `{story_key}` and fall through to instruction 2.
+   - **If no match and no sprint tracking:** Fall through to instruction 2.
+
+2. HALT. Ask the user: **What do you want to review?** Present these options:
+   - **Uncommitted changes** (staged + unstaged)
+   - **Staged changes only**
+   - **Branch diff** vs a base branch (ask which base branch)
+   - **Specific commit range** (ask for the range)
+   - **Provided diff or file list** (user pastes or provides a path)
+
+3. Construct `{diff_output}` from the chosen source.
+   - For **branch diff**: verify the base branch exists before running `git diff`. If it does not exist, HALT and ask the user for a valid branch.
+   - For **commit range**: verify the range resolves. If it does not, HALT and ask the user for a valid range.
+   - For **provided diff**: validate the content is non-empty and parseable as a unified diff. If it is not parseable, HALT and ask the user to provide a valid diff.
+   - For **file list**: validate each path exists in the working tree. Construct `{diff_output}` by running `git diff HEAD -- <path1> <path2> ...`. If any paths are untracked (new files not yet staged), use `git diff --no-index /dev/null <path>` to include them. If the diff is empty (files have no uncommitted changes and are not untracked), ask the user whether to review the full file contents or to specify a different baseline.
+   - After constructing `{diff_output}`, verify it is non-empty regardless of source type. If empty, HALT and tell the user there is nothing to review.
+
+4. Ask the user: **Is there a spec or story file that provides context for these changes?**
+   - If yes: set `{spec_file}` to the path provided, verify the file exists and is readable, then set `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
+   - If no: set `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"`.
+
+5. If `{review_mode}` = `"full"` and the file at `{spec_file}` has a `context` field in its frontmatter listing additional docs, load each referenced document. Warn the user about any docs that cannot be found.
+
+6. Sanity check: if `{diff_output}` exceeds approximately 3000 lines, warn the user and offer to chunk the review by file group.
+   - If the user opts to chunk: agree on the first group, narrow `{diff_output}` accordingly, and list the remaining groups for the user to note for follow-up runs.
+   - If the user declines: proceed as-is with the full diff.
+
+### CHECKPOINT
+
+Present a summary before proceeding: diff stats (files changed, lines added/removed), `{review_mode}`, and loaded spec/context docs (if any). HALT and wait for user confirmation to proceed.
+
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-02-review.md`

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+failed_layers: '' # set at runtime: comma-separated list of layers that failed or returned empty
+---
+
+# Step 2: Review
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- The Blind Hunter subagent receives NO project context — diff only.
+- The Edge Case Hunter subagent receives diff and project read access.
+- The Acceptance Auditor subagent receives diff, spec, and context docs.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"`, note to the user: "Acceptance Auditor skipped — no spec file provided."
+
+2. Launch parallel subagents without conversation context. If subagents are not available, generate prompt files in `{implementation_artifacts}` — one per reviewer role below — and HALT. Ask the user to run each in a separate session (ideally a different LLM) and paste back the findings. When findings are pasted, resume from this point and proceed to step 3.
+
+   - **Blind Hunter** — receives `{diff_output}` only. No spec, no context docs, no project access. Invoke via the `rihal-review-adversarial-general` skill.
+
+   - **Edge Case Hunter** — receives `{diff_output}` and read access to the project. Invoke via the `rihal-review-edge-case-hunter` skill.
+
+   - **Acceptance Auditor** (only if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`) — receives `{diff_output}`, the content of the file at `{spec_file}`, and any loaded context docs. Its prompt:
+     > You are an Acceptance Auditor. Review this diff against the spec and context docs. Check for: violations of acceptance criteria, deviations from spec intent, missing implementation of specified behavior, contradictions between spec constraints and actual code. Output findings as a Markdown list. Each finding: one-line title, which AC/constraint it violates, and evidence from the diff.
+
+3. **Subagent failure handling**: If any subagent fails, times out, or returns empty results, append the layer name to `{failed_layers}` (comma-separated) and proceed with findings from the remaining layers.
+
+4. Collect all findings from the completed layers.
+
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-03-triage.md`

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+---
+
+# Step 3: Triage
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- Be precise. When uncertain between categories, prefer the more conservative classification.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. **Normalize** findings into a common format. Expected input formats:
+   - Adversarial (Blind Hunter): markdown list of descriptions
+   - Edge Case Hunter: JSON array with `location`, `trigger_condition`, `guard_snippet`, `potential_consequence` fields
+   - Acceptance Auditor: markdown list with title, AC/constraint reference, and evidence
+
+   If a layer's output does not match its expected format, attempt best-effort parsing. Note any parsing issues for the user.
+
+   Convert all to a unified list where each finding has:
+   - `id` -- sequential integer
+   - `source` -- `blind`, `edge`, `auditor`, or merged sources (e.g., `blind+edge`)
+   - `title` -- one-line summary
+   - `detail` -- full description
+   - `location` -- file and line reference (if available)
+
+2. **Deduplicate.** If two or more findings describe the same issue, merge them into one:
+   - Use the most specific finding as the base (prefer edge-case JSON with location over adversarial prose).
+   - Append any unique detail, reasoning, or location references from the other finding(s) into the surviving `detail` field.
+   - Set `source` to the merged sources (e.g., `blind+edge`).
+
+3. **Classify** each finding into exactly one bucket:
+   - **decision_needed** -- There is an ambiguous choice that requires human input. The code cannot be correctly patched without knowing the user's intent. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
+   - **patch** -- Code issue that is fixable without human input. The correct fix is unambiguous.
+   - **defer** -- Pre-existing issue not caused by the current change. Real but not actionable now.
+   - **dismiss** -- Noise, false positive, or handled elsewhere.
+
+   If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"` and a finding would otherwise be `decision_needed`, reclassify it as `patch` (if the fix is unambiguous) or `defer` (if not).
+
+4. **Drop** all `dismiss` findings. Record the dismiss count for the summary.
+
+5. If `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, report which layers failed before announcing results. If zero findings remain after dropping dismissed AND `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, warn the user that the review may be incomplete rather than announcing a clean review.
+
+6. If zero findings remain after triage (all rejected or none raised): state "✅ Clean review — all layers passed." (Step 3 already warned if any review layers failed via `{failed_layers}`.)
+
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-04-present.md`

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+---
+deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md'
+---
+
+# Step 4: Present and Act
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- When `{spec_file}` is set, always write findings to the story file before offering action choices.
+- `decision-needed` findings must be resolved before handling `patch` findings.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+### 1. Clean review shortcut
+
+If zero findings remain after triage (all dismissed or none raised): state that and proceed to section 6 (Sprint Status Update).
+
+### 2. Write findings to the story file
+
+If `{spec_file}` exists and contains a Tasks/Subtasks section, append a `### Review Findings` subsection. Write all findings in this order:
+
+1. **`decision-needed`** findings (unchecked):
+   `- [ ] [Review][Decision] <Title> — <Detail>`
+
+2. **`patch`** findings (unchecked):
+   `- [ ] [Review][Patch] <Title> [<file>:<line>]`
+
+3. **`defer`** findings (checked off, marked deferred):
+   `- [x] [Review][Defer] <Title> [<file>:<line>] — deferred, pre-existing`
+
+Also append each `defer` finding to `{deferred_work_file}` under a heading `## Deferred from: code review ({date})`. If `{spec_file}` is set, include its basename in the heading (e.g., `code review of story-3.3 (2026-03-18)`). One bullet per finding with description.
+
+### 3. Present summary
+
+Announce what was written:
+
+> **Code review complete.** <D> `decision-needed`, <P> `patch`, <W> `defer`, <R> dismissed as noise.
+
+If `{spec_file}` is set, add: `Findings written to the review findings section in {spec_file}.`
+Otherwise add: `Findings are listed above. No story file was provided, so nothing was persisted.`
+
+### 4. Resolve decision-needed findings
+
+If `decision_needed` findings exist, present each one with its detail and the options available. The user must decide — the correct fix is ambiguous without their input. Walk through each finding (or batch related ones) and get the user's call. Once resolved, each becomes a `patch`, `defer`, or is dismissed.
+
+If the user chooses to defer, ask: Quick one-line reason for deferring this item? (helps future reviews): — then append that reason to both the story file bullet and the `{deferred_work_file}` entry.
+
+**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option.
+
+### 5. Handle `patch` findings
+
+If `patch` findings exist (including any resolved from step 4), HALT. Ask the user:
+
+If `{spec_file}` is set, present all three options (if >3 `patch` findings exist, also show option 0):
+
+> **How would you like to handle the <Z> `patch` findings?**
+> 0. **Batch-apply all** — automatically fix every non-controversial patch (recommended when there are many)
+> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now
+> 2. **Leave as action items** — they are already in the story file
+> 3. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding
+
+If `{spec_file}` is **not** set, present only options 1 and 3 (omit option 2 — findings were not written to a file). If >3 `patch` findings exist, also show option 0:
+
+> **How would you like to handle the <Z> `patch` findings?**
+> 0. **Batch-apply all** — automatically fix every non-controversial patch (recommended when there are many)
+> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now
+> 2. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding
+
+**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option.
+
+- **Option 0** (only when >3 findings): Apply all non-controversial patches without per-finding confirmation. Skip any finding that requires judgment. Present a summary of changes made and any skipped findings.
+- **Option 1**: Apply each fix. After all patches are applied, present a summary of changes made. If `{spec_file}` is set, check off the items in the story file.
+- **Option 2** (only when `{spec_file}` is set): Done — findings are already written to the story.
+- **Walk through each**: Present each finding with full detail, diff context, and suggested fix. After walkthrough, re-offer the applicable options above.
+
+  **HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option.
+
+**✅ Code review actions complete**
+
+- Decision-needed resolved: <D>
+- Patches handled: <P>
+- Deferred: <W>
+- Dismissed: <R>
+
+### 6. Update story status and sync sprint tracking
+
+Skip this section if `{spec_file}` is not set.
+
+#### Determine new status based on review outcome
+
+- If all `decision-needed` and `patch` findings were resolved (fixed or dismissed) AND no unresolved HIGH/MEDIUM issues remain: set `{new_status}` = `done`. Update the story file Status section to `done`.
+- If `patch` findings were left as action items, or unresolved issues remain: set `{new_status}` = `in-progress`. Update the story file Status section to `in-progress`.
+
+Save the story file.
+
+#### Sync sprint-status.yaml
+
+If `{story_key}` is not set, skip this subsection and note that sprint status was not synced because no story key was available.
+
+If `{sprint_status}` file exists:
+
+1. Load the FULL `{sprint_status}` file.
+2. Find the `development_status` entry matching `{story_key}`.
+3. If found: update `development_status[{story_key}]` to `{new_status}`. Update `last_updated` to current date. Save the file, preserving ALL comments and structure including STATUS DEFINITIONS.
+4. If `{story_key}` not found in sprint status: warn the user that the story file was updated but sprint-status sync failed.
+
+If `{sprint_status}` file does not exist, note that story status was updated in the story file only.
+
+#### Completion summary
+
+> **Review Complete!**
+>
+> **Story Status:** `{new_status}`
+> **Issues Fixed:** <fixed_count>
+> **Action Items Created:** <action_count>
+> **Deferred:** <W>
+> **Dismissed:** <R>
+
+### 7. Next steps
+
+Present the user with follow-up options:
+
+> **What would you like to do next?**
+> 1. **Start the next story** — run `dev-story` to pick up the next `ready-for-dev` story
+> 2. **Re-run code review** — address findings and review again
+> 3. **Done** — end the workflow
+
+**HALT** — I am waiting for your choice. Do not proceed until the user selects an option.

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-code-review/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+main_config: '{project-root}/.rihal/config.json'
+---
+
+# Code Review Workflow
+
+**Goal:** Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers and structured triage.
+
+**Your Role:** You are an elite code reviewer. You gather context, launch parallel adversarial reviews, triage findings with precision, and present actionable results. No noise, no filler.
+
+
+## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
+
+This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution:
+
+- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is self-contained and followed exactly
+- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only load the current step file
+- **Sequential Enforcement**: Complete steps in order, no skipping
+- **State Tracking**: Persist progress via in-memory variables
+- **Append-Only Building**: Build artifacts incrementally
+
+### Step Processing Rules
+
+1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Read the entire step file before acting
+2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute sections in order
+3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: Halt at checkpoints and wait for human
+4. **LOAD NEXT**: When directed, read fully and follow the next step file
+
+### Critical Rules (NO EXCEPTIONS)
+
+- **NEVER** load multiple step files simultaneously
+- **ALWAYS** read entire step file before execution
+- **NEVER** skip steps or optimize the sequence
+- **ALWAYS** follow the exact instructions in the step file
+- **ALWAYS** halt at checkpoints and wait for human input
+
+
+## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
+
+### 1. Configuration Loading
+
+Load and read full config from `{main_config}` and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `planning_artifacts`, `implementation_artifacts`, `user_name`
+- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
+- `date` as system-generated current datetime
+- `sprint_status` = `{implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml`
+- `project_context` = `**/project-context.md` (load if exists)
+- CLAUDE.md / memory files (load if exist)
+
+YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`.
+
+### 2. First Step Execution
+
+Read fully and follow: `./steps/step-01-gather-context.md` to begin the workflow.

package/rihal/skills/actions/4-implementation/rihal-correct-course/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+name: rihal-correct-course
+description: >
+  Course-correct when major change is discovered mid-sprint or
+  mid-implementation. Activates when the user says "course correct", "change
+  the scope mid-sprint", "we need to pivot", "correct course", "handle scope
+  change", or "change story mid-way". Do NOT use for normal sprint updates
+  (use rihal-sprint-status).
+---
+
+## Workflow
+
+Follow the instructions in ./workflow.md.
+
+## Output Format
+
+- Produces a course-correction doc: What Changed | Why | Options | Chosen Path | Impact on Sprint | Stakeholder Sign-off
+- Updates sprint plan explicitly with additions/removals
+- Do NOT silently modify scope — force explicit tradeoff documentation
+
+## Examples
+
+### Happy Path
+**Input:** "Customer just told us we need feature X added to this sprint"
+**Expected behavior:** Ask: what gets removed (capacity is fixed), is it a launch blocker, who approves. Then document the tradeoff and update sprint plan.
+
+### Edge Case: Silent Addition Attempted
+**Input:** "Just add X to the sprint"
+**Expected behavior:** Refuse silent addition. Force tradeoff: "Capacity is fixed. What do we remove? Without an explicit tradeoff, the sprint slips silently."