@hassangameryt/freeflow 0.3.0 → 0.5.0

package/skills/workflow/SKILL.md

@@ -1,97 +1,91 @@
 ---
 name: workflow
-description: Use when doing consequential work such as implementation, bug fixing, planning, discovery-for-action, review, verification, or handoff.
+description: Use when coordinating discussion, decisions, durable task memory, execution, verification, review, or a route change from feedback.
 ---
 
 # Workflow
 
-Follow a lightweight forward workflow. Scale process to task risk.
+Use feedback to choose the smallest useful next action. Treat work as an **Interaction Lifecycle** with an internal **Feedback Loop**, not a fixed sequence.
 
-Move forward when context is sufficient. Re-enter clarification when new ambiguity would change the next action.
+The active agent owns understanding, routing, authorized work, verification, correction, and completion. It adjudicates selected review; independent judgment does not take over workflow control.
 
-Question means answer. Do not turn a question into a file edit, report, plan, or implementation.
+Read the [expanded Workflow loop](references/workflow-loop.md) when the complete lifecycle, skill relationships, or exits are unclear. Read [domain skill composition](references/domain-skill-composition.md) when specialized engineering guidance must run inside the active route.
+
+## Route The Interaction
 
 ```text
-Clarify / Discover
--> Decision / Spec
--> Plan
--> Execute
--> Review
--> Verify
--> Handoff
+[Entry] -> [Feedback Loop when needed] -> [Supported Exit]
+   ^              ^        |                  |
+   |              |________|                  |
+   |__________________________________________|
+            later user turn or evidence
 ```
 
-This is a guide, not ceremony. Small reversible work can skip spec/plan artifacts.
-
-Method skills and lenses such as TDD, diagnosis, execute-plan, or design-for-depth run inside the current workflow phase. Workflow owns routing, source-truth conflicts, user-owned decisions, review, verification, and handoff boundaries.
-
-Read `references/workflow-map.md` when the user asks for the full pipeline, public docs need a diagram, or the next workflow entry point is unclear.
-
-## Route Closeout
-
-Use `Next:` to name a helpful next route for the user. It is general routing, not only a workflow-phase label.
-
-Do not add `Next:` to every reply. Questions get answers first; add `Next:` only when the answer leaves a concrete next action, choice, stop condition, or route worth naming.
+Entry begins with a user turn or new evidence interpreted through the Interaction Contract and effective mode. It may route directly to an answer, wait, deferment, or stop. When work is needed, choose the narrowest owner:
 
-For completed consequential work or workflow phases, include `Next:` unless this is a direct question answer, mid-task status, clarification-only turn, or the final line must be a direct owner-decision question.
+- **Understand and decide:** [Discuss](../discuss/SKILL.md), [Decision Gate](../decision-gate/SKILL.md), [Bypass](../bypass/SKILL.md), with [Design for Depth](../design-for-depth/SKILL.md) when the direction is design-bearing.
+- **Preserve memory or accepted artifacts:** [Track Work](../track-work/SKILL.md), [Write Spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md), [Write Plan](../write-plan/SKILL.md), and [Review Artifact](../review-artifact/SKILL.md).
+- **Execute and learn:** [Execute Work](../execute-work/SKILL.md), [Migration Work](../migration-work/SKILL.md), [Diagnose Failure](../diagnose-failure/SKILL.md), [Verify Work](../verify-work/SKILL.md), and [Review Work](../review-work/SKILL.md).
+- **Preserve or close out:** [Commit Work](../commit-work/SKILL.md), [Handoff](../handoff/SKILL.md), [Finish Branch](../finish-branch/SKILL.md), [Release Work](../release-work/SKILL.md), and [Launch Work](../launch-work/SKILL.md).
 
-Choose one:
+These are owners, not mandatory phases. Method and domain skills compose inside one active route without overriding accepted behavior, live evidence, or user authority.
 
-- Forward: the next action or workflow entry point is clear.
-- Backward: new evidence requires clarification, discovery, or interview gate.
-- Branch: 2-3 valid next routes or actions exist.
-- Stop: no useful next action remains.
+## Authorize Or Wait
 
-Recommend the route supported by evidence. Do not ask a vague "what next?" question.
+Before any state-changing or separately controlled action, identify the bounded action, confirm that the effective mode permits it, and establish its authority source. Authority may come from a clear direct request, explicit approval, or an action or checkpoint explicitly authorized through a user-approved Plan or discussion. An accepted Spec or Plan alone establishes direction, not execution authority. A Working Record may preserve authority but cannot create it.
 
-After completed discovery with decisions that must survive beyond chat, route to `write-spec`, an owning decision artifact, or handoff before `write-plan` or execution.
+If the action is not covered, recommend its exact purpose and scope, ask one direct authorization question, and wait for the user's response. Waiting means do not perform the proposed mutation, dispatch, or dependent next action. Mode, settled direction, a recommendation, review findings, silence, and task memory do not authorize work.
 
-`Next:` is routing, not permission to create the next artifact, continue into a new phase, or take the next action.
-
-## Backward Edge
-
-If new evidence invalidates the current path, re-enter clarification.
-
-```text
-Any state -> Clarify / Discover -> explicit next state
-```
+Authorization covers the bounded outcome, not each tool call. Do not ask again for contained edits, tests, verification, or reversible local choices. Ask again when the result, scope, evidence boundary, stop condition, or separately controlled action changes.
 
-Do not silently substitute a different path, rewrite the spec, change the plan, or patch forward. State what changed, then decide whether to continue, revise spec, revise plan, diagnose, split scope, defer, or stop and ask.
+Before authorized work begins, recommend Discuss only when user input could materially change the outcome, boundary, tradeoff, approach, or acceptance. Name the question and wait. Use Design for Depth while the direction remains design-bearing. Inspect facts and choose reversible local details without asking. If the user declines optional discussion, do not ask again without new evidence. A discussion recommendation creates no artifact or slice.
 
-If a requested, planned, or skill-required method cannot be followed and the fallback would change evidence quality, workflow shape, risk, scope, cost, persistence, or user-visible output, stop before using the fallback. Name both paths and ask which one to follow.
+## Run One Feedback Loop
 
-## Source-of-Truth Conflicts
+For one bounded activity:
 
-When a requested implementation contradicts existing docs, tests, specs, policies, ADRs, handoffs, or established code behavior, pause before editing.
+1. Orient to accepted intent, relevant task memory, and live evidence.
+2. Use the owning skill to discuss, implement, test, observe, or otherwise act.
+3. Verify what the evidence proves at the required boundary.
+4. When supported, self-review once for alignment, suitability, and unnecessary complexity.
+5. Continue, correct, diagnose, revise, ask, defer, or stop from the result.
 
-Do not rewrite the source of truth to make the latest request pass.
+Self-review is silent and creates no formal judgment or cycle. Correct clear local issues within authority, re-verify, then freeze the supported state. Freezing does not itself close a current Track Work slice; selected review, checkpoints, discussion, and accepted in-scope correction may continue inside it. Further polish, advisory warnings, and unrelated issues require another selected slice.
 
-First state the conflict and ask whether the source of truth should change. Only edit docs/tests/policies/specs to match new behavior after the user explicitly confirms that decision.
+If verification fails, correct one clear local defect or diagnose an unsupported cause. Do not review unsupported work as ready. Handle only edge cases required by accepted behavior, observed evidence, or material safety. A stream of related patches routes to diagnosis of the shared requirement, cause, ownership, or interface.
 
-Treat handoffs as memory, not authority. If a handoff conflicts with live repo evidence, inspect the evidence and ask before following the handoff.
+Continue only while authority remains clear, evidence supports the route, no checkpoint is due, and the work converges.
 
-For billing, security, privacy, data loss, migrations, public APIs, compatibility, and permissions, recommend strict-workflow before changing behavior.
+## Preserve Necessary State
 
-## Artifact Rule
+When authorized work is concrete and direction is settled, use Track Work to decide whether continuity needs a Working Record, then follow its result to Execute Work or wait. Create durable memory only when forgetting would risk misalignment: a Working Record for living task state, a Spec for stable accepted content, a Plan for ordered strategy, an ADR for a surprising hard-to-reverse decision, or a Handoff for point-in-time transfer.
 
-Artifacts are memory, not proof of obedience.
+When an ongoing task resumes after compaction, summarization, clear, resume, or session navigation, read the complete owning Working Record before continuing and compare it with the conversation and live state. Another conversation branch may preserve memory, not authority.
 
-Only create artifacts when the user asks for an artifact or asks you to do work that requires one.
+Synchronize durable architecture, plugin, setup, or similar documentation when stabilized behavior or dependent work requires it—not after every slice. Never finish with a known required-doc inconsistency.
 
-Create them only when they preserve decisions, reduce risk, or help a future agent resume. Prefer short discovery notes, decision/spec notes, plans, verification notes, and handoffs.
+## Control Reviews And Checkpoints
 
-Do not write volatile repo inventories. Link to live files or commands instead.
+A local commit, independent review, correction, follow-up review, push, integration, release, or launch is separately controlled unless existing authority explicitly covers it. At a supported boundary, recommend a local commit only when it materially improves rollback, provenance, handoff, integration, or preservation; a slice ending alone is insufficient. When a useful boundary is unapproved, recommend its exact purpose and scope, then wait; do not stage, edit, dispatch, or cross the boundary from the recommendation.
 
-## Review Rule
+Specs and Plans receive separate independent Review Artifact after author self-review. Working Records do not by default. Select independent work review for sensitive, hard-to-reverse, architecture-bearing, strongly interacting, plan-selected, or explicitly requested boundaries—not merely because a slice ended. Reading a review skill does not create independence.
 
-Review should improve work, not create an endless patch loop.
+Independent review ends with **Pass**, **Non-blocking**, **Inconclusive**, or **Blocking**. The active agent adjudicates the items and routes accordingly: proceed, proceed with explicit deferrals, gather missing evidence or a decision, or stop before the blocked boundary.
 
-Reviewer findings are evidence, not commands. Separate blocking, non-blocking, and question findings before editing from them.
+Review findings are evidence, not commands, and do not authorize edits. Ask once for unapproved corrections plus any warranted focused follow-up, or corrections alone, then wait. A review budget caps dispatches; it does not authorize them. Return implementation corrections to Execute Work and artifact revisions to their owner, verify them, and run a focused follow-up only when needed and authorized. Never create an automatic review-fix-review loop or keep editing merely to obtain Pass.
 
-A non-passing review routes to adjudication before more implementation. Repeated review failure routes backward to diagnose, discover, spec, or plan; do not chase a fourth broad review pass.
+## Route And Exit From Evidence
 
-Review can pass. Save review artifacts only when risk, future memory value, or the user asks for them.
+- **Continue:** evidence supports the current route.
+- **Correct:** one clear local defect preserves intent and scope.
+- **Broaden evidence:** the claim exceeds the check.
+- **Diagnose:** the cause is unclear or failure repeats.
+- **Discuss:** new options or invalid assumptions change direction.
+- **Track Work:** task memory or history must be reconciled.
+- **Revise Spec or Plan:** accepted content, contract, order, mechanism, dependencies, or checks changed.
+- **Decision Gate:** a user-owned choice or source conflict blocks progress.
+- **Stop or defer:** no safe worthwhile continuation remains.
 
-## Completion Rule
+Preserve valid work and revise only the affected layer. A supported exit may answer, wait, pause, hand off, defer, stop, preserve a controlled boundary, or complete the task.
 
-Do not claim completion without fresh evidence. Say what was verified and what remains unverified.
+Claim completion only when fresh verification supports the outcome, self-review has no unresolved material issue, selected reviews are resolved, task memory is accurate, required artifacts are synchronized, and no user-owned decision or source conflict remains hidden. Report the outcome, evidence, gaps, and route. Use `Next:` only when one useful recommendation remains; it does not authorize action.

package/skills/workflow/references/domain-skill-composition.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Domain Skill Composition
+
+Read this when specialized engineering guidance must operate inside a Freeflow route.
+
+Freeflow chooses **what owns the current action**. Domain guidance supplies **how to perform the specialized engineering safely**. Do not turn a domain skill into a second workflow.
+
+## Keep Ownership Clear
+
+Freeflow owns:
+
+- effective mode, authority, and route;
+- user decisions and source conflicts;
+- discussion, durable artifacts, slices, and route changes;
+- verification honesty, review calibration, checkpoints, and exits.
+
+Domain guidance may own techniques for frontend, accessibility, browser tools, security, performance, databases, APIs, CI/CD, observability, cloud platforms, migration, release, or deployment.
+
+Domain guidance never overrides accepted behavior, repository policy, owner decisions, failure contracts, or evidence requirements. When it conflicts with live source truth, inspect the conflict and use [Decision Gate](../../decision-gate/SKILL.md) if resolution changes behavior or material risk.
+
+## Compose One Route
+
+For one current action:
+
+1. Keep one owning Freeflow skill.
+2. Use [Design for Depth](../../design-for-depth/SKILL.md) as a lens only when the direction is already design-bearing or evidence establishes structural pressure.
+3. Use one primary implementation or diagnostic method at a time, such as [TDD](../../tdd/SKILL.md), [Simplify Code](../../simplify-code/SKILL.md), or [Diagnose Failure](../../diagnose-failure/SKILL.md).
+4. Load only the domain guidance needed for the concrete technology or risk.
+5. Add specialist independent review only when its lens materially protects the selected boundary.
+
+Changing method from evidence does not automatically change the current Track Work slice. Do not load a handbook because one keyword appears. Prefer repository policy and current primary sources over generic examples.
+
+## Common Shapes
+
+```text
+UI change:
+Workflow -> frontend/accessibility guidance -> TDD when useful
+-> browser verification
+
+Security- or integrity-sensitive work:
+Decision Gate when policy is unsettled -> Design for Depth -> security guidance
+-> TDD at the real boundary -> failure-path verification
+-> selected security review
+
+Performance regression:
+Diagnose Failure -> profiler/query guidance -> bounded correction
+-> representative performance verification
+
+CI/CD change:
+Workflow or Plan -> provider/repository guidance -> pipeline verification
+-> Launch Work only for separately authorized production rollout
+
+Migration:
+Migration Work -> storage/API guidance -> verify each unit
+-> Launch Work for separately authorized production cutover
+```
+
+If no suitable domain skill exists, inspect current primary sources and repository conventions. State expertise or environment limits rather than inventing a universal checklist.

package/skills/workflow/references/workflow-loop.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# Workflow Loop
+
+Read this when the complete lifecycle, named skill edges, re-entry route, or possible exits are unclear. [Workflow](../SKILL.md) owns routing; each linked skill owns its method.
+
+The **Interaction Lifecycle** contains the recurring **Feedback Loop**.
+
+## Complete Lifecycle
+
+```text
+[1. ENTRY] -- work needed --> [2. FEEDBACK LOOP] -- supported --> [3. EXIT]
+    |                              ^       |                         |
+    +--------- direct exit --------+       +------ feedback --------+
+    ^                                                               |
+    +---------------- later user turn or evidence -------------------+
+```
+
+### 1. Entry
+
+A user turn or new evidence is interpreted through the Interaction Contract and effective mode. Workflow may:
+
+- answer, wait, defer, or stop directly;
+- use Discuss or Decision Gate when direction is unsettled;
+- choose the narrowest owner when work is needed.
+
+Questions, criticism, examples, hypotheses, and recommendations are not action authority unless the whole turn clearly requests or approves the bounded action.
+
+### 2. Feedback Loop
+
+```text
+Workflow chooses one owner
+-> understand, decide, preserve, execute, or inspect
+-> verify the resulting claim
+-> self-review once when supported
+-> route from evidence
+   -> continue or correct locally
+   -> diagnose an unsupported or repeated cause
+   -> discuss changed direction
+   -> revise the owning artifact
+   -> gather evidence or a user decision
+   -> use an approved checkpoint
+   -> exit
+```
+
+The loop may recur many times inside one coherent Track Work slice. Re-entry preserves accepted decisions, valid work, evidence, and task state. A new method, finding, or review does not create a new slice by itself.
+
+### 3. Supported Exit
+
+A supported exit may answer, wait, pause, hand off, defer, stop, preserve an approved boundary, or complete the task. A later user turn or new evidence begins the lifecycle again.
+
+## Skill Edges
+
+- [Discuss](../../discuss/SKILL.md) shapes open direction. [Decision Gate](../../decision-gate/SKILL.md) owns one blocking user choice or source conflict. [Bypass](../../bypass/SKILL.md) reduces optional pressure inside accepted work.
+- [Track Work](../../track-work/SKILL.md) decides whether continuity needs a Working Record and may surround any part of the loop. [Write Spec](../../write-spec/SKILL.md) and [Write Plan](../../write-plan/SKILL.md) own stable accepted content and ordered strategy; each has a separate [Review Artifact](../../review-artifact/SKILL.md) boundary.
+- [Execute Work](../../execute-work/SKILL.md) owns bounded changes. [TDD](../../tdd/SKILL.md), [Simplify Code](../../simplify-code/SKILL.md), [Diagnose Failure](../../diagnose-failure/SKILL.md), and [Design for Depth](../../design-for-depth/SKILL.md) compose only when their conditions apply.
+- [Verify Work](../../verify-work/SKILL.md) establishes what evidence proves. [Review Work](../../review-work/SKILL.md) and Review Artifact own self-review and selected independent judgment. Reading either review skill creates no independence.
+- [Commit Work](../../commit-work/SKILL.md), [Handoff](../../handoff/SKILL.md), [Finish Branch](../../finish-branch/SKILL.md), [Migration Work](../../migration-work/SKILL.md), [Release Work](../../release-work/SKILL.md), and [Launch Work](../../launch-work/SKILL.md) own separately controlled boundaries. None authorizes the next stage automatically.
+
+Use [domain skill composition](domain-skill-composition.md) when specialized engineering guidance must operate inside one of these routes.
+
+## Authorization Edge
+
+The [Interaction Contract](../../../runtime/interaction-contract.md) distinguishes discussion from authority. [Mode Contract](../../mode-contract/SKILL.md) constrains whether mutation is permitted; mode does not authorize work.
+
+A clear request or approval may authorize one bounded outcome. An accepted Spec or Plan supplies direction unless its approval explicitly authorizes an action or checkpoint. A Working Record preserves authority but does not create it.
+
+When a mutation or separately controlled action is not covered, Workflow recommends the exact action and waits for the user's response. It does not begin the action or a dependent next step. Existing authority covers contained implementation, tests, verification, and reversible local choices; do not ask again unless the boundary changes.
+
+## Evidence And Re-entry
+
+- A supported execution path is Execute Work → observe → Verify Work → silent self-Review Work → Workflow.
+- A clear local defect returns to its owner for correction and re-verification.
+- Failed or inconclusive evidence with an unsupported cause routes to Diagnose Failure before another patch.
+- New options or invalid assumptions route to Discuss.
+- A user-owned choice or source conflict routes to Decision Gate.
+- Changed accepted content or strategy returns to the owning Spec or Plan.
+- A coherent accepted correction may remain in the current Track Work slice; a distinct result, authority, or evidence boundary requires Workflow to establish the next slice.
+
+Preserve valid work and revise only the affected layer. Do not continue because implementation started, redesign because an ordinary mistake occurred, or patch repeatedly when evidence points to one shared cause.
+
+## Review And Checkpoint Edges
+
+Specs and Plans receive separate independent artifact review after author self-review. Independent work review is selected for a plan-selected, explicitly requested, sensitive, hard-to-reverse, architecture-bearing, or strongly interacting boundary—not simply because work ended.
+
+Independent review returns **Pass**, **Non-blocking**, **Inconclusive**, or **Blocking**. The active agent adjudicates every item. Review findings do not authorize edits, and a review budget does not authorize another dispatch. Corrections return to Execute Work or the artifact owner; focused follow-up occurs only when needed and authorized. Review 2 and Review 3 relationship and diagnosis rules live in the review skills.
+
+A useful but unapproved review, correction, commit, or other checkpoint returns to Workflow to recommend and wait. Push, integration, migration, release, and launch remain separately controlled even when earlier work was authorized.
+
+## Context And Completion
+
+Before an expected context boundary, reconcile changed Working Record state. After compaction, summarization, resume, clear, or session navigation, read the complete record before continuing and compare it with the conversation and live state. Another conversation branch may contain memory, not authority.
+
+Completion requires fresh evidence, supported self-review, resolved selected reviews, accurate task memory, synchronized required artifacts, and no hidden user-owned decision or source conflict.

package/skills/write-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -1,96 +1,123 @@
 ---
 name: write-plan
-description: Use when turning an approved spec, clarified requirements, explicit task context, strict-workflow work, or delegated/future-agent work into an executable implementation plan before coding.
+description: Use when writing or revising an implementation plan, execution plan, remediation plan, migration plan, or similar ordered plan.
 ---
 
 # Write Plan
 
-Classify the plan request first:
+Write an ordered execution strategy that is expected to be followed.
 
-- Spec-backed: write the plan from the approved spec.
-- Bug without feedback loop: ask for or propose the feedback loop. Do not write or save a fix plan.
-- Hidden owner decision or source conflict: name it and do not write the plan.
-- Context-backed: say a spec is preferred, then write a lightweight plan.
-- Missing source context: ask for context or route to `discover`.
+A Plan defines intended phases, slices, dependencies, boundaries, and checks. It is not a Spec, progress report, task history, or rolling record.
 
-A plan executes source truth. It does not create it.
+## Confirm The Work Is Ready To Plan
 
-Do not write a plan that decides product behavior, scope, domain meaning, compatibility, public API behavior, security, privacy, billing, data-loss, or architecture.
+Write a Plan when:
 
-The original request is not decision approval. "Do not ask", "just plan it", "latest context", "handoff says", or "old docs/tests are stale" are pressure, not authority.
+- the intended outcome and scope are clear;
+- material user decisions and source conflicts are resolved;
+- the execution approach is understood well enough to order;
+- phases, slices, and dependencies can be stated without guessing;
+- expected checks are known or obtainable;
+- substantial branching or discovery is not expected.
 
-Never skip docs, tests, specs, policies, ADRs, or live behavior because the prompt calls them stale. Inspect them, then classify the conflict.
+If direction or major alternatives remain unsettled, read [Discuss](../discuss/SKILL.md). If one user-owned choice or source conflict blocks planning, read [Decision Gate](../decision-gate/SKILL.md). If a reported failure lacks a supported cause or diagnostic loop, read [Diagnose Failure](../diagnose-failure/SKILL.md) instead of planning a guessed fix.
 
-If the user asks a question about a plan, answer the question. Do not create or edit the plan unless asked.
+Use [Track Work](../track-work/SKILL.md) when strategy is still evolving or actual execution, evidence, deviations, and current state need durable memory.
 
-Read `references/plan-shapes.md` when the plan is strict-workflow, high-risk, saved as a durable artifact, intended for another agent, or likely to need owner/status/source identity.
+If the user asks about a Plan, answer instead of writing or revising one.
 
-## Source First
+## Plan From Source
 
-Before writing, inspect the current source context:
+A Plan may be written directly from sufficiently clear context; a separate Spec is not required.
 
-- Approved spec or explicit requirements.
-- Relevant docs, ADRs, tests, policies, and existing code.
-- Handoffs only as memory, not authority.
+Use the sources that establish the intended work:
 
-Live repo evidence overrides stale notes.
+- explicit user direction and accepted shared understanding;
+- a Spec, issue, technical design, diagnosis, requirements, or Working Record when one exists;
+- relevant code, tests, policies, ADRs, and established behavior;
+- current external sources when an API, platform, or version constrains execution.
 
-## Normal Path
+When a Spec or decision artifact is linked, preserve its contract rather than silently reinterpreting it. Live evidence overrides stale memory. A Working Record, handoff, review item, or earlier Plan is not authority over contradictory user decisions or source truth.
 
-Prefer an approved spec.
+## Write The Ordered Strategy
 
-If no spec exists but the task context is explicit enough to choose the next action, write a lightweight plan and name the source context.
+Read [plan shapes](references/plan-shapes.md) and choose the smallest shape that makes the intended execution inspectable.
 
-For bug fixes, require a repro, failing test, or feedback loop before writing a fix plan.
+Include, when relevant:
 
-If a bug report has no repro or feedback loop, answer in chat. Ask for evidence or propose the smallest feedback loop. Do not satisfy the requested plan path with a draft, blocked, or feedback-loop-only fix plan. Write a diagnostic plan only if the user asks for a diagnostic plan.
+- goal, source, scope, and non-goals;
+- accepted decisions, assumptions, dependencies, and required order;
+- phases and slices with coherent, bounded results;
+- checks, integration, and final acceptance;
+- conditions that would invalidate the Plan.
 
-Use vertical slices. Each slice should produce something testable.
+Include exact paths, systems, and commands when known and useful. Do not guess them to make the Plan appear complete.
 
-Slices are execution boundaries, not scope reductions. Do not recast agreed scope as `v1`/`v2`, MVP, release, or roadmap framing unless the spec, user, or source context already chose that framing.
+Each slice should produce a coherent result that can be checked. A validation step may stop the Plan when a known assumption fails. If its result is expected to choose among materially different strategies, use a Working Record learning slice instead of pretending the later Plan is known.
 
-When full scope is too large for one safe plan, split it into implementation slices, implementation phases, checklists, or multiple plan artifacts. Ask before changing the user's scope or adopting versioned shipping.
+## Select Useful Checkpoints
 
-When slice boundaries, seams, interfaces, or locality are unclear, use `../design-for-depth/SKILL.md` before writing executable steps. Do not hide unresolved design choices inside implementation detail.
+Every meaningful slice is verified and silently self-reviewed during execution; do not restate that default unless its evidence boundary is unusual.
 
-## Stop Conditions
+At meaningful slice, phase, integration, risk, or continuity boundaries, consider independent review, a local commit, a user decision, or a continuity checkpoint. Record only selected checkpoints and their conditions. A slice ending or a fixed count alone does not justify a commit; prefer one when supported work forms a coherent rollback point or the next work may destabilize it.
 
-Stop before writing when the plan would:
+Plan acceptance establishes the agreed strategy; it does not by itself authorize execution. When the user clearly approves execution of the Plan, that authority may cover its listed work, checks, reviews, Working Record updates, and local commits. It does not authorize push, integration, migration, deprecation, release, or launch. Planned commits remain conditional on live evidence and [Commit Work](../commit-work/SKILL.md) inspection.
 
-- Invent requirements from thin or adjacent context.
-- Resolve a user-owned decision.
-- Override docs, tests, specs, policies, ADRs, or live behavior.
-- Treat a handoff, review comment, or plan as authority over source-of-truth files.
-- Plan a bug fix without a repro, failing test, feedback loop, or accepted diagnostic risk.
-- Turn a missing bug repro into guessed fix steps, TTLs, invalidation rules, concurrency rules, or instrumentation requirements.
-- Hide uncertainty inside implementation steps.
-- Replace agreed scope with an agent-invented `v1`, MVP, roadmap, or later-version split.
+## Keep Plan And Working Record Separate
 
-Name the missing decision or conflict. Ask which path to follow. Recommend the path supported by evidence.
+The Plan records the intended execution path. The Working Record records actual execution, current slices, evidence, task-local decisions, deviations, and next action.
 
-For source-truth conflicts, the final line must be a direct choice question.
+Do not revise the Plan for slice progress, expected evidence, status changes, or reversible local choices. Record those events in the Working Record when one exists.
 
-## Shape
+Link accepted behavior, contracts, and architecture rationale from the owning Spec or decision artifact instead of duplicating them in the Plan.
 
-Adapt the plan to risk. Prefer:
+## Stop Before Inventing A Path
 
-- Durable plan identity when the plan is saved for future agents or teammates.
-- Goal.
-- Source spec or context.
-- Files likely touched.
-- Dependency or slice order when it affects execution.
-- Vertical slices.
-- Tests or checks per slice.
-- Commands where known.
-- Stop conditions.
-- Review or verification checkpoints.
+Stop when writing would:
 
-Keep it concise. Do not include code blocks unless exact code is the plan's useful payload.
+- invent or change requirements, scope, public behavior, compatibility, sensitive policy, failure semantics, or hard-to-reverse design;
+- hide unresolved strategy, architecture, dependencies, or owner choices inside confident steps;
+- plan a production fix from a guessed cause;
+- rewrite tests, docs, policies, or acceptance merely to make the proposed path succeed;
+- add speculative abstractions, migration machinery, retries, recovery, scale, or extension points;
+- replace agreed scope with an unapproved MVP, v1/v2, roadmap, or later-version split.
 
-## Completion
+Route the unresolved issue to its owner rather than writing a Plan that assumes the answer.
 
-After writing, report:
+## Revise Only From Founded Evidence
 
-- The artifact path, if saved.
-- The source context used.
-- Any decisions still blocked.
+Write Plan also owns deliberate Plan revisions.
+
+Correct clerical mistakes directly. Do not revise the Plan for ordinary local choices or expected progress.
+
+Revise or supersede the affected Plan when supported evidence materially changes its scope, design, architecture, order, dependencies, checks, or execution mechanism. An accepted review item may support revision. Reaching the independent-review cap does not itself justify rewriting the Plan; revise only when diagnosis or evidence shows that the Plan is wrong or insufficient.
+
+Record the reason and execution impact in the Working Record when one exists. Revise a linked Spec or decision artifact only when its owned content changed. Preserve unaffected Plan content and history.
+
+## Self-Check
+
+Silently review the Plan before routing it onward:
+
+- Are the intended result, source, and scope clear?
+- Can coherent, checkable slices proceed in the stated order?
+- Are dependencies, integration, final checks, and invalidation conditions represented?
+- Are selected checkpoints useful and proportionate rather than automatic ceremony?
+- Did the Plan invent intent, disguise material uncertainty, or absorb rolling task state?
+
+Correct clear local issues directly. Surface only material gaps that prevent the Plan from being executable or fit for review.
+
+## Review The Plan
+
+After writing or materially revising the Plan, route it to [Review Artifact](../review-artifact/SKILL.md) before treating it as ready for approval and execution.
+
+Provide the reviewer with the complete Plan, intended use, source truth, linked artifacts, dependencies, selected checkpoints, and known evidence gaps. Review Artifact owns dependency ordering, review items, judgment, adjudication, and the review cycle. Artifact review establishes fitness; the user separately accepts the Plan and grants any scoped execution authority.
+
+## Report
+
+State:
+
+- Plan path and intended use;
+- source context and linked artifacts;
+- material assumptions, blockers, or invalidation conditions;
+- selected review, commit, user, or continuity checkpoints;
+- artifact-review, Plan-acceptance, and execution-authorization status.