@iceinvein/agent-skills 0.5.0 → 0.5.1

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@iceinvein/agent-skills",
-  "version": "0.5.0",
+  "version": "0.5.1",
   "description": "Install agent skills into AI coding tools",
   "author": "iceinvein",
   "license": "MIT",

package/skills/index.json

@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@
     "name": "sluice",
     "description": "Routes work by change shape into four channels (bypass, fast, main, deep) and applies only the rules each channel needs, so a one-line fix does not pay the cost of a multi-subsystem build. Carries seven rules as one-liners in the router and the full treatment in references read only on friction, and closes each run with a ledger read out of the session transcript: elapsed, tools, tokens, and what every dispatched agent cost. Claude Code only; conflicts with the superpowers plugin.",
     "type": "prompt",
-    "version": "0.2.0"
+    "version": "0.2.1"
   },
   {
     "name": "temporal-coupling-detector",

package/skills/sluice/SKILL.md

@@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ yourself wanting to skip the rule, or arguing that this one is the exception.
   something anyone else can check. `references/verify.md`
 - **Review** before merge. Dispatch a reviewer with fresh context and put the
   diff on disk for it to read, so those bytes fill their context instead of
-  yours. `references/review.md`
+  yours. Cannot dispatch one? Say so in the announcement and again at the
+  merge, and nowhere in between. `references/review.md`
 - **Finish** deliberately. Green suite first, then let your partner pick
   merge, PR, or leave it. Never pick for them. `references/finish.md`
 - **Meter the run** as you hand it back. `scripts/run-stats.sh` reads the

package/skills/sluice/references/deep-channel.md

@@ -170,7 +170,8 @@ is not one, and the table below still names which tasks needed the stronger
 tier. Name those tasks at pre-flight, not at handback, so the choice of what
 to do about them is still open: shrink the plan, take the flip on its own, or
 accept the gap knowingly. Whatever is left then gets listed as review
-outstanding rather than review passed. A `deep` run that ships with nobody
+outstanding rather than review passed, and twice is the cap on saying so here
+too: `references/review.md` has that rule. A `deep` run that ships with nobody
 having read it has become a `fast` run with a design document attached, and
 your partner is entitled to know that while it can still change the plan.
 

package/skills/sluice/references/finish.md

@@ -16,7 +16,10 @@ costs far more than asking would have.
 With the suite green and the base confirmed, put exactly three options to
 your partner, with the run ledger above them so the choice is made against
 what the work actually cost rather than against your account of it;
-`references/meter.md` owns that. The three: merge it locally, push it and
+`references/meter.md` owns that. Say in one clause whether the work was
+reviewed. Merging reviewed work and merging unreviewed work are different
+decisions, and the ledger does not tell them apart: it counts the agents you
+dispatched, not whether any of them read this diff. The three: merge it locally, push it and
 open a PR, or leave the branch as it stands. Those three exhaust what you may offer. Your partner may still
 ask for something off the list, most notably scrapping the branch, but the
 request has to originate with them and be unmistakable. Then stop. Which of

package/skills/sluice/references/review.md

@@ -45,6 +45,30 @@ only for substantial logic changes. While you are the one coordinating,
 findings are not yours to fix: your patch would be the single patch nobody
 reviews, and it spends context the plan still needs.
 
+## When you cannot dispatch
+
+A session may withhold subagents, or grant them only on request. The review is
+owed either way. `deep` has its own treatment in `references/deep-channel.md`,
+where there is a plan to shrink and a tier table to argue from; this is the
+`main` case, which has neither.
+
+Say it twice, and only twice.
+
+The first time is the routing announcement, in the same breath as the channel:
+"Main channel, new interface. I cannot dispatch a reviewer in this session, so
+this merges unreviewed unless you want one." That is the moment it is still a
+decision. Your partner can authorise the dispatch, split the change, or accept
+the gap knowingly. The same words at the end are a disclaimer.
+
+The second is the integration event, where `references/finish.md` puts the
+three options. Review status belongs beside them, because it is part of what
+merging would be agreeing to.
+
+Between those two points, stay quiet. An obligation restated on every handback
+stops being information and turns into throat-clearing, and it buries the one
+mention that mattered. Nothing changed between the announcement and the merge.
+If something did, that is a new fact and earns a new sentence.
+
 The friction line: "dispatching a reviewer for this is overkill." Skipping
 the dispatch doesn't skip the cost, it just moves the cost onto you, and
 self-review is not review.

package/skills/sluice/skill.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "sluice",
-  "version": "0.2.0",
+  "version": "0.2.1",
   "description": "Routes work by change shape into four channels (bypass, fast, main, deep) and applies only the rules each channel needs, so a one-line fix does not pay the cost of a multi-subsystem build. Carries seven rules as one-liners in the router and the full treatment in references read only on friction, and closes each run with a ledger read out of the session transcript: elapsed, tools, tokens, and what every dispatched agent cost. Claude Code only; conflicts with the superpowers plugin.",
   "author": "iceinvein",
   "type": "prompt",