@iowarp/clio-coder 0.4.1 → 0.4.3

package/skills/planning/prd/evals.md

@@ -47,3 +47,57 @@ Expected:
 
 One representative scenario via `clio-coder skills eval` against Nemo-3.5-Lightning
 (30B local, llamacpp on mini), full-auto sandbox. WEAK PASS. Engaged the brain dump and asked the first phase-gate question; single-turn headless ends there by design, so no PRD file was produced in-run.
+
+## Battletest record (2026-09-03)
+
+Fixture: `/home/akougkas/eval-temp/harness/test_prd.py`, continuing the
+planning category's shared HPC log-triage domain from `product-intent`.
+Seeds the actual `docs/hpc-log-triage.prd.md` product-intent output, its two
+evidence docs, and a partial codebase (`src/scanner.py`: a working
+`FailureEvent` + `scan_oom`, OOM only — ECC/Xid not yet implemented) inside a
+git repo. The brain-dump prompt names ten scope-creep features (dashboard,
+Slack, always-on pipeline, auto-remediation, learned ranking, federation,
+audit export, RBAC, mobile app) and one explicit one-way-door tension
+(on-demand reads vs. an always-on ingestion pipeline), combining S1
+(existing foundation, stack detection), S2 (scope honesty), and S3 (existing
+foundation reuse) into one gradable run. Graded 14 checks against real
+post-run disk state (`PRD.md` at the exact promised path, all eight required
+sections, the out-of-scope section itself — not just anywhere in the
+document — actually containing the pushed-out features, `FailureEvent`
+reused rather than re-specced, ≥2 self-contained milestone prompts with no
+"see PRD" phrase) plus the reconstructed final assistant text and the raw
+JSONL's tool-call/safety-block stream.
+
+| run | model | wall | turns | in / out tokens | safety blocks | score | outcome |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| baseline (no skill) | qwen3.8-27b | 311s | 11 | 283.0k / 25.4k | 0 | 1/14 | never invoked `/skill prd`; misread the brain dump as an architecture request (it saw the installed `architecture` skill via `context(scope="skills")`) and wrote `docs/architecture-log-triage-v1.md` instead — no `PRD.md`, no milestones |
+| v1 (frozen 0.3.0) | qwen3.8-27b | 492s | 12 | 408.3k / 43.4k | 2 | 12/14 | correct `PRD.md` + 5 self-contained milestone prompts, honest out-of-scope, reused `FailureEvent`; on its own initiative noticed no `ask_user` tool was present and ran the full nine-phase loop as a monologue, recording each lock — but opened a `tasks` plan and one `bash` call, both refused by the narrowed surface (self-recovered, but the two-safety-block outcome is exactly what an explicit refusal line prevents) |
+| v2 (live 0.4.0) | qwen3.8-27b | 299s | 9 | 197.4k / 22.9k | 0 | 14/14 | same correctness as v1, zero safety blocks, no `tasks`/`bash` calls at all; final reply names the monologue explicitly ("no `ask_user` tool exists in my surface, so every gate was run as the skill's assumed-confirm monologue") |
+| v2 confirm | ornith-1.5-35b-a3b | 79s | 11 | 169.9k / 11.5k | 0 | 14/14 | fastest of the four runs by a wide margin, same shape and grounding, zero safety blocks |
+
+**Changes**: (1) `## Arguments` contract with an explicit headless/no-operator
+rule — every one of the nine phases runs as an assumed-confirm monologue
+when no one answers a gate, not just the first one, matching the pattern
+ported from `architecture`/`product-intent`; (2) an explicit `tasks` and
+`bash` refusal line — these were v1's only two failures, both self-recovered
+by this model but a real safety-block pair on a weaker or more literal one;
+(3) "Read the repo before asking" now says explicitly that an existing
+entity gets reused and marked, not re-specced, closing S3; (4) the
+`PRD.md` line now names the wrong shapes to avoid (`docs/PRD.md`, a slugged
+filename, a report-style name), mirroring `architecture`'s
+`final_report.md` fix; (5) three new Red flags for the failures actually
+observed: an unconfirmed phase left that way instead of run as the
+monologue, an existing module re-specced as new, and the `bash`/`tasks`
+refusals named explicitly.
+
+**Still weak**: the baseline's failure mode (skipping the skill entirely and
+misreading the task as an architecture request) is a skill-selection gap
+this SKILL.md cannot fix from inside its own body — it only activates once
+invoked. Only the combined S1+S2+S3 fixture ran; a plain "just write it,
+no interview" decline path and a genuinely blank invocation weren't tested
+standalone. `ask_user` was never actually called on either model tested —
+both recognized the headless gap and went straight to the monologue without
+attempting the tool first, so the explicit degradation prose is a defensive
+addition, not a proven repro-then-fix (the same caveat the context category
+noted for its own headless guidance). `code_nav` (in allowed-tools) was
+never exercised. Only 27–35B class models tried, no small-model run.

package/skills/planning/product-intent/SKILL.md

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: product-intent
-description: Use at the start of a greenfield product effort, when the user wants a problem-first product document — "why are we building this", "write the product thesis", "PRD for this idea". Interviews for the problem, evidence, and a falsifiable hypothesis; writes an intent-only PRD with zero engineering decisions. Not for engineering decisions; use architecture. Not for turning a locked idea into milestone build prompts; use prd.
+description: "Writes a problem-first product document for a greenfield effort: interviews for the problem, evidence, and a falsifiable hypothesis, with zero engineering decisions. Not for engineering decisions; use architecture. Not for turning a locked idea into milestone build prompts; use prd."
 triggers:
   - why are we building this
   - write the product thesis
   - problem-first PRD
   - define a falsifiable product hypothesis
   - greenfield product intent
-version: 0.2.1
+version: 0.4.0
 license: Apache-2.0
 allowed-tools:
   - read
@@ -37,6 +37,35 @@ team can challenge before building and judge after shipping. Engineering
 decisions (library, data model, boundaries) never enter it; they belong to
 `architecture`.
 
+## Arguments
+
+```text
+/skill product-intent <idea or problem, in a few sentences>
+```
+
+- The text is the raw idea, problem statement, or "just write it" request
+  that starts Step 0. Reference docs (interviews, tickets, analytics,
+  competitor notes) named or pathed in the request are evidence to read
+  first, not more arguments.
+- Nothing is required beyond some text; a blank invocation gets Step 0's own
+  "What do you want to build? A few sentences." question.
+
+There is no operator in a headless run: `ask_user` still executes, but with
+nothing to answer it every call returns immediately with no answers, every
+time — calling it again will not produce a different result. Treat the
+first empty response exactly like the user saying "just write it" (see "If
+the user declines the interview" below), and apply that treatment from
+wherever it happened onward — Step 0's evidence check included, not just
+the five clusters: state the question, your best evidence-grounded answer
+(or, absent evidence, the most defensible product default) and the
+reasoning, mark it `assumed — confirm`, and move to the next step. Never
+invent evidence to back an assumption; one with nothing behind it stays an
+open question, not a fact.
+
+The interview clusters below are the plan; do not open a task list for
+them. `tasks` sits outside this skill's tool surface and any call to it is
+refused.
+
 Two hard guards, checked before writing anything:
 
 1. **Intent-framed.** If only one solution could fit your problem statement,
@@ -59,7 +88,10 @@ the same turn. Thin answers get reflected back and dug into.
 
 If the user declines the interview ("just write it"): honor it, name what
 you will have to leave TBD, ask only the two or three highest-leverage
-questions, and mark everything else "TBD — needs validation".
+questions, and mark everything else "TBD — needs validation". This is also
+the headless default: see Arguments above for what an empty `ask_user`
+response means and how to apply this same treatment cluster by cluster
+instead of stopping after the first one.
 
 1. **Initiate.** Input given → restate and confirm. Blank → "What do you
    want to build? A few sentences." GATE.
@@ -116,3 +148,26 @@ offered: `architecture` for the engineering decisions this PRD
 deliberately left open. Failing any of the five tests below means not done:
 evidence-grounded problem · hypothesis with separate RIGHT and WRONG ·
 outcome-shaped metrics · explicit non-goals · zero engineering decisions.
+
+## Red flags
+
+- A stack, library, database, or framework name anywhere in the document —
+  "React + Postgres" appearing at all is an instant fail; that decision
+  belongs to `architecture`, not here.
+- A hypothesis with a RIGHT condition and no WRONG condition, or a WRONG
+  condition that is just the RIGHT one negated instead of a real
+  counter-signal.
+- The literal filename `PRD.md`, or anything outside `docs/`, instead of
+  `docs/<kebab-slug>.prd.md`.
+- Calling `ask_user` again after an empty response, instead of switching to
+  the decline treatment for every step from there on.
+- Opening a task list for the interview clusters; `tasks` is refused.
+- Reaching Generate without ever attempting Step 0 or the first cluster —
+  the decline/headless treatment is a fallback for a gate that ran and came
+  back empty, not a license to skip the loop from the start.
+- Claims in the document that trace to neither the seeded evidence nor a
+  marked assumption — an invented fact reads as confident and is the
+  hardest failure to catch after the fact.
+- Reaching for `bash` to grep or count-check the written PRD: `bash` is not
+  in this skill's tool surface and the call is refused. Verify with `grep`
+  and `read` instead.

package/skills/planning/product-intent/evals.md

@@ -34,3 +34,73 @@ Expected:
 
 One representative scenario via `clio-coder skills eval` against Nemo-3.5-Lightning
 (30B local, llamacpp on mini), full-auto sandbox. PASS. Interview degraded gracefully headless; PRD written to docs/, judge 5/5.
+
+## Battletest record (2026-09-03)
+
+Fixture: `/home/akougkas/eval-temp/harness/test_productintent.py`. S1's own
+domain ("a log-triage tool for HPC operators") made concrete: a repo with
+`docs/evidence/support-tickets.md` (3 tickets, a 45-min OOM triage, a
+silent-ECC lost queue, a tmux/grep cope with a ~12-node ceiling) and
+`docs/evidence/interview-notes.md` (3 operator quotes, including an explicit
+switch signal). Task: "write the PRD," grounding docs named but not pasted,
+so Step 0's read-first behavior is load-bearing. Graded 12 checks against
+real post-run disk state (file at `docs/<slug>.prd.md`, all 9 sections, a
+hypothesis with distinct RIGHT/WRONG, >=3 seeded facts grounded, zero
+stack-term leaks, non-goals, checkbox open questions) plus the reconstructed
+final assistant text (names the path, offers `architecture` next) and
+process (zero safety blocks, no `tasks` call). `qwen3.8-27b` on `dynamo`
+throughout; one confirm run on `ornith-1.5-35b-a3b`.
+
+| run | model | wall | turns | in / out tok | safety blocks | score | outcome |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| baseline (no skill) | qwen3.8-27b | 145s | 11 | 189.1k / 13.1k | 0 | 2/12 | wrote `PRD.md` at repo root (wrong name/path); no interview at all, no hypothesis RIGHT/WRONG block, no non-goals/open-questions sections; opened a task list (harmless here, no skill narrowing the surface) |
+| v1 (frozen 0.3.0) | qwen3.8-27b | 137s | 7 | 102.5k / 12.8k | 1 | 10/12 | correct path, sections, hypothesis, grounding, non-goals; opened a `tasks` call refused by the narrowed surface (self-recovered); degraded past the interview on its own reasoning ("`ask_user` isn't in this session's tool surface" — false, it is listed, the model just never tried it) rather than on any instruction in the skill |
+| v2 (first hardened cut) | qwen3.8-27b | 224s | 8 | 170.9k / 20.2k | 1 | 11/12 | no `tasks` call; ran the assumed-confirm monologue explicitly through all 5 clusters citing evidence; one `bash` call (a `$(...)` count-check on the written PRD) refused — `bash` was never in this skill's surface, model reached for it anyway to self-verify, then recovered with `grep` |
+| v3 (final 0.4.0) | qwen3.8-27b | 227s | 7 | 132.5k / 20.5k | 0 | 12/12 | same correctness as v2, self-verified with `grep`/`read` instead of `bash` after the added Red flags line; zero safety blocks, zero stack leaks, explicit "Process notes" section narrating the headless degradation cluster by cluster |
+| confirm (0.4.0) | ornith-1.5-35b-a3b | 69s | 11 | 158.6k / 10.8k | 1 | 11/12 | same content correctness; independently reached for a `bash` echo ("attempting ask_user via context") once, blocked, self-recovered with `grep` — the Red flags line reduced but did not eliminate the `bash` reflex on a second model family |
+
+**Changes** (0.3.0 -> 0.4.0): (1) an `## Arguments` contract stating there is
+no operator in a headless run, that `ask_user` returns immediately with no
+answers every time regardless of how many times it's called, and that the
+fix is to apply the existing "user declines" treatment cluster by cluster
+from wherever the first empty response lands — including Step 0's evidence
+check, which the old text left ungated but unaddressed for headless; (2) the
+decline paragraph in "The interview" now cross-references that headless
+default explicitly instead of leaving the model to infer it (v1 inferred a
+*wrong* reason — a nonexistent tool-surface gap — and got lucky); (3) an
+explicit "the clusters below are the plan; `tasks` is refused" line, which
+closed v1's one real safety block; (4) a new `## Red flags` section (the
+skill had none) naming the concrete failures seen across runs: stack-term
+leaks, a WRONG condition that's just RIGHT negated, the literal `PRD.md`
+name, re-calling `ask_user` after an empty response, skipping the loop
+outright instead of degrading into it, ungrounded claims, and reaching for
+`bash` (not in this skill's surface) to self-verify instead of `grep`/`read`.
+
+**Design note on the biggest named risk**: the mission brief flagged gating
+hard on Step 0/cluster 1 and never reaching Generate as the single biggest
+risk for this skill. It did not reproduce on either model tested, on any
+version including the unhardened v1 baseline snapshot — `ask_user`'s
+headless behavior in this harness (confirmed by reading
+`src/tools/ask-user.ts`: with no operator handler wired by `clio-coder run`,
+every `ask_user` call resolves immediately to `{cancelled: true}`, framed as
+an ok result with "proceed with defaults" guidance, never an error or a
+hang) means a stalled interview was never actually the failure mode to
+defend against here. What *was* real and reproduced on both models: an
+unprompted reach for `bash` to self-verify a written document, refused
+because `bash` is correctly outside this skill's surface. The hardening
+therefore targets the reproduced failure (`tasks` in v1, `bash` in v2/
+confirm), not the hypothesized one — matching context/context-handoff's
+own finding that the ask_user-stall defense is precautionary, not
+repro-driven, here too.
+
+**Still weak**: the `bash`-reach-to-verify reflex was reduced (v2 -> v3 on
+qwen3.8-27b: fixed) but not eliminated on ornith-1.5-35b-a3b, which hit the
+identical refused-tool pattern even after the Red flags line existed — a
+prose warning did not fully generalize across model families, only across
+runs of the same one. S2 (explicit "skip the questions, just write it") and
+S3 (solution-shaped request, "PRD for adding a reply button") from the
+scenario list above were not run standalone against 0.4.0 — only the S1-style
+combined evidence fixture ran, five times. The `git` tool (in allowed-tools)
+was never exercised in any run; a fixture with prior commits/branches to
+reference might exercise it. Only 27-35B class models tried, no small-model
+run.

package/skills/planning/tech-spec/SKILL.md

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: tech-spec
-description: Write a typed call-stack architecture handoff — code-shaped contracts plus execution flows, implementation-ready for another engineer. User-invoked only. Not for weighing approaches or deciding the design; use architecture first.
+description: "Writes a typed call-stack architecture handoff: code-shaped contracts plus execution flows, implementation-ready for another engineer. User-invoked only. Not for weighing approaches or deciding the design; use architecture first."
 triggers:
   - write a tech spec
   - typed call-stack handoff
   - code-shaped contracts
   - implementation-ready technical specification
   - specify execution flows
-version: 0.1.2
+version: 0.3.0
 license: Apache-2.0
 disable-model-invocation: true
 allowed-tools:
@@ -42,6 +42,46 @@ TypeScript pseudocode plus end-to-end execution flows. Prose explains why;
 types and call stacks define what changes. Design only — never implement,
 and save a file only when the user asks; otherwise return the spec inline.
 
+## Arguments
+
+```text
+/skill tech-spec <the change, in a few sentences, or a path to read first>
+```
+
+- The text is the design problem: what's changing and why. A doc or file
+  path named in the request (a PRD, an architecture decision, a module) is
+  context to read, not more arguments — see "Load local context" below.
+- Nothing is required beyond some text; a blank invocation falls straight
+  to Path B's first question rather than inventing a change to spec.
+- **Output defaults to inline.** Write a file only when the request says
+  so explicitly — "save it", "write it to `<path>`", "put it in `docs/`".
+  Absent that, the finished spec is the reply itself: no file, in this run
+  or a prior one in the same session, gets created for it. This holds
+  regardless of which path below runs or how long the spec is — length is
+  never itself a reason to write a file.
+- Disabled for model self-invocation and requires the `tdd` skill be
+  installed to reference in the TDD Test Plan section; both are frontmatter
+  facts, not something to explain to the user unless asked.
+
+There is no operator in a headless run: `ask_user` either isn't registered
+or nothing answers it, and a call that goes unanswered will not resolve
+differently on a second try. In Path B (below), that means: state the
+question, your recommendation grounded in the codebase and any docs read
+(or the most defensible engineering default when nothing grounds it), and
+the reasoning; adopt the recommendation; mark it `assumed — confirm`; move
+to the next question. Run every question this way, end to end, not just
+the first — the interview is the plan to execute, not an outline to
+abbreviate because no one answered the opening question. Never invent a
+fact or a codebase detail to back an assumption; anything genuinely
+unknown becomes an Open Question in the spec, not a plausible guess. This
+degrades the interview only — it never licenses writing a file that
+wasn't asked for.
+
+The steps below are the plan; do not open a task list for them. `tasks`
+sits outside this skill's tool surface and any call to it is refused.
+`bash` is also outside this skill's tool surface — verify what you wrote
+with `grep`, `read`, and `find`, never `bash`.
+
 ## Choose the path
 
 - **Path A — convert context to spec**: the conversation, docs, or codebase
@@ -51,6 +91,8 @@ and save a file only when the user asks; otherwise return the spec inline.
   with a recommended answer per question (the grill-me posture); anything
   answerable by exploring the codebase is explored, not asked. When context
   suffices, run Path A. Never invent requirements to skip the interview.
+  See Arguments above for how a headless run carries every question
+  through instead of stalling on the first one.
 
 ## Path A
 
@@ -110,7 +152,8 @@ contracts, seams, call stacks, or the test plan for being hard):
 
 The spec follows the outline, every boundary has a typed contract or a
 stated reason it needs none, every behavior has a call stack, unknowns are
-open questions rather than invented design, and nothing was implemented.
+open questions rather than invented design, nothing was implemented, and
+no file was written unless the request asked for one.
 
 ## Red flags
 
@@ -119,3 +162,11 @@ open questions rather than invented design, and nothing was implemented.
 - Speculative seams no invariant, boundary, or test earns.
 - The same rule restated in three sections.
 - "While I'm here" implementation.
+- Writing the spec to a file when nothing in the request asked for one —
+  the default output is always the inline reply.
+- A Path B question left unanswered instead of run as the assumed-confirm
+  monologue, or an interview skipped straight into Path A without ever
+  asking the first question.
+- Opening a task list for the steps above; `tasks` is refused. Reaching for
+  `bash` to grep or verify the spec; `bash` is not in this skill's tool
+  surface and the call is refused — use `grep`/`read`/`find`.

package/skills/planning/tech-spec/evals.md

@@ -45,3 +45,76 @@ Expected:
 
 One representative scenario via `clio-coder skills eval` against Nemo-3.5-Lightning
 (30B local, llamacpp on mini), full-auto sandbox. PASS. Spec written and its claims exercised with node -e; judge 4/4.
+
+## Battletest record (2026-09-03)
+
+Fixture: `/home/akougkas/eval-temp/harness/test_techspec.py`, continuing the
+planning category's shared HPC log-triage domain (`product-intent` -> `prd`
+-> `tech-spec`). Seeds a plausible root `PRD.md` (purpose, features,
+out-of-scope, stack, integrations, data model, milestones, and the
+always-on-vs-on-demand ingestion tension explicitly marked as *not this
+document's decision*) plus the existing partial codebase (`src/scanner.py`:
+a working `FailureEvent` + `scan_oom`, OOM only) and two sample dmesg logs
+carrying real OOM/ECC/Xid line formats, inside a git repo. Three task
+variants, one fixture:
+
+- **base** (S1, Path A): "spec ECC + Xid detection and cross-signature
+  top-3 ranking" — sufficient context, no save request. Graded on 9 checks
+  against the *reconstructed final assistant text* (this skill's default
+  output is inline, not a file): all 11 outline-derived sections present,
+  >=5 domain grounding terms, >=2 materially different alternatives,
+  `FailureEvent` reused not respecced, nothing implemented (`scanner.py`
+  byte-identical to seed), the ingestion trade-off left unresolved, zero
+  safety blocks, no `tasks` call, and — the check this run exists to catch —
+  **no file written when nothing asked for one**.
+- **save** (S1 variant, confirmation only, run once on the final version):
+  same task plus an explicit "save it to docs/tech-spec-log-triage.md" —
+  10 checks, same 8 plus the file existing at exactly that path and no
+  other new file appearing.
+- **thin** (S2, Path B, confirmation only, run once on the final version):
+  a genuinely vague "improve our failure detection, you'll need to ask me
+  stuff" request with 5 lighter checks — zero safety blocks, no silent
+  stall, no `tasks` call, and either a real `ask_user` exchange or the
+  assumed-confirm monologue (`assumed` + `confirm` both present), with a
+  real spec still produced.
+
+| run | model | wall | turns | in / out tokens | safety blocks | score | outcome |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| baseline (no skill) | ornith-1.5-35b-a3b | 80s | 5 | 54.9k / 12.1k | 0 | 4/9 | never invoked `/skill tech-spec`; discovered the installed skill itself via `context(scope="skills")`, read its SKILL.md directly, then called `artifact` and terminated early with a `.clio-coder/artifacts/PLAN.md` instead of a spec — no alternatives, no sections, wrong output shape |
+| v1 (frozen 0.2.0) | ornith-1.5-35b-a3b | 95s | 8 | 115.0k / 15.1k | 1 | 6/9 | ran Path A correctly and produced a genuinely strong spec (11/11 sections, 3 material alternatives, `FailureEvent` reused, nothing implemented) but opened a `tasks` plan (refused, safety block) and **wrote the spec to `docs/tech-spec-scanner-ecc-xid.md` without being asked to** — the exact Path-A/B default-output risk flagged going in |
+| v2 (live 0.3.0) | ornith-1.5-35b-a3b | 68s | 5 | 57.2k / 10.4k | 0 | 9/9 | same spec quality, zero safety blocks, no `tasks` call, correctly returned inline with no file written; final text states explicitly "I did **not** write a file, since nothing in the request asked to save it" |
+| v2 confirm — save | ornith-1.5-35b-a3b | 110s | 11 | 184.8k / 16.5k | 0 | 10/10 | explicit "save it to docs/tech-spec-log-triage.md" correctly produces exactly that file at that path, nothing else |
+| v2 confirm — thin (Path B) | ornith-1.5-35b-a3b | 69s | 9 | 111.8k / 11.7k | 0 | 5/5 | correctly identified insufficient context, ran Path B, and carried all five scope decisions (S1-S5) through as an explicit assumed-confirm monologue headlessly instead of stalling or silently skipping to Path A |
+
+**Changes**: (1) `## Arguments` contract with the slash-invocation syntax,
+what's required vs. inferred, and — the section that mattered most here —
+an explicit "output defaults to inline" rule stated as its own bullet
+before the headless-monologue prose, so the fix for Path B's ask_user gap
+can't be misread as license to always write a file; (2) the headless
+no-operator paragraph, ported from `product-intent`/`prd`, applied to Path
+B's grill-me interview: every question runs as state-question /
+grounded-recommendation / reasoning / adopt / mark `assumed — confirm`,
+end to end, not just the first one; (3) explicit `tasks` and `bash`
+refusal lines — `tasks` was v1's only safety block; (4) `Done when` and
+`Red flags` both gained a line naming the unrequested-file failure and the
+unanswered-Path-B-question failure by name, plus the existing `tasks`/`bash`
+refusal repeated as a red flag (matching `prd`'s and `product-intent`'s
+pattern of naming the exact observed failure, not a generic reminder).
+Version 0.2.0 -> 0.3.0.
+
+**Still weak**: per this pass's coordinator note, no secondary-model
+confirmation was run (qwen3.8-27b was skipped in favor of running one full
+cycle on ornith-1.5-35b-a3b at speed, concurrently with a sibling agent
+hardening `architecture` on `mini`); the fix is validated on one model
+class only. The baseline's failure mode (discovering and improvising from
+the installed skill file directly, without ever invoking it, then calling
+`artifact` for an unrelated early exit) is a skill-selection/tool-scoping
+gap this SKILL.md cannot fix from inside its own body. `code_nav` (in
+`allowed-tools`) was never exercised — the fixture's one-file codebase
+never needed it. `requires: [skill:tdd]` is a diagnostic-only reference in
+this harness (unmet requires warn, never block `--skill`-path invocation);
+the TDD Test Plan section reads fine without the `tdd` skill installed, but
+that was not tested with `tdd` actually present to see if the reference
+changes. Genuine unknowns (S3 from the original evals) were exercised only
+incidentally via the Xid-severity and ECC-correctable open questions, not
+as an isolated scenario.

package/skills/registry.yaml

@@ -6,131 +6,139 @@ skills:
   # ── coding ──
   - name: ast-grep
     path: coding/ast-grep
-    version: 0.1.1
-    sha256: 29469873f85c3f9e37e065c1968917dac02ea09817d876b7e8c4575d6bdd3c5f
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: 0a72f4c906303f550be78f80a927da7e24e5c2076f058ccafdec80dfbed275af
   - name: coding-standards
     path: coding/coding-standards
-    version: 0.1.1
-    sha256: f616f7d92f8f4c6dadfe98b99a92981426e0fb250f3391bcfe5b7834c6ecfa31
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: 3ee3481430591a8f8d041bd1c5fa078becd301d88eb49610e41d056494d3413d
   - name: prototype
     path: coding/prototype
-    version: 0.2.1
-    sha256: 905911f9651344567a8fd713795024676bb3e1d18f43d3727410b251cf699931
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: 0f82df386c2ee565b0e968216ece746b1a11b4acd79676812074c1a406b698e1
   - name: tdd
     path: coding/tdd
-    version: 0.2.1
-    sha256: d9067dede9a63f81bca41487bdab9654eede76da3ef12ef770382b492eacc92c
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: 63b88f29424091a92a8d8c0cc94474ae7e78af76491aea17e6f54af66f32db2d
   # ── context ──
   - name: context-handoff
     path: context/context-handoff
-    version: 0.3.3
-    sha256: 43a70efef5f1914373c1417e6650b8d4db82b8f5aefc7aa6f5c884f3e6b2c36e
+    version: 0.5.0
+    sha256: e69adb1533a6a850cb83babe7e580dd260e034781d7c35e65921453e3fa191a5
   - name: context-prime
     path: context/context-prime
-    version: 0.2.3
-    sha256: 6fb496bf7b5f545e46fa41f10c9964312f1ab2f9d052a3bebaa6c734a70d1746
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: 21587263297a7ee9e81a2d66f6fc800a1ee6db15f76de1e650563b71fdf19d8e
   # ── git ──
+  - name: branch-closeout
+    path: git/branch-closeout
+    version: 0.1.0
+    sha256: 3227f31b0693bb6428abb20a2d4f449aeba1d8e45a79cf0c2c7c333c30c10664
   - name: file-ticket
     path: git/file-ticket
-    version: 0.1.2
-    sha256: 9c0d73cdf55b8eaff2e86e13e8e8e36a8b7428b9410fd39f7a5d27c547836f82
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: 65029c2d9d545728750c8a713f92035bd6bdbfa9874de442df72bd059846cb7a
   - name: fix-issue
     path: git/fix-issue
-    version: 0.1.2
-    sha256: d2fe942d4ffb30ee9357cd57dd815a75a98322f9d14dca32018960d4bf6c9528
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: 626e3aa8ca95bc603f2e0cdd2e7502aa96be85af6bfa92b635c39ef99d3845a5
   - name: resolve-merge-conflicts
     path: git/resolve-merge-conflicts
-    version: 0.2.1
-    sha256: 22de2d0621684c6923001d66206f90d9175a56dc668e82b06942eafe7dd1d45a
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: 901f482aa2231552d64a721e0d1c58dc8f211347543b5a91fd2ab3c7e413c11c
   - name: ship
     path: git/ship
-    version: 0.1.2
-    sha256: 28081376480038e68ecb27bea99678f887d2deebacc4b928ba3b550f24d641d3
+    version: 0.5.0
+    sha256: 4d626718fdb8b67cf3f22d09ac5a228e5c8103befa1295a672587a6605f038b1
   - name: worktree-create
     path: git/worktree-create
-    version: 0.2.1
-    sha256: f98c7346460291969b91f53fd7f47fbab6ab649e33d921e5047239fa2936e81c
+    version: 0.6.0
+    sha256: a4ae790d916a170977814b4334e14aef4f96fb304e3289f7beb5e31e8fb83881
   - name: worktree-merge
     path: git/worktree-merge
-    version: 0.2.1
-    sha256: 6a62d4bedd0f3aae1118268ded25e5b155bd4970ab4ec08e5e4553347c9f62f1
+    version: 0.6.0
+    sha256: 0fbe2297622ed955b2e4fb14306d75a51bd36db7eebf59e8e92fac1da5b6e64e
   # ── meta ──
   - name: clio-coder-dev
     path: meta/clio-coder-dev
-    version: 0.2.2
-    sha256: 1fed5f9f3de99d9c6db68b1449bc5d89a1c729c560eecf524db764a09efab273
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: 8980f3bed0f06c24685bc0a02f3ffbbcdac9442616dc3ce54122265b666ae0d7
   - name: clio-coder-test
     path: meta/clio-coder-test
-    version: 0.1.5
-    sha256: e7f3c83f93c62e54bc6437404ee2f2b95b5bd5541d3fb1a3e8da8fb62354eff4
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: 87f6689d083080e4b80294304f2b2fd36f70ce941ab7265cb573e84e4c5e6a12
   - name: credentials
     path: meta/credentials
-    version: 0.1.3
-    sha256: 92b3eb621d7640b57c44babea634a970284766230cbe2a4d32f08cf385cf4b2e
+    version: 0.2.0
+    sha256: d9382790ab30c9a13e5ca451f6f6b6b81eb8bcc6d458ad4931cc0495d39ea78d
   - name: find-skills
     path: meta/find-skills
-    version: 0.1.2
-    sha256: 1ef7fb2dbe0585abc24f87146c9c421c5fa2180b9c7ed1a71bfd3fe8b9f12056
+    version: 0.2.0
+    sha256: a2f8469b3a15059f8547e7566dcd27894c6e2a2126b3ed83acb470df051cd11d
   - name: herdr
     path: meta/herdr
-    version: 0.1.1
-    sha256: 511a57533e67aa7046fb0652eb8782c351e677e4a34d947fbe6abffdc8e3e3ed
+    version: 0.2.0
+    sha256: eeda051fe8736344b480fbd0d482a0e0ab82d4fc44e7ced5ff7058378beae3b6
   - name: skill-craft
     path: meta/skill-craft
-    version: 0.1.3
-    sha256: ba6d0c4277e524fd93f5a11c0337e676aee88a9812e9bac3568922f2ad6f0ed1
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: ba81e09412f26647a9384b07359201efb08949865c50934778a4ab3173d43096
   # ── planning ──
+  - name: archify
+    path: planning/archify
+    version: 0.1.0
+    sha256: d9e891eb5f3c27678de14165a0eb35d1eb2289be480e55009f9a57bcfe55be2d
   - name: architecture
     path: planning/architecture
-    version: 0.2.2
-    sha256: 0504f3d4d1d06e4c8947a9366936557391552c5c663106f1c9a41555566cc15c
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: e9017412b6261492b987fe27f7573b72013a340c0d3eb0e7e568fd588b22a214
   - name: backlog
     path: planning/backlog
-    version: 0.2.1
-    sha256: 5f2b24f2b75af91c4bffceec63334ae07e2048bf908dc7bdbf752f154d297754
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: e634e2fb5035731e7daa2ef246ae4ab3ef5d792b0b604f4216dfe10335ee10c0
   - name: prd
     path: planning/prd
-    version: 0.2.2
-    sha256: 09b3e6c53a87009a8f49760f117948c454ba3e6d4fb59422cbf52cba95277f8c
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: 39fe417f495be4153541dd70c886cf773265636dc9fa1844cfc7012b71cbbec1
   - name: product-intent
     path: planning/product-intent
-    version: 0.2.1
-    sha256: 7c5d87706f4fdec7a27dacd2ba708b1eb957e7bd2b7d21f6f167b4a717616482
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: d41689db9a8c9b2dad0cd630412bebaed5792f9d22d4edb18770e4b1b3308699
   - name: tech-spec
     path: planning/tech-spec
-    version: 0.1.2
-    sha256: a938cfc14e1bf2d9d085fc7a37844011396bad97ab8573fb6e8b43e189f16580
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: 5f9add0d01e43feb6808b2eaeae9ac68075cf369cbfc793e020181a642d4d2c4
   # ── research ──
   - name: arxiv-literature
     path: research/arxiv-literature
-    version: 0.3.1
-    sha256: 6a33c297e472f57b6094a3a2f494c43473feb338ed9fbda90bb17cee4f5fcb68
+    version: 0.5.0
+    sha256: 0bc6b39d12934568804fc11b23219de4c6c2172e28c4bfedcee3104e2217aae6
   - name: experiment-protocol
     path: research/experiment-protocol
-    version: 0.1.3
-    sha256: 97f632c86717f636f20527eac0a25d85fd8480743a2df54031f3c7440796b355
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: 235256cbdf44ebdd25d87cce60940e00ad1fca42a1b2b4e534bfc245f0d1135c
   - name: scientific-debugging
     path: research/scientific-debugging
-    version: 0.1.3
-    sha256: 2bab38911f391947f04d94130f0b02c5398efcd75bf54fa2959cfc669ffc7898
+    version: 0.3.0
+    sha256: 9c29d70b4b82a440640b41665c23731b4112125915bde0e91016fc60aec67207
   - name: scientific-modernization
     path: research/scientific-modernization
-    version: 0.2.1
-    sha256: adba60897e152c44cb5904b7511d99a61f1899e989e229ff28c5d7bc3caec5fe
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: 491522d547fa0bddef19d2ec92bc35236b169787bded6ecc3a29dfec19892886
   # ── workflow ──
   - name: cut-it
     path: workflow/cut-it
-    version: 0.2.3
-    sha256: d76dc38929d099dba82cef9d77a880b970aeebeaceccd1dd6541ed52d0134852
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: d3742221f0ace1f1b62c07f5902030e478496059a58ef194e7cb3303ccdff05e
   - name: design-council
     path: workflow/design-council
-    version: 0.3.2
-    sha256: 623b9293554147b6335265b781dcdbdcdff55b680ed5f3a0e3840bcaf5bc0773
+    version: 0.5.0
+    sha256: c279a94a4cd66d46980f9a5024aedac3e673144fadc9d36b53ad87fc2ee63501
   - name: grill-me
     path: workflow/grill-me
-    version: 0.3.3
-    sha256: 59b1d0a8ab0397c4231d32efc7cf66462d0ddfb57bd7417c904321870e327176
+    version: 0.5.0
+    sha256: f48687566a8419aa52f30f8234f8dcfd050eaefdfdcfa281723d3603f3e08fcc
   - name: workflow-distiller
     path: workflow/workflow-distiller
-    version: 0.2.2
-    sha256: 8c765474c34fd4fce1cfb73619cfa289a7850651577d2452228937f1a65ff132
+    version: 0.4.0
+    sha256: dd7c312d6904f861fa105334c7c2f18c9d6e26a70a76874c85858cee90bede58

package/skills/remote.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Skills whose content lives in another repository at a pinned ref.
+# Clio never vendors these. `npm run skills:pin` publishes each entry into
+# skill-marketplace.json with the upstream tree as its sourceUrl, the catalog
+# overlay whose files land on top of that tree at install, and the upstream
+# top-level members the install drops. The overlay SKILL.md is pinned in
+# registry.yaml like every other catalog skill.
+version: 1
+skills:
+  - name: archify
+    category: planning
+    sourceUrl: https://github.com/tt-a1i/archify/tree/v2.16.0/archify
+    overlay: skills/planning/archify
+    exclude: [test, package-lock.json]