@iowarp/clio-coder 0.4.2 → 0.4.3

package/skills/research/scientific-debugging/evals.md

@@ -136,3 +136,21 @@ accumulation loop; regression check fails by 1.474e-4).
 
 One representative scenario via `clio-coder skills eval` against Nemo-3.5-Lightning
 (30B local, llamacpp on mini), full-auto sandbox. PASS. Judge 6/6 on the seeded numerical fixture; cleanest research run.
+
+## Battletest record (2026-09-03)
+
+Real `clio-coder run --json` against dynamo (LM Studio, `qwen3.8-27b`), the S1
+diffusion fixture above (order-sensitive summation regression, git repo under
+`/home/akougkas/eval-temp/scidebug-fixture/`). No `## Arguments` section,
+`tasks`-refusal, shell-rules paragraph, or no-operator statement existed in
+the skill body going in — same gap every other hardened category this session
+found. Added all four, matching skills/coding/prototype/SKILL.md's pattern,
+and made explicit that the structured-investigation file goes through a
+`bash` heredoc because this skill has no `write`/`edit` tool.
+
+| run | model | outcome |
+|---|---|---|
+| baseline (no skill) | qwen3.8-27b | ran 9 API calls / ~180k tokens without converging inside a 200s box; genuinely still reasoning, not stalled |
+| v0.3.0 (hardened) | qwen3.8-27b | loaded the skill cleanly, `context`/`ls`/`git log`/`git diff`/`read` in sensible order, correctly identified the `math.fsum` → naive-accumulation regression in its own reasoning before the box closed; zero safety blocks, zero `tasks`, zero `$(...)` |
+
+**Still weak**: this session's harness runs are token-heavy (each tool round-trip reprocesses the full growing context) and neither the baseline nor the hardened run reached a written goal/hypotheses/verdict block inside the time box used this pass — the trajectory is correct and clean, but full-loop completion on this model under this box is unconfirmed, only strongly suggested. No cross-model confirmation this pass (time-boxed session). The 2026-07-01 gap-closure run above remains the only evidence of a complete Loop run end to end; this pass only confirms the hardening didn't break anything and closes the same Arguments/tasks/shell-rules gap every other category found.

package/skills/research/scientific-modernization/SKILL.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ triggers:
   - migrate the scientific build system
   - create a maintained fork
   - preserve scientific parity
-version: 0.3.0
+version: 0.4.0
 license: Apache-2.0
 allowed-tools:
   - read
@@ -36,6 +36,31 @@ translation. Faster code, a clean build, and passing self-authored unit tests
 do not establish scientific equivalence. Work the stages below in order; each
 has an explicit exit condition.
 
+## Arguments
+
+```text
+/skill scientific-modernization <what to modernize, port, rewrite, or replace, and why>
+```
+
+There is no operator in a headless run — `ask_user` is not in this skill's
+tool surface. Stage 1's "the user has seen them" exit condition means,
+headlessly: state the four bullets in your reply and proceed, never stall
+waiting for acknowledgment. Every other stage gate below works the same way
+— state the decision and its reasoning, then continue.
+
+The six stages 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.
+
+Shell rules for every `bash` call: one command per call, plain and direct.
+Never use `$(...)` or backticks; they trigger an approval gate that ends a
+headless run.
+
+This is a long, multi-stage process on a small model or a time-boxed run. If
+you are approaching your tool-call or time budget before reaching Stage 6,
+stop at the current stage, state exactly which stage you reached and why you
+stopped, and report the work as an incomplete prototype — never fabricate
+completion of stages you did not actually reach.
+
 ## Stage 1 — Decide whether this work should exist
 
 Identify the upstream project: active maintainers, license, release cadence,

package/skills/research/scientific-modernization/evals.md

@@ -82,3 +82,30 @@ Expected:
 
 One representative scenario via `clio-coder skills eval` against Nemo-3.5-Lightning
 (30B local, llamacpp on mini), full-auto sandbox. NOT COMPLETED: loop guard at 75 tool calls. The run also surfaced two harness containment findings (write-tool workspace escape; cross-arm workspace visibility) — harness issues, not skill issues.
+
+## Battletest record (2026-09-03)
+
+Same structural gap as the other three research skills: no `## Arguments`,
+no `tasks`-refusal, no shell-rules paragraph, no no-operator statement. Added
+all four, plus an explicit budget-awareness line (state which stage you
+reached and report the work as an incomplete prototype rather than
+fabricate completion) directly answering the 2026-08-13 record's loop-guard
+finding above.
+
+This mission's plan called for a small legacy-C fixture and a live A/B pass
+on `mini`; that track was killed mid-run this session for taking materially
+longer than the wall-clock budget available (this is a six-stage,
+`model-size: large` skill — the prior smoke record already didn't complete
+on a 30B model, and a fresh fixture never got built before the track was
+stopped). **This pass is a static hardening pass only** — the four additions
+above were applied and `npm run skills:pin && npm run skills:check && npm
+run lint` verified green, but no fresh live run against this skill's
+hardened body exists yet. Treat 0.4.0 as unverified beyond the structural
+fix; it needs the small legacy-C fixture (a single-file numeric routine with
+a captured reference output as the oracle) and a real baseline/hardened A/B
+pass before its `eval-status` can move past `scenarios-recorded`.
+
+**Still weak**: everything — no fixture built this pass, no run executed
+against 0.4.0, no cross-model confirmation. This is the one skill in the
+category that did not get real battletest evidence this session; say so
+plainly rather than implying otherwise from the version bump.

package/skills/skill-marketplace.json

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
 				"grep returns too much noise"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/coding/ast-grep",
-			"version": "0.2.0",
+			"version": "0.3.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "coding"
 		},
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
 				"functional core imperative shell"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/coding/coding-standards",
-			"version": "0.2.0",
+			"version": "0.3.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "coding"
 		},
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
 				"what should this UI look like"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/coding/prototype",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "coding"
 		},
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
 				"reproduce the bug with a test"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/coding/tdd",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "coding"
 		},
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
 				"write a continuation brief"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/context/context-handoff",
-			"version": "0.4.0",
+			"version": "0.5.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "context"
 		},
@@ -87,10 +87,25 @@
 				"resume repository work after a break"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/context/context-prime",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "context"
 		},
+		{
+			"name": "branch-closeout",
+			"description": "Proves merged work on the canonical base, inspects and removes associated worktrees through Git, deletes local branches safely, and audits surviving repository refs. Not for creating worktrees; use worktree-create. Not for integrating branches; use worktree-merge.",
+			"triggers": [
+				"close out this branch",
+				"clean up merged branch",
+				"remove merged worktree",
+				"closeout branch",
+				"branch-closeout"
+			],
+			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/git/branch-closeout",
+			"version": "0.1.0",
+			"audit": "pass",
+			"category": "git"
+		},
 		{
 			"name": "file-ticket",
 			"description": "Turns something noticed mid-session into a tracker issue: captures evidence, dedups against existing issues, composes a labeled issue with acceptance criteria, confirms, and creates it via gh. Not for batch ticket creation from a PRD; use backlog. Not for diagnosing an existing issue; use fix-issue.",
@@ -102,7 +117,7 @@
 				"create a tracker issue"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/git/file-ticket",
-			"version": "0.2.0",
+			"version": "0.3.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "git"
 		},
@@ -117,7 +132,7 @@
 				"fix a GitHub issue end to end"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/git/fix-issue",
-			"version": "0.2.0",
+			"version": "0.3.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "git"
 		},
@@ -132,13 +147,13 @@
 				"resolve conflict markers"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/git/resolve-merge-conflicts",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "git"
 		},
 		{
 			"name": "ship",
-			"description": "Ships finished work: stages reviewed paths, writes one atomic conventional commit referencing the issue, then pushes and opens the PR only on explicit intent. Not for producing the change; use fix-issue.",
+			"description": "Ships finished work: writes one reviewed atomic commit, keeps maintainer branches local, or pushes a contributor branch to their fork and opens a PR only on explicit intent. Not for producing the change; use fix-issue.",
 			"triggers": [
 				"ship this",
 				"commit this",
@@ -147,13 +162,13 @@
 				"get this up for review"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/git/ship",
-			"version": "0.2.0",
+			"version": "0.5.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "git"
 		},
 		{
 			"name": "worktree-create",
-			"description": "Stands up one or more git worktrees for parallel work, each on its own branch with gitignored config copied in, dependencies installed, and a verified health check. Not for merging finished worktrees; use worktree-merge.",
+			"description": "Stands up one or more git worktrees for parallel work, each on its own branch with gitignored config copied in, dependencies installed, and a verified health check. Not for merging finished worktrees; use worktree-merge. Not for closeout; use branch-closeout.",
 			"triggers": [
 				"create a git worktree",
 				"set up worktrees for these branches",
@@ -161,13 +176,13 @@
 				"prepare parallel worktrees"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/git/worktree-create",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.6.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "git"
 		},
 		{
 			"name": "worktree-merge",
-			"description": "Integrates finished worktree branches through one throwaway integration branch, testing after each merge and running the full suite before the main line moves, with exact rollback on failure. Not for creating worktrees; use worktree-create.",
+			"description": "Integrates finished worktree branches through one throwaway integration branch, testing after each merge and running the full suite before the main line moves, with exact rollback on failure. Not for creating worktrees; use worktree-create. Not for closeout; use branch-closeout.",
 			"triggers": [
 				"merge my worktrees",
 				"integrate these worktree branches",
@@ -175,7 +190,7 @@
 				"land finished worktrees"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/git/worktree-merge",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.6.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "git"
 		},
@@ -270,6 +285,26 @@
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "meta"
 		},
+		{
+			"name": "archify",
+			"description": "Validated interactive system maps and diagrams as standalone HTML from a typed JSON spec, for one of five diagram types (architecture, workflow, sequence, dataflow, lifecycle). Use when the user asks to visualize architecture, a workflow, a call sequence, a data pipeline, or a state machine, or to map this repository. Not for ad hoc drawings or slide art, and not for Mermaid output; use the artifact tool for plain Markdown.",
+			"triggers": [
+				"architecture diagram",
+				"system map",
+				"map this repository",
+				"sequence diagram",
+				"data flow diagram",
+				"state machine diagram",
+				"visualize the architecture"
+			],
+			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/tt-a1i/archify/tree/v2.16.0/archify",
+			"version": "0.1.0",
+			"audit": "pass",
+			"category": "planning",
+			"origin": "remote",
+			"overlay": "skills/planning/archify",
+			"exclude": ["test", "package-lock.json"]
+		},
 		{
 			"name": "architecture",
 			"description": "Decides the engineering approach for an intent in an interactive session: investigates, proposes two or three genuinely different approaches with trade-offs, recommends, lets the user decide, and writes the decision doc. Not a task-by-task plan; use cut-it. Not a multi-perspective debate; use design-council. Not product intent; use product-intent. Not a typed implementation handoff; use tech-spec.",
@@ -281,7 +316,7 @@
 				"compare architecture options"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/planning/architecture",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "planning"
 		},
@@ -296,7 +331,7 @@
 				"create GitHub issues from this architecture"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/planning/backlog",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "planning"
 		},
@@ -311,7 +346,7 @@
 				"create milestone prompts"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/planning/prd",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "planning"
 		},
@@ -326,7 +361,7 @@
 				"greenfield product intent"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/planning/product-intent",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "planning"
 		},
@@ -341,7 +376,7 @@
 				"specify execution flows"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/planning/tech-spec",
-			"version": "0.2.0",
+			"version": "0.3.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "planning"
 		},
@@ -356,7 +391,7 @@
 				"build a literature survey"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/research/arxiv-literature",
-			"version": "0.4.0",
+			"version": "0.5.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "research"
 		},
@@ -372,7 +407,7 @@
 				"compare solver accuracy"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/research/experiment-protocol",
-			"version": "0.2.0",
+			"version": "0.3.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "research"
 		},
@@ -388,7 +423,7 @@
 				"scientific root cause"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/research/scientific-debugging",
-			"version": "0.2.0",
+			"version": "0.3.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "research"
 		},
@@ -404,7 +439,7 @@
 				"preserve scientific parity"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/research/scientific-modernization",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "research"
 		},
@@ -419,7 +454,7 @@
 				"write dependency-ordered vertical slices"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/workflow/cut-it",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "workflow"
 		},
@@ -434,7 +469,7 @@
 				"what would experts say"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/workflow/design-council",
-			"version": "0.4.0",
+			"version": "0.5.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "workflow"
 		},
@@ -449,7 +484,7 @@
 				"clarify this plan one question at a time"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/workflow/grill-me",
-			"version": "0.4.0",
+			"version": "0.5.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "workflow"
 		},
@@ -464,7 +499,7 @@
 				"create a skill from this session"
 			],
 			"sourceUrl": "https://github.com/iowarp/clio-coder/tree/main/skills/workflow/workflow-distiller",
-			"version": "0.3.0",
+			"version": "0.4.0",
 			"audit": "pass",
 			"category": "workflow"
 		}

package/skills/workflow/cut-it/SKILL.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ triggers:
   - make this plan executable
   - turn this milestone into a sprint
   - write dependency-ordered vertical slices
-version: 0.3.0
+version: 0.4.0
 license: Apache-2.0
 allowed-tools:
   - read
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ allowed-tools:
   - context
   - code_nav
   - write
-  - artifact
   - ask_user
 clio-coder:
   registry-id: iowarp/clio-coder
@@ -39,6 +38,43 @@ can run one at a time, leaving the build green after every slice. The output
 is a `SPRINT.md` another agent can execute cold — no conversation context
 required.
 
+## Arguments
+
+```text
+cut it [<path to plan>]
+```
+
+There is no flag syntax; the trigger is conversational — "cut it", "slice
+this plan", "turn this milestone into a sprint". A path the user names in
+the same request (a specific `PLAN.md`, `PRD.md`, or `milestones/*/prompt.md`)
+is the plan to slice; a path with no plan words near it, or a bare
+destination like "write it to docs/SPRINT.md", is Step 3's output location,
+not the input. When neither is named, Step 1 finds the plan and Step 3
+writes to the repo-root default.
+
+This run has no back-and-forth. `ask_user` still executes — it is registered
+and the call succeeds — but nothing answers it in a headless run: every round
+returns `{cancelled: true}` immediately, as an ordinary result, not an error.
+The happy path here rarely needs a question at all — Step 1's "stop and say
+so" for a missing or vague plan is already headless-safe, and Step 3's output
+path defaults without asking. If several plans or milestones are plausible
+candidates and the choice matters, do not stop on an open question: pick the
+most recently modified or most specifically named one, state that choice and
+the alternative you set aside, mark it `assumed — confirm`, and keep going in
+the same turn. Do not end a turn on an unanswered question in `ask_user` or
+in plain text.
+
+The steps below are the plan; do not open a task list for them. This skill's
+tool surface is exactly `read`, `grep`, `ls`, `find`, `git`, `context`,
+`code_nav`, `write`, and `ask_user` (`context` and `ask_user` are always
+available regardless). `tasks` and `bash` both sit outside it and any call to
+either is refused — track progress by walking the steps below, not a task
+board; check for a build/test/lint setup (a `package.json`, a Makefile, a
+node/toolchain version) with `find`, `ls`, and `read`, not `bash node
+--version` or `bash find`. The read-only `git` tool (`status`, `log`) is
+useful in Step 1 when locating the plan benefits from recent history or
+uncommitted changes.
+
 ## Step 1 — Locate the plan
 
 In priority order: a file the user names, a plan in the conversation,
@@ -60,10 +96,14 @@ slicing of a vague plan hides gaps; flagging them is the deliverable.
 - **Self-contained.** Real file paths, real commands, concrete steps. A reader
   with zero conversation context can execute it.
 
-## Step 3 — Write the artifact
+## Step 3 — Write SPRINT.md
 
-Default output is `SPRINT.md` at the repo root (honor a caller-supplied path).
-Format:
+Use the `write` tool. `SPRINT.md` is a plain file in the working tree, not a
+generated report — do not call a tool literally named `artifact` for this;
+that tool is not on this skill's surface and, in this harness, is a
+terminal call that ends the run the instant it is invoked, before you can
+report back. Default output path is `SPRINT.md` at the repo root; honor a
+caller-supplied path from Arguments instead. Format:
 
 ```markdown
 # Sprint: <name>
@@ -86,9 +126,29 @@ Format:
 "Done when" is the contract, not decoration. If you cannot write a testable
 done-when for a slice, the slice is not ready to cut — go back to the plan.
 
+## Step 4 — Report back
+
+End the turn with a short final reply, not silence after the write: the path
+you wrote (`SPRINT.md` or the caller-supplied path), the number of slices,
+and a one-line summary of the battle order. This is the only confirmation
+the caller gets that the write actually happened.
+
 ## Red flags (you are doing it wrong)
 
 - A slice whose steps say "and related changes" or "etc."
 - Done-when criteria that restate the goal instead of naming a check.
 - A slice that only compiles when a later slice lands.
 - Slicing a plan you had to invent on the spot.
+- Calling a tool literally named `artifact` because Step 3 talks about "the
+  artifact" — that word here means "the deliverable document," not the
+  `artifact` tool. That tool is off this skill's surface and, in this
+  harness, terminates the run on the spot, writes to
+  `.clio-coder/artifacts/` instead of `SPRINT.md`, and skips Step 4 entirely.
+  Use `write`.
+- Ending the run right after the write with no final reply — Step 4 is not
+  optional.
+- Opening a `tasks` list for the steps above; `tasks` is refused.
+- Reaching for `bash` (`node --version`, `find`, `ls -la`, ...) to check the
+  repo's toolchain or structure; `bash` is refused, use `find`/`ls`/`read`.
+- Stopping to wait for an `ask_user` reply that headless runs never send;
+  see Arguments.

package/skills/workflow/cut-it/evals.md

@@ -40,3 +40,104 @@ Expected:
 
 One representative scenario via `clio-coder skills eval` against Nemo-3.5-Lightning
 (30B local, llamacpp on mini), full-auto sandbox. PASS. Sliced the seeded PLAN.md; judge 4/4.
+
+## Battletest record (2026-09-03)
+
+Fixture: `/home/akougkas/eval-temp/harness/test_cutit.py`. S1 reuses this
+evals.md's own fixture text verbatim (`src/todos.js` stub + a concrete
+three-feature `PLAN.md`); S2 is an empty repo with only a `README.md`; S3 is
+a `PLAN.md` that says only "improve performance and clean up the code."
+S1 is the primary grading fixture, scored on 12 checks against the raw
+JSONL's tool-call/safety-block stream, the actual `SPRINT.md` written to
+disk, and the reconstructed final assistant text: zero safety blocks, zero
+real `artifact` tool calls, zero `tasks` calls, `SPRINT.md` exists with a
+`## Battle order` and 2+ numbered slices, every slice carries all six
+required fields (Goal/Depends on/Files/Steps/Done when/Out of scope), no
+horizontal-layering red-flag language, slices trace to the plan's concrete
+features, done-when blocks are command-shaped and testable, and the final
+reply names the path and slice count. S2/S3 are graded on 5 checks each
+(zero safety blocks, zero `artifact` calls, no `SPRINT.md` fabricated,
+correctly flags the gap, recommends a next step). Primary model
+`qwen3.8-27b` on `dynamo` (LM Studio); cross-model confirm on
+`ornith1.5-35b-moe` on `mini` (llama.cpp), run against S1 and S2 both.
+
+**The bug found reading the source, confirmed empirically first**: the
+frozen skill (0.3.0) had `artifact` in `allowed-tools` and titled Step 3
+"Write the artifact." `src/tools/artifact.ts` sets `terminate: true` on
+every successful call — the run ends the instant the tool executes, with
+no further LLM turn to confirm what happened. v1's run called `artifact`
+with `kind: "plan"` and, by luck, an explicit `path: "SPRINT.md"` (the
+model inferred this from "honor a caller-supplied path" even though no
+caller supplied one) — so the file landed in the right place this time, but
+the run still ended mid-sentence ("Writing the sprint:") with no
+confirmation reply, and a separate `tasks` call (also off-surface) drew a
+real safety block. Score 8/12: missing `reply_mentions_sprint_path`, one
+real safety block. Had the model not guessed an explicit path, the default
+would have been `.clio-coder/artifacts/PLAN.md` (kind defaults to `plan`,
+see `core/artifact-paths.ts`) — wrong file, wrong location, same silent
+termination. This is exactly the failure mode the planning category's
+tech-spec baseline hit ("called `artifact` for an early exit... instead of
+a spec").
+
+| run | model | wall | turns | in / out tokens | safety blocks | score | outcome |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| baseline (no skill) | qwen3.8-27b | 76s | 7 | 73.8k / 7.1k | 5 (repeated `ls ".cl"` truncated-path retries, benign) | 5/12 | never invoked `/skill cut-it`; read the plan and module correctly, reasoned to genuinely good vertical slices with real done-when checks in its head, then hit a tool-call loop guard and delivered the entire sprint as **prose in the reply, never wrote `SPRINT.md`** — the exact gap this skill exists to close |
+| v1 (frozen 0.3.0) | qwen3.8-27b | 115s | 6 | 68.6k / 11.3k | 1 real (`tasks` refused) | 8/12 | called the real `artifact` tool for Step 3 as titled; terminated the turn immediately after writing, mid-sentence, with no confirmation reply — the artifact-tool bug, confirmed |
+| v2 (first hardened cut, 0.4.0) | qwen3.8-27b | 70s | 6 | 72.4k / 6.5k | 0 | 11/12 (12/12 after a grading-regex fix, see below) | used `write` correctly, used the `git` tool in Step 1, reported the path and slice count in the final reply; the one score miss was a test-harness regex that didn't handle a `**Done when** (fresh state...):` label followed by bulleted checks on the next lines — the actual done-when content was already command-shaped and testable, fixed in the harness, not the skill |
+| v3 (bash-reflex found) | qwen3.8-27b | — | — | — | 2 (1 benign ENOENT, 1 real: `bash` refused) | 11/12 | reached for `bash` (`node --version`, `find`, `ls -la` chained with `&&`) to survey the toolchain even though `bash` was never in `allowed-tools` and nothing in the body named it explicitly — added the same explicit `bash`-refusal line the `tasks` refusal already had, plus a Red flags entry |
+| v4 (final, stable) | qwen3.8-27b | 60s | 6 | 71.4k / 5.6k | 0 | **12/12** | clean run: `context` → `read`/`ls` → `git status` → `write`, self-contained final reply naming path, slice count, and battle order |
+| final-s2 (no plan) | qwen3.8-27b | 26s | 4 | 43.2k / 2.0k | 0 | **5/5** | checked all three plan locations plus `git log`/`status`, correctly stopped with no `SPRINT.md` written, cited the skill's own red-flag language, recommended `grill-me` |
+| final-s3 (vague plan) | qwen3.8-27b | 28s | 5 | 56.2k / 2.5k | 0 | **5/5** | read the one-line `PLAN.md`, explicitly invoked "the skill's own test" (a testable done-when), listed three concrete missing pieces (object/baseline/target for "performance", a definition of "clean", the absent codebase), stopped without writing `SPRINT.md` |
+| final-mini (cross-model, S1) | ornith1.5-35b-moe (mini) | 42s | 6 | 10.8k / 3.2k | 0 | **12/12** | same clean shape on the second model family: `context` → `ls`/`read` → `write`, self-contained final reply |
+| final-mini-s2 (cross-model, S2) | ornith1.5-35b-moe (mini) | 19s | 6 | 4.0k / 1.1k | 0 | **5/5** | correctly found nothing to slice, recommended `grill-me`, offered to slice immediately if pointed at a plan |
+
+**Changes** (0.3.0 -> 0.4.0):
+
+1. **`artifact` removed from `allowed-tools`.** cut-it never needs the real
+   `artifact` tool — `SPRINT.md` is a plain file, always written with
+   `write`. This is the fix for the bug above.
+2. **Step 3 retitled** "Write SPRINT.md" (was "Write the artifact") and its
+   body now says explicitly "use the `write` tool" and names the
+   `artifact`-tool confusion directly, including what it actually does
+   wrong (terminal call, wrong default path under `.clio-coder/artifacts/`,
+   skips the report-back step).
+3. **New Step 4 — Report back**, an explicit final-reply requirement (path
+   written, slice count, one-line battle-order summary). Nothing in the
+   frozen skill told the model to confirm after writing; every hardened run
+   now does.
+4. **`## Arguments` contract**, the section the frozen skill never had:
+   conversational trigger syntax, how a named path splits between "the plan
+   to slice" and "where to write `SPRINT.md`", the no-operator/`ask_user`-
+   auto-cancels rule (adapted from `grill-me` 0.5.0's "this run has no
+   back-and-forth" framing — stated as a fact about the run, not gated on a
+   cancellation response), and — since cut-it's happy path rarely needs a
+   question at all — explicit guidance for the one place it plausibly might
+   (choosing among several candidate plans/milestones): pick the best one,
+   state the alternative, mark `assumed — confirm`, keep going.
+5. **`tasks` and `bash` explicitly named as refused**, in Arguments and Red
+   Flags, both found empirically: v1's `tasks` call (tracking its own
+   steps) and v3's `bash` call (`node --version`, `find`, `ls -la` chained
+   with `&&`, to survey the toolchain) were both real safety blocks despite
+   neither tool ever having been in `allowed-tools`.
+6. Three new Red Flags entries for the concrete failures observed: the
+   `artifact`-tool confusion, ending the run with no final reply, and the
+   `bash` reflex (`tasks` already had informal coverage, now explicit too).
+
+**Still weak**: `code_nav` (in `allowed-tools`) was never exercised — this
+fixture's grounding fit entirely in one small stub file, so `read`/`grep`
+sufficed; a plan referencing a larger call graph might exercise it, none
+was built here. The `ask_user`-unavailable path and the "several candidate
+plans" disambiguation guidance in Arguments are reasoned prose, not
+empirically run — no fixture here seeds multiple plausible plan files or a
+scenario where the model actually reaches for `ask_user`; every hardened
+run reasoned straight to the assumed-confirm default or never needed a
+question at all. S3's "flag as vague" grading is phrase-matching against a
+fixed term list (`vague`, `underspecified`, `insufficient`, ...) — a run
+that flags the same gap in different words would under-score on a
+technicality, though neither observed run did. The v2 grading-regex miss
+(`done_when_testable`, fixed in the harness before v4) is a reminder that
+this fixture's automated score can undercount a genuinely correct skill
+output; the raw `SPRINT.md` files are worth spot-reading, not just the
+score column. No timing was captured for v3 (an incremental re-run to
+confirm the `bash` finding, superseded immediately by v4) — not a gap in
+the skill's coverage, just an artifact of the iteration order.