@jabworks/condux 0.29.0 → 0.30.0

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@jabworks/condux",
-  "version": "0.29.0",
+  "version": "0.30.0",
   "description": "OpenCode plugin for the condux workflow toolkit — bundles the condux skills and injects the specialist agents (coder, explorer, planner, researcher) plus an opt-in plan-review listener.",
   "type": "module",
   "publishConfig": {

package/skills/preflight/SKILL.md

@@ -49,6 +49,12 @@ Run through this checklist. Every item must be answered honestly — not optimis
 │    No console.log, no debug code, no TODO comments that         │
 │    weren't there before, no commented-out blocks.               │
 │                                                                  │
+│  □ NO WORKAROUNDS                                               │
+│    Did anything here bypass a convention, widen a type,         │
+│    disable a rule, or special-case around a design just to      │
+│    make it land? Report it — the user decides whether it        │
+│    ships. Nothing bypassed → N/A, no commentary.                │
+│                                                                 │
 │  □ READY FOR FINALIZE                                           │
 │    All the above are yes → call /finalize                       │
 │    Any are no → fix first, then re-check                        │
@@ -100,6 +106,7 @@ a preflight failure like any other.
 | "The edge cases are unlikely"                  | They happen in production. Consider them now.            |
 | "The plan steps were mostly done"              | Mostly done is not done.                                 |
 | "I only changed one line, nothing could break" | One-line changes cause regressions too.                  |
+| "It's a small workaround, I'll do it properly later" | Later is a PR nobody opens. Report it; the user chooses.  |
 
 ## Output
 
@@ -112,6 +119,7 @@ a preflight failure like any other.
 □ Spec drift           ✓ / ✗ / N/A [notes]  (N/A = no spec for this task)
 □ No regressions       ✓ / ✗ [notes]
 □ Nothing left behind  ✓ / ✗ [notes]
+□ No workarounds       ✓ / ✗ / N/A [notes]  (N/A = nothing bypassed)
 
 → Ready for /finalize  [YES / NO — list blockers if NO]
 ```

package/skills/workflow/SKILL.md

@@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ Condux is **lean and proportional** — the opposite of "always run every gate."
 6. **House style rides along.** Before the first line of code in any tier, load
    the `coding-directive` skill if it is installed — skip silently when it
    isn't. Codebase mimicry and repo config still win over the directive.
+7. **Two tracks, one of them triggered.** Tactical is the task in front of you.
+   Strategic is the environment that produced it — would a narrower type, a
+   lint rule, or a written convention have made this task's bug impossible?
+   The strategic track is *not* a standing obligation; that would violate rule
+   1. It fires on a trigger, and the triggers are in Environment Hardening.
 
 ## Entry Contract
 
@@ -253,6 +258,38 @@ Scope turns out bigger than the confirmed tier? Stop immediately, report what yo
 found ("this touches auth middleware, not just the UI"), re-confirm the tier before
 continuing. Never silently expand scope.
 
+## Environment Hardening
+
+The strategic track, fired by a trigger rather than run on every task. Two
+triggers, both observed rather than imagined:
+
+- **Repeated friction.** The same obstacle cost time twice — twice in this
+  task, or once here and once earlier in the session.
+- **A workaround taken.** You bypassed a convention, widened a type, disabled a
+  rule, or special-cased around a design to make the change land. `preflight`'s
+  no-workarounds box catches the ones you stopped noticing.
+
+When one fires, spend a sentence on the cause rather than the symptom. Agents
+succeed in a **pit of success** — an environment where the wrong thing is hard
+to express:
+
+| Lever | Looks like |
+|---|---|
+| Constrained surface | a narrower type, a smaller public API, an argument that cannot be passed wrong |
+| Rules that force correctness | a lint rule, a stricter compiler flag, a test that fails on the shape and not just the value |
+| Written convention | a line in `AGENTS.md` / `CLAUDE.md` or the house-style skill, so a reviewer cites it instead of re-deriving it |
+| Data the agent lacks | dev-server or production logs, a test database, browser access to watch the thing actually render |
+
+**The output is a sentence to the user, or a backlog item — never a new
+artifact.** Name the hardening and let the user decide. If a backlog skill
+(`record`, or the repo's own convention) is installed and they want it kept,
+file it there. Do not create a file for it, do not add a `.condux/` directory
+for it, and do not implement it inside the current task — that is scope
+expansion, which Escalating Mid-Task already forbids.
+
+**Silence is the correct output when neither trigger fired.** A clean SMALL
+task gets no hardening commentary at all.
+
 ## Red Flags
 
 Stop if you catch yourself doing any of these:
@@ -271,6 +308,7 @@ Stop if you catch yourself doing any of these:
 | Auto-running code-review, commits, or agents | They're checkpoint choices; run only when picked |
 | Verifying live without loading `live-verification` | Load it — its `report.md` is the evidence (9 of 11 ad-hoc runs in a mobile eval left none) |
 | Auto-advancing past a checkpoint on MEDIUM/LARGE | The user owns every transition |
+| Absorbing a workaround silently so the change lands | Name it — that's a hardening trigger, and preflight asks for it anyway |
 | Expanding scope past the confirmed tier | Stop, report, re-confirm |
 
 ## Tips