@panaversity/ksor 0.0.46 → 0.0.47

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,25 @@
 # @panaversity/ksor
 
+## 0.0.47
+
+### Patch Changes
+
+- 00c99da: **The intake interview asks its three questions in the owner's words.** The
+  previous wording was precise and unanswerable: question 1 asked the owner to
+  finish "when someone here disagrees with this corpus, the corpus wins about
+  ___", which is not a sentence unless you already know the ledger analogy the
+  README uses, and then explained what the answer would be used for inside the
+  question itself. An owner reported being unable to tell what it wanted at all.
+
+  Now: "What is this knowledge base about?", "What is close to that, but not part
+  of it?", and "Who signs off on a document, and who can take one down?" — each
+  with one too-vague example and one specific enough, and nothing about
+  `instance.md` or the MCP surface in the question. The reasoning that used to sit
+  inside the questions moved below them, where it explains the design to whoever
+  maintains the skill instead of blocking the person answering.
+
+  Nothing about what gets written changed.
+
 ## 0.0.46
 
 ### Patch Changes

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@panaversity/ksor",
-  "version": "0.0.46",
+  "version": "0.0.47",
   "description": "Knowledge System of Record — compile governed markdown into a static site for people and an MCP server for AI agents, with citations and measured abstention.",
   "keywords": [
     "abstention",

package/templates/scaffold/.agents/skills/intake-interview/SKILL.md

@@ -14,32 +14,55 @@ question at a time, and write down what they actually say.
 
 ## Ask THREE questions, one at a time
 
-Seven questions is where this skill used to start, and it did not survive
-contact: an agent running it decided five were too many, defaulted them, and
-reported "answered: all seven" — including the one that decides who may
-approve a document. A process the tool executing it shortcuts is too long.
-
-So three are asked, and they are the three that cannot be defaulted:
-
-1. **Scope** — "What should this record be the _final word_ on? Finish the
-   sentence: when someone here disagrees with this corpus, the corpus wins
-   about ___."
-2. **Boundary** — "What is just _outside_ that — the near-miss topics people
-   will ask about here that the record should refuse rather than guess at?"
-3. **Authority** — "Who may approve a document for publication, and who may
-   withdraw one?"
-
-Scope and Boundary are asked because the abstention gate is meaningless
-without an edge: a record authoritative for everything has no outside, so an
-agent asked something the owner never wrote about reaches for its training
-instead of declining. Authority is asked because a governance act names its
-actor and the tool never guesses one — the scaffold ships `human:you` in
-both authority lists, and a placeholder that survives this conversation is a
-person who was never there.
-
-Follow up until each is concrete. "Our engineering docs" is not yet an
-answer; "our leave, expense and conduct policies — the current ones, not
-historical versions" is.
+Ask them in the OWNER's words, not this project's. The vocabulary on this page
+— record, corpus, abstention, governance act — is precise and it is ours; an
+owner meeting it for the first time in a question cannot answer, and says so
+(reported 2026-08-26, against the wording these replaced: "the corpus wins
+about ___" asked them to complete a sentence that is not English unless you
+already know the ledger analogy).
+
+Ask exactly this much. Do not explain what the answer will be used for inside
+the question — that is what made the last version unanswerable.
+
+---
+
+**1 of 3 — What is this knowledge base about?**
+
+> Be specific enough that I would know what does NOT belong in it.
+>
+> Too vague: "our engineering docs" — I still could not tell what to leave out.
+> Specific enough: "our leave, expense and conduct policies, current versions
+> only."
+
+---
+
+**2 of 3 — What is close to that, but not part of it?**
+
+> Things people will ask this and it should NOT answer. A confident wrong
+> answer is worse than "I do not cover that."
+>
+> For the policies example: "not salaries, not individual HR cases, not last
+> year's versions."
+
+---
+
+**3 of 3 — Who signs off on a document, and who can take one down?**
+
+> Names or handles, not job titles. If it is just you, say so.
+
+---
+
+Follow up until each is concrete, but follow up in their words too: "what would
+someone actually ask this?" gets further than "name the boundary".
+
+**Why these three and no others.** The first two give the record an EDGE, and
+the abstention gate is meaningless without one: a knowledge base that is
+authoritative for everything has no outside, so an agent asked something the
+owner never wrote about reaches for its training instead of declining. The
+third cannot be guessed at all — the scaffold ships `human:you` in both
+authority lists, and a placeholder that survives this conversation is a person
+who was never there. Everything else has a sane default, and defaults are
+stated rather than asked.
 
 ## Then STATE the defaults; do not ask them
 

package/templates/scaffold/.claude/skills/intake-interview/SKILL.md

@@ -14,32 +14,55 @@ question at a time, and write down what they actually say.
 
 ## Ask THREE questions, one at a time
 
-Seven questions is where this skill used to start, and it did not survive
-contact: an agent running it decided five were too many, defaulted them, and
-reported "answered: all seven" — including the one that decides who may
-approve a document. A process the tool executing it shortcuts is too long.
-
-So three are asked, and they are the three that cannot be defaulted:
-
-1. **Scope** — "What should this record be the _final word_ on? Finish the
-   sentence: when someone here disagrees with this corpus, the corpus wins
-   about ___."
-2. **Boundary** — "What is just _outside_ that — the near-miss topics people
-   will ask about here that the record should refuse rather than guess at?"
-3. **Authority** — "Who may approve a document for publication, and who may
-   withdraw one?"
-
-Scope and Boundary are asked because the abstention gate is meaningless
-without an edge: a record authoritative for everything has no outside, so an
-agent asked something the owner never wrote about reaches for its training
-instead of declining. Authority is asked because a governance act names its
-actor and the tool never guesses one — the scaffold ships `human:you` in
-both authority lists, and a placeholder that survives this conversation is a
-person who was never there.
-
-Follow up until each is concrete. "Our engineering docs" is not yet an
-answer; "our leave, expense and conduct policies — the current ones, not
-historical versions" is.
+Ask them in the OWNER's words, not this project's. The vocabulary on this page
+— record, corpus, abstention, governance act — is precise and it is ours; an
+owner meeting it for the first time in a question cannot answer, and says so
+(reported 2026-08-26, against the wording these replaced: "the corpus wins
+about ___" asked them to complete a sentence that is not English unless you
+already know the ledger analogy).
+
+Ask exactly this much. Do not explain what the answer will be used for inside
+the question — that is what made the last version unanswerable.
+
+---
+
+**1 of 3 — What is this knowledge base about?**
+
+> Be specific enough that I would know what does NOT belong in it.
+>
+> Too vague: "our engineering docs" — I still could not tell what to leave out.
+> Specific enough: "our leave, expense and conduct policies, current versions
+> only."
+
+---
+
+**2 of 3 — What is close to that, but not part of it?**
+
+> Things people will ask this and it should NOT answer. A confident wrong
+> answer is worse than "I do not cover that."
+>
+> For the policies example: "not salaries, not individual HR cases, not last
+> year's versions."
+
+---
+
+**3 of 3 — Who signs off on a document, and who can take one down?**
+
+> Names or handles, not job titles. If it is just you, say so.
+
+---
+
+Follow up until each is concrete, but follow up in their words too: "what would
+someone actually ask this?" gets further than "name the boundary".
+
+**Why these three and no others.** The first two give the record an EDGE, and
+the abstention gate is meaningless without one: a knowledge base that is
+authoritative for everything has no outside, so an agent asked something the
+owner never wrote about reaches for its training instead of declining. The
+third cannot be guessed at all — the scaffold ships `human:you` in both
+authority lists, and a placeholder that survives this conversation is a person
+who was never there. Everything else has a sane default, and defaults are
+stated rather than asked.
 
 ## Then STATE the defaults; do not ask them