@rune-kit/rune 2.8.0 → 2.11.0

package/skills/cook/SKILL.md

@@ -1,834 +1,917 @@
----
-name: cook
-description: "Feature implementation orchestrator. ALWAYS use this skill for ANY code change — implement, build, add feature, create, fix bug, or any task that modifies source code. This is the default route for 70% of all requests. Runs full TDD cycle: understand → plan → test → implement → quality → verify → commit."
-context: fork
-agent: general-purpose
-metadata:
-  author: runedev
-  version: "2.1.0"
-  layer: L1
-  model: sonnet
-  group: orchestrator
-  tools: "Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep"
-  emit: phase.complete
-  listen: plan.ready, review.complete
----
-
-# cook
-
-## Purpose
-
-The primary orchestrator for feature implementation. Coordinates the entire L2 mesh in a phased TDD workflow. Handles 70% of all user requests — any task that modifies source code routes through cook.
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-Before starting ANY implementation:
-1. You MUST understand the codebase first (Phase 1)
-2. You MUST have a plan before writing code (Phase 2)
-3. You MUST write failing tests before implementation (Phase 3) — unless explicitly skipped
-This applies to EVERY feature regardless of perceived simplicity.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-## Workflow Chains (Predefined)
-
-Cook supports predefined workflow chains for common task types. Use these as shortcuts instead of manually determining phases:
-
-```
-/rune cook feature    → Full TDD pipeline (all phases)
-/rune cook bugfix     → Diagnose → fix → verify (Phase 1 → 4 → 6 → 7)
-/rune cook refactor   → Understand → plan → implement → quality (Phase 1 → 2 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7)
-/rune cook security   → Full pipeline + sentinel@opus + sast (all phases, security-escalated)
-/rune cook hotfix     → Minimal: fix → verify → commit (Phase 4 → 6 → 7, skip scout if user provides context)
-/rune cook nano       → Trivial: do → verify → done (no phases, ≤3 steps)
-/rune cook --template <name> → Load pre-built workflow template from installed Pro/Business packs
-```
-
-### Template Workflows (Pro/Business)
-
-When `--template <name>` is provided, cook loads a pre-built workflow template instead of auto-detecting:
-
-```
-/rune cook --template product-discovery   → Pro: stakeholder interviews → problem framing → competitive → spec → validation
-/rune cook --template product-launch      → Pro: spec lock → implement → quality gates → staged rollout → announcement
-/rune cook --template product-iteration   → Pro: metrics review → feedback synthesis → re-prioritize → implement → measure
-/rune cook --template data-exploration    → Pro: data profiling → hypotheses → statistical testing → visualization → report
-/rune cook --template data-pipeline       → Pro: schema design → ETL → quality gates → deploy → monitoring
-/rune cook --template sales-outreach-campaign → Pro: prospect research → messaging → sequence → A/B test → launch
-/rune cook --template sales-deal-review   → Pro: account deep-dive → risk assessment → competitive strategy → action plan
-/rune cook --template support-incident-response → Pro: triage → diagnose → fix → verify → postmortem → KB update
-/rune cook --template support-kb-refresh  → Pro: audit → gap analysis → draft → review → publish
-```
-
-**Template resolution**: Templates are `.md` files in `extensions/pro-*/templates/` or `extensions/business-*/templates/`. Each template defines: phases, skill connections, mesh signals, and acceptance criteria. The compiler includes templates in pack output during build.
-
-**When --template is used**:
-1. Skip Phase 1.5 (auto-detection) — template pre-selects domain and pack
-2. Skip Phase 1.7 (workflow matching) — template IS the workflow
-3. Load template phases as the master plan (Phase 2 becomes "review template plan" not "create plan")
-4. Execute each template phase in order, invoking declared skills
-5. Emit template's declared signals on completion
-
-**Chain selection**: If user invokes `/rune cook` without a chain type, auto-detect from the task description:
-- Contains "bug", "fix", "broken", "error" → `bugfix`
-- Contains "refactor", "clean", "restructure" → `refactor`
-- Contains "security", "auth", "vulnerability", "CVE" → `security`
-- Contains "urgent", "hotfix", "production" → `hotfix`
-- Contains "quick", "just", "chỉ cần", "copy", "move", "rename", "bump" → `nano`
-- Contains `--template` → load template workflow (see above)
-- Default → `feature`
-
-## Phase Skip Rules
-
-Not every task needs every phase:
-
-```
-Nano task:           DO → VERIFY → DONE (no phases, auto-detected)
-Simple bug fix:      Phase 1 → 4 → 6 → 7
-Small refactor:      Phase 1 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7
-New feature:         Phase 1 → 1.5 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 → 8
-Complex feature:     All phases + brainstorm in Phase 2
-Security-sensitive:  All phases + sentinel escalated to opus
-Fast mode:           Phase 1 → 4 → 6 → 7 (auto-detected, see below)
-Multi-session:       Phase 0 (resume) → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 (one plan phase per session)
-```
-
-Determine complexity BEFORE starting using the Rigor Assessment below. Create TodoWrite with applicable phases.
-
-### Rigor Assessment (Progressive Scaling)
-
-Before selecting a workflow chain or phase set, compute the task's **rigor level** from risk signals. This prevents over-engineering trivial changes while ensuring full ceremony for critical ones.
-
-| Risk Signal | Weight | Detection |
-|-------------|--------|-----------|
-| Files affected: 1 | 0 | Estimate from task description + scout |
-| Files affected: 2-3 | +1 | |
-| Files affected: 4+ | +3 | |
-| Cross-module impact (changes span 2+ directories) | +2 | scout identifies touch points across boundaries |
-| Security-sensitive code (auth, crypto, payments, secrets) | +3 | Keyword match in file paths or task description |
-| Public API change (exports, routes, schema) | +2 | Task modifies interfaces consumed by external code |
-| Database schema change | +2 | Task mentions migration, schema, ALTER, column |
-| New dependency added | +1 | Task requires `npm install` or equivalent |
-| Code will be imported by other modules | +1 | New exports or modifications to shared utilities |
-
-**Rigor level mapping:**
-
-| Score | Level | Maps To | Phases |
-|-------|-------|---------|--------|
-| 0 | Nano | `nano` chain | DO → VERIFY → DONE |
-| 1-2 | Fast | `fast` mode | Phase 1 → 4 → 6 → 7 |
-| 3-5 | Standard | `bugfix` / `refactor` | Phase 1 → 2 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 |
-| 6-8 | Full | `feature` | Phase 1 → 1.5 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 → 8 |
-| 9+ | Critical | `security` / full + adversary | All phases + sentinel@opus + adversary |
-
-**Rules:**
-- Security signal (+3) automatically floors rigor at Standard — NEVER nano/fast for security code
-- User can override: "full pipeline" forces Full, "just do it" forces Nano
-- If rigor upgrades mid-task (e.g., scout reveals cross-module impact not obvious from description), announce: "Rigor upgrade: [signal detected] — upgrading from Fast to Standard."
-- Announce chosen level: "Rigor: Fast (score 2 — single file, no security)"
-
-## Nano Mode (Auto-Detect)
-
-For trivial tasks that don't need any pipeline at all:
-
-```
-IF all of these are true:
-  - Task is ≤3 discrete steps (e.g., run command, edit 1 file, commit)
-  - Task description < 60 chars OR user prefixes with "quick:", "just", "chỉ cần"
-  - No code logic changes (copy files, config edits, version bumps, git ops, run scripts)
-  - No new functions/classes/components created
-THEN: Nano Mode activated
-  - Execute directly: DO → VERIFY → DONE
-  - No phases. No plan. No test. No review.
-  - Still verify output (check exit codes, confirm file exists, etc.)
-  - Still use semantic commit message if committing
-```
-
-**Announce**: "Nano mode: trivial task, executing directly."
-**Override**: User can say "full pipeline" or "cook feature" to force phases.
-**Escape hatch**: If during execution the task turns out more complex than expected → announce upgrade: "Upgrading to Fast/Full mode — task is more complex than detected." Resume from Phase 1.
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-Nano mode MUST NOT be used for:
-- Any code that will be imported/called by other code
-- Security-relevant files (auth, crypto, payments, .env, secrets)
-- Database schema changes
-- Public API changes
-If any of these are detected mid-task, STOP and upgrade to Fast/Full mode.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-## Fast Mode (Auto-Detect)
-
-Cook auto-detects small changes and streamlines the pipeline:
-
-```
-IF all of these are true:
-  - Total estimated change < 30 LOC
-  - Single file affected
-  - No security-relevant code (auth, crypto, payments, .env)
-  - No public API changes
-  - No database schema changes
-THEN: Fast Mode activated
-  - Skip Phase 2 (PLAN) — change is too small for a formal plan
-  - Skip Phase 3 (TEST) — unless existing tests cover the area
-  - Skip Phase 5b (SENTINEL) — non-security code
-  - Skip Phase 8 (BRIDGE) — not worth persisting
-  - KEEP Phase 5a (PREFLIGHT) and Phase 6 (VERIFY) — always run quality checks
-```
-
-**Announce fast mode**: "Fast mode: small change detected (<30 LOC, single file, non-security). Streamlined pipeline."
-**Override**: User can say "full pipeline" to force all phases even on small changes.
-
-## Phase 0.5: ENVIRONMENT CHECK (First Run Only)
-
-**SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:sentinel-env` — verify the environment can run the project before planning.
-
-Auto-trigger: no `.rune/` dir (first run) OR build just failed with env-looking errors AND NOT fast mode. Skip silently on subsequent runs. Force with `/rune env-check`.
-
-## Phase 1: UNDERSTAND
-
-**Goal**: Know what exists before changing anything.
-
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILLS**: Use `rune:scout`. For non-trivial tasks, use `rune:ba`.
-
-1. Create TodoWrite with all applicable phases for this task
-2. Mark Phase 1 as `in_progress`
-3. **BA gate**: Feature Request / Integration / Greenfield → invoke `rune:ba`. Task > 50 words or business terms (users, revenue, workflow) → invoke `rune:ba`. Bug Fix / simple Refactor → skip. BA produces `.rune/features/<name>/requirements.md` for Phase 2.
-4. **Decision enforcement**: `Glob` for `.rune/decisions.md`; if exists, `Read` + extract constraints for Phase 2. Plan MUST NOT contradict active decisions without explicit user override.
-4b. **Contract enforcement**: If `.rune/contract.md` was loaded in Phase 0.6, list applicable contract sections for this task (e.g., `contract.security` for auth work, `contract.data` for database changes). These rules constrain Phase 2 planning and Phase 4 implementation.
-
-### Phase 1 Step 3.5 — Clarification Gate
-
-Ask **2 questions** before planning: (1) "What does success look like?" (2) "What should NOT change?"
-
-Skip if: bug fix with clear repro steps | user said "just do it" | fast mode + <10 LOC | hotfix chain active. Complexity revealed → escalate to `rune:ba`.
-
-5. Invoke scout to scan the codebase (Glob + Grep + Read on relevant files)
-6. Summarize: what exists, project conventions, files likely to change, active decision constraints
-7. **Python async detection**: if Python project detected, `Grep` for async indicators (`async def`, `await`, `aiosqlite`, `aiohttp`, `asyncio.run`). If ≥3 matches → flag as **"async-first Python"** — new code defaults to `async def`
-8. **Explore-Before-Commit**: If scout reveals multiple viable approaches (e.g., 2+ libraries, 2+ architectural patterns), do NOT commit to an approach yet. Instead:
-   - List alternatives with 1-line trade-off each
-   - Flag to Phase 2 (plan) for formal comparison
-   - Separating "thinking" (Phase 1) from "committing" (Phase 2) prevents premature lock-in
-9. Mark Phase 1 as `completed`
-
-**Gate**: If scout finds the feature already exists → STOP and inform user.
-
-## Phase 1.5: DOMAIN CONTEXT (L4 Pack Detection)
-
-**Goal**: Detect if domain-specific L4 extension packs apply to this task.
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/pack-detection.md" trigger="Phase 1.5 — before checking L4 pack mapping"/>
-
-After scout completes, check if the detected tech stack or task description matches any L4 extension pack. This phase is lightweight — a Read + pattern match. It does NOT replace Phase 1 (scout) or Phase 2 (plan). If 0 packs match: skip silently.
-
-## Phase 1.7: WORKFLOW ORCHESTRATION (Multi-Skill Sequences)
-
-**Goal**: If Phase 1.5 detected a pack AND the task maps to a named workflow, orchestrate the multi-skill sequence.
-
-**Trigger**: Only runs if Phase 1.5 found a pack match AND the pack's Workflows table has a matching command.
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/pack-detection.md" trigger="Phase 1.7 — workflow command detection section"/>
-
-1. Read the matched PACK.md's Workflows section
-2. Identify the workflow name and skill sequence
-3. For each skill in sequence:
-   a. Load the skill file from the pack's `skills/` directory
-   b. Execute the skill's workflow steps
-   c. Write output artifact to `.rune/<domain>/` (e.g., `.rune/hr/jd-[role]-[date].md`)
-   d. The next skill reads the previous artifact as input context
-4. After all skills complete: summarize the workflow results to the user
-
-**Threading state**: Each skill in the sequence produces an artifact file. The next skill's Step 1 reads existing artifacts from `.rune/<domain>/`. This is already built into each skill — no new plumbing needed.
-
-**Skip if**: No workflow match found in Phase 1.5. Single-skill tasks proceed directly to Phase 2 (PLAN) as normal.
-
-## Phase 0: RESUME CHECK (Before Phase 1)
-
-**Goal**: Detect if a master plan already exists for this task, or if a `--template` was specified. If so, skip Phase 1-2 and resume/load the workflow.
-
-**Step 0.4 — Template Detection**: If user passed `--template <name>`:
-1. Search installed pack templates for the name: `Glob` for `extensions/*/templates/<name>.md` and `extensions/pro-*/templates/<name>.md`
-2. If found: `Read` the template file → parse phases, signals, connections, acceptance criteria
-3. Generate a master plan from the template: each template phase becomes a plan phase
-4. Write plan files to `.rune/plan-<template-name>.md` + `.rune/plan-<template-name>-phaseN.md`
-5. Announce "Loading template: <name> (<pack>)" → skip Phase 1, 1.5, 1.7, 2 → proceed to Phase 4 with Phase 1 of the template
-6. If template not found: warn user and fall through to normal workflow
-
-**Step 0.5 — Cross-Project Recall**: Call `neural-memory` (Recall Mode) with 3-5 topics relevant to the current task. Always prefix queries with the project name (e.g., `"ProjectName auth pattern"` not `"auth pattern"`).
-
-1. Use `Glob` to check for `.rune/plan-*.md` files
-2. If a master plan exists matching the current task: Read it → find first `⬚ Pending` or `🔄 Active` phase → load ONLY that phase file → announce "Resuming from Phase N" → skip to Phase 4
-3. If no master plan exists → proceed to Phase 1 as normal
-
-**Step 0.6 — Contract Load**: Use `Glob` to check for `.rune/contract.md`. If it exists:
-1. `Read` the contract file and parse each `## section` as a named rule set
-2. Hold contract rules in context — they apply as **hard gates** throughout all phases
-3. Any code change that violates a contract rule → STOP and inform user before proceeding
-4. If no contract exists → proceed normally (contract is optional)
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-Contract violations are NON-NEGOTIABLE. If `.rune/contract.md` exists and a planned or implemented change violates any rule, cook MUST stop and report the violation. The user must explicitly override ("ignore contract rule X") to proceed.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-**This enables multi-session workflows**: Opus plans once → each session picks up the next phase.
-
-## Phase 2: PLAN
-
-**Goal**: Break the task into concrete implementation steps before writing code.
-
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:plan`
-
-1. Mark Phase 2 as `in_progress`
-2. **Feature workspace** (opt-in) — for non-trivial features (3+ phases), suggest creating `.rune/features/<feature-name>/` with `spec.md`, `plan.md`, `decisions.md`, `status.md`. Skip for simple bug fixes, fast mode.
-3. Create implementation plan: exact files to create/modify, change order, dependencies, active decision constraints
-4. If multiple valid approaches exist → invoke `rune:brainstorm` for trade-off analysis
-5. Present plan to user for approval
-6. If feature workspace was created, write approved plan to `.rune/features/<name>/plan.md`
-7. Mark Phase 2 as `completed`
-
-**Gate**: User MUST approve the plan before proceeding. Do NOT skip this.
-
-### Phase 2.5: RFC GATE (Breaking Changes Only)
-
-**Goal**: Formal change management for breaking changes. Prevents unreviewed breaking changes from reaching production.
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/rfc-template.md" trigger="Phase 2.5 — any time a breaking change is detected in the plan"/>
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-Breaking change without RFC = BLOCKED. No exceptions.
-"It's just a small change" is the #1 excuse for production incidents from unreviewed breaking changes.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-### Phase 2.5: ADVERSARY (Red-Team Challenge)
-
-**Goal**: Stress-test the approved plan BEFORE writing code — catch flaws at plan time, not implementation time.
-
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:adversary`
-
-1. **Skip conditions**: bug fixes, hotfixes, simple refactors (< 3 files, no new logic), fast mode
-2. **Run adversary** — Full Red-Team mode for new features/architectural changes; Quick Challenge mode for smaller plans
-3. **Handle verdict**:
-   - **REVISE** → return to Phase 2 with adversary findings as constraints; user must re-approve
-   - **HARDEN** → present remediations, update plan inline, then proceed to Phase 3
-   - **PROCEED** → pass findings as implementation notes to Phase 3
-4. **Max 1 REVISE loop** per cook session — if revised plan also gets REVISE, ask user to decide
-
-### Phase-Aware Execution (Master Plan + Phase Files)
-
-When `rune:plan` produces a **master plan + phase files** (non-trivial tasks):
-
-1. After plan approval: load ONLY Phase 1's file — do NOT load all phase files
-2. Execute through cook Phase 3-6 (test → implement → quality → verify)
-3. After phase complete: mark tasks done, update master plan status `⬚ → ✅`, announce "Phase N complete. Phase N+1 ready for next session."
-4. Next session: Phase 0 detects master plan → loads next phase → executes
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-NEVER load multiple phase files at once. One phase per session = small context = better code.
-If the coder model needs info from other phases, it's in the Cross-Phase Context section of the current phase file.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-## Phase 3: TEST (TDD Red)
-
-**Goal**: Define expected behavior with failing tests BEFORE writing implementation.
-
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:test`
-
-1. Mark Phase 3 as `in_progress`
-2. **Eval definitions** (Full/Critical rigor only): Before writing tests, define capability evals (pass@k) and regression evals (pass^k) in `.rune/evals/<feature>.md`. Capability evals test "can the system do this new thing?" — regression evals test "did we break existing behavior?" Skip for Fast/Standard rigor levels.
-3. Write test files based on the plan — cover primary use case + edge cases; tests MUST be runnable
-4. **Python async pre-check** (if async-first Python flagged in Phase 1): verify `pytest-asyncio` is installed and `asyncio_mode = "auto"` is in `pyproject.toml` — if missing, warn user before writing async tests
-5. Run tests to verify they FAIL — expected: RED because implementation doesn't exist yet
-6. Mark Phase 3 as `completed`
-
-**Gate**: Tests MUST exist and MUST fail. If tests pass without implementation → tests are wrong, rewrite them.
-
-## Phase 4: IMPLEMENT (TDD Green)
-
-**Goal**: Write the minimum code to make tests pass.
-
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:fix`
-
-1. Mark Phase 4 as `in_progress`
-2. **Phase-file execution** — if working from a master plan + phase file:
-   - Execute tasks from `## Tasks` section wave-by-wave
-   - Wave N only starts after ALL Wave N-1 tasks complete
-   - Follow Code Contracts, Rejection Criteria, Failure Scenarios from the phase file
-   - Mark each task `[x]` as completed
-3. Implement the feature following the plan (Write for new files, Edit for existing)
-4. Run tests after each significant change — if fail → debug and fix
-   - **Python async** (if async-first flagged): no blocking calls in async functions — `time.sleep` → `asyncio.sleep`, `requests` → `httpx.AsyncClient`, use `asyncio.gather()` for parallel I/O
-5. If stuck → invoke `rune:debug` (max 3 debug↔fix loops). Fixes outside plan scope require user approval (R4).
-6. **Re-plan check** — evaluate before Phase 5: max debug loops hit? out-of-scope files changed? new dep changes approach? user scope change? If any fire → invoke `rune:plan` with delta context, get user approval before resuming.
-7. **Approach Pivot Gate** — if re-plan ALSO fails:
-
-   <HARD-GATE>
-   Do NOT surrender. Do NOT tell user "no solution exists."
-   Do NOT try a 4th variant of the same approach.
-   MUST invoke brainstorm(mode="rescue") before giving up.
-   </HARD-GATE>
-
-   Invoke `rune:brainstorm(mode="rescue")` with `failed_approach`, `failure_evidence[]`, `original_goal`. Returns 3-5 alternatives → user picks → **restart from Phase 2**.
-
-8. All tests MUST pass before proceeding
-9. Mark Phase 4 as `completed`
-
-**Gate**: ALL tests from Phase 3 MUST pass. Do NOT proceed with failing tests.
-
-## Phase 5: QUALITY (Staged)
-
-**Goal**: Catch issues before they reach production.
-
-Quality checks run in **two stages** — spec compliance gates code review. Reviewing code quality before verifying it matches the spec wastes effort on code that may need rewriting.
-
-```
-STAGE 1 (parallel):
-  Launch 5a (preflight) + 5b (sentinel) simultaneously.
-  Wait for BOTH to complete.
-  If 5a returns BLOCK → fix spec gaps, re-run 5a. Code review CANNOT start on non-compliant code.
-  If 5b returns BLOCK → fix security issue, re-run 5b.
-
-STAGE 2 (after Stage 1 passes):
-  Launch 5c (review) + 5d (completion-gate) simultaneously.
-  If any returns BLOCK → fix findings, re-run the blocking check only.
-```
-
-### 5a. Preflight (Spec Compliance + Logic) — STAGE 1
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:preflight`
-- Spec compliance: compare approved plan vs actual diff
-- Logic review, error handling, completeness
-- **Must pass before 5c (review) can start** — no point reviewing code quality if it doesn't match the spec
-
-### 5b. Security — STAGE 1
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:sentinel`
-- Secret scan, OWASP check (no injection/XSS/CSRF), dependency audit
-
-### 5c. Code Review — STAGE 2
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:review`
-- Pattern compliance, code quality, performance bottlenecks
-- Reviewer reads code independently — does NOT rely on implementer's claims
-- **Reviewer isolation** (when invoked via `team`): The review agent MUST be a separate context window from the implementing agent. Author reasoning contaminates review — the reviewer should never have seen the implementation's reasoning chain. Sonnet implements, a fresh Sonnet reviews.
-
-### 5d. Completion Gate — STAGE 2
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:completion-gate`
-- Validate agent claims match evidence trail (tests ran, files changed, build passed)
-- No truncated code files (`// ...`, `// rest of code`, bare ellipsis) — agent MUST complete all output
-- Any UNCONFIRMED claim → BLOCK
-
-**Gate**: If sentinel finds CRITICAL security issue → STOP, fix it, re-run. Non-negotiable.
-**Gate**: If completion-gate finds UNCONFIRMED claim → STOP, re-verify. Non-negotiable.
-
-## Per-Phase Rules (Project-Specific)
-
-Projects can define phase-specific rules in `.rune/phase-rules.md` that apply ONLY during specific cook phases. These are additive — they enhance skill guidance, not replace it.
-
-```markdown
-# .rune/phase-rules.md (example)
-
-## Phase 2: PLAN
-- All API endpoints must follow REST naming convention /api/v1/<resource>
-- Database changes require a rollback migration
-
-## Phase 3: TEST
-- Enforce TDD format: describe → it → arrange → act → assert
-- Minimum 3 edge cases per public function
-
-## Phase 5: QUALITY
-- Review must check for N+1 queries on any ORM code
-- Sentinel must verify CORS configuration on new routes
-```
-
-**Loading**: Cook reads `.rune/phase-rules.md` during Phase 0 (resume check). Rules for each phase are injected into the sub-skill's context when that phase starts. If file doesn't exist → skip silently.
-
-## Checkpoint Protocol (Opt-In)
-
-Invoke `rune:session-bridge` after Phase 2, 4, and 5 to save intermediate state. OPT-IN — activate only if task spans 3+ phases, context-watch is ORANGE, or user explicitly requests checkpoints. Before spawning subagents, invoke `rune:context-pack` to create structured handoff briefings.
-
-## Phase Transition Protocol (MANDATORY)
-
-Before entering ANY Phase N+1, assert: Phase N `completed` in TodoWrite | gate condition met | no BLOCK from sub-skills | no unresolved CRITICAL findings. If any fails → STOP, log "BLOCKED at Phase N→N+1: [assertion]", fix, re-check.
-
-**Key transitions:** 1→2: scout done | 2→3: plan approved | 3→4: failing tests exist | 4→5: all tests pass | 5→6: no CRITICAL findings | 6→7: lint+types+build green.
-
-## Phase 6: VERIFY
-
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:verification` — run lint, type check, full test suite, build. Then `rune:hallucination-guard` to verify imports and API signatures. ALL checks MUST pass before commit.
-
-## Phase 7: COMMIT
-
-**RECOMMENDED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:git` — stage specific files (`git add <files>`, NOT `git add .`), generate semantic commit message from diff. If working from master plan: update phase status `🔄 → ✅`, announce next phase or "All phases complete."
-
-## Phase 8: BRIDGE
-
-**Goal**: Save context for future sessions and record metrics for mesh analytics.
-
-**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:session-bridge`
-
-1. Mark Phase 8 as `in_progress`
-2. Save to `.rune/decisions.md` (approach + trade-offs), `.rune/progress.md` (task complete), `.rune/conventions.md` (new patterns)
-3. **Skill metrics** → `.rune/metrics/skills.json`: increment phase run/skip counts, quality gate results, debug loop counts under `cook` key
-4. **Routing overrides** (H3): if Phase 4 hit max loops for an error pattern → write rule to `.rune/metrics/routing-overrides.json`. Max 10 active rules.
-5. **Step 8.5 — Cross-Cutting Sweep**: After commit, check if this phase changed stats (skill count, test count, signal count, pack count, layer counts). If ANY stat changed:
-   - [ ] `README.md` — stats, badges, feature list
-   - [ ] `docs/index.html` (landing page) — meta tags, hero badge, install section, mesh stats, footer
-   - [ ] `dashboard.html` (if local) — KPI cards, test count, skill tabs, layer counts
-   - [ ] `CLAUDE.md` — commands, test count, skill list
-   - [ ] `MEMORY.md` — milestones, version info
-
-   **Skip if**: No stats changed (pure refactor, docs-only, style change). **MANDATORY** if any numeric stat in README differs from actual.
-6. **Step 8.6 — Capture Learnings**: `neural-memory` (Capture Mode) — 2-5 memories: architecture decisions, patterns, error root-causes, trade-offs. Cognitive language (causal/decisional/comparative). Tags: `[project, tech, topic]`. Priority 5 routine / 7-8 decisions / 9-10 critical errors.
-6. Mark Phase 8 as `completed`
-
-## Autonomous Loop Patterns
-
-When cook runs inside `team` (L1) or autonomous workflows, these patterns apply.
-
-### De-Sloppify Pass
-
-After Phase 4 completes (all tests green), run a **separate focused cleanup pass** on all modified files. Two focused passes outperform one constrained pass — let the implementer write freely in Phase 4, then clean up here.
-
-**Trigger**: Implementation touched 3+ files OR 100+ LOC changed. Skip for nano/fast rigor.
-
-**Slop targets** (check every modified file):
-
-| Slop Type | Detection | Fix |
-|-----------|-----------|-----|
-| Leftover debug | `console.log`, `print()`, `debugger`, `TODO: remove` | Delete |
-| Over-defensive checks | Null checks on values guaranteed non-null by TypeScript/framework | Remove redundant guard |
-| Type-test slop | `typeof x === 'string'` when x is already typed as string | Remove — trust the type system |
-| Duplicated logic | Same 3+ lines appear in multiple places | Extract utility |
-| Framework-behavior tests | Tests asserting that React renders, that Express routes exist, that mocks work | Delete — test YOUR code, not the framework |
-| Inconsistent naming | Mixed `camelCase`/`snake_case` in same file | Normalize to project convention |
-| Dead imports | Imports no longer used after edits | Remove |
-
-**Important**: This is NOT a quality gate — it's a cleanup pass. Don't block the pipeline for cosmetic issues. Fix what you find, move on.
-
-### Continuous PR Loop (team orchestration only)
-
-```
-cook instance → commit → push → create PR → wait CI
-  IF CI passes → mark workstream complete
-  IF CI fails → read CI output → fix → push → wait CI (max 3 retries)
-  IF 3 retries fail → escalate to user with CI logs
-```
-
-### Formal Pause/Resume (`.continue-here.md`)
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/pause-resume-template.md" trigger="when cook must pause mid-phase (context limit, user break, session end)"/>
-
-When cook must pause mid-phase, create `.rune/.continue-here.md` with structured handoff, then WIP commit. Phase 0 detects it on resume. More granular than plan-level resume — resumes within a phase.
-
-### Mid-Run Signal Detection
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/mid-run-signals.md" trigger="when user sends a message DURING cook execution"/>
-
-Two-stage intent classification: keyword fast-path for short messages (<60 chars), context classification for longer ones. Never queue user messages — process immediately.
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-NEVER treat a Cancel/Pause signal as a Steer or NewTask. User safety signals take absolute priority.
-If ambiguous between Cancel and Steer → ask user: "Did you mean stop, or change approach?"
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-### Exit Conditions (Mandatory for Autonomous Runs)
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/exit-conditions.md" trigger="cook running inside team or any autonomous workflow"/>
-
-Hard caps: MAX_DEBUG_LOOPS=3, MAX_QUALITY_LOOPS=2, MAX_REPLAN=1, MAX_PIVOT=1, MAX_FIXES=30, WTF_THRESHOLD=20%.
-Escalation chain: debug-fix (3x) → re-plan (1x) → brainstorm rescue (1x) → THEN escalate to user.
-
-### Structured Escalation Report
-
-> From agency-agents (msitarzewski/agency-agents, 50.8k★): "After 3 retry failures, structured escalation prevents cargo-cult retrying."
-
-When escalation chain exhausts (all retries hit) or cook returns `BLOCKED`, produce a Structured Escalation Report instead of a vague "I can't do this":
-
-```markdown
-## Escalation Report
-- **Task**: [original task description]
-- **Status**: BLOCKED
-- **Attempts**: [count] across [N] phases
-
-### Failure History
-| # | Approach | Phase | Outcome | Root Cause |
-|---|---------|-------|---------|------------|
-| 1 | Direct fix | Phase 4 | Tests fail — null ref in auth.ts:42 | Missing user context |
-| 2 | Re-plan with guard clause | Phase 4 | Build fails — circular import | Guard approach introduces cycle |
-| 3 | Brainstorm rescue → adapter pattern | Phase 4 | Tests pass but perf regression 3x | Adapter adds indirection overhead |
-
-### Root Cause Analysis
-[1-2 sentences: why ALL approaches failed — is it architectural, environmental, or requirements-level?]
-
-### Recommended Resolutions (pick one)
-1. **Reassign** — different skill/agent with fresh context
-2. **Decompose** — break into smaller sub-tasks that CAN succeed independently
-3. **Revise requirements** — relax constraint X to unblock (specify which)
-4. **Accept partial** — ship what works, defer blocked portion
-5. **Defer** — park this task, work on something else first
-
-### Impact Assessment
-- **Blocked by this**: [downstream tasks/phases that depend on this]
-- **Not blocked**: [independent work that can continue]
-```
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-"Bad work is worse than no work." Cook MUST produce this report rather than attempting a 4th variant of a failing approach. Escalating is not failure — shipping broken code is.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-### Subagent Question Gate
-
-> From superpowers (obra/superpowers, 84k★): "Subagents that start work without asking questions produce the wrong thing 40% of the time."
-
-Before dispatching a sub-skill (fix, test, review) for a non-trivial task (3+ files OR ambiguous scope):
-
-1. **Invite questions**: Include in the handoff: "Before starting, ask up to 3 clarifying questions if anything is unclear."
-2. **Answer before work**: If the sub-skill returns questions → answer them, THEN re-dispatch with answers included.
-3. **Skip if**: Fast/Nano rigor, single-file fix, or sub-skill is haiku-tier (too cheap to gate).
-
-This prevents the #1 parallel work failure: sub-skill assumes wrong interpretation, builds 500 LOC, then gets rejected in review.
-
-### Subagent Status Protocol
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/subagent-status.md" trigger="when cook or any sub-skill needs to return a status"/>
-
-Cook and all sub-skills return: `DONE` | `DONE_WITH_CONCERNS` | `NEEDS_CONTEXT` | `BLOCKED`.
-
-### Subagent Context Isolation
-
-When invoking sub-skills (fix, debug, test, review, etc.), **craft exactly the context they need** — never pass the full orchestrator session context.
-
-| Pass To Sub-Skill | DO NOT Pass |
-|-------------------|-------------|
-| Task description + specific goal | Full conversation history |
-| Relevant file paths from scout | Unrelated files from other phases |
-| Project conventions (naming, test framework) | Other sub-skill outputs |
-| Plan excerpt for THIS phase only | Full master plan |
-| Error/stack trace (for debug/fix) | Previous debug attempts from other bugs |
-
-**Why**: Sub-skills that inherit orchestrator context get polluted — they chase false connections, reference stale data, and consume tokens on irrelevant context. A focused sub-skill with 500 tokens of curated context outperforms one with 5000 tokens of inherited noise.
-
-## Deviation Rules
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/deviation-rules.md" trigger="when implementation diverges from the approved plan"/>
-
-R1-R3 (bug/security/blocking fix): auto-fix, continue. R4 (architectural change): ASK user first.
-
-## Error Recovery
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/error-recovery.md" trigger="when any phase fails or a task hits repeated errors"/>
-
-Includes phase-by-phase failure handling and repair operators (RETRY → DECOMPOSE → PRUNE) with a 2-attempt budget before escalation.
-
-## Analysis Paralysis Guard
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-5+ consecutive read-only tool calls (Read, Grep, Glob) without a single write action (Edit, Write, Bash) = STUCK.
-
-You MUST either:
-1. **Act** — write code, run a command, create a file
-2. **Report BLOCKED** — state the specific missing piece: "Cannot proceed because [X]"
-
-Stuck patterns (all banned):
-- Reading 10+ files to "fully understand" before acting
-- Grepping every variation of a string across the entire repo
-- Reading the same file twice in one investigation
-- "Let me check one more thing" — repeated after 5 reads
-
-A wrong first attempt that produces feedback beats perfect understanding that never ships.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-### Observation/Effect Ratio Tracking
-
-Track every tool call during Phase 4 (IMPLEMENT) as either **observation** (read-only) or **effect** (modifies state):
-
-| Category | Tool Examples |
-|----------|--------------|
-| **Observation** | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(grep/ls/cat/git log) |
-| **Effect** | Write, Edit, Bash(npm/build/test/mkdir) |
-
-**Detection rules** (check every 8 tool calls during Phase 4):
-
-| Pattern | Threshold | Signal | Action |
-|---------|-----------|--------|--------|
-| **Observation chain** | 6+ consecutive observation tools with zero effects | Agent is stuck reading, not building | Inject: "OBSERVATION LOOP — 6 reads without writing. Act on what you know or report BLOCKED." |
-| **Low effect ratio** | In last 10 calls, effects < 15% | Agent is in analysis mode, not implementation | Inject: "Effect ratio below 15%. Phase 4 is IMPLEMENT — write code, don't just read it." |
-| **Diminishing returns** | Last 3 observations found <2 new relevant facts combined | Searching is no longer productive | Inject: "Diminishing returns — last 3 reads added nothing new. Synthesize and act." |
-| **Repeating sequences** | A-B-A-B or A-B-C-A-B-C pattern across 6+ calls | Circular behavior | Inject: "REPEATING SEQUENCE detected. Break the cycle — try a different approach or report BLOCKED." |
-
-**Important**: These are injected as advisor messages, not hard blocks. The agent can continue if it has good reason, but the message forces conscious acknowledgment of the pattern.
-
-**Skip if**: Phase 1 (UNDERSTAND) — observation-heavy is expected during research. Only track during Phase 4+ where effects should dominate.
-
-### Budget-Aware Phase Progression
-
-Beyond the existing Exit Conditions (MAX_DEBUG_LOOPS, MAX_QUALITY_LOOPS, etc.), track **cumulative budget** across the entire cook session:
-
-| Budget | Limit | What Happens at Limit |
-|--------|-------|----------------------|
-| **Phase 4 react budget** | 15 tool calls per task within Phase 4 | Force: move to next task or report partial completion |
-| **Global replan budget** | 2 replans per session (Phase 4 Step 6) | Force: proceed with current plan or escalate to user |
-| **Quality retry budget** | 3 total quality re-runs across 5a-5d | Force: ship with known issues documented, don't loop |
-| **Total session tool calls** | 150 calls | Force: save state via session-bridge, compact or pause |
-
-**Hard override rules**:
-- If react budget exhausted for a task but task is IN_PROGRESS → force CONTINUE to next task (don't re-attempt)
-- If replan budget exhausted but plan still failing → force escalation (don't attempt 3rd replan)
-- If quality retry budget exhausted → emit concerns in Cook Report, proceed to commit with documented caveats
-
-**Why**: Without hard budgets, agents get trapped in local optimization loops — retrying the same failing approach indefinitely. Budget constraints force escalation or acceptance of partial results, which is always better than an infinite loop.
-
-### Hash-Based Tool Loop Detection
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/loop-detection.md" trigger="when same tool+args+result appears to be repeating"/>
-
-Mentally track tool call fingerprints. 3 identical calls → WARN. 5 identical calls → FORCE STOP. Only same-input-AND-same-output counts as a loop.
-
-## Called By (inbound)
-
-- User: `/rune cook` direct invocation — primary entry point
-- `team` (L1): parallel workstream execution (meta-orchestration)
-
-## Calls (outbound)
-
-| Phase | Sub-skill | Layer | Purpose |
-|-------|-----------|-------|---------|
-| 0 / 8 | `neural-memory` | ext | Recall context at start; capture learnings at end |
-| 0.5 | `sentinel-env` | L3 | Environment pre-flight (first run only) |
-| 1 | `scout` | L2 | Scan codebase before planning |
-| 1 | `onboard` | L2 | Initialize project context if no CLAUDE.md |
-| 1 | `ba` | L2 | Requirement elicitation for features |
-| 2 | `plan` | L2 | Create implementation plan |
-| 2 | `brainstorm` | L2 | Trade-off analysis / rescue mode |
-| 2 | `design` | L2 | UI/design phase for frontend features |
-| 2.5 | `adversary` | L2 | Red-team challenge on approved plan |
-| 3 | `test` | L2 | Write failing tests (RED phase) |
-| 4 | `fix` | L2 | Implement code changes (GREEN phase) |
-| 4 | `debug` | L2 | Unexpected errors (max 3 loops) |
-| 4 | `db` | L2 | Schema changes detected in diff |
-| 4 | `worktree` | L3 | Worktree isolation for parallel implementation |
-| 5a | `preflight` | L2 | Spec compliance + logic review |
-| 5b | `sentinel` | L2 | Security scan |
-| 5c | `review` | L2 | Code quality review |
-| 5 | `perf` | L2 | Performance regression check (optional) |
-| 5 | `audit` | L2 | Project health audit when scope warrants |
-| 5 | `review-intake` | L2 | Structured review intake for complex PRs |
-| 5 | `sast` | L3 | Static analysis security testing |
-| 5d | `completion-gate` | L3 | Validate agent claims against evidence trail |
-| 5 | `constraint-check` | L3 | Audit HARD-GATE compliance across workflow |
-| 6 | `verification` | L3 | Lint + types + tests + build |
-| 6 | `hallucination-guard` | L3 | Verify imports and API calls are real |
-| 7 | `journal` | L3 | Record architectural decisions |
-| 8 | `session-bridge` | L3 | Save context for future sessions |
-| any | `context-pack` | L3 | create structured handoff briefings before spawning subagents |
-| any | `skill-forge` | L2 | When new skill creation detected during cook |
-| 1.5 | L4 extension packs | L4 | Domain-specific patterns when stack matches |
-
-## Data Flow
-
-**Feeds Into →** `journal` (decisions → ADRs) | `session-bridge` (context → .rune/ state) | `neural-memory` (learnings → cross-session)
-
-**Fed By ←** `ba` (requirements → Phase 1) | `plan` (master plan → Phase 2-4) | `session-bridge` (.continue-here.md → Phase 0 resume) | `neural-memory` (past decisions → Phase 0 recall)
-
-**Feedback Loops ↻** cook↔debug (Phase 4 bug → debug → fix → resume; if plan wrong → Approach Pivot) | cook↔test (RED → GREEN → failures loop back)
-
-## Constraints
-
-1. MUST run scout before planning
-2. MUST get user plan approval before writing code
-3. MUST write failing tests before implementation (TDD) unless explicitly skipped
-4. MUST NOT commit with failing tests
-5. MUST NOT modify files outside approved plan scope without user confirmation
-6. MUST run verification (lint + type-check + tests + build) before commit
-7. MUST NOT say "all tests pass" without showing actual test output
-8. MUST NOT contradict `.rune/decisions.md` without explicit user override
-
-## Mesh Gates
-
-| Gate | Requires | If Missing |
-|------|----------|------------|
-| Resume Gate | Phase 0 checks for master plan before starting | Proceed to Phase 1 |
-| Scout Gate | scout output before Phase 2 | Invoke rune:scout first |
-| Plan Gate | User-approved plan before Phase 3 | Cannot proceed |
-| Adversary Gate | adversary verdict before Phase 3 for features | Skip for bugfix/hotfix/refactor |
-| Phase File Gate | Active phase file only (multi-session) | Load only active phase |
-| Test-First Gate | Failing tests before Phase 4 | Write tests or get explicit skip |
-| Quality Gate | preflight + sentinel + review before Phase 7 | Fix findings, re-run |
-| Verification Gate | lint + types + tests + build green before commit | Fix, re-run |
-
-## Structured Output Contract (Prompt-as-API Pattern)
-
-When cook invokes sub-skills that produce structured output (e.g., `ba` for requirements, `plan` for implementation plans, `test` for test specs), use the **Prompt-as-API-Contract** pattern: specify the exact output schema in the invocation prompt so the sub-skill returns machine-parseable results, not free-form prose.
-
-### Pattern
-
-```
-INVOCATION: "Analyze [X] and return results as JSON matching this schema:
-{
-  "insights": [{ "id": string, "category": string, "description": string, "actionable": string }],
-  "confidence": number,
-  "next_steps": string[]
-}
-Do NOT include explanatory text outside the JSON block."
-```
-
-### When to Apply
-
-| Phase | Sub-skill | Output Contract |
-|-------|-----------|----------------|
-| Phase 1 | `ba` | `{ requirements: [{id, priority, description, acceptance_criteria}], ambiguities: string[] }` |
-| Phase 2 | `plan` | `{ phases: [{name, tasks: [{description, files, effort}], dependencies}] }` |
-| Phase 3 | `test` | `{ test_cases: [{name, type, file, assertion}], coverage_targets: string[] }` |
-| Phase 5 | `review` | `{ findings: [{severity, file, line, description, fix}], verdict: "PASS"|"WARN"|"BLOCK" }` |
-
-### Rules
-
-- Include 1-2 concrete examples in the prompt — examples are worth more than schema descriptions
-- Always specify "Do NOT include explanatory text outside the JSON/markdown block" — LLMs default to wrapping structured output in prose
-- When the output will be consumed by another skill (not displayed to user), ALWAYS use this pattern
-- When the output will be displayed to the user, use markdown format instead — humans don't read JSON
-
-### Why
-
-Free-form sub-skill output forces the calling skill to parse natural language — fragile and lossy. Structured contracts make skill-to-skill communication reliable, enable automated validation, and reduce the tokens wasted on parsing instructions.
-
-## Output Format
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/output-format.md" trigger="before emitting the Cook Report at end of any session"/>
-
-Emit a Cook Report with: Status, Phases, Files Changed, Tests, Quality results, Commit hash.
-When invoked by `team` with a NEXUS Handoff, include the Deliverables table — MANDATORY.
-
-## Returns
-
-| Artifact | Format | Location |
-|----------|--------|----------|
-| Plan files (master + phase) | Markdown | `.rune/plan-<feature>.md`, `.rune/plan-<feature>-phase<N>.md` |
-| Implementation code | Source files | Per plan file paths |
-| Test files | Source files | Co-located or `__tests__/` per project convention |
-| Verification results | Inline stdout | Shown in Cook Report |
-| Cook Report | Markdown (inline) | Emitted at end of session |
-| Session state | Markdown | `.rune/decisions.md`, `.rune/progress.md`, `.rune/conventions.md` |
-
-## Sharp Edges
-
-<MUST-READ path="references/sharp-edges.md" trigger="before declaring done — review all 18 failure modes"/>
-
-**CRITICAL failures** (always check): skipping scout | writing code without plan approval | "done" without evidence trail | surrendering without Approach Pivot Gate | breaking change without RFC | treating Cancel/Pause as scope change.
-
-## Self-Validation
-
-```
-SELF-VALIDATION (run before emitting Cook Report):
-- [ ] Every phase in Phase Skip Rules was either executed or explicitly skipped with reason
-- [ ] Plan approval gate was not bypassed — user said "go" (check conversation history)
-- [ ] No Phase 4 code was written before Phase 3 tests (TDD order preserved)
-- [ ] All Phase 5 quality gates (preflight, sentinel, review) ran — not just claimed
-- [ ] Cook Report contains actual commit hash, not placeholder
-```
-
-## Done When
-
-All applicable phases complete + Self-Validation passed:
-- User approved plan | All tests PASS (output shown) | preflight+sentinel+review PASS | build green
-- Cook Report emitted with commit hash | Session state saved to .rune/ via session-bridge
-
-## Cost Profile
-
-~$0.05-0.15 per feature. Haiku for scanning (Phase 1), sonnet for coding (Phase 3-4), opus for complex planning (Phase 2 when needed).
+---
+name: cook
+description: "Feature implementation orchestrator. ALWAYS use this skill for ANY code change — implement, build, add feature, create, fix bug, or any task that modifies source code. This is the default route for 70% of all requests. Runs full TDD cycle: understand → plan → test → implement → quality → verify → commit."
+context: fork
+agent: general-purpose
+metadata:
+  author: runedev
+  version: "2.4.0"
+  layer: L1
+  model: sonnet
+  group: orchestrator
+  tools: "Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep"
+  emit: phase.complete, checkpoint.request
+  listen: plan.ready, review.complete, ideas.ready, preflight.passed, verification.complete
+---
+
+# cook
+
+## Purpose
+
+The primary orchestrator for feature implementation. Coordinates the entire L2 mesh in a phased TDD workflow. Handles 70% of all user requests — any task that modifies source code routes through cook.
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Before starting ANY implementation:
+1. You MUST understand the codebase first (Phase 1)
+2. You MUST have a plan before writing code (Phase 2)
+3. You MUST write failing tests before implementation (Phase 3) — unless explicitly skipped
+This applies to EVERY feature regardless of perceived simplicity.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+## Workflow Chains (Predefined)
+
+Cook supports predefined workflow chains for common task types. Use these as shortcuts instead of manually determining phases:
+
+```
+/rune cook feature    → Full TDD pipeline (all phases)
+/rune cook bugfix     → Diagnose → fix → verify (Phase 1 → 4 → 6 → 7)
+/rune cook refactor   → Understand → plan → implement → quality (Phase 1 → 2 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7)
+/rune cook security   → Full pipeline + sentinel@opus + sast (all phases, security-escalated)
+/rune cook hotfix     → Production Hotfix Protocol: contain → fix → verify → deploy → watchdog → postmortem (see below)
+/rune cook nano       → Trivial: do → verify → done (no phases, ≤3 steps)
+/rune cook --template <name> → Load pre-built workflow template from installed Pro/Business packs
+```
+
+### Production Hotfix Protocol
+
+When `hotfix` chain is active AND triggered from a live incident (not a dev-time fix), follow the full orchestrated chain — not just fix → verify → commit.
+
+```
+FULL HOTFIX CHAIN (when incident is active):
+
+1. CONTAIN   → `rune:incident` (if not already running): triage + contain blast radius first
+2. BRANCH    → create hotfix branch via worktree (isolate from main)
+3. FIX       → `rune:fix` (minimal change only — no refactoring, no scope creep)
+4. VERIFY    → `rune:verification` (full test suite on hotfix branch)
+5. SENTINEL  → `rune:sentinel` (security check — fix may introduce new surface)
+6. DEPLOY    → `rune:deploy` (deploy hotfix to production)
+7. WATCHDOG  → `rune:watchdog` (confirm health check passes post-deploy)
+8. POSTMORTEM → `rune:journal` + `rune:neural-memory` (capture root cause + fix pattern)
+
+HARD-GATES:
+- Do NOT skip CONTAIN if users are actively affected
+- Do NOT skip SENTINEL on hotfix — rushed fixes frequently introduce new vulnerabilities
+- Do NOT merge hotfix to main without VERIFY passing
+- Do NOT skip POSTMORTEM — hotfix without learning = same incident next month
+```
+
+**Minimal hotfix chain (non-incident, dev-time):** Phase 4 → 6 → 7 (fix → verify → commit). User provides context, skip scout.
+
+### Template Workflows (Pro/Business)
+
+When `--template <name>` is provided, cook loads a pre-built workflow template instead of auto-detecting:
+
+```
+/rune cook --template product-discovery   → Pro: stakeholder interviews → problem framing → competitive → spec → validation
+/rune cook --template product-launch      → Pro: spec lock → implement → quality gates → staged rollout → announcement
+/rune cook --template product-iteration   → Pro: metrics review → feedback synthesis → re-prioritize → implement → measure
+/rune cook --template data-exploration    → Pro: data profiling → hypotheses → statistical testing → visualization → report
+/rune cook --template data-pipeline       → Pro: schema design → ETL → quality gates → deploy → monitoring
+/rune cook --template sales-outreach-campaign → Pro: prospect research → messaging → sequence → A/B test → launch
+/rune cook --template sales-deal-review   → Pro: account deep-dive → risk assessment → competitive strategy → action plan
+/rune cook --template support-incident-response → Pro: triage → diagnose → fix → verify → postmortem → KB update
+/rune cook --template support-kb-refresh  → Pro: audit → gap analysis → draft → review → publish
+```
+
+**Template resolution**: Templates are `.md` files in `extensions/pro-*/templates/` or `extensions/business-*/templates/`. Each template defines: phases, skill connections, mesh signals, and acceptance criteria. The compiler includes templates in pack output during build.
+
+**When --template is used**:
+1. Skip Phase 1.5 (auto-detection) — template pre-selects domain and pack
+2. Skip Phase 1.7 (workflow matching) — template IS the workflow
+3. Load template phases as the master plan (Phase 2 becomes "review template plan" not "create plan")
+4. Execute each template phase in order, invoking declared skills
+5. Emit template's declared signals on completion
+
+**Chain selection**: If user invokes `/rune cook` without a chain type, auto-detect from the task description:
+- Contains "bug", "fix", "broken", "error" → `bugfix`
+- Contains "refactor", "clean", "restructure" → `refactor`
+- Contains "security", "auth", "vulnerability", "CVE" → `security`
+- Contains "urgent", "hotfix", "production" → `hotfix`
+- Contains "quick", "just", "chỉ cần", "copy", "move", "rename", "bump" → `nano`
+- Contains "graft", "port from", "copy from repo", "clone feature from" → **delegate to `rune:graft`** (not a cook chain — hand off entirely)
+- Contains `--template` → load template workflow (see above)
+- Default → `feature`
+
+## Phase Skip Rules
+
+Not every task needs every phase:
+
+```
+Nano task:           DO → VERIFY → DONE (no phases, auto-detected)
+Simple bug fix:      Phase 1 → 4 → 6 → 7
+Small refactor:      Phase 1 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7
+New feature:         Phase 1 → 1.5 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 → 8
+Complex feature:     All phases + brainstorm in Phase 2
+Security-sensitive:  All phases + sentinel escalated to opus
+Fast mode:           Phase 1 → 4 → 6 → 7 (auto-detected, see below)
+Multi-session:       Phase 0 (resume) → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 (one plan phase per session)
+```
+
+Determine complexity BEFORE starting using the Rigor Assessment below. Create TodoWrite with applicable phases.
+
+### Rigor Assessment (Progressive Scaling)
+
+Before selecting a workflow chain or phase set, compute the task's **rigor level** from risk signals. This prevents over-engineering trivial changes while ensuring full ceremony for critical ones.
+
+| Risk Signal | Weight | Detection |
+|-------------|--------|-----------|
+| Files affected: 1 | 0 | Estimate from task description + scout |
+| Files affected: 2-3 | +1 | |
+| Files affected: 4+ | +3 | |
+| Cross-module impact (changes span 2+ directories) | +2 | scout identifies touch points across boundaries |
+| Security-sensitive code (auth, crypto, payments, secrets) | +3 | Keyword match in file paths or task description |
+| Public API change (exports, routes, schema) | +2 | Task modifies interfaces consumed by external code |
+| Database schema change | +2 | Task mentions migration, schema, ALTER, column |
+| New dependency added | +1 | Task requires `npm install` or equivalent |
+| Code will be imported by other modules | +1 | New exports or modifications to shared utilities |
+
+**Rigor level mapping:**
+
+| Score | Level | Maps To | Phases |
+|-------|-------|---------|--------|
+| 0 | Nano | `nano` chain | DO → VERIFY → DONE |
+| 1-2 | Fast | `fast` mode | Phase 1 → 4 → 6 → 7 |
+| 3-5 | Standard | `bugfix` / `refactor` | Phase 1 → 2 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 |
+| 6-8 | Full | `feature` | Phase 1 → 1.5 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 → 8 |
+| 9+ | Critical | `security` / full + adversary | All phases + sentinel@opus + adversary |
+
+**Rules:**
+- Security signal (+3) automatically floors rigor at Standard — NEVER nano/fast for security code
+- User can override: "full pipeline" forces Full, "just do it" forces Nano
+- If rigor upgrades mid-task (e.g., scout reveals cross-module impact not obvious from description), announce: "Rigor upgrade: [signal detected] — upgrading from Fast to Standard."
+- Announce chosen level: "Rigor: Fast (score 2 — single file, no security)"
+
+## Nano Mode (Auto-Detect)
+
+For trivial tasks that don't need any pipeline at all:
+
+```
+IF all of these are true:
+  - Task is ≤3 discrete steps (e.g., run command, edit 1 file, commit)
+  - Task description < 60 chars OR user prefixes with "quick:", "just", "chỉ cần"
+  - No code logic changes (copy files, config edits, version bumps, git ops, run scripts)
+  - No new functions/classes/components created
+THEN: Nano Mode activated
+  - Execute directly: DO → VERIFY → DONE
+  - No phases. No plan. No test. No review.
+  - Still verify output (check exit codes, confirm file exists, etc.)
+  - Still use semantic commit message if committing
+```
+
+**Announce**: "Nano mode: trivial task, executing directly."
+**Override**: User can say "full pipeline" or "cook feature" to force phases.
+**Escape hatch**: If during execution the task turns out more complex than expected → announce upgrade: "Upgrading to Fast/Full mode — task is more complex than detected." Resume from Phase 1.
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Nano mode MUST NOT be used for:
+- Any code that will be imported/called by other code
+- Security-relevant files (auth, crypto, payments, .env, secrets)
+- Database schema changes
+- Public API changes
+If any of these are detected mid-task, STOP and upgrade to Fast/Full mode.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+## Fast Mode (Auto-Detect)
+
+Cook auto-detects small changes and streamlines the pipeline:
+
+```
+IF all of these are true:
+  - Total estimated change < 30 LOC
+  - Single file affected
+  - No security-relevant code (auth, crypto, payments, .env)
+  - No public API changes
+  - No database schema changes
+THEN: Fast Mode activated
+  - Skip Phase 2 (PLAN) — change is too small for a formal plan
+  - Skip Phase 3 (TEST) — unless existing tests cover the area
+  - Skip Phase 5b (SENTINEL) — non-security code
+  - Skip Phase 8 (BRIDGE) — not worth persisting
+  - KEEP Phase 5a (PREFLIGHT) and Phase 6 (VERIFY) — always run quality checks
+```
+
+**Announce fast mode**: "Fast mode: small change detected (<30 LOC, single file, non-security). Streamlined pipeline."
+**Override**: User can say "full pipeline" to force all phases even on small changes.
+
+## Phase 0.5: ENVIRONMENT CHECK (First Run Only)
+
+**SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:sentinel-env` — verify the environment can run the project before planning.
+
+Auto-trigger: no `.rune/` dir (first run) OR build just failed with env-looking errors AND NOT fast mode. Skip silently on subsequent runs. Force with `/rune env-check`.
+
+## Phase 1: UNDERSTAND
+
+**Goal**: Know what exists before changing anything.
+
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILLS**: Use `rune:scout`. For non-trivial tasks, use `rune:ba`.
+
+1. Create TodoWrite with all applicable phases for this task
+2. Mark Phase 1 as `in_progress`
+3. **BA gate**: Feature Request / Integration / Greenfield → invoke `rune:ba`. Task > 50 words or business terms (users, revenue, workflow) → invoke `rune:ba`. Bug Fix / simple Refactor → skip. BA produces `.rune/features/<name>/requirements.md` for Phase 2.
+4. **Decision enforcement**: `Glob` for `.rune/decisions.md`; if exists, `Read` + extract constraints for Phase 2. Plan MUST NOT contradict active decisions without explicit user override.
+4b. **Contract enforcement**: If `.rune/contract.md` was loaded in Phase 0.6, list applicable contract sections for this task (e.g., `contract.security` for auth work, `contract.data` for database changes). These rules constrain Phase 2 planning and Phase 4 implementation.
+
+### Phase 1 Step 3.5 — Clarification Gate
+
+Ask **2 questions** before planning: (1) "What does success look like?" (2) "What should NOT change?"
+
+Skip if: bug fix with clear repro steps | user said "just do it" | fast mode + <10 LOC | hotfix chain active. Complexity revealed → escalate to `rune:ba`.
+
+5. Invoke scout to scan the codebase (Glob + Grep + Read on relevant files)
+6. Summarize: what exists, project conventions, files likely to change, active decision constraints
+7. **Python async detection**: if Python project detected, `Grep` for async indicators (`async def`, `await`, `aiosqlite`, `aiohttp`, `asyncio.run`). If ≥3 matches → flag as **"async-first Python"** — new code defaults to `async def`
+8. **Explore-Before-Commit**: If scout reveals multiple viable approaches (e.g., 2+ libraries, 2+ architectural patterns), do NOT commit to an approach yet. Instead:
+   - List alternatives with 1-line trade-off each
+   - Flag to Phase 2 (plan) for formal comparison
+   - Separating "thinking" (Phase 1) from "committing" (Phase 2) prevents premature lock-in
+9. Mark Phase 1 as `completed`
+
+**Gate**: If scout finds the feature already exists → STOP and inform user.
+
+## Phase 1.5: DOMAIN CONTEXT (L4 Pack Detection)
+
+**Goal**: Detect if domain-specific L4 extension packs apply to this task.
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/pack-detection.md" trigger="Phase 1.5 — before checking L4 pack mapping"/>
+
+After scout completes, check if the detected tech stack or task description matches any L4 extension pack. This phase is lightweight — a Read + pattern match. It does NOT replace Phase 1 (scout) or Phase 2 (plan). If 0 packs match: skip silently.
+
+## Phase 1.7: WORKFLOW ORCHESTRATION (Multi-Skill Sequences)
+
+**Goal**: If Phase 1.5 detected a pack AND the task maps to a named workflow, orchestrate the multi-skill sequence.
+
+**Trigger**: Only runs if Phase 1.5 found a pack match AND the pack's Workflows table has a matching command.
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/pack-detection.md" trigger="Phase 1.7 — workflow command detection section"/>
+
+1. Read the matched PACK.md's Workflows section
+2. Identify the workflow name and skill sequence
+3. For each skill in sequence:
+   a. Load the skill file from the pack's `skills/` directory
+   b. Execute the skill's workflow steps
+   c. Write output artifact to `.rune/<domain>/` (e.g., `.rune/hr/jd-[role]-[date].md`)
+   d. The next skill reads the previous artifact as input context
+4. After all skills complete: summarize the workflow results to the user
+
+**Threading state**: Each skill in the sequence produces an artifact file. The next skill's Step 1 reads existing artifacts from `.rune/<domain>/`. This is already built into each skill — no new plumbing needed.
+
+**Skip if**: No workflow match found in Phase 1.5. Single-skill tasks proceed directly to Phase 2 (PLAN) as normal.
+
+## Phase 0: RESUME CHECK (Before Phase 1)
+
+**Goal**: Detect if a master plan already exists for this task, or if a `--template` was specified. If so, skip Phase 1-2 and resume/load the workflow.
+
+**Step 0.4 — Template Detection**: If user passed `--template <name>`:
+1. Search installed pack templates for the name: `Glob` for `extensions/*/templates/<name>.md` and `extensions/pro-*/templates/<name>.md`
+2. If found: `Read` the template file → parse phases, signals, connections, acceptance criteria
+3. Generate a master plan from the template: each template phase becomes a plan phase
+4. Write plan files to `.rune/plan-<template-name>.md` + `.rune/plan-<template-name>-phaseN.md`
+5. Announce "Loading template: <name> (<pack>)" → skip Phase 1, 1.5, 1.7, 2 → proceed to Phase 4 with Phase 1 of the template
+6. If template not found: warn user and fall through to normal workflow
+
+**Step 0.5 — Cross-Project Recall**: Call `neural-memory` (Recall Mode) with 3-5 topics relevant to the current task. Always prefix queries with the project name (e.g., `"ProjectName auth pattern"` not `"auth pattern"`).
+
+1. Use `Glob` to check for `.rune/plan-*.md` files
+2. If a master plan exists matching the current task: Read it → find first `⬚ Pending` or `🔄 Active` phase → load ONLY that phase file → announce "Resuming from Phase N" → skip to Phase 4
+3. If no master plan exists → proceed to Phase 1 as normal
+
+**Step 0.6 — Contract Load**: Use `Glob` to check for `.rune/contract.md`. If it exists:
+1. `Read` the contract file and parse each `## section` as a named rule set
+2. Hold contract rules in context — they apply as **hard gates** throughout all phases
+3. Any code change that violates a contract rule → STOP and inform user before proceeding
+4. If no contract exists → proceed normally (contract is optional)
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Contract violations are NON-NEGOTIABLE. If `.rune/contract.md` exists and a planned or implemented change violates any rule, cook MUST stop and report the violation. The user must explicitly override ("ignore contract rule X") to proceed.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+**This enables multi-session workflows**: Opus plans once → each session picks up the next phase.
+
+## Phase 2: PLAN
+
+**Goal**: Break the task into concrete implementation steps before writing code.
+
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:plan`
+
+1. Mark Phase 2 as `in_progress`
+2. **Feature workspace** (opt-in) — for non-trivial features (3+ phases), suggest creating `.rune/features/<feature-name>/` with `spec.md`, `plan.md`, `decisions.md`, `status.md`. Skip for simple bug fixes, fast mode.
+3. Create implementation plan: exact files to create/modify, change order, dependencies, active decision constraints
+4. If multiple valid approaches exist → invoke `rune:brainstorm` for trade-off analysis
+5. Present plan to user for approval
+6. If feature workspace was created, write approved plan to `.rune/features/<name>/plan.md`
+7. Mark Phase 2 as `completed`
+
+**Gate**: User MUST approve the plan before proceeding. Do NOT skip this.
+
+### Phase 2.5: RFC GATE (Breaking Changes Only)
+
+**Goal**: Formal change management for breaking changes. Prevents unreviewed breaking changes from reaching production.
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/rfc-template.md" trigger="Phase 2.5 — any time a breaking change is detected in the plan"/>
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Breaking change without RFC = BLOCKED. No exceptions.
+"It's just a small change" is the #1 excuse for production incidents from unreviewed breaking changes.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+### Phase 2.5: ADVERSARY (Red-Team Challenge)
+
+**Goal**: Stress-test the approved plan BEFORE writing code — catch flaws at plan time, not implementation time.
+
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:adversary`
+
+1. **Skip conditions**: bug fixes, hotfixes, simple refactors (< 3 files, no new logic), fast mode
+2. **Run adversary** — Full Red-Team mode for new features/architectural changes; Quick Challenge mode for smaller plans
+3. **Handle verdict**:
+   - **REVISE** → return to Phase 2 with adversary findings as constraints; user must re-approve
+   - **HARDEN** → present remediations, update plan inline, then proceed to Phase 3
+   - **PROCEED** → pass findings as implementation notes to Phase 3
+4. **Max 1 REVISE loop** per cook session — if revised plan also gets REVISE, ask user to decide
+
+### Phase-Aware Execution (Master Plan + Phase Files)
+
+When `rune:plan` produces a **master plan + phase files** (non-trivial tasks):
+
+1. After plan approval: load ONLY Phase 1's file — do NOT load all phase files
+2. Execute through cook Phase 3-6 (test → implement → quality → verify)
+3. After phase complete: mark tasks done, update master plan status `⬚ → ✅`, announce "Phase N complete. Phase N+1 ready for next session."
+4. Next session: Phase 0 detects master plan → loads next phase → executes
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+NEVER load multiple phase files at once. One phase per session = small context = better code.
+If the coder model needs info from other phases, it's in the Cross-Phase Context section of the current phase file.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+## Phase 3: TEST (TDD Red)
+
+**Goal**: Define expected behavior with failing tests BEFORE writing implementation.
+
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:test`
+
+1. Mark Phase 3 as `in_progress`
+2. **Eval definitions** (Full/Critical rigor only): Before writing tests, define capability evals (pass@k) and regression evals (pass^k) in `.rune/evals/<feature>.md`. Capability evals test "can the system do this new thing?" — regression evals test "did we break existing behavior?" Skip for Fast/Standard rigor levels.
+3. Write test files based on the plan — cover primary use case + edge cases; tests MUST be runnable
+4. **Python async pre-check** (if async-first Python flagged in Phase 1): verify `pytest-asyncio` is installed and `asyncio_mode = "auto"` is in `pyproject.toml` — if missing, warn user before writing async tests
+5. Run tests to verify they FAIL — expected: RED because implementation doesn't exist yet
+6. Mark Phase 3 as `completed`
+
+**Gate**: Tests MUST exist and MUST fail. If tests pass without implementation → tests are wrong, rewrite them.
+
+## Phase 4: IMPLEMENT (TDD Green)
+
+**Goal**: Write the minimum code to make tests pass.
+
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:fix`
+
+1. Mark Phase 4 as `in_progress`
+2. **Phase-file execution** — if working from a master plan + phase file:
+   - Execute tasks from `## Tasks` section wave-by-wave
+   - Wave N only starts after ALL Wave N-1 tasks complete
+   - Follow Code Contracts, Rejection Criteria, Failure Scenarios from the phase file
+   - Mark each task `[x]` as completed
+3. Implement the feature following the plan (Write for new files, Edit for existing)
+4. Run tests after each significant change — if fail → debug and fix
+   - **Python async** (if async-first flagged): no blocking calls in async functions — `time.sleep` → `asyncio.sleep`, `requests` → `httpx.AsyncClient`, use `asyncio.gather()` for parallel I/O
+5. If stuck → invoke `rune:debug` (max 3 debug↔fix loops). Fixes outside plan scope require user approval (R4).
+6. **Re-plan check** — evaluate before Phase 5: max debug loops hit? out-of-scope files changed? new dep changes approach? user scope change? If any fire → invoke `rune:plan` with delta context, get user approval before resuming.
+7. **Approach Pivot Gate** — if re-plan ALSO fails:
+
+   <HARD-GATE>
+   Do NOT surrender. Do NOT tell user "no solution exists."
+   Do NOT try a 4th variant of the same approach.
+   MUST invoke brainstorm(mode="rescue") before giving up.
+   </HARD-GATE>
+
+   Invoke `rune:brainstorm(mode="rescue")` with `failed_approach`, `failure_evidence[]`, `original_goal`. Returns 3-5 alternatives → user picks → **restart from Phase 2**.
+
+8. All tests MUST pass before proceeding
+9. Mark Phase 4 as `completed`
+
+**Gate**: ALL tests from Phase 3 MUST pass. Do NOT proceed with failing tests.
+
+## Phase 5: QUALITY (Staged)
+
+**Goal**: Catch issues before they reach production.
+
+Quality checks run in **two stages** — spec compliance gates code review. Reviewing code quality before verifying it matches the spec wastes effort on code that may need rewriting.
+
+**Signal dispatch ordering**: When `fix` emits `code.changed`, 4 listeners react (preflight, sentinel, test, review). Cook coordinates dispatch order — do NOT let all 4 fire simultaneously:
+- **Stage 1**: preflight + sentinel (parallel — independent checks)
+- **Stage 2**: test (after Stage 1 passes — no point testing non-compliant code)
+- **Stage 3**: review (after test passes — review verified code only)
+
+```
+STAGE 1 (parallel):
+  Launch 5a (preflight) + 5b (sentinel) simultaneously.
+  Wait for BOTH to complete.
+  If 5a returns BLOCK → fix spec gaps, re-run 5a. Code review CANNOT start on non-compliant code.
+  If 5b returns BLOCK → fix security issue, re-run 5b.
+
+STAGE 2 (after Stage 1 passes):
+  Launch 5c (review) + 5d (completion-gate) simultaneously.
+  If any returns BLOCK → fix findings, re-run the blocking check only.
+```
+
+### Remediation Cycle Counter
+
+Every BLOCK finding gets a cycle counter. Fix → re-run → still BLOCK? Increment. **Max 3 cycles per gate** before escalation.
+
+```
+Cycle 1: fix finding → re-run gate
+Cycle 2: different fix → re-run gate
+Cycle 3: last attempt → re-run gate
+Cycle 4: STOP. Escalate to user with all 3 failed attempts + evidence.
+```
+
+Track per-gate, not globally — preflight cycle 2 does not count against sentinel cycle 1. If the SAME finding persists across 3 cycles, the fix approach is wrong — do NOT keep trying the same strategy. Cycle 2+ MUST try a different fix than Cycle 1.
+
+### Upstream Inconsistency Protocol
+
+During Phase 5 quality checks, if a gate finding traces to an **upstream artifact** (plan was wrong, spec was incomplete, architecture was flawed) rather than an implementation bug:
+
+1. Tag finding as `UPSTREAM:<phase>` (e.g., `UPSTREAM:plan`, `UPSTREAM:spec`)
+2. STOP current quality gate — fixing code won't resolve an upstream problem
+3. Re-invoke the upstream skill (`rune:plan` for plan issues, `rune:ba` for spec gaps) with the finding as context
+4. Get user approval on the corrected upstream artifact
+5. Resume Phase 5 from the beginning (re-run all gates — upstream change may invalidate prior PASS results)
+
+### 5a. Preflight (Spec Compliance + Logic) — STAGE 1
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:preflight`
+- Spec compliance: compare approved plan vs actual diff
+- Logic review, error handling, completeness
+- **Must pass before 5c (review) can start** — no point reviewing code quality if it doesn't match the spec
+
+### 5b. Security — STAGE 1
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:sentinel`
+- Secret scan, OWASP check (no injection/XSS/CSRF), dependency audit
+
+### 5c. Code Review — STAGE 2
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:review`
+- Pattern compliance, code quality, performance bottlenecks
+- Reviewer reads code independently — does NOT rely on implementer's claims
+- **Reviewer isolation** (when invoked via `team`): The review agent MUST be a separate context window from the implementing agent. Author reasoning contaminates review — the reviewer should never have seen the implementation's reasoning chain. Sonnet implements, a fresh Sonnet reviews.
+
+### 5d. Completion Gate — STAGE 2
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:completion-gate`
+- Validate agent claims match evidence trail (tests ran, files changed, build passed)
+- No truncated code files (`// ...`, `// rest of code`, bare ellipsis) — agent MUST complete all output
+- Any UNCONFIRMED claim → BLOCK
+
+**Gate**: If sentinel finds CRITICAL security issue → STOP, fix it, re-run. Non-negotiable.
+**Gate**: If completion-gate finds UNCONFIRMED claim → STOP, re-verify. Non-negotiable.
+
+## Per-Phase Rules (Project-Specific)
+
+Projects can define phase-specific rules in `.rune/phase-rules.md` that apply ONLY during specific cook phases. These are additive — they enhance skill guidance, not replace it.
+
+```markdown
+# .rune/phase-rules.md (example)
+
+## Phase 2: PLAN
+- All API endpoints must follow REST naming convention /api/v1/<resource>
+- Database changes require a rollback migration
+
+## Phase 3: TEST
+- Enforce TDD format: describe → it → arrange → act → assert
+- Minimum 3 edge cases per public function
+
+## Phase 5: QUALITY
+- Review must check for N+1 queries on any ORM code
+- Sentinel must verify CORS configuration on new routes
+```
+
+**Loading**: Cook reads `.rune/phase-rules.md` during Phase 0 (resume check). Rules for each phase are injected into the sub-skill's context when that phase starts. If file doesn't exist → skip silently.
+
+## Checkpoint Protocol (Opt-In)
+
+Invoke `rune:session-bridge` after Phase 2, 4, and 5 to save intermediate state. OPT-IN — activate only if task spans 3+ phases, context-watch is ORANGE, or user explicitly requests checkpoints. Before spawning subagents, invoke `rune:context-pack` to create structured handoff briefings.
+
+## Phase Transition Protocol (MANDATORY)
+
+Before entering ANY Phase N+1, assert: Phase N `completed` in TodoWrite | gate condition met | no BLOCK from sub-skills | no unresolved CRITICAL findings. If any fails → STOP, log "BLOCKED at Phase N→N+1: [assertion]", fix, re-check.
+
+**Key transitions:** 1→2: scout done | 2→3: plan approved | 3→4: failing tests exist | 4→5: all tests pass | 5→6: no CRITICAL findings | 6→7: lint+types+build green.
+
+## Phase 6: VERIFY
+
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:verification` — run lint, type check, full test suite, build. Then `rune:hallucination-guard` to verify imports and API signatures. ALL checks MUST pass before commit.
+
+## Phase 7: COMMIT
+
+**RECOMMENDED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:git` — stage specific files (`git add <files>`, NOT `git add .`), generate semantic commit message from diff. If working from master plan: update phase status `🔄 → ✅`, announce next phase or "All phases complete."
+
+## Phase 8: BRIDGE
+
+**Goal**: Save context for future sessions and record metrics for mesh analytics.
+
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL**: Use `rune:session-bridge`
+
+1. Mark Phase 8 as `in_progress`
+2. Save to `.rune/decisions.md` (approach + trade-offs), `.rune/progress.md` (task complete), `.rune/conventions.md` (new patterns)
+3. **Skill metrics** → `.rune/metrics/skills.json`: increment phase run/skip counts, quality gate results, debug loop counts under `cook` key
+4. **Routing overrides** (H3): if Phase 4 hit max loops for an error pattern → write rule to `.rune/metrics/routing-overrides.json`. Max 10 active rules.
+5. **Step 8.5 — Cross-Cutting Sweep**: After commit, check if this phase changed stats (skill count, test count, signal count, pack count, layer counts). If ANY stat changed:
+   - [ ] `README.md` — stats, badges, feature list
+   - [ ] `docs/index.html` (landing page) — meta tags, hero badge, install section, mesh stats, footer
+   - [ ] `dashboard.html` (if local) — KPI cards, test count, skill tabs, layer counts
+   - [ ] `CLAUDE.md` — commands, test count, skill list
+   - [ ] `MEMORY.md` — milestones, version info
+
+   **Skip if**: No stats changed (pure refactor, docs-only, style change). **MANDATORY** if any numeric stat in README differs from actual.
+6. **Step 8.6 — Capture Learnings**: `neural-memory` (Capture Mode) — 2-5 memories: architecture decisions, patterns, error root-causes, trade-offs. Cognitive language (causal/decisional/comparative). Tags: `[project, tech, topic]`. Priority 5 routine / 7-8 decisions / 9-10 critical errors.
+6. Mark Phase 8 as `completed`
+
+## Autonomous Loop Patterns
+
+When cook runs inside `team` (L1) or autonomous workflows, these patterns apply.
+
+### De-Sloppify Pass
+
+After Phase 4 completes (all tests green), run a **separate focused cleanup pass** on all modified files. Two focused passes outperform one constrained pass — let the implementer write freely in Phase 4, then clean up here.
+
+**Trigger**: Implementation touched 3+ files OR 100+ LOC changed. Skip for nano/fast rigor.
+
+**Slop targets** (check every modified file):
+
+| Slop Type | Detection | Fix |
+|-----------|-----------|-----|
+| Leftover debug | `console.log`, `print()`, `debugger`, `TODO: remove` | Delete |
+| Over-defensive checks | Null checks on values guaranteed non-null by TypeScript/framework | Remove redundant guard |
+| Type-test slop | `typeof x === 'string'` when x is already typed as string | Remove — trust the type system |
+| Duplicated logic | Same 3+ lines appear in multiple places | Extract utility |
+| Framework-behavior tests | Tests asserting that React renders, that Express routes exist, that mocks work | Delete — test YOUR code, not the framework |
+| Inconsistent naming | Mixed `camelCase`/`snake_case` in same file | Normalize to project convention |
+| Dead imports | Imports no longer used after edits | Remove |
+
+**Important**: This is NOT a quality gate — it's a cleanup pass. Don't block the pipeline for cosmetic issues. Fix what you find, move on.
+
+### Continuous PR Loop (team orchestration only)
+
+```
+cook instance → commit → push → create PR → wait CI
+  IF CI passes → mark workstream complete
+  IF CI fails → read CI output → fix → push → wait CI (max 3 retries)
+  IF 3 retries fail → escalate to user with CI logs
+```
+
+### Formal Pause/Resume (`.continue-here.md`)
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/pause-resume-template.md" trigger="when cook must pause mid-phase (context limit, user break, session end)"/>
+
+When cook must pause mid-phase, create `.rune/.continue-here.md` with structured handoff, then WIP commit. Phase 0 detects it on resume. More granular than plan-level resume — resumes within a phase.
+
+### Mid-Run Signal Detection
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/mid-run-signals.md" trigger="when user sends a message DURING cook execution"/>
+
+Two-stage intent classification: keyword fast-path for short messages (<60 chars), context classification for longer ones. Never queue user messages — process immediately.
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+NEVER treat a Cancel/Pause signal as a Steer or NewTask. User safety signals take absolute priority.
+If ambiguous between Cancel and Steer → ask user: "Did you mean stop, or change approach?"
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+### Exit Conditions (Mandatory for Autonomous Runs)
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/exit-conditions.md" trigger="cook running inside team or any autonomous workflow"/>
+
+Hard caps: MAX_DEBUG_LOOPS=3, MAX_QUALITY_LOOPS=2, MAX_REPLAN=1, MAX_PIVOT=1, MAX_FIXES=30, WTF_THRESHOLD=20%.
+Escalation chain: debug-fix (3x) → re-plan (1x) → brainstorm rescue (1x) → THEN escalate to user.
+
+### Structured Escalation Report
+
+> From agency-agents (msitarzewski/agency-agents, 50.8k★): "After 3 retry failures, structured escalation prevents cargo-cult retrying."
+
+When escalation chain exhausts (all retries hit) or cook returns `BLOCKED`, produce a Structured Escalation Report instead of a vague "I can't do this":
+
+```markdown
+## Escalation Report
+- **Task**: [original task description]
+- **Status**: BLOCKED
+- **Attempts**: [count] across [N] phases
+
+### Failure History
+| # | Approach | Phase | Outcome | Root Cause |
+|---|---------|-------|---------|------------|
+| 1 | Direct fix | Phase 4 | Tests fail — null ref in auth.ts:42 | Missing user context |
+| 2 | Re-plan with guard clause | Phase 4 | Build fails — circular import | Guard approach introduces cycle |
+| 3 | Brainstorm rescue → adapter pattern | Phase 4 | Tests pass but perf regression 3x | Adapter adds indirection overhead |
+
+### Root Cause Analysis
+[1-2 sentences: why ALL approaches failed — is it architectural, environmental, or requirements-level?]
+
+### Recommended Resolutions (pick one)
+1. **Reassign** — different skill/agent with fresh context
+2. **Decompose** — break into smaller sub-tasks that CAN succeed independently
+3. **Revise requirements** — relax constraint X to unblock (specify which)
+4. **Accept partial** — ship what works, defer blocked portion
+5. **Defer** — park this task, work on something else first
+
+### Impact Assessment
+- **Blocked by this**: [downstream tasks/phases that depend on this]
+- **Not blocked**: [independent work that can continue]
+```
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+"Bad work is worse than no work." Cook MUST produce this report rather than attempting a 4th variant of a failing approach. Escalating is not failure — shipping broken code is.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+### Subagent Question Gate
+
+> From superpowers (obra/superpowers, 84k★): "Subagents that start work without asking questions produce the wrong thing 40% of the time."
+
+Before dispatching a sub-skill (fix, test, review) for a non-trivial task (3+ files OR ambiguous scope):
+
+1. **Invite questions**: Include in the handoff: "Before starting, ask up to 3 clarifying questions if anything is unclear."
+2. **Answer before work**: If the sub-skill returns questions → answer them, THEN re-dispatch with answers included.
+3. **Skip if**: Fast/Nano rigor, single-file fix, or sub-skill is haiku-tier (too cheap to gate).
+
+This prevents the #1 parallel work failure: sub-skill assumes wrong interpretation, builds 500 LOC, then gets rejected in review.
+
+### Subagent Status Protocol
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/subagent-status.md" trigger="when cook or any sub-skill needs to return a status"/>
+
+Cook and all sub-skills return: `DONE` | `DONE_WITH_CONCERNS` | `NEEDS_CONTEXT` | `BLOCKED`.
+
+### Subagent Context Isolation
+
+When invoking sub-skills (fix, debug, test, review, etc.), **craft exactly the context they need** — never pass the full orchestrator session context.
+
+| Pass To Sub-Skill | DO NOT Pass |
+|-------------------|-------------|
+| Task description + specific goal | Full conversation history |
+| Relevant file paths from scout | Unrelated files from other phases |
+| Project conventions (naming, test framework) | Other sub-skill outputs |
+| Plan excerpt for THIS phase only | Full master plan |
+| Error/stack trace (for debug/fix) | Previous debug attempts from other bugs |
+
+**Why**: Sub-skills that inherit orchestrator context get polluted — they chase false connections, reference stale data, and consume tokens on irrelevant context. A focused sub-skill with 500 tokens of curated context outperforms one with 5000 tokens of inherited noise.
+
+## Deviation Rules
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/deviation-rules.md" trigger="when implementation diverges from the approved plan"/>
+
+R1-R3 (bug/security/blocking fix): auto-fix, continue. R4 (architectural change): ASK user first.
+
+## Error Recovery
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/error-recovery.md" trigger="when any phase fails or a task hits repeated errors"/>
+
+Includes phase-by-phase failure handling and repair operators (RETRY → DECOMPOSE → PRUNE) with a 2-attempt budget before escalation.
+
+## Analysis Paralysis Guard
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+5+ consecutive read-only tool calls (Read, Grep, Glob) without a single write action (Edit, Write, Bash) = STUCK.
+
+You MUST either:
+1. **Act** — write code, run a command, create a file
+2. **Report BLOCKED** — state the specific missing piece: "Cannot proceed because [X]"
+
+Stuck patterns (all banned):
+- Reading 10+ files to "fully understand" before acting
+- Grepping every variation of a string across the entire repo
+- Reading the same file twice in one investigation
+- "Let me check one more thing" — repeated after 5 reads
+
+A wrong first attempt that produces feedback beats perfect understanding that never ships.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+### Observation/Effect Ratio Tracking
+
+Track every tool call during Phase 4 (IMPLEMENT) as either **observation** (read-only) or **effect** (modifies state):
+
+| Category | Tool Examples |
+|----------|--------------|
+| **Observation** | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(grep/ls/cat/git log) |
+| **Effect** | Write, Edit, Bash(npm/build/test/mkdir) |
+
+**Detection rules** (check every 8 tool calls during Phase 4):
+
+| Pattern | Threshold | Signal | Action |
+|---------|-----------|--------|--------|
+| **Observation chain** | 6+ consecutive observation tools with zero effects | Agent is stuck reading, not building | Inject: "OBSERVATION LOOP — 6 reads without writing. Act on what you know or report BLOCKED." |
+| **Low effect ratio** | In last 10 calls, effects < 15% | Agent is in analysis mode, not implementation | Inject: "Effect ratio below 15%. Phase 4 is IMPLEMENT — write code, don't just read it." |
+| **Diminishing returns** | Last 3 observations found <2 new relevant facts combined | Searching is no longer productive | Inject: "Diminishing returns — last 3 reads added nothing new. Synthesize and act." |
+| **Repeating sequences** | A-B-A-B or A-B-C-A-B-C pattern across 6+ calls | Circular behavior | Inject: "REPEATING SEQUENCE detected. Break the cycle — try a different approach or report BLOCKED." |
+
+**Important**: These are injected as advisor messages, not hard blocks. The agent can continue if it has good reason, but the message forces conscious acknowledgment of the pattern.
+
+**Skip if**: Phase 1 (UNDERSTAND) — observation-heavy is expected during research. Only track during Phase 4+ where effects should dominate.
+
+### Budget-Aware Phase Progression
+
+Beyond the existing Exit Conditions (MAX_DEBUG_LOOPS, MAX_QUALITY_LOOPS, etc.), track **cumulative budget** across the entire cook session:
+
+| Budget | Limit | What Happens at Limit |
+|--------|-------|----------------------|
+| **Phase 4 react budget** | 15 tool calls per task within Phase 4 | Force: move to next task or report partial completion |
+| **Global replan budget** | 2 replans per session (Phase 4 Step 6) | Force: proceed with current plan or escalate to user |
+| **Quality retry budget** | 3 total quality re-runs across 5a-5d | Force: ship with known issues documented, don't loop |
+| **Total session tool calls** | 150 calls | Force: save state via session-bridge, compact or pause |
+
+**Hard override rules**:
+- If react budget exhausted for a task but task is IN_PROGRESS → force CONTINUE to next task (don't re-attempt)
+- If replan budget exhausted but plan still failing → force escalation (don't attempt 3rd replan)
+- If quality retry budget exhausted → emit concerns in Cook Report, proceed to commit with documented caveats
+
+**Why**: Without hard budgets, agents get trapped in local optimization loops — retrying the same failing approach indefinitely. Budget constraints force escalation or acceptance of partial results, which is always better than an infinite loop.
+
+### Hash-Based Tool Loop Detection
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/loop-detection.md" trigger="when same tool+args+result appears to be repeating"/>
+
+Mentally track tool call fingerprints. 3 identical calls → WARN. 5 identical calls → FORCE STOP. Only same-input-AND-same-output counts as a loop.
+
+## Called By (inbound)
+
+- User: `/rune cook` direct invocation — primary entry point
+- `team` (L1): parallel workstream execution (meta-orchestration)
+
+## Calls (outbound)
+
+| Phase | Sub-skill | Layer | Purpose |
+|-------|-----------|-------|---------|
+| 0 / 8 | `neural-memory` | ext | Recall context at start; capture learnings at end |
+| 0.5 | `sentinel-env` | L3 | Environment pre-flight (first run only) |
+| 1 | `scout` | L2 | Scan codebase before planning |
+| 1 | `onboard` | L2 | Initialize project context if no CLAUDE.md |
+| 1 | `ba` | L2 | Requirement elicitation for features |
+| 1 | `logic-guardian` | L2 | Conditional: when `.rune/logic-manifest.json` exists — protect complex business logic before any edits |
+| 2 | `plan` | L2 | Create implementation plan |
+| 2 | `brainstorm` | L2 | Trade-off analysis / rescue mode |
+| 2 | `design` | L2 | UI/design phase for frontend features |
+| 2.5 | `adversary` | L2 | Red-team challenge on approved plan |
+| 3 | `test` | L2 | Write failing tests (RED phase) |
+| 4 | `fix` | L2 | Implement code changes (GREEN phase) |
+| 4 | `debug` | L2 | Unexpected errors (max 3 loops) |
+| 4 | `db` | L2 | Schema changes detected in diff |
+| 4 | `worktree` | L3 | Worktree isolation for parallel implementation |
+| 5a | `preflight` | L2 | Spec compliance + logic review |
+| 5b | `sentinel` | L2 | Security scan |
+| 5c | `review` | L2 | Code quality review |
+| 5 | `scope-guard` | L3 | Verify changed files match approved plan scope (flag out-of-scope files before commit) |
+| 5 | `perf` | L2 | Performance regression check (optional) |
+| 5 | `audit` | L2 | Project health audit when scope warrants |
+| 5 | `review-intake` | L2 | Structured review intake for complex PRs |
+| 5 | `sast` | L3 | Static analysis security testing |
+| 5d | `completion-gate` | L3 | Validate agent claims against evidence trail |
+| 5 | `constraint-check` | L3 | Audit HARD-GATE compliance across workflow |
+| 6 | `verification` | L3 | Lint + types + tests + build |
+| 6 | `hallucination-guard` | L3 | Verify imports and API calls are real |
+| 7 | `journal` | L3 | Record architectural decisions |
+| 8 | `session-bridge` | L3 | Save context for future sessions |
+| any | `context-pack` | L3 | create structured handoff briefings before spawning subagents |
+| any | `skill-forge` | L2 | When new skill creation detected during cook |
+| 1.5 | L4 extension packs | L4 | Domain-specific patterns when stack matches |
+
+## Data Flow
+
+**Feeds Into →** `journal` (decisions → ADRs) | `session-bridge` (context → .rune/ state) | `neural-memory` (learnings → cross-session)
+
+**Fed By ←** `ba` (requirements → Phase 1) | `plan` (master plan → Phase 2-4) | `session-bridge` (.continue-here.md → Phase 0 resume) | `neural-memory` (past decisions → Phase 0 recall)
+
+**Feedback Loops ↻** cook↔debug (Phase 4 bug → debug → fix → resume; if plan wrong → Approach Pivot) | cook↔test (RED → GREEN → failures loop back)
+
+## Constraints
+
+1. MUST run scout before planning
+2. MUST get user plan approval before writing code
+3. MUST write failing tests before implementation (TDD) unless explicitly skipped
+4. MUST NOT commit with failing tests
+5. MUST NOT modify files outside approved plan scope without user confirmation
+6. MUST run verification (lint + type-check + tests + build) before commit
+7. MUST NOT say "all tests pass" without showing actual test output
+8. MUST NOT contradict `.rune/decisions.md` without explicit user override
+
+## Mesh Gates
+
+| Gate | Requires | If Missing |
+|------|----------|------------|
+| Resume Gate | Phase 0 checks for master plan before starting | Proceed to Phase 1 |
+| Scout Gate | scout output before Phase 2 | Invoke rune:scout first |
+| Plan Gate | User-approved plan before Phase 3 | Cannot proceed |
+| Adversary Gate | adversary verdict before Phase 3 for features | Skip for bugfix/hotfix/refactor |
+| Phase File Gate | Active phase file only (multi-session) | Load only active phase |
+| Test-First Gate | Failing tests before Phase 4 | Write tests or get explicit skip |
+| Quality Gate | preflight + sentinel + review before Phase 7 | Fix findings, re-run |
+| Verification Gate | lint + types + tests + build green before commit | Fix, re-run |
+
+## Structured Output Contract (Prompt-as-API Pattern)
+
+When cook invokes sub-skills that produce structured output (e.g., `ba` for requirements, `plan` for implementation plans, `test` for test specs), use the **Prompt-as-API-Contract** pattern: specify the exact output schema in the invocation prompt so the sub-skill returns machine-parseable results, not free-form prose.
+
+### Pattern
+
+```
+INVOCATION: "Analyze [X] and return results as JSON matching this schema:
+{
+  "insights": [{ "id": string, "category": string, "description": string, "actionable": string }],
+  "confidence": number,
+  "next_steps": string[]
+}
+Do NOT include explanatory text outside the JSON block."
+```
+
+### When to Apply
+
+| Phase | Sub-skill | Output Contract |
+|-------|-----------|----------------|
+| Phase 1 | `ba` | `{ requirements: [{id, priority, description, acceptance_criteria}], ambiguities: string[] }` |
+| Phase 2 | `plan` | `{ phases: [{name, tasks: [{description, files, effort}], dependencies}] }` |
+| Phase 3 | `test` | `{ test_cases: [{name, type, file, assertion}], coverage_targets: string[] }` |
+| Phase 5 | `review` | `{ findings: [{severity, file, line, description, fix}], verdict: "PASS"|"WARN"|"BLOCK" }` |
+
+### Rules
+
+- Include 1-2 concrete examples in the prompt — examples are worth more than schema descriptions
+- Always specify "Do NOT include explanatory text outside the JSON/markdown block" — LLMs default to wrapping structured output in prose
+- When the output will be consumed by another skill (not displayed to user), ALWAYS use this pattern
+- When the output will be displayed to the user, use markdown format instead — humans don't read JSON
+
+### Why
+
+Free-form sub-skill output forces the calling skill to parse natural language — fragile and lossy. Structured contracts make skill-to-skill communication reliable, enable automated validation, and reduce the tokens wasted on parsing instructions.
+
+## Output Format
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/output-format.md" trigger="before emitting the Cook Report at end of any session"/>
+
+Emit a Cook Report with: Status, Phases, Files Changed, Tests, Quality results, Commit hash.
+When invoked by `team` with a NEXUS Handoff, include the Deliverables table — MANDATORY.
+
+## Returns
+
+| Artifact | Format | Location |
+|----------|--------|----------|
+| Plan files (master + phase) | Markdown | `.rune/plan-<feature>.md`, `.rune/plan-<feature>-phase<N>.md` |
+| Implementation code | Source files | Per plan file paths |
+| Test files | Source files | Co-located or `__tests__/` per project convention |
+| Verification results | Inline stdout | Shown in Cook Report |
+| Cook Report | Markdown (inline) | Emitted at end of session |
+| Session state | Markdown | `.rune/decisions.md`, `.rune/progress.md`, `.rune/conventions.md` |
+
+## Document Ownership
+
+| Scope | Access | Files |
+|-------|--------|-------|
+| **Owns** (read + write) | `.rune/plan-*.md`, `.rune/progress.md`, `.rune/decisions.md`, `.rune/conventions.md`, source files per approved plan |
+| **Reads** (never writes) | `CLAUDE.md`, `SKILL.md` (any), `.rune/contract.md`, `.rune/checkpoint.md` |
+| **Never modifies** | `compiler/**`, `extensions/**`, `PACK.md`, other skills' `SKILL.md`, `.rune/learnings.jsonl` |
+
+When delegating to sub-skills (scout, plan, test, review), each sub-skill owns its own output. Cook coordinates but does not overwrite sub-skill artifacts.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+Common multi-agent failures to explicitly avoid. These are NOT edge cases — they are the most frequent cook failures in production.
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Approach |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Bypass hierarchy** — skipping scout/plan and jumping to Phase 4 code | Builds wrong thing. Most "wasted work" traces back to missing Phase 1-2 | Follow phase gates. Even "obvious" tasks benefit from 30s of scout |
+| **Shadow decisions** — making architectural choices without logging to decisions.md | Next session repeats the same debate. Team agents contradict each other | Log every non-trivial choice via `decisions.md` or `journal` |
+| **Gold-plating** — adding "nice-to-have" features not in the approved plan | Scope creep, delayed delivery, untested code paths | Build ONLY what's in the plan. Log extras as follow-up tasks |
+| **Test-after** — writing tests after implementation instead of before (TDD violation) | Tests validate implementation bugs, not requirements. Coverage looks good but misses edge cases | Phase 3 (RED) before Phase 4 (GREEN). Always |
+| **Monolithic commit** — one giant commit with all changes | Impossible to revert partially. Review is overwhelming | Commit per phase or per logical unit. Small, reviewable diffs |
+| **Assumption-based implementation** — guessing requirements instead of asking | Builds the wrong thing confidently. User discovers mismatch late | If ambiguous, ask. 30s of clarification saves 30min of rework |
+| **Infinite remediation loop** — fixing the same BLOCK finding 4+ times with the same approach | Wastes tokens, drifts further from solution. If 3 attempts failed, the approach is wrong | Remediation Cycle Counter: max 3 cycles, Cycle 2+ must try different strategy, Cycle 4 escalates to user |
+| **Code fix for upstream problem** — fixing implementation when the plan/spec was wrong | Code "passes" but implements the wrong thing. Bug resurfaces in integration | Upstream Inconsistency Protocol: tag as UPSTREAM, re-invoke upstream skill, get approval, re-run gates |
+
+## Sharp Edges
+
+<MUST-READ path="references/sharp-edges.md" trigger="before declaring done — review all 18 failure modes"/>
+
+**CRITICAL failures** (always check): skipping scout | writing code without plan approval | "done" without evidence trail | surrendering without Approach Pivot Gate | breaking change without RFC | treating Cancel/Pause as scope change.
+
+## Self-Validation
+
+```
+SELF-VALIDATION (run before emitting Cook Report):
+- [ ] Every phase in Phase Skip Rules was either executed or explicitly skipped with reason
+- [ ] Plan approval gate was not bypassed — user said "go" (check conversation history)
+- [ ] No Phase 4 code was written before Phase 3 tests (TDD order preserved)
+- [ ] All Phase 5 quality gates (preflight, sentinel, review) ran — not just claimed
+- [ ] No quality gate exceeded 3 remediation cycles without user escalation
+- [ ] No upstream issue was fixed by code change alone — UPSTREAM findings re-invoked the source skill
+- [ ] Cook Report contains actual commit hash, not placeholder
+```
+
+## Done When
+
+All applicable phases complete + Self-Validation passed:
+- User approved plan | All tests PASS (output shown) | preflight+sentinel+review PASS | build green
+- Cook Report emitted with commit hash | Session state saved to .rune/ via session-bridge
+
+## Cost Profile
+
+~$0.05-0.15 per feature. Haiku for scanning (Phase 1), sonnet for coding (Phase 3-4), opus for complex planning (Phase 2 when needed).