@su-record/vibe 4.1.13 → 4.1.14

package/skills/vibe-scope/SKILL.md

@@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ user-invocable: false
 ## Procedure
 
 1. Turn the discovery result into scenarios. A scenario is stored only if it carries exactly one check type:
-   - `run` command exit code · `file` exists/regex/contains/absent (a regex that must match nowhere)/schema/sum (a column total equals a reference) · `http` status/schema/maxMs · `eval` count of matching labelled cases (jsonl `{input, expected}` through a runner's stdin/stdout, `expect.pass` is a count) · `review` an antislop pack's reviewer stages in order (text: copy editor → chief editor; design: markup reviewer → art director), run by the harness, exact `PASS` only · `human` no verdict (goes to the inbox)
+   - `run` command exit code · `file` exists/regex/contains/absent (a regex that must match nowhere)/traceable (every number is in an evidence file)/a11y (mechanical accessibility defects)/schema/sum (a column total equals a reference) · `http` status/schema/maxMs · `eval` count of matching labelled cases (jsonl `{input, expected}` through a runner's stdin/stdout, `expect.pass` is a count) · `review` an antislop pack's reviewer stages in order (text: copy editor → chief editor; design: markup reviewer → art director; code: reviewer → maintainer), run by the harness, exact `PASS` only · `human` no verdict (goes to the inbox)
    - When a success condition is human-read text (blog, column, article, report, script, speech), propose `check: { type: review, path: <file>, contract: <file>, evidence: <file> }` and mark it `⚠ model-judged` in the approval message.
    - When it is something a person looks at (screen, page, component, dashboard, slide, card news, poster), propose `check: { type: review, pack: design, path: <file or directory>, contract: <brief>, screenshot: <png, if an earlier scenario renders one> }`, same mark.
+   - When the code will be read or maintained by someone else (a library, a contribution, a handoff), propose `check: { type: review, pack: code, path: <file or directory>, contract: <brief> }`, same mark; otherwise `vibe size` stays the code gate.
+   - Next to a text `review` that has an evidence file, propose `check: { type: file, path: <file>, traceable: <evidence file> }` (every number in the text is in the evidence); next to a design `review` on html, `check: { type: file, path: <html>, a11y: true }` (alt, heading order, unnamed controls, unlabelled inputs, contrast). These check facts; the reviewers keep the judgment.
    - Next to every `review`, propose its deterministic pre-gate on the same file: `check: { type: file, path: <file>, absent: "@placeholders" }` — the preset is the usual leftovers (lorem-ipsum text, a bracketed TODO, a to-be-decided mark, a company-name placeholder, unfilled double-brace fields, double-square-bracket notes); add the project's own words with `|`. For a directory, a `run` check with `grep -rlE` and `expect: 1`. Tell the writer that a note to the model goes between double square brackets, so the gate catches it if it survives into the artifact.
    - A condition you cannot check gets `human` explicitly. An irreversible action (push, deploy, send, delete, spend) gets `irreversible: <action>`.
    - A scenario that only makes sense after another one has passed gets `needs: [ids]`. The harness orders and parallelises checks from these edges; keep a connected graph under six scenarios.