@windyroad/itil 3.4.0-preview.1364 → 3.4.0-preview.1365

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@windyroad/itil",
-  "version": "3.4.0-preview.1364",
+  "version": "3.4.0-preview.1365",
   "description": "ITIL-aligned IT service management for Claude Code and Codex",
   "bin": {
     "windyroad-itil": "./bin/install.mjs"

package/skills/outcome-led-planning/SKILL.md

@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ The planner MUST NOT add speculative risk-mitigation tasks. The risk scorer iden
 
 Resolve substantive findings from all five critics and reduce above-appetite risk under the applicable policy. Reassess affected critics after material changes until the exact plan revision is coherent and within appetite. Record the reviewer identities, assessed revision, verdicts and evidence in the existing issue or plan artifact; no new report or template is required. A completed review with unresolved substantive findings is not a pass. Distinguish forecast controls from controls already verified. Plan assessment does not replace concrete code, commit, push, release, or operational reviews required by the project.
 
-Reviews are part of execution, not an extra request for human approval at every cycle. Continue within existing user authorization and policy. Replanning does not grant permission for new external effects, wider scope, persistent goals, or automations.
+Perform reviews within existing authorization and policy. Replanning grants no wider scope, new external effects, persistent goals or automation authority.
 
 ## Deliver, verify, learn, replan
 
@@ -80,9 +80,9 @@ Execute the assessed **Now** increment through the applicable delivery workflow.
 
 For GitHub delivery, follow the [work checkpoints](references/github-coordination.md#reconcile-tracking-at-work-checkpoints), with regular discussion reads AND event checks. Reconcile each affected record and selected Project from saved state; read back changes.
 
-After every delivered increment:
+At each increment boundary:
 
-1. **Verify:** inspect the actual completion evidence and state exactly what it establishes. Compare the result with both the increment's acceptance criteria and the overall objective.
+1. **Verify:** compare actual results with the increment's acceptance criteria and overall objective. Before declaring completion, obtain the [independent acceptance check](references/planning-details.md#independent-increment-acceptance), then repair and recheck discrepancies.
 2. **Learn:** record the material facts that changed understanding: invalidated assumptions, unexpected coupling, failures, useful measurements, and remaining uncertainty. Keep this brief and evidence-based.
 3. **Replan:** rewrite Now from the remaining gap to the objective; revise, reorder, split, replace, or drop Next and Later items as evidence warrants. Do not mechanically promote the old Next item or retain work merely because it was planned.
 4. **Reassess:** iterate the revised executable plan with the five independent critics above before its dependent work begins.

package/skills/outcome-led-planning/references/planning-details.md

@@ -20,3 +20,13 @@ Iterate each **initial or materially revised executable plan with five independe
 
 Use the installed review roles or available independent agents assigned those responsibilities. The JTBD reviewer checks the objective and plan against the relevant persona and desired outcomes. Follow its recommendation-review contract, including a `RECOMMENDATION REVIEW` prompt prefix where required; recommendation review does not authorize file edits. Identify any substitution and its limits. If a substantive review cannot be obtained, report the exact missing capability and hold dependent implementation. Continue useful authorized preparation within existing authority. An ordinary go-ahead does not provide the missing review or itself waive this gate; do not infer informed risk acceptance or substitute another confirmation for that capability. Do not claim the plan passed or silently substitute self-approval.
 
+
+## Independent increment acceptance
+
+Before declaring an increment complete, its owner obtains one bounded independent acceptance check through the existing planning critic. Reuse an independent check that already covers these criteria. The owner retains the final acceptance decision; a critic verdict does not automatically complete the increment.
+
+Give the critic the acceptance criteria, current revision, actual execution results and access to the affected authoritative plan and saved records. The critic inspects those results directly and compares the completion claim with the affected outcome, increment and task records, including selected Project state where applicable. Reviewing only the executor's summary or a PASS label is insufficient. Use the existing Local plan/conversation or GitHub records.
+
+The critic identifies concrete discrepancies or missing results. Withhold Done, repair within existing authority and obtain a recheck of the repaired results and saved state. If the independent reviewer or required results are unavailable, report the precise gap and withhold the completion claim. This review grants no wider access or operation authority.
+
+This is an increment-acceptance boundary. Completing an individual task or making a routine update does not trigger it or another five-critic cycle. Earlier review, coordination and prerequisite obligations still apply.

package/skills-codex/outcome-led-planning/SKILL.md

@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ The planner MUST NOT add speculative risk-mitigation tasks. The risk scorer iden
 
 Resolve substantive findings from all five critics and reduce above-appetite risk under the applicable policy. Reassess affected critics after material changes until the exact plan revision is coherent and within appetite. Record the reviewer identities, assessed revision, verdicts and evidence in the existing issue or plan artifact; no new report or template is required. A completed review with unresolved substantive findings is not a pass. Distinguish forecast controls from controls already verified. Plan assessment does not replace concrete code, commit, push, release, or operational reviews required by the project.
 
-Reviews are part of execution, not an extra request for human approval at every cycle. Continue within existing user authorization and policy. Replanning does not grant permission for new external effects, wider scope, persistent goals, or automations.
+Perform reviews within existing authorization and policy. Replanning grants no wider scope, new external effects, persistent goals or automation authority.
 
 ## Deliver, verify, learn, replan
 
@@ -89,9 +89,9 @@ Execute the assessed **Now** increment through the applicable delivery workflow.
 
 For GitHub delivery, follow the [work checkpoints](references/github-coordination.md#reconcile-tracking-at-work-checkpoints), with regular discussion reads AND event checks. Reconcile each affected record and selected Project from saved state; read back changes.
 
-After every delivered increment:
+At each increment boundary:
 
-1. **Verify:** inspect the actual completion evidence and state exactly what it establishes. Compare the result with both the increment's acceptance criteria and the overall objective.
+1. **Verify:** compare actual results with the increment's acceptance criteria and overall objective. Before declaring completion, obtain the [independent acceptance check](references/planning-details.md#independent-increment-acceptance), then repair and recheck discrepancies.
 2. **Learn:** record the material facts that changed understanding: invalidated assumptions, unexpected coupling, failures, useful measurements, and remaining uncertainty. Keep this brief and evidence-based.
 3. **Replan:** rewrite Now from the remaining gap to the objective; revise, reorder, split, replace, or drop Next and Later items as evidence warrants. Do not mechanically promote the old Next item or retain work merely because it was planned.
 4. **Reassess:** iterate the revised executable plan with the five independent critics above before its dependent work begins.

package/skills-codex/outcome-led-planning/references/planning-details.md

@@ -20,3 +20,13 @@ Iterate each **initial or materially revised executable plan with five independe
 
 Use the installed review roles or available independent agents assigned those responsibilities. The JTBD reviewer checks the objective and plan against the relevant persona and desired outcomes. Follow its recommendation-review contract, including a `RECOMMENDATION REVIEW` prompt prefix where required; recommendation review does not authorize file edits. Identify any substitution and its limits. If a substantive review cannot be obtained, report the exact missing capability and hold dependent implementation. Continue useful authorized preparation within existing authority. An ordinary go-ahead does not provide the missing review or itself waive this gate; do not infer informed risk acceptance or substitute another confirmation for that capability. Do not claim the plan passed or silently substitute self-approval.
 
+
+## Independent increment acceptance
+
+Before declaring an increment complete, its owner obtains one bounded independent acceptance check through the existing planning critic. Reuse an independent check that already covers these criteria. The owner retains the final acceptance decision; a critic verdict does not automatically complete the increment.
+
+Give the critic the acceptance criteria, current revision, actual execution results and access to the affected authoritative plan and saved records. The critic inspects those results directly and compares the completion claim with the affected outcome, increment and task records, including selected Project state where applicable. Reviewing only the executor's summary or a PASS label is insufficient. Use the existing Local plan/conversation or GitHub records.
+
+The critic identifies concrete discrepancies or missing results. Withhold Done, repair within existing authority and obtain a recheck of the repaired results and saved state. If the independent reviewer or required results are unavailable, report the precise gap and withhold the completion claim. This review grants no wider access or operation authority.
+
+This is an increment-acceptance boundary. Completing an individual task or making a routine update does not trigger it or another five-critic cycle. Earlier review, coordination and prerequisite obligations still apply.