codex-orchestrator 2.0.1 → 2.0.3

package/internal-workflow/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+name: tdd
+description: Test-driven development policy gate for implementation, bugfix, and new feature work unless the user explicitly opts out. Use before planning or editing code to shape the first behavior proof, and when the user mentions red-green-refactor, integration tests, or test-first development.
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development
+
+Use short vertical RED -> GREEN cycles. Make each test prove observable behavior through the same public seam real callers use.
+
+## Core Contract
+
+- Lock expected behavior from the request, specification, design, bug report, or existing product behavior before changing implementation.
+- Derive expected values from an independent source, never from the production algorithm.
+- Prove RED on the old behavior for the same observable reason the user reported or requested.
+- Add only enough implementation to make the current test pass; do not anticipate later tests.
+- Keep tests stable across behavior-preserving refactors and refactor only while GREEN.
+
+Read [tests.md](tests.md) when choosing or reviewing test shape. Read [mocking.md](mocking.md) before introducing test doubles.
+
+## Before the First RED
+
+1. Read local instructions, domain language, existing tests, and relevant ADRs.
+2. List the prioritized observable behaviors, not implementation steps.
+3. Select the public seam where callers observe each behavior.
+4. Ask the user only when the seam changes the public contract, product intent is unclear, or behavior priorities materially conflict.
+5. For contract-risk changes, create or update the shared [Contract Test Ledger](../../docs/agents/contract-test-ledger.md) and map each invariant to its first failing test or observable proof.
+6. If no natural public seam exists, consult [interface-design.md](interface-design.md) instead of testing internals.
+
+For UI behavior, define proof at the rendered seam: visible content and order, interaction result, semantics, or screenshot when layout direction or scrolling matters.
+
+## RED -> GREEN Cycle
+
+For each behavior:
+
+1. **RED:** Write one test through the selected seam.
+2. Confirm it fails on current behavior for the expected reason. A passing test or an internal-only failure is not valid RED.
+3. **GREEN:** Add the minimal implementation required for that test.
+4. Run the proof and update the ledger status to `red`, `green`, or `blocked` with the missing seam or evidence.
+
+Keep each cycle to one seam, one behavior, one test, and one minimal implementation. Do not rewrite the test to fit the code. For state, async, lifecycle, retry, cache, or auth defects, include the competing condition when feasible.
+
+Handle reviewer repairs inside the same activation only under [bug workflow routing](../../docs/agents/bug-workflow-routing.md); group related cases by protected invariant.
+
+## After GREEN
+
+Refactor as a separate review-stage activity, never while RED. Use [refactoring.md](refactoring.md) for candidates and rerun affected tests after each step.
+
+## Cycle Checklist
+
+```text
+[ ] Behavior is proved through the caller's public seam
+[ ] Expected behavior is locked and the expected value is independent
+[ ] RED fails on old behavior for the correct observable reason
+[ ] Test was not fitted to implementation details
+[ ] GREEN uses only the code needed for the current behavior
+[ ] Final outcome and relevant competing condition are proved
+[ ] Contract Test Ledger is current when applicable
+[ ] Refactoring starts only after GREEN
+```

package/internal-workflow/skills/tdd/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Test-Driven Development"
+  short_description: "Apply behavior-first red-green development"
+  default_prompt: "Use $tdd to define the public test seam and implement this behavior through red-green cycles."
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: true

package/internal-workflow/skills/tdd/interface-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# Interface Design for Testability
+
+Good interfaces make testing natural:
+
+1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function processOrder(order) {
+     const gateway = new StripeGateway();
+   }
+   ```
+
+2. **Return results, don't produce side effects**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function applyDiscount(cart): void {
+     cart.total -= discount;
+   }
+   ```
+
+3. **Small surface area**
+   - Fewer methods = fewer tests needed
+   - Fewer params = simpler test setup

package/internal-workflow/skills/tdd/mocking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# When to Mock
+
+Mock at **system boundaries** only:
+
+- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
+- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
+- Time/randomness
+- File system (sometimes)
+
+Don't mock:
+
+- Your own classes/modules
+- Internal collaborators
+- Anything you control
+
+## Designing for Mockability
+
+At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
+
+**1. Use dependency injection**
+
+Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
+
+```typescript
+// Easy to mock
+function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
+  return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
+}
+
+// Hard to mock
+function processPayment(order) {
+  const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
+  return client.charge(order.total);
+}
+```
+
+**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
+
+Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
+const api = {
+  getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
+  getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
+  createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
+};
+
+// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
+const api = {
+  fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
+};
+```
+
+The SDK approach means:
+- Each mock returns one specific shape
+- No conditional logic in test setup
+- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
+- Type safety per endpoint

package/internal-workflow/skills/tdd/refactoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Refactor Candidates
+
+After TDD cycle, look for:
+
+- **Duplication** → Extract function/class
+- **Long methods** → Break into private helpers (keep tests on public interface)
+- **Shallow modules** → Combine or deepen
+- **Feature envy** → Move logic to where data lives
+- **Primitive obsession** → Introduce value objects
+- **Existing code** the new code reveals as problematic

package/internal-workflow/skills/tdd/tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Good and Bad Tests
+
+## Good Tests
+
+**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
+test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
+  const cart = createCart();
+  cart.add(product);
+  const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
+  expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
+});
+```
+
+Characteristics:
+
+- Tests behavior users/callers care about
+- Uses public API only
+- Survives internal refactors
+- Describes WHAT, not HOW
+- One logical assertion per test
+
+## Bad Tests
+
+**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Tests implementation details
+test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
+  const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
+  await checkout(cart, payment);
+  expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
+});
+```
+
+Red flags:
+
+- Mocking internal collaborators
+- Testing private methods
+- Asserting on call counts/order
+- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
+- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
+- Verifying through external means instead of interface
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
+test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
+  await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
+  expect(row).toBeDefined();
+});
+
+// GOOD: Verifies through interface
+test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
+  const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
+  expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
+});
+```
+
+**Tautological tests**: Expected value restates the implementation, so the test passes by construction.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Expected value is recomputed the way the code computes it
+test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => {
+  const items = [{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }];
+  const expected = items.reduce((sum, item) => sum + item.price, 0);
+  expect(calculateTotal(items)).toBe(expected);
+});
+
+// GOOD: Expected value comes from an independent, known literal
+test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => {
+  expect(calculateTotal([{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }])).toBe(15);
+});
+```

package/internal-workflow/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+# Writing Agent Briefs
+
+An agent brief is a structured comment posted when a raw incoming issue moves
+to `ready-for-agent` through `$triage`. It is the authoritative specification
+for that AFK issue; the original body and discussion remain context.
+
+Do not post this comment for tickets generated by `$to-tickets`. Their approved
+issue body is already the authoritative execution brief and they bypass triage.
+
+## Principles
+
+### Durability over precision
+
+The issue may sit in `ready-for-agent` for days or weeks. The codebase will change in the meantime. Write the brief so it stays useful even as files are renamed, moved, or refactored.
+
+- **Do** describe interfaces, types, and behavioral contracts
+- **Do** name specific types, function signatures, or config shapes that the agent should look for or modify
+- **Don't** reference file paths — they go stale
+- **Don't** reference line numbers
+- **Don't** assume the current implementation structure will remain the same
+
+### Behavioral, not procedural
+
+Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent will explore the codebase fresh and make its own implementation decisions.
+
+- **Good:** "The `SkillConfig` type should accept an optional `schedule` field of type `CronExpression`"
+- **Bad:** "Open src/types/skill.ts and add a schedule field on line 42"
+- **Good:** "When a user runs `$triage` with no arguments, they should see a summary of issues needing attention"
+- **Bad:** "Add a switch statement in the main handler function"
+
+### Complete acceptance criteria
+
+The agent needs to know when it's done. Every agent brief must have concrete, testable acceptance criteria. Each criterion should be independently verifiable.
+
+- **Good:** "Running `gh issue list --label needs-triage` returns issues that have been through initial classification"
+- **Bad:** "Triage should work correctly"
+
+### Explicit scope boundaries
+
+State what is out of scope. This prevents the agent from gold-plating or making assumptions about adjacent features.
+
+### Proportional execution metadata
+
+Preserve an existing spec gate, verification contract, and material risk notes
+without turning the brief into an implementation spec. Omit those conditional
+fields when they are not material. High review risk changes proof depth, not
+brief length or solution breadth.
+
+## Template
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** bug / enhancement
+**Summary:** one-line description of what needs to happen
+
+**Current behavior:**
+Describe what happens now. For bugs, this is the broken behavior.
+For enhancements, this is the status quo the feature builds on.
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Describe what should happen after the agent's work is complete.
+Be specific about edge cases and error conditions.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- `TypeName` — what needs to change and why
+- `functionName()` return type — what it currently returns vs what it should return
+- Config shape — any new configuration options needed
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 1
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 2
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 3
+
+**Implementation preparation:**
+- direct / compact spec / standard spec
+- Reason or accepted implementation spec reference
+
+**Verification:**
+- Behavior proof expected from the implementing agent
+- Required automated or live check, or `Not specified`
+
+**Risk / Review:**
+- Omit when no material risk exists
+- Otherwise: primary risk, main invariant, review focus, and final handoff expectation
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Thing that should NOT be changed or addressed in this issue
+- Adjacent feature that might seem related but is separate
+```
+
+## Examples
+
+### Good agent brief (bug)
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** bug
+**Summary:** Skill description truncation drops mid-word, producing broken output
+
+**Current behavior:**
+When a skill description exceeds 1024 characters, it is truncated at exactly
+1024 characters regardless of word boundaries. This produces descriptions
+that end mid-word (e.g. "Use when the user wants to confi").
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Truncation should break at the last word boundary before 1024 characters
+and append "..." to indicate truncation.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- The `SkillMetadata` type's `description` field — no type change needed,
+  but the validation/processing logic that populates it needs to respect
+  word boundaries
+- Any function that reads SKILL.md frontmatter and extracts the description
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Descriptions under 1024 chars are unchanged
+- [ ] Descriptions over 1024 chars are truncated at the last word boundary
+      before 1024 chars
+- [ ] Truncated descriptions end with "..."
+- [ ] The total length including "..." does not exceed 1024 chars
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Changing the 1024 char limit itself
+- Multi-line description support
+```
+
+### Good agent brief (enhancement)
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** enhancement
+**Summary:** Add `.out-of-scope/` directory support for tracking rejected feature requests
+
+**Current behavior:**
+When a feature request is rejected, the issue is closed with a `wontfix` label
+and a comment. There is no persistent record of the decision or reasoning.
+Future similar requests require the maintainer to recall or search for the
+prior discussion.
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Rejected feature requests should be documented in `.out-of-scope/<concept>.md`
+files that capture the decision, reasoning, and links to all issues that
+requested the feature. When triaging new issues, these files should be
+checked for matches.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- Markdown file format in `.out-of-scope/` — each file should have a
+  `# Concept Name` heading, a `**Decision:**` line, a `**Reason:**` line,
+  and a `**Prior requests:**` list with issue links
+- The triage workflow should read all `.out-of-scope/*.md` files early
+  and match incoming issues against them by concept similarity
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Closing a feature as wontfix creates/updates a file in `.out-of-scope/`
+- [ ] The file includes the decision, reasoning, and link to the closed issue
+- [ ] If a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists, the new issue is
+      appended to its "Prior requests" list rather than creating a duplicate
+- [ ] During triage, existing `.out-of-scope/` files are checked and surfaced
+      when a new issue matches a prior rejection
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Automated matching (human confirms the match)
+- Reopening previously rejected features
+- Bug reports (only enhancement rejections go to `.out-of-scope/`)
+```
+
+### Bad agent brief
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Summary:** Fix the triage bug
+
+**What to do:**
+The triage thing is broken. Look at the main file and fix it.
+The function around line 150 has the issue.
+
+**Files to change:**
+- src/triage/handler.ts (line 150)
+- src/types.ts (line 42)
+```
+
+This is bad because:
+- No category
+- Vague description ("the triage thing is broken")
+- References file paths and line numbers that will go stale
+- No acceptance criteria
+- No scope boundaries
+- No description of current vs desired behavior

package/internal-workflow/skills/triage/OUT-OF-SCOPE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+# Out-of-Scope Knowledge Base
+
+The `.out-of-scope/` directory in a repo stores persistent records of rejected feature requests. It serves two purposes:
+
+1. **Institutional memory** — why a feature was rejected, so the reasoning isn't lost when the issue is closed
+2. **Deduplication** — when a new issue comes in that matches a prior rejection, the skill can surface the previous decision instead of re-litigating it
+
+## Directory structure
+
+```
+.out-of-scope/
+├── dark-mode.md
+├── plugin-system.md
+└── graphql-api.md
+```
+
+One file per **concept**, not per issue. Multiple issues requesting the same thing are grouped under one file.
+
+## File format
+
+The file should be written in a relaxed, readable style — more like a short design document than a database entry. Use paragraphs, code samples, and examples to make the reasoning clear and useful to someone encountering it for the first time.
+
+```markdown
+# Dark Mode
+
+This project does not support dark mode or user-facing theming.
+
+## Why this is out of scope
+
+The rendering pipeline assumes a single color palette defined in
+`ThemeConfig`. Supporting multiple themes would require:
+
+- A theme context provider wrapping the entire component tree
+- Per-component theme-aware style resolution
+- A persistence layer for user theme preferences
+
+This is a significant architectural change that doesn't align with the
+project's focus on content authoring. Theming is a concern for downstream
+consumers who embed or redistribute the output.
+
+```ts
+// The current ThemeConfig interface is not designed for runtime switching:
+interface ThemeConfig {
+  colors: ColorPalette; // single palette, resolved at build time
+  fonts: FontStack;
+}
+```
+
+## Prior requests
+
+- #42 — "Add dark mode support"
+- #87 — "Night theme for accessibility"
+- #134 — "Dark theme option"
+```
+
+### Naming the file
+
+Use a short, descriptive kebab-case name for the concept: `dark-mode.md`, `plugin-system.md`, `graphql-api.md`. The name should be recognizable enough that someone browsing the directory understands what was rejected without opening the file.
+
+### Writing the reason
+
+The reason should be substantive — not "we don't want this" but why. Good reasons reference:
+
+- Project scope or philosophy ("This project focuses on X; theming is a downstream concern")
+- Technical constraints ("Supporting this would require Y, which conflicts with our Z architecture")
+- Strategic decisions ("We chose to use A instead of B because...")
+
+The reason should be durable. Avoid referencing temporary circumstances ("we're too busy right now") — those aren't real rejections, they're deferrals.
+
+## When to check `.out-of-scope/`
+
+During triage (Step 1: Gather context), read all files in `.out-of-scope/`. When evaluating a new issue:
+
+- Check if the request matches an existing out-of-scope concept
+- Matching is by concept similarity, not keyword — "night theme" matches `dark-mode.md`
+- If there's a match, surface it to the maintainer: "This is similar to `.out-of-scope/dark-mode.md` — we rejected this before because [reason]. Do you still feel the same way?"
+
+The maintainer may:
+
+- **Confirm** — the new issue gets added to the existing file's "Prior requests" list, then closed
+- **Reconsider** — the out-of-scope file gets deleted or updated, and the issue proceeds through normal triage
+- **Disagree** — the issues are related but distinct, proceed with normal triage
+
+## When to write to `.out-of-scope/`
+
+Only when an **enhancement** (not a bug) is rejected as `wontfix`. The flow:
+
+1. Maintainer decides a feature request is out of scope
+2. Check if a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists
+3. If yes: append the new issue to the "Prior requests" list
+4. If no: create a new file with the concept name, decision, reason, and first prior request
+5. Post a comment on the issue explaining the decision and mentioning the `.out-of-scope/` file
+6. Close the issue with the `wontfix` label
+
+## Updating or removing out-of-scope files
+
+If the maintainer changes their mind about a previously rejected concept:
+
+- Delete the `.out-of-scope/` file
+- The skill does not need to reopen old issues — they're historical records
+- The new issue that triggered the reconsideration proceeds through normal triage

package/internal-workflow/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+---
+name: triage
+description: Move raw incoming issues and configured external PRs through a triage state machine — categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write durable agent briefs. Do not use for planning-context issues or tickets generated by `$to-tickets`; those publish in their final state.
+---
+
+# Triage
+
+Move raw incoming issues on the project tracker through a small state machine.
+Do not process issues marked `Artifact: planning-context` or generated
+`$to-tickets` children: their approved issue bodies are already the durable
+contract and their final states are applied at publication.
+
+If this repo treats external pull requests as a request surface (see the issue-tracker config), triage covers them too: a PR is an issue with attached code. Resolve a bare `#42` to an issue or PR per the tracker config.
+
+Every comment or issue posted to the issue tracker during triage **must** start with this disclaimer:
+
+```
+> *This was generated by AI during triage.*
+```
+
+## Reference docs
+
+- [AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md) — how to write durable agent briefs
+- [OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md) — how the `.out-of-scope/` knowledge base works
+
+## Roles
+
+Two **category** roles:
+
+- `bug` — something is broken
+- `enhancement` — new feature or improvement
+
+Five **state** roles:
+
+- `needs-triage` — maintainer needs to evaluate
+- `needs-info` — waiting on reporter for more information
+- `ready-for-agent` — fully specified, ready for an AFK agent
+- `ready-for-human` — needs human implementation
+- `wontfix` — will not be actioned
+
+For a PR, the same states read against the attached code: `ready-for-agent` means a brief is attached and an agent should take the next step on the diff; `ready-for-human` means it's ready for a human to merge.
+
+Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.
+
+These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you - run `$setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+
+State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to `needs-triage` first; from there it moves to `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, or `wontfix`. `needs-info` returns to `needs-triage` once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any time — flag transitions that look unusual and ask before proceeding.
+
+## Invocation
+
+The maintainer invokes `$triage` and describes what they want in natural language. Interpret the request and act. Examples:
+
+- "Show me anything that needs my attention"
+- "Let's look at #42" (issue or PR)
+- "Move #42 to ready-for-agent"
+- "What's ready for agents to pick up?"
+
+## Show what needs attention
+
+Query the issue tracker and present three buckets, oldest first:
+
+1. **Unlabeled** — never triaged.
+2. **`needs-triage`** — evaluation in progress.
+3. **`needs-info` with reporter activity since the last triage notes** — needs re-evaluation.
+
+When PRs are in scope, include external PRs in these buckets and tag each line `[PR]` or `[issue]`. Discovery surfaces only external PRs; a collaborator's in-flight PR is not triage work unless it was named explicitly.
+
+Show counts and a one-line summary per item. Let the maintainer pick.
+
+## Triage a specific issue or PR
+
+1. **Gather context.** Read the full issue or PR (body, comments, labels, author, dates; for a PR, the diff too). Parse any prior triage notes so you don't re-ask resolved questions. Explore the codebase using the project's domain glossary, respecting ADRs in the area. Run two checks against the codebase: redundancy — search for an existing implementation of the requested behavior by domain concept, not just wording, and report where you looked. Prior rejection — read `.out-of-scope/*.md` and surface any prior rejection that resembles this request.
+
+2. **Recommend.** Tell the maintainer your category and state recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary relevant to the request — including whether it appears already implemented. Wait for direction.
+
+3. **Verify the claim.** Before any grilling, check that the claim holds up. For a bug, reproduce it from the reporter's steps. For a PR, confirm the diff does what it claims — check it out, run the relevant tests or commands. Report what happened: confirmed, failed, or insufficient detail. A confirmed verification makes a much stronger brief.
+
+4. **Grill (if needed).** If the request needs fleshing out, run `$grilling`. It stress-tests the decisions against code and domain docs and records resolved terminology or ADRs inline. Use `$domain-modeling` separately when the task is primarily to establish or repair the domain model.
+
+5. **Apply the outcome:**
+   - `ready-for-agent` — post an agent brief comment ([AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md)); include the repo architecture check for code changes.
+   - `ready-for-human` — same structure as an agent brief, but note why it can't be delegated (judgment calls, external access, design decisions, manual testing).
+   - `needs-info` — post triage notes (template below).
+   - `wontfix` — close, with the comment depending on why:
+     - Already implemented — point to where it lives; do not write to `.out-of-scope/`.
+     - Rejected bug — polite explanation, then close.
+     - Rejected enhancement — write to `.out-of-scope/`, link to it from a comment, then close ([OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md)).
+   - `needs-triage` — apply the role. Optional comment if there's partial progress.
+
+## Quick state override
+
+If the maintainer says "move #42 to ready-for-agent", trust them and apply the role directly. Confirm what you're about to do (role changes, comment, close), then act. Skip grilling. If moving to `ready-for-agent` without a grilling session, ask whether they want to write an agent brief.
+
+## Proportional ready-for-agent policy
+
+When preparing issues for agents, classify the size first, then choose the handoff shape.
+
+Issue size and review risk are independent. A narrow high-risk issue may keep a
+compact brief with stronger proof fields; a broad issue needs separate slices
+only when ownership, release, blockers, or observable behavior differ.
+
+- If several issues describe one deterministic bugfix in the same ownership area, recommend merging them or assigning them as one batch before marking all of them `ready-for-agent`.
+- Agent briefs for narrow fixes should encourage one coherent PR when the code, tests, and verification belong together.
+- For medium/large work, do not compress unrelated workflows into one agent brief. Keep slices separate when they have separate ownership, release sequencing, acceptance criteria, or validation paths.
+- Do not add or imply an implementation-spec requirement unless the issue already has an unresolved `Spec gate` or the acceptance criteria are not deterministic enough for an AFK agent.
+- Live mutation, production repair, or human approval can stay as a separate `ready-for-human` or blocked issue, but only when it truly cannot be verified safely inside the implementation issue.
+- Do not add feature flags, telemetry systems, dashboards, rollout machinery, compatibility paths, or generic fallbacks to make an issue look safer; preserve approved scope.
+
+## Spec-gate policy
+
+Triage does not create implementation specs. When an issue has a `Spec gate`,
+verification contract, or material `Risk / Review` section, preserve its execution metadata in the agent brief and do not expand it into a file-by-file implementation plan. Omit conditional execution fields when they are not material.
+
+## Needs-info template
+
+```markdown
+## Triage Notes
+
+**What we've established so far:**
+
+- point 1
+- point 2
+
+**What we still need from you (@reporter):**
+
+- question 1
+- question 2
+```
+
+Capture everything resolved during grilling under "established so far" so the work isn't lost. Questions must be specific and actionable, not "please provide more info".
+
+## Resuming a previous session
+
+If prior triage notes exist on the issue or PR, read them, check whether the reporter has answered any outstanding questions, and present an updated picture before continuing. Don't re-ask resolved questions.

package/internal-workflow/skills/triage/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Triage"
+  short_description: "Triage raw incoming issues and PRs"
+  default_prompt: "Use $triage to verify, classify, and prepare raw incoming issues or configured external PRs; skip generated planning tickets."
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false