create-agdf 0.2.3 → 0.2.4

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/OR.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+# OR: <Title>
+
+Gate: OR
+Type: Orchestration Report
+Report mode: `OR-lite | OR-full`
+Status: `draft | done | superseded`
+
+## Run
+
+- run_id:
+- related_ur:
+- related_prd:
+- related_sd:
+- related_tp:
+- related_qa_report:
+- mode_slice_decision:
+- current_gate:
+- decision: `pass | revise | block | in_progress`
+
+## Gate State
+
+| Gate or step | Status | Evidence |
+|---|---|---|
+| UR |  |  |
+| Brownfield Review |  |  |
+| Mode/Slice Decision |  |  |
+| PRD |  |  |
+| SD |  |  |
+| TP |  |  |
+| Brownfield Analysis |  |  |
+| CD+Tests |  |  |
+| CR |  |  |
+| QA |  |  |
+| UAT |  |  |
+
+## Delivered
+
+| Item | Evidence |
+|---|---|
+|  |  |
+
+## Not Delivered / Intentionally Deferred
+
+| Item | Reason | Next owner or gate |
+|---|---|---|
+|  |  |  |
+
+## Evidence
+
+| Evidence | Source | Covers | Strength |
+|---|---|---|---|
+|  |  |  | `direct | indirect | weak` |
+
+## Missing Evidence
+
+| Missing evidence | Impact | Required next step |
+|---|---|---|
+|  | `warn | revise | block` |  |
+
+## Risks And Open Items
+
+| Risk or open item | Impact | Owner or mitigation |
+|---|---|---|
+|  | `warn | revise | block` |  |
+
+## Context Graph Impact
+
+- context_graph_impact: `none | link_only | update_existing_node | new_node_required | sot_drift`
+- context_graph_refs:
+- context_graph_required_action: `none | link | update | create | resolve_drift`
+- context_graph_gate_effect: `none | warning | revise | block`
+- context_graph_evidence:
+
+## Next Permissible Step
+
+- next_allowed_action:
+- required_approval:
+- forbidden_until_then:
+
+## Quality Outlook
+
+- quality_outlook:
+
+## Approval
+
+OR does not approve later gates. It records the next permissible step.

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/UR.md

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Which existing repository artefacts, docs, code paths or decisions must be respe
 
 ## 7. Risks And Unknowns
 
-Which questions must PRD, SD or Brownfield Analysis clarify later?
+Which questions must Brownfield Review, PRD, SD or later implementation-preparation Brownfield Analysis clarify?
 
 ## 8. Next Step
 

package/generated/plugins/agdf/meta/agdf-agent-router.md

@@ -33,6 +33,11 @@ Use Structured Delivery Mode for new capabilities, architecture, policy, persist
 Any new product semantics, functional change or user-visible behaviour change requires a durable UR first.
 Persist it in `.agdf/control/` or link it from there to the target repository's authoritative source of truth before PRD, SD, TP, Brownfield Analysis or implementation.
 Treat approval text and durable artefact presence as separate checks for UR, PRD, SD, TP and QA report decisions.
+Do not infer approval from "ok", "go ahead", "do it", "approved", "continue", "leg los" or similar wording.
+Those phrases may express intent to proceed, but they do not unlock a gate unless the exact gate formula is present.
+After `Approval: UR`, run lightweight Brownfield Review before PRD when Brownfield, ownership, runtime, policy, persistence, architecture, UI or UX impact is possible.
+Brownfield Review must produce a Mode/Slice Decision: `quick_task`, `structured_slice`, `structured_delivery` or `block`.
+Do not assume the full PRD/SD/TP chain before that decision; use only as much gate depth as the reviewed change size justifies.
 
 Quick Task Mode must still cite evidence and close with a concrete result.
 Structured Delivery Mode must respect gates, reviews and closeout discipline.
@@ -40,11 +45,11 @@ Structured Delivery Mode must respect gates, reviews and closeout discipline.
 ## Skill Routing
 | Skill | Use For | Boundary |
 |---|---|---|
-| `brownfield-analysis` | after gate-check permits implementation preparation, before non-trivial changes in existing systems | clarifies reuse, owners and risks; never bypasses gate-check |
+| `brownfield-analysis` | after gate-check permits Brownfield Review or implementation preparation, before non-trivial changes in existing systems | clarifies reuse, owners, risks and Mode/Slice Decision; never bypasses gate-check; Brownfield Review is not implementation permission |
 | `clean-implementation-review` | inspect workarounds, fallbacks, parallel structures or symptom fixes | not a TP or QA substitute |
 | `code-review` | mandatory CR step after code changes, focused on defects, regression and security findings | does not replace TP review, clean review or QA |
 | `delivery-closeout` | commit/PR-near handoff after QA/OR/UAT | never performs VCS actions automatically |
-| `gate-check` | new build/change intent, unclear approval, Structured Delivery, later-gate artefact requested | does not create later artefacts |
+| `gate-check` | new build/change intent, unclear approval, Structured Delivery, later-gate artefact requested | does not create later artefacts or skip Mode/Slice Decision after Brownfield Review |
 | `qa-gate` | final QA decision | only instance for `pass | revise | block` |
 | `release-or` | auditable closeout for every relevant run | not a QA substitute |
 | `task-plan-review` | after implementation and before QA, verify TP coverage | no final QA decision |
@@ -52,6 +57,7 @@ Structured Delivery Mode must respect gates, reviews and closeout discipline.
 Select exactly one primary skill first.
 Add more only when they cover a distinct concrete risk dimension.
 Do not choose `brownfield-analysis` as the first primary skill for a fresh "I want to build/change X" prompt unless `gate-check` or existing live AGDF control state already makes implementation preparation the next allowed action.
+Never jump directly from `Approval: UR`, implicit consent, or a generic "start" request to implementation. Route to Brownfield Review, then Mode/Slice Decision, then the smallest safe next gate or Quick Task execution.
 
 ## Runtime Contract
 For repeated output, gate, Quality Contract and Context Graph rules, use:
@@ -66,6 +72,9 @@ Use templates as starting points only.
 
 Do not let chat history become the source of truth for gate state, approvals, evidence, backlog status or durable Brownfield knowledge.
 
+AGDF is a native agent workflow first: read the live control state, apply the active skill and make the next allowed step explicit.
+Use `doctor`, `gate-check --json` or `delivery-map --json` as validators when a machine-readable proof is useful, not as a substitute for the router or skills.
+
 ## Closeout
 After relevant code, documentation, skill or governance changes:
 

package/generated/plugins/agdf/meta/agdf-constitution.md

@@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ Gate Discipline
 
 AGDF work follows a gate-driven flow:
 
-    UR → PRD → SD → TP → QA → UAT
+    UR → Brownfield Review → Mode/Slice Decision → PRD/SD/TP as needed → QA → UAT
 
 with internal process steps:
 
-    Brownfield Analysis → CD+Tests → CR → OR
+    Brownfield Review → Mode/Slice Decision → Brownfield Analysis → CD+Tests → CR → OR
 
 Rules:
 
@@ -199,8 +199,17 @@ Rules:
   `Approval: <GateName>`
   Legacy German runs may contain `Freigabe: <GateName>`; keep it as an
   interpretation alias only and write new artefacts with `Approval:`.
-* **Implicit consent is not consent**: "ok", "go", "approved" or similar
-  formulations do not count as gate approvals.
+* **Implicit consent is not consent**: "ok", "go", "approved", "go ahead",
+  "do it", "continue", "leg los" or similar formulations do not count as gate
+  approvals.
+* **No gate skipping**: Urgency, task wording, chat history, "start" requests
+  or implicit consent must not skip from one gate to implementation or to a
+  later artefact. The next allowed action is the next unsatisfied gate or
+  internal mandatory step.
+* **Size before ceremony**: After an approved durable UR, Brownfield Review
+  determines change size and routing before PRD depth is chosen. The Mode/Slice
+  Decision is one of `quick_task`, `structured_slice`, `structured_delivery` or
+  `block`.
 * **No gate leaks**: Later gate artefacts must not be produced when an
   earlier gate is still blocking.
 

package/generated/plugins/agdf/meta/agdf-plugin.definition.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "schemaVersion": 1,
   "id": "agdf",
-  "version": "0.2.3",
+  "version": "0.2.4",
   "displayName": "AI Governance & Delivery Framework",
   "developerName": "AI-native Governance & Delivery Framework",
   "description": "Codex-first workflow skills for gated, auditable AI-assisted software delivery.",
@@ -42,8 +42,8 @@
   "skillSet": [
     {
       "slug": "brownfield-analysis",
-      "useFor": "after gate-check permits implementation preparation, before non-trivial changes in existing systems",
-      "boundary": "clarifies reuse, owners and risks; never bypasses gate-check"
+      "useFor": "after gate-check permits Brownfield Review or implementation preparation, before non-trivial changes in existing systems",
+      "boundary": "clarifies reuse, owners, risks and Mode/Slice Decision; never bypasses gate-check; Brownfield Review is not implementation permission"
     },
     {
       "slug": "clean-implementation-review",
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
     {
       "slug": "gate-check",
       "useFor": "new build/change intent, unclear approval, Structured Delivery, later-gate artefact requested",
-      "boundary": "does not create later artefacts"
+      "boundary": "does not create later artefacts or skip Mode/Slice Decision after Brownfield Review"
     },
     {
       "slug": "qa-gate",

package/generated/plugins/agdf/meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md

@@ -18,23 +18,48 @@ UR, PRD, SD, TP and QA report approvals require durable artefacts or linked auth
 ## Gate Rules
 
 - User gates: `UR -> PRD -> SD -> TP -> QA -> UAT`
-- Internal mandatory steps: `Brownfield Analysis -> CD+Tests -> CR -> OR`
+- Internal mandatory steps: `Brownfield Review -> Mode/Slice Decision -> Brownfield Analysis -> CD+Tests -> CR -> OR`
 - Exact approval formula: `Approval: <GateName>`
 - Legacy alias: `Freigabe: <GateName>` may be accepted when reviewing older German runs, but all new outputs must use `Approval: <GateName>`.
-- Implicit consent is not approval.
+- Implicit consent is not approval. Phrases such as "ok", "go ahead", "do it", "approved", "continue", "leg los" or "looks good" are work intent, not gate approval.
 - The earliest blocking gate wins.
 - For UR, PRD, SD, TP and QA, approval and durable artefact presence are separate requirements. A gate is not satisfied by approval text alone when its artefact is missing from `.agdf/control/` or not linked to the authoritative repository SoT.
-- Approval of one user gate permits work on the next gate artefact only. It does not permit implementation unless the approved gate is `TP` and required internal implementation prerequisites are satisfied.
-- `Approval: UR` permits PRD drafting, not implementation.
+- Approval of one user gate permits work on the next allowed gate artefact or required internal step only. It does not permit implementation unless the approved gate is `TP` and required internal implementation prerequisites are satisfied.
+- Gates must never be skipped or inferred from urgency, tone, chat history, task wording or an instruction to "start". The next allowed action is always the next unsatisfied gate or internal mandatory step.
+- `Approval: UR` permits Brownfield Review after G-00 first, then a Mode/Slice Decision. It never permits implementation by itself.
+- PRD, SD and TP depth is chosen after Brownfield Review through the Mode/Slice Decision, not before existing-system impact is understood.
 - `Approval: PRD` permits Solution Design drafting, not implementation.
 - `Approval: SD` permits Task/Test Plan drafting, not implementation.
-- `Approval: TP` permits Brownfield Analysis and then CD+Tests when Brownfield evidence supports it.
+- `Approval: TP` permits implementation-preparation Brownfield Analysis and then CD+Tests when Brownfield evidence supports it.
 - `CD+Tests` is implementation and test status only, not a delivery signal.
 - `code-review` standardizes the mandatory `CR` step, but does not replace QA.
 - `qa-gate` decides final `pass | revise | block`.
 - `release-or` reports the run, but does not replace QA or produce the operative commit/PR handoff.
 - `delivery-closeout` owns the operative Git handoff text when QA/OR/UAT state allows it.
 
+## Brownfield Review After G-00
+
+After an approved and durable UR, perform a lightweight `Brownfield Review` before PRD when Brownfield, UI, UX, admin, runtime, policy, persistence, architecture, ownership or source-of-truth impact is possible.
+
+This review is not a new user approval gate, not PRD, not SD, not TP and not implementation permission.
+It is the sizing and routing step that decides how much later gate discipline is actually needed.
+
+Its output is limited to:
+
+- workstream or follow-up-slice classification
+- `Mode/Slice Decision`: `quick_task | structured_slice | structured_delivery | block`
+- affected existing owners, source-of-truth artefacts, contracts, policies, runtime paths or tests
+- reuse-before-create risks and parallel-structure risks
+- open questions that PRD or SD must resolve
+- whether implementation-preparation Brownfield Analysis will also be needed after TP
+
+Mode/Slice Decision rules:
+
+- `quick_task`: use only when Brownfield Review shows a narrow local change, no new product semantics beyond the approved UR, no architecture/policy/persistence/contract expansion, and evidence is sufficient to proceed with a small implementation plus relevant checks.
+- `structured_slice`: use when some formal artefacts are needed, but they can stay intentionally small and scoped to the approved slice.
+- `structured_delivery`: use when the change has broad product, architecture, runtime, policy, persistence, release or cross-owner impact.
+- `block`: use when ownership, SoT, impact, evidence or product direction is not clear enough to choose a safe path.
+
 ## Quality Contract Output
 
 Structured Delivery skills use this shape when relevant:
@@ -71,9 +96,34 @@ When a repository needs durable AGDF state, use the plugin-local `control/` scaf
 - `SOT_REGISTRY.md` prevents parallel sources of truth.
 - `CONTEXT_GRAPH.md` stores durable Brownfield findings, decisions, risks, evidence and exit criteria.
 - `AGENT_QUALITY_CONTRACTS.json` stores reusable block, revise and warning conditions.
+- OR reports live under `.agdf/control/artefacts/<key>/OR.md` when a run closeout is steering-relevant or should be auditable beyond the chat.
 
 The scaffold is not a second documentation site. Link to authoritative artefacts instead of copying them.
 
+## Native Runtime
+
+AGDF must work natively through the plugin router, skills and live `.agdf/control/` artefacts.
+Agents should read the live control state and apply the gate model directly before reaching for helper commands.
+
+Machine-readable commands such as `doctor --json`, `gate-check --json` and `delivery-map --json` are validators and automation interfaces.
+They make the repository state checkable, but they do not replace the native skill workflow or the durable control artefacts.
+
+## Delivery Map
+
+`delivery-map --json` is the machine-readable delivery picture for the active control state.
+It derives, but does not replace, the live `.agdf/control/AGDF_RUN.md` and `MASTER_BACKLOG.md` state.
+
+It must expose:
+
+- approved or active artefacts and approvals
+- `UR -> PRD -> SD -> TP -> QA_REPORT` relationships
+- evidence refs, missing evidence and declared risks
+- Context Graph impact and gate effect
+- findings that explain why the delivery picture is `pass | warn | revise | block`
+
+Missing relationship evidence in the Artefact Chain is at least `revise` once the related gate artefact is approved or passed.
+Declared missing evidence, declared risk or Context Graph gate effect may escalate the delivery map to `warn`, `revise` or `block`.
+
 ## Skill Output
 
 Every skill output should be as short as possible and as concrete as needed.

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/brownfield-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 ---
 name: brownfield-analysis
-description: Use this skill after gate-check or live AGDF control state confirms that implementation preparation is allowed, and before non-trivial implementation in an existing codebase. It analyzes existing artefacts, current coverage, reuse strategy, risks, and the minimal clean implementation path. Do not use it as the first AGDF skill for a fresh "I want to build/change X" prompt when approval, scope, or next allowed action is unclear.
+description: Use this skill after gate-check or live AGDF control state confirms that Brownfield Review or implementation preparation is allowed. Use it after Approval: UR as the lightweight Brownfield Review after G-00 before PRD when existing systems may be affected, and again before non-trivial implementation after TP. Do not use it as the first AGDF skill for a fresh "I want to build/change X" prompt when approval, scope, or next allowed action is unclear.
 ---
 
 # brownfield-analysis
 
 ## Purpose
-Ensure implementation in an existing system is Brownfield-oriented, not Greenfield-style.
+Ensure delivery in an existing system is Brownfield-oriented, not Greenfield-style.
 
 The skill answers:
 
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ The skill answers:
 - what can be reused, extended, or refactored
 - whether new artefacts are really needed
 - architecture, compatibility, migration, and regression impact
-- the minimal clean implementation path
+- the minimal clean next step
 - whether Context Graph impact exists without automatically creating a node
 
 ## Runtime Contract
@@ -24,21 +24,24 @@ Use `../../meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md` for Quality Contract output, Context G
 Brownfield-specific output must make evidence, missing existing-system view, parallel-structure risk, reuse strategy, and the minimal next step visible.
 
 ## Rules
-1. Brownfield first: understand the existing codebase before implementation.
-2. Reuse-before-create: prefer existing modules, services, components, tables, endpoints, tests, and configuration.
-3. Minimal clean slice: choose the smallest durable intervention, not merely the smallest technical diff.
-4. No silent parallel structures.
-5. Existing architecture, naming, error handling, logging, security, and test conventions are binding unless deviation is justified.
-6. What is not visibly evidenced does not count as existing.
-7. Async execute paths must not become a second product-policy decision point.
-8. Visible state ownership must be checked for chat, rendering, scrolling, recovery, and status problems.
-9. SoT/runtime/product-semantics drift must be named; if official behaviour must be decided first, recommend UR or equivalent product direction.
-10. Large UI surfaces and state hooks must be checked for mixed render, view-model, derived state, orchestration, persistence, and recovery ownership.
-11. Context Graph impact must be curated; it is not a review log or version index.
-12. Specification archive migrations must follow the archive index if present.
+1. Brownfield first: understand the existing codebase before PRD/SD decisions when existing-system impact is possible, and again before implementation.
+2. Brownfield Review after `Approval: UR` is a sizing and routing step. It must decide `quick_task`, `structured_slice`, `structured_delivery`, or `block` before PRD depth or implementation is chosen.
+3. Reuse-before-create: prefer existing modules, services, components, tables, endpoints, tests, and configuration.
+4. Minimal clean slice: choose the smallest durable intervention, not merely the smallest technical diff.
+5. No silent parallel structures.
+6. Existing architecture, naming, error handling, logging, security, and test conventions are binding unless deviation is justified.
+7. What is not visibly evidenced does not count as existing.
+8. Async execute paths must not become a second product-policy decision point.
+9. Visible state ownership must be checked for chat, rendering, scrolling, recovery, and status problems.
+10. SoT/runtime/product-semantics drift must be named; if official behaviour must be decided first, recommend UR or equivalent product direction.
+11. Large UI surfaces and state hooks must be checked for mixed render, view-model, derived state, orchestration, persistence, and recovery ownership.
+12. Context Graph impact must be curated; it is not a review log or version index.
+13. Specification archive migrations must follow the archive index if present.
 
 ## When To Use
+- after `gate-check` permits `Brownfield Review` or live `.agdf/control/AGDF_RUN.md` names Brownfield Review as the next allowed action
 - after `gate-check` permits implementation preparation or live `.agdf/control/AGDF_RUN.md` already names Brownfield Analysis as the next allowed action
+- after `Approval: UR` when existing owners, SoT, contracts, policies, persistence, runtime paths, tests, UI, UX or architecture may affect PRD/SD scope
 - before `CD+Tests`
 - before changes to an existing repository
 - bug fixes in existing modules
@@ -51,7 +54,7 @@ Brownfield-specific output must make evidence, missing existing-system view, par
 ## Inputs
 Use what is available:
 
-- Task Plan, `task_id`, `story_id`
+- approved UR, Task Plan, `task_id`, `story_id`
 - project structure
 - affected files, modules, services, APIs, data models
 - existing tests
@@ -59,7 +62,8 @@ Use what is available:
 - repository conventions
 
 If inputs are missing, work only from observable evidence and mark gaps explicitly.
-If gate status, approval, scope or next allowed action is unclear, stop and route to `gate-check` instead of recommending or starting implementation.
+If gate status, approval, scope or next allowed action is unclear, stop and route to `gate-check` instead of recommending PRD/SD detail or starting implementation.
+When used as Brownfield Review after `Approval: UR`, do not recommend PRD, SD, TP, or implementation until the Mode/Slice Decision is explicit.
 
 ## Workflow
 1. Identify affected tasks and scope.
@@ -93,6 +97,8 @@ Use a concise structure:
 ```text
 ## Brownfield Analysis
 - decision: pass | revise | block | not_applicable
+- mode_slice_decision: quick_task | structured_slice | structured_delivery | block
+- required_next_gate: none | PRD | SD | TP | Brownfield Analysis
 - scope:
 - evidence:
 - missing_evidence:
@@ -116,3 +122,4 @@ This skill must not:
 - convert product-semantics drift into a mere refactor
 - create Context Graph nodes automatically
 - treat archive links as active current specification signals
+- recommend broad PRD/SD/TP or implementation by reflex before Mode/Slice Decision is recorded

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/gate-check/SKILL.md

@@ -20,32 +20,45 @@ This skill must not create later artefacts such as PRD, SD, TP, CD, CR, QA, or U
 ## Runtime Contract
 Use `../../meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md` for gate terms, closeout discipline, and non-duplication rules.
 
-## Machine-Readable Control Path
+## Native Control Path
 
-When the target repository contains live AGDF control files, prefer the executable control path before deriving a gate decision manually:
+AGDF is applied natively through this skill, the agent router, and live `.agdf/control/` state.
+
+First inspect the durable control state directly:
+
+- `.agdf/control/AGDF_RUN.md`
+- `.agdf/control/MASTER_BACKLOG.md`
+- `.agdf/control/SOT_REGISTRY.md`
+- `.agdf/control/CONTEXT_GRAPH.md`
+- `.agdf/control/AGENT_QUALITY_CONTRACTS.json`
+
+Use the executable control path when a machine-readable check is requested, when the gate state is ambiguous, or when a repository-local automation needs JSON evidence:
 
 ```bash
 npm create agdf@latest doctor --json
 npm create agdf@latest gate-check --json
+npm create agdf@latest delivery-map --json
 ```
 
 `doctor` checks whether `.agdf/control/` is actionable. `gate-check` consumes that result and `AGDF_RUN.md` to report the operative process decision: `open | blocked`, current gate, blocking reason, missing approval, allowed outputs, forbidden outputs, next allowed action and evidence references.
+`delivery-map` reports the durable delivery picture: active artefacts, approvals, Artefact Chain relationships, evidence refs, missing evidence, risks, Context Graph gate effect and machine-readable findings.
 
-The CLI report is evidence for this skill, not a second rule system. If the report says `blocked`, do not continue with later-gate artefacts until the reported blocker is resolved.
+The CLI reports are validators and JSON evidence, not the primary user experience and not a second rule system. If a report says `blocked`, do not continue with later-gate artefacts until the reported blocker is resolved.
 
 ## Rules
 1. Fail closed when a required approval or artefact status is missing.
 2. The earliest blocking gate wins.
 3. A user approval is valid only as `Approval: <GateName>`.
 4. Treat `Freigabe: <GateName>` as a legacy alias only when reviewing older German runs.
-5. Implicit consent is not approval.
+5. Implicit consent is not approval. "ok", "go ahead", "do it", "approved", "continue", "leg los" and similar phrases do not unlock gates.
 6. Do not preview later artefacts while a gate blocks.
 7. Internal process steps are not user approval gates.
 8. OR-lite is allowed if it does not leak blocked content.
 9. SoT/runtime/product-semantics drift can trigger an early product gate, usually `UR`.
-10. Approval of one user gate permits work on the next gate artefact only; it never skips directly to implementation.
-11. New product semantics, functional change or user-visible behaviour change requires a durable UR in `.agdf/control/` or a linked authoritative repository SoT before PRD, SD, TP, Brownfield Analysis or implementation.
+10. Approval of one user gate permits work on the next allowed gate artefact or required internal step only; it never skips directly to implementation.
+11. New product semantics, functional change or user-visible behaviour change requires a durable UR in `.agdf/control/` or a linked authoritative repository SoT before Brownfield Review, PRD, SD, TP, Brownfield Analysis or implementation.
 12. Approval text and durable artefact presence are separate requirements for UR, PRD, SD, TP and QA report decisions. Approval text without the corresponding persisted or linked artefact keeps the current gate at that gate.
+13. After Brownfield Review, decide the process size before drafting PRD or implementing: `quick_task | structured_slice | structured_delivery | block`.
 
 ## Gate Order
 User gates:
@@ -54,7 +67,7 @@ User gates:
 
 Internal mandatory steps:
 
-`Brownfield Analysis -> CD+Tests -> CR -> OR`
+`Brownfield Review -> Mode/Slice Decision -> Brownfield Analysis -> CD+Tests -> CR -> OR`
 
 ## Gate Transitions
 
@@ -63,7 +76,10 @@ Use this transition model for Structured Delivery:
 | State | Current gate or step | Allowed | Forbidden | Missing approval |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | No approved UR | `UR` | clarify user need, formulate and persist UR, request `Approval: UR` | PRD, SD, TP, Brownfield Analysis, implementation, QA, release | `Approval: UR` |
-| `UR` approved and UR artefact persisted or linked, PRD missing or draft | `PRD` | draft/refine PRD, define scope, acceptance criteria and non-goals, persist/link PRD, request `Approval: PRD` | SD, TP, Brownfield Analysis, implementation, QA, release | `Approval: PRD` |
+| `UR` approved and UR artefact persisted or linked, Brownfield Review missing | `Brownfield Review` | classify workstream, existing owners, SoT, reuse risks, change size and PRD/SD open questions; mark review done or not_applicable | PRD, SD, TP, implementation, QA, release | none |
+| Brownfield Review done or not_applicable, Mode/Slice Decision missing | `Mode/Slice Decision` | decide `quick_task`, `structured_slice`, `structured_delivery` or `block`; record evidence and required next gate depth | PRD, SD, TP, implementation, QA, release | none |
+| Mode/Slice Decision is `quick_task` | `Quick Task Execution` | implement only the narrow approved UR scope, run relevant checks, record evidence and OR-lite | broad PRD/SD/TP by ritual, scope expansion, QA or release claims without evidence | none |
+| Mode/Slice Decision is `structured_slice` or `structured_delivery`, PRD missing or draft | `PRD` | draft/refine PRD at the smallest justified depth, define scope, acceptance criteria and non-goals, persist/link PRD, request `Approval: PRD` | SD, TP, implementation-preparation Brownfield Analysis, implementation, QA, release | `Approval: PRD` |
 | `PRD` approved and PRD artefact persisted or linked, SD missing or draft | `SD` | draft/refine Solution Design, ownership and architecture, persist/link SD, request `Approval: SD` | TP, implementation, QA, release | `Approval: SD` |
 | `SD` approved and SD artefact persisted or linked, TP missing or draft | `TP` | draft/refine Task/Test Plan, task IDs, evidence plan, persist/link TP, request `Approval: TP` | implementation, QA, release | `Approval: TP` |
 | `TP` approved and TP artefact persisted or linked, Brownfield missing | `Brownfield Analysis` | run Brownfield Analysis for approved TP scope | implementation, QA, release | none |
@@ -71,7 +87,7 @@ Use this transition model for Structured Delivery:
 | `QA` approved but QA report missing or not pass | `QA` | persist/link QA report with `pass` decision or revise/block evidence | UAT, release | none |
 
 If `Approval: UR` is present, do not say implementation is the next step.
-The next step is PRD work unless the run is explicitly classified as a Quick Task with no new product semantics and no formal artefact requirement.
+The next step is Brownfield Review when Brownfield, ownership, runtime, policy, persistence, architecture, UI or UX impact is possible; after that, the next step is a Mode/Slice Decision. Do not assume the full PRD/SD/TP chain before the existing-system impact is understood.
 
 ## When To Use
 - new user intent to build, add, change, extend, refactor or deliver something
@@ -93,6 +109,8 @@ Use what is available:
 - current user request
 - existing exact approvals
 - status of UR, PRD, SD, TP
+- Brownfield Review status
+- Mode/Slice Decision
 - Brownfield Analysis status
 - CD+Tests, CR, QA, UAT status
 - signs of documentation/runtime/product-semantics drift
@@ -107,6 +125,8 @@ If a status is not explicit, do not assume it is satisfied.
 5. Name the exact missing approval, if any.
 6. If consent was only implicit, say it is not yet approval and provide the exact formula.
 7. Ensure the next step follows the gate transition table. In particular, never jump from `Approval: UR` to implementation.
+8. Treat a generic "start", "continue" or "leg los" request as a request to perform only the current next allowed action.
+9. After Brownfield Review, choose the smallest safe process path before creating later artefacts.
 
 ## Output
 Keep the result short and operational:
@@ -122,11 +142,15 @@ Keep the result short and operational:
 This skill must not:
 
 - create PRD before UR approval
+- create PRD before required Brownfield Review is done or explicitly not_applicable
+- create PRD before Mode/Slice Decision is recorded
 - create SD before PRD approval
 - create TP while earlier gates block
 - suggest implementation immediately after `Approval: UR`
+- suggest implementation before Brownfield Review has explicitly selected `quick_task`
 - suggest implementation immediately after `Approval: PRD`
 - suggest implementation immediately after `Approval: SD`
+- treat "ok", "leg los", "go ahead", "approved" or similar wording as gate approval
 - perform full Brownfield Analysis unless explicitly requested
 - provide implementation snippets while implementation is gated
 - present QA or UAT as passed without evidence

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/release-or/SKILL.md

@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ It reports:
 Use `../../meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md` for Quality Contract output, Context Graph fields, gate terms, and non-duplication rules.
 
 OR-specific output must make gate status, delivered and intentionally not delivered content, missing approvals, missing evidence, risks, retained fallbacks, and the next permissible step visible.
+When `.agdf/control/` is present, persist or link the OR under `.agdf/control/artefacts/<key>/OR.md` and reference it from `AGDF_RUN.md` or `MASTER_BACKLOG.md` when it is steering-relevant.
 
 ## Rules
 1. OR is always allowed and mandatory for relevant runs.
@@ -77,15 +78,16 @@ If information is missing, state the gap instead of guessing.
 2. Determine report depth:
    - `OR-lite`: gate status, allowed/forbidden outputs, missing approval, next step
    - `OR-full`: also delivered artefacts, TP coverage, Brownfield fit, solution integrity, risks, fallbacks, QA/UAT status
-3. Record delivered vs intentionally not delivered content.
-4. Summarize TP coverage if a TP exists.
-5. Summarize Brownfield fit and solution integrity if reviewed.
-6. Summarize tests and verification.
-7. Summarize documentation and Context Graph impact if relevant.
-8. Name retained fallbacks and exit criteria.
-9. Set exactly one next permissible step.
-10. Set exactly one quality outlook.
-11. State whether `delivery-closeout` is the next operational handoff step when code changes exist and the delivery state allows it.
+3. Record the selected `Report mode` and durable OR target or link when `.agdf/control/` exists.
+4. Record delivered vs intentionally not delivered content.
+5. Summarize TP coverage if a TP exists.
+6. Summarize Brownfield fit and solution integrity if reviewed.
+7. Summarize tests and verification.
+8. Summarize documentation and Context Graph impact if relevant.
+9. Name retained fallbacks and exit criteria.
+10. Set exactly one next permissible step.
+11. Set exactly one quality outlook.
+12. State whether `delivery-closeout` is the next operational handoff step when code changes exist and the delivery state allows it.
 
 ## Output
 Use a compact structure:
@@ -93,6 +95,8 @@ Use a compact structure:
 ```text
 ## OR
 - gate:
+- report_mode:
+- artefact:
 - status:
 - delivered:
 - intentionally_not_delivered:

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "create-agdf",
-  "version": "0.2.3",
+  "version": "0.2.4",
   "description": "Bootstrap AGDF repository-local plugin files, Copilot instructions, skills, control files and machine-readable checks.",
   "type": "module",
   "files": [