devrites 3.0.4 → 3.0.6

package/pack/generated/codex/skills/rite-status/SKILL.md

@@ -12,13 +12,13 @@ This is the Codex mirror of a DevRites skill. In Codex:
 
 - Load DevRites engineering standards from `.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/`. Read `.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/core.md` before workflow work, then load the other `.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/*.md` files exactly when this skill asks for them.
 - Use the installed `devrites-engine` binary as the canonical runtime helper surface for orientation, gates, and state mutation.
-- When this skill asks for a DevRites specialist or writer agent, **explicitly** spawn the matching Codex custom agent from `.codex/agents/devrites-*.toml` through Codex subagents (`spawn_agent`), then wait for its result and reconcile it as the skill instructs. Do not do the review inline just because the instruction to spawn is embedded here — Codex under-fires embedded spawn/skill instructions (openai/codex #23496), so treat the spawn as required, not optional.
-- The independence of a fresh-context subagent is the point. If Codex genuinely cannot spawn subagents in the current surface, run the documented inline fallback and **label the result an inline fallback, not an independent review** — an inline pass shares the calling context and is weaker evidence.
+- When this skill asks for a DevRites specialist or writer agent, **explicitly** spawn the matching Codex custom agent from `.codex/agents/devrites-*.toml` through Codex subagents (`spawn_agent`), then wait for its result and reconcile it as the skill instructs. Do not do the review inline just because the instruction to spawn is embedded here: Codex under-fires embedded spawn/skill instructions (openai/codex #23496), so treat the spawn as required, not optional.
+- The independence of a fresh-context subagent is the point. If Codex genuinely cannot spawn subagents in the current surface, run the documented inline fallback and **label the result an inline fallback, not an independent review**: an inline pass shares the calling context and is weaker evidence.
 - Codex project hooks are installed in `.codex/hooks.json`. Review and trust them with `/hooks` before relying on hook enforcement.
-- When this skill asks a HITL question via `AskUserQuestion`: Codex's equivalent (`request_user_input`) exists only in Plan mode. Outside Plan mode, render the option set as a plain numbered list in chat and **end the turn** so the human answers — NEVER silently pick an option yourself; auto-picking is AFK's contract, gated by the `.devrites/AFK` sentinel.
+- When this skill asks a HITL question via `AskUserQuestion`: Codex's equivalent (`request_user_input`) exists only in Plan mode. Outside Plan mode, render the option set as a plain numbered list in chat and **end the turn** so the human answers: NEVER silently pick an option yourself; auto-picking is AFK's contract, gated by the `.devrites/AFK` sentinel.
 
 
-# $rite-status — active feature status
+# $rite-status: active feature status
 
 Read-only. Report where the active feature stands. **Do not run any phase.**
 
@@ -49,22 +49,22 @@ Otherwise summarize from the loaded state, concisely:
 1. **Feature** + one-line objective (from `brief.md`).
 2. **Phase**, **active slice** + its slice mode (from `state.md`). **Run mode**
    (`afk` / `hitl`) is derived from `.devrites/AFK` presence (the preamble
-   already does this), not from a `state.md` field — present = `afk`, absent = `hitl`.
-3. **Status** — `running` / `awaiting_human` / `blocked` / `done`. If
+   already does this), not from a `state.md` field: present = `afk`, absent = `hitl`.
+3. **Status:** `running` / `awaiting_human` / `blocked` / `done`. If
    `awaiting_human`, render the `Awaiting human` block from `state.md` (qid, gate,
    question, proposed, raised_at, blocking_slices) and instruct
    `$rite-resolve <qid> "<answer>"`.
-4. **Next action** — the single recommended next command from `snapshot.nextCommands`
+4. **Next action:** the single recommended next command from `snapshot.nextCommands`
    for the current host.
-5. **Evidence** — what's proven vs unproven (from `evidence.md` /
+5. **Evidence:** what's proven vs unproven (from `evidence.md` /
    `browser-evidence.md`).
-6. **Open questions** — count by gate (from `questions.md`:
+6. **Open questions:** count by gate (from `questions.md`:
    `n open: x blocking · y validating · z advisory`) + the blocking qids by id and one-line question.
 7. **Unresolved drift** (`drift.md`).
 8. **Risks** (from `state.md` / `spec.md`); if `.devrites/principles.md` exists, note the count
    of declared invariants and flag any exception in its register that is past its review/removal
    trigger (a stale exception is a standing risk). Omit if there's no principles file.
-9. **Ready for handoff?** — see section below.
+9. **Ready for handoff?:** see section below.
 
 Flag anything blocking: unresolved drift, failing evidence, `Status: awaiting_human`,
 or open questions that change product behavior. End with the recommended next command
@@ -72,8 +72,8 @@ and nothing else.
 
 ## Ready for handoff?
 
-After the summary items (1–8), render the handoff readiness section (item 9 above) last —
-the canonical output order is: progress footer → summary items 1–8 → handoff readiness.
+After the summary items (1-8), render the handoff readiness section (item 9 above) last:
+the canonical output order is: progress footer → summary items 1-8 → handoff readiness.
 A fresh agent
 or a future session should be able to pick the work up from the workspace
 **alone**, with zero chat context. Check:
@@ -94,13 +94,13 @@ If any item above fails, suggest `$rite-handoff` to compact chat-only
 context into the workspace before the session ends.
 
 ## Gotchas
-- Read-only — never advance a phase or write to the workspace; that's the phase skills' job.
+- Read-only: never advance a phase or write to the workspace; that's the phase skills' job.
 - Report from the `.devrites/` files, not chat memory (it's gone after `/clear`).
-- Give the single next command, not a menu of options — an ambiguous next-action fails the handoff check.
+- Give the single next command, not a menu of options: an ambiguous next-action fails the handoff check.
 
 ## Output format
 
-**Progress first** — `$rite-status` *is* the status meter: render it by running
+**Progress first**: `$rite-status` *is* the status meter: render it by running
 `devrites-engine progress`. Then use the shared completion reply contract
 ([`devrites-lib/reference/reply-contract.md`](../devrites-lib/reference/reply-contract.md))
 as a read-only status variant:
@@ -115,5 +115,5 @@ Record: .devrites/work/<slug>/state.md
 ```
 
 If gaps exist, the recommended next command is to **persist them first** (see
-`.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/core.md` — "Persistence before stopping"). Only then
+`.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/core.md`. "Persistence before stopping"). Only then
 move to the phase's next action.

package/pack/generated/codex/skills/rite-temper/SKILL.md

@@ -11,43 +11,43 @@ This is the Codex mirror of a DevRites skill. In Codex:
 
 - Load DevRites engineering standards from `.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/`. Read `.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/core.md` before workflow work, then load the other `.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/*.md` files exactly when this skill asks for them.
 - Use the installed `devrites-engine` binary as the canonical runtime helper surface for orientation, gates, and state mutation.
-- When this skill asks for a DevRites specialist or writer agent, **explicitly** spawn the matching Codex custom agent from `.codex/agents/devrites-*.toml` through Codex subagents (`spawn_agent`), then wait for its result and reconcile it as the skill instructs. Do not do the review inline just because the instruction to spawn is embedded here — Codex under-fires embedded spawn/skill instructions (openai/codex #23496), so treat the spawn as required, not optional.
-- The independence of a fresh-context subagent is the point. If Codex genuinely cannot spawn subagents in the current surface, run the documented inline fallback and **label the result an inline fallback, not an independent review** — an inline pass shares the calling context and is weaker evidence.
+- When this skill asks for a DevRites specialist or writer agent, **explicitly** spawn the matching Codex custom agent from `.codex/agents/devrites-*.toml` through Codex subagents (`spawn_agent`), then wait for its result and reconcile it as the skill instructs. Do not do the review inline just because the instruction to spawn is embedded here: Codex under-fires embedded spawn/skill instructions (openai/codex #23496), so treat the spawn as required, not optional.
+- The independence of a fresh-context subagent is the point. If Codex genuinely cannot spawn subagents in the current surface, run the documented inline fallback and **label the result an inline fallback, not an independent review**: an inline pass shares the calling context and is weaker evidence.
 - Codex project hooks are installed in `.codex/hooks.json`. Review and trust them with `/hooks` before relying on hook enforcement.
-- When this skill asks a HITL question via `AskUserQuestion`: Codex's equivalent (`request_user_input`) exists only in Plan mode. Outside Plan mode, render the option set as a plain numbered list in chat and **end the turn** so the human answers — NEVER silently pick an option yourself; auto-picking is AFK's contract, gated by the `.devrites/AFK` sentinel.
+- When this skill asks a HITL question via `AskUserQuestion`: Codex's equivalent (`request_user_input`) exists only in Plan mode. Outside Plan mode, render the option set as a plain numbered list in chat and **end the turn** so the human answers: NEVER silently pick an option yourself; auto-picking is AFK's contract, gated by the `.devrites/AFK` sentinel.
 
 
-# $rite-temper — temper the spec before you plan
+# $rite-temper: temper the spec before you plan
 
 Take a readied spec and **temper** it: heat it (raise ambition on the *outcome*), then
-quench it (pre-mortem + prune the *solution surface*) — stronger and less brittle. The one
+quench it (pre-mortem + prune the *solution surface*): stronger and less brittle. The one
 DevRites step that decides scope/ambition on a written spec and folds the result into the
 canonical contract, so `$rite-define` plans the **hardened** spec. Optional for small work
-(significance-gated — auto-skips low-stakes specs), but always invoked inside
+(significance-gated: auto-skips low-stakes specs), but always invoked inside
 `$rite-autocomplete`. **Read the active workspace first**; if there's no readied
 `spec.md`, tell the user to run `$rite-spec`.
 
 ## Rules consulted (read on demand from `.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/`)
 Pull on demand: `patterns.md` +
-`coding-style.md` (the over-engineering / YAGNI rubric — reuse the pack's standard, don't
+`coding-style.md` (the over-engineering / YAGNI rubric (reuse the pack's standard, don't
 invent one), `documentation.md` (ADR-style `decisions.md` entries), `afk-hitl.md`
 (irreversible-risk list + gate ceiling), `elicitation.md` (the move-set to deepen a section
-that needs more than the default pre-mortem — selected by the section's risk).
+that needs more than the default pre-mortem) selected by the section's risk).
 
 ## Operating rules
 - **Ambition on outcomes, minimalism on the surface.** Raise the success bar and solve the
-  *real* problem; never add speculative capability/abstraction. The reconciliation hinge —
+  *real* problem; never add speculative capability/abstraction. The reconciliation hinge:
   bigger ambition, smaller surface.
-- **Every scope change routes through the Spec Drift Guard** — it only becomes real by being
+- **Every scope change routes through the Spec Drift Guard:** it only becomes real by being
   written into `spec.md` as a recorded, confirmable decision. Expansion is **opt-in** (HITL
-  confirm; AFK pauses — see autocomplete policy). Nothing auto-grows into the build.
+  confirm; AFK pauses: see autocomplete policy). Nothing auto-grows into the build.
 - **Bound ambition by reversibility.** Auth / migration / public-API / data-model touches get
-  the *opposite* of ambition — maximum conservatism; they always pause (irreversible-risk list).
+  the *opposite* of ambition: maximum conservatism; they always pause (irreversible-risk list).
 - **Honest verdict.** Never round "needs work" up to "ready"; record every scope call's *why*.
 - **You write; the reviewer judges.** You are the single canonical writer (`strategy.md` +
   the spec edits); the reviewer agent is read-only.
 - **Demand the spec-quality checklists for big features.** `$rite-temper` only fires on
-  significant specs — exactly where vague requirement prose is most expensive. Before hardening,
+  significant specs: exactly where vague requirement prose is most expensive. Before hardening,
   confirm `checklists/<domain>.md` exist and pass (`rite-spec/reference/spec-checklists.md`); a
   scope expansion you fold in **adds its own** rows (new Success/Acceptance criteria get
   "unit-tested for English" too). A folded expansion with an unquantified criterion is a CRITICAL
@@ -57,57 +57,57 @@ that needs more than the default pre-mortem — selected by the section's risk).
 0. **Read `.agents/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/core.md`**, then run
    `devrites-engine preamble` for deterministic workspace orientation.
    Then read the workspace: `spec.md` (+ `decisions.md`,
-   `assumptions.md`, `design-brief.md` if UI), `state.md`. Require `Spec gate: passed` — else
+   `assumptions.md`, `design-brief.md` if UI), `state.md`. Require `Spec gate: passed`: else
    STOP → `$rite-spec`. If a plan already exists, scope changes route through `$rite-plan
    repair` (record in `drift.md`), not a blind spec edit.
-1. **Significance test** — [`reference/significance.md`](reference/significance.md). Low-stakes
+1. **Significance test:** [`reference/significance.md`](reference/significance.md). Low-stakes
    / shape-not-meaning work → write the one-line `skipped — low stakes (<trigger>)` verdict to `strategy.md`,
    set `state.md` `Next step: $rite-define`, and recommend it. Otherwise fire the full pass below.
-2. **FORWARD pass + mode selection** — [`reference/scope-modes.md`](reference/scope-modes.md).
+2. **FORWARD pass + mode selection:** [`reference/scope-modes.md`](reference/scope-modes.md).
    First, the **one-sentence-intent test**: state the whole change's intent in a single sentence.
-   If you can't without an "and" that joins two unrelated outcomes, it is **two features** — the
+   If you can't without an "and" that joins two unrelated outcomes, it is **two features**: the
    sharpest scope-creep signal there is; recommend splitting the spec (or narrowing this one) before
    tempering further. Then diverge on the *outcome* (the 10-star version of the real problem), and
    commit **exactly one** scope mode (`expand` opt-in · `selective` · `hold-rigor` · `reduce-to-MVP`)
    with its rationale and the **hinge** (what would change the call). `$ARGUMENTS` `--mode` is a
    hint, not a command.
-3. **INVERSION pass** — pre-mortem in past tense ("it shipped and failed — what went wrong"),
+3. **INVERSION pass:** pre-mortem in past tense ("it shipped and failed: what went wrong"),
    each top risk carrying likelihood + mitigation + the slice it will bind to; then the **YAGNI
    ledger** (each candidate scope item gets the "imagine the later refactor" test; defer unless
    now-cost is trivial AND deferred-cost is large).
    - **Deepen on demand.** When a specific scope call, requirement, or risk needs sharper thinking
-     than the default pre-mortem gives, pull the 3–5 techniques from
+     than the default pre-mortem gives, pull the 3-5 techniques from
      [`elicitation.md`](../devrites-lib/reference/standards/elicitation.md) whose *when-to-reach-for-it* matches that
      section's risk (irreversible decision → Red-Team/Blue-Team + Assumption Audit; sizing → Delphi;
      vague requirement → Steelman-then-Attack), offer them, and run the chosen one **on that one
-     section**. Record what it changed, not that you ran it. Optional — the default passes stand on
+     section**. Record what it changed, not that you ran it. Optional: the default passes stand on
      their own.
-4. **Score the 9 dimensions** — [`reference/review-dimensions.md`](reference/review-dimensions.md).
+4. **Score the 9 dimensions:** [`reference/review-dimensions.md`](reference/review-dimensions.md).
    Cite evidence *before* the band; **gate on the floor** (the weakest dimension, not an average).
    **Completion:** all nine dimensions have cited evidence, a band, and one explicit floor verdict.
-5. **Walk the findings WITH the human — do not batch-dump.** The artifact is the *output* of an
+5. **Walk the findings WITH the human: do not batch-dump.** The artifact is the *output* of an
    interactive review, not a substitute for it: surface each material scope call / finding via
    `AskUserQuestion`, one at a time, best-guess + **why**. Each material scope call ends as a
-   **recorded decision** — a resolved `questions.md` qid (HITL) or a `decisions.md` ADR (AFK) —
+   **recorded decision**: a resolved `questions.md` qid (HITL) or a `decisions.md` ADR (AFK):
    so the walk leaves an auditable trail, not just chat. (AFK gate policy is single-sourced in
    [`reference/significance.md`](reference/significance.md): `hold-rigor` + `reduce-to-MVP`
    auto-apply, **any `expand` is a blocking pause**, irreversible-risk always pauses.)
-6. **Write `strategy.md` + fold back** — [`reference/strategy-template.md`](reference/strategy-template.md).
+6. **Write `strategy.md` + fold back:** [`reference/strategy-template.md`](reference/strategy-template.md).
    **One drift rule (decide by whether a plan exists):** *no `plan.md` yet* (the normal pre-define
-   case) → update `spec.md` **through the Spec Drift Guard** — *Success criteria* **and**
+   case) → update `spec.md` **through the Spec Drift Guard**. *Success criteria* **and**
    *Acceptance criteria* for each opt-in expansion / cut, **Non-goals** for every deferred item,
    *Constraints* **and** *Risks* the pre-mortem demands, and the gaps/decisions table; *`plan.md`
-   already exists* → do **not** edit `spec.md` here — write the deltas to `drift.md` and hand off
+   already exists* → do **not** edit `spec.md` here: write the deltas to `drift.md` and hand off
    to `$rite-plan repair`. Either way, append `decisions.md` (one ADR per scope call: context ·
    decision · why-not · what-would-change-it) and `assumptions.md` (every "we'll probably need X" →
-   assumption-to-verify). **Every scope delta must carry a recorded human decision** — a resolved
+   assumption-to-verify). **Every scope delta must carry a recorded human decision**: a resolved
    `questions.md` qid (HITL) or a `decisions.md` ADR (AFK within the ceiling); a folded change with
    no recorded decision is the batch-dump failure. **Re-check the spec Readiness gate** (it fails if
    any folded scope delta lacks its decision). Update `state.md`: `Phase: temper`,
    `Next step: $rite-define`; on a blocking pause (expand / irreversible / a dimension still below
    bar) write the `Awaiting human` block + `Status: awaiting_human` before stopping.
-7. **Adversarial verification loop** — dispatch [`devrites-strategy-reviewer`](.codex/agents/devrites-strategy-reviewer.toml)
-   (fresh context, **only** the hardened spec + the rubric — no authoring reasoning). Resolve
+7. **Adversarial verification loop:** dispatch [`devrites-strategy-reviewer`](.codex/agents/devrites-strategy-reviewer.toml)
+   (fresh context, **only** the hardened spec + the rubric: no authoring reasoning). Resolve
    actionable findings by editing `spec.md`/`strategy.md`, re-dispatch; **cap ≤3 iterations**. A
    dimension still below bar after 3 → blocking question (HITL) or AFK gate-ceiling entry;
    irreversible-risk findings always pause. If sub-agents are unavailable, do the independent
@@ -117,11 +117,11 @@ that needs more than the default pre-mortem — selected by the section's risk).
 
 > **Mid-flight discipline.** When tempted to dump findings into `strategy.md` and skip the
 > walk-through, expand the surface (not the outcome), grow scope without the Drift Guard, or
-> score before citing evidence — see [`reference/anti-patterns.md`](reference/anti-patterns.md).
+> score before citing evidence: see [`reference/anti-patterns.md`](reference/anti-patterns.md).
 
 ## Output
 
-**Progress first** — run `devrites-engine progress`, then use the shared completion reply contract
+**Progress first**: run `devrites-engine progress`, then use the shared completion reply contract
 ([`devrites-lib/reference/reply-contract.md`](../devrites-lib/reference/reply-contract.md)).
 Default success shape:
 ```
@@ -135,4 +135,4 @@ Record: .devrites/work/<slug>/strategy.md
 ```
 If readiness is blocked, use the shared `Stopped / blocked` form and route `Fix:`
 to `$rite-spec`; do not recommend `$rite-define`.
-**DO NOT plan, slice, or write code here** — that's `$rite-define` and `$rite-build`.
+**DO NOT plan, slice, or write code here**. That's `$rite-define` and `$rite-build`.

package/pack/generated/codex/skills/rite-temper/reference/anti-patterns.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-# $rite-temper — anti-patterns
+# $rite-temper: anti-patterns
 
 Universal rationalizations + red flags live in
-[`../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/anti-patterns.md`](../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/anti-patterns.md) — read it when the
+[`../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/anti-patterns.md`](../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/anti-patterns.md): read it when the
 reluctance is broader than this phase. Below are the temper-specific ones.
 
 ## Phase rationalizations
@@ -9,21 +9,21 @@ reluctance is broader than this phase. Below are the temper-specific ones.
 | Excuse | Rebuttal |
 |---|---|
 | "I'll write all the findings into `strategy.md` and let the user read it." | The artifact is the *output* of an interactive review, not a substitute for it. A finding's path to "done" goes **through `AskUserQuestion`**, one at a time, with a recommendation + why. Dumping findings into one write and moving on is the exact failure mode this skill exists to prevent. |
-| "Bigger is better — let's add the extra capability while we're thinking big." | Ambition belongs on the **outcome**, not the **solution surface**. A speculative capability/abstraction is gold plating. Expand the problem + acceptance; never the machinery. |
-| "The user obviously wants the ambitious version — I'll add it to the spec." | Expansion is **opt-in**, recorded, and confirmed (HITL) or paused (AFK). Adding acceptance the human didn't approve is silent scope growth — route it through the Spec Drift Guard or don't add it. |
-| "It's over-scoped, I'll just trim those criteria." | Reducing scope is **still a spec change**. Cut acceptance only as a recorded Spec-Drift-Guard decision, and park the rest in Non-goals with a revisit note — never a silent trim. |
-| "This dimension is weak but the others are strong — net it's fine." | The gate is the **floor**, not the average. A spec `broken` on risk does not pass because it's `strong` on clarity. |
-| "I can see it's adequate — I'll note the band, evidence is obvious." | Cite the evidence (the spec line or its absence) **before** the band. Score-first-justify-later is how a reviewer rationalizes a spec it already likes. |
-| "It's a strategy doc, the implementation concerns don't apply yet." | Cross-cutting concerns (security/data/observability/modifiability) are where strategy breaks down. Address each or mark it explicitly N/A — silent omission is a gap. |
+| "Bigger is better: let's add the extra capability while we're thinking big." | Ambition belongs on the **outcome**, not the **solution surface**. A speculative capability/abstraction is gold plating. Expand the problem + acceptance; never the machinery. |
+| "The user obviously wants the ambitious version. I'll add it to the spec." | Expansion is **opt-in**, recorded, and confirmed (HITL) or paused (AFK). Adding acceptance the human didn't approve is silent scope growth: route it through the Spec Drift Guard or don't add it. |
+| "It's over-scoped, I'll just trim those criteria." | Reducing scope is **still a spec change**. Cut acceptance only as a recorded Spec-Drift-Guard decision, and park the rest in Non-goals with a revisit note: never a silent trim. |
+| "This dimension is weak but the others are strong: net it's fine." | The gate is the **floor**, not the average. A spec `broken` on risk does not pass because it's `strong` on clarity. |
+| "I can see it's adequate. I'll note the band, evidence is obvious." | Cite the evidence (the spec line or its absence) **before** the band. Score-first-justify-later is how a reviewer rationalizes a spec it already likes. |
+| "It's a strategy doc, the implementation concerns don't apply yet." | Cross-cutting concerns (security/data/observability/modifiability) are where strategy breaks down. Address each or mark it explicitly N/A: silent omission is a gap. |
 | "This greenfield design is elegant." | Elegant for a codebase that doesn't exist. Ground ambition in the real seams + blast radius; flag a new dependency / second design system for an explicit decision. |
 
 ## Red flags
-- `strategy.md` written but `spec.md` acceptance/Non-goals **not** updated — the build follows
+- `strategy.md` written but `spec.md` acceptance/Non-goals **not** updated: the build follows
   the spec, so the review changed nothing.
 - An `expand` decision auto-applied in AFK (it must pause), or any irreversible-risk touch that
   didn't pause.
-- A pre-mortem with risks listed but no mitigation + owning slice — a risk without an owner is a
+- A pre-mortem with risks listed but no mitigation + owning slice: a risk without an owner is a
   wish.
 - The reviewer loop running past 3 iterations, or the reviewer being handed the author's
   reasoning (defeats the fresh-context point).
-- The skill writing a `plan.md`, slicing, or touching code — that's `$rite-define` / `$rite-build`.
+- The skill writing a `plan.md`, slicing, or touching code. That's `$rite-define` / `$rite-build`.

package/pack/generated/codex/skills/rite-temper/reference/review-dimensions.md

@@ -1,42 +1,42 @@
 # Review dimensions + the floor-gate rubric
 
-The spec is scored on nine dimensions. Each catches a *different* failure mode — strength in
+The spec is scored on nine dimensions. Each catches a *different* failure mode: strength in
 one never compensates for collapse in another, so the gate is the **floor**, not an average.
 
 ## The nine dimensions
-1. **Problem altitude & ambition** — is this solving the *right* problem at the right altitude,
+1. **Problem altitude & ambition:** is this solving the *right* problem at the right altitude,
    or timidly improving the obvious path / over-reaching past the real need? Here, *under-
    reaching* on the outcome is a failure, not just over-building.
-2. **Scope honesty & boundary** — are Non-goals explicit? Is there a Minimum Usable Subset and a
+2. **Scope honesty & boundary:** are Non-goals explicit? Is there a Minimum Usable Subset and a
    clear IN/OUT line? Flags grab-bags and a missing "Won't-have-this-time".
-3. **Premise & alternatives** — are the load-bearing premises stated and challenged, and is at
+3. **Premise & alternatives:** are the load-bearing premises stated and challenged, and is at
    least one genuinely different approach (different data model / flow / boundary) considered
-   with its trade-off? ("Alternatives considered" is one of the most valuable parts of a spec.)
-4. **Pre-mortem risk coverage** — run in prospective hindsight; each top risk carries likelihood
+   with its trade-off? ("Alternatives considered" is one of the most useful parts of a spec.)
+4. **Pre-mortem risk coverage:** run in prospective hindsight; each top risk carries likelihood
    + mitigation + the slice that owns it. **Unmitigated top risks are gating.**
-5. **Over-engineering / YAGNI** — speculative capability, unused extension points, premature
+5. **Over-engineering / YAGNI:** speculative capability, unused extension points, premature
    abstraction, second-system bloat. Apply the pack's standard (`patterns.md`) + the "imagine
    the later refactor" test. Defer unless now-cost is trivial AND deferred-cost is large.
-6. **Acceptance testability & done-ness** — every acceptance criterion measurable, technology-
+6. **Acceptance testability & done-ness:** every acceptance criterion measurable, technology-
    agnostic, and comparable **down to a baseline** ("better than the current workaround"), not
    up to an unbounded ideal. Vague adjectives ("fast/robust/intuitive") and "handles X
    gracefully" are flagged.
-7. **Irreversibility & blast radius** — are auth / migration / public-API / data-model touches
+7. **Irreversibility & blast radius:** are auth / migration / public-API / data-model touches
    treated with conservatism + rollback, and is the blast radius understood (from a
    code-intelligence index if available)?
-8. **Cross-cutting coverage** — security/trust-boundary, data & migration, observability, and
-   modifiability each explicitly addressed **or explicitly N/A** — no silent omission.
-9. **Convention fit & placement realism** — does the ambition fit the codebase's existing seams
+8. **Cross-cutting coverage:** security/trust-boundary, data & migration, observability, and
+   modifiability each explicitly addressed **or explicitly N/A**: no silent omission.
+9. **Convention fit & placement realism:** does the ambition fit the codebase's existing seams
    and patterns, or assume greenfield freedom a constrained space doesn't have? Prefer existing
    conventions; flag a new dependency / second design system for explicit decision.
 
-UI specs additionally inherit `rite-polish/reference/anti-ai-slop.md` at the cross-cutting
-dimension (design-system fit, anti-AI-slop) — but `$rite-temper` reviews the *spec/design-brief*,
+UI specs also inherit `rite-polish/reference/anti-ai-slop.md` at the cross-cutting
+dimension (design-system fit, anti-AI-slop), but `$rite-temper` reviews the *spec/design-brief*,
 not pixels; the built UI is judged later by `devrites-frontend-reviewer`.
 
-## The rubric — coarse bands, evidence first
+## The rubric: coarse bands, evidence first
 Score each dimension on a **labeled band**, never a 1-10 float or a composite number (labels do
-the work — matches the pack's severity-vocabulary stance):
+the work: matches the pack's severity-vocabulary stance):
 
 | Band | Meaning |
 |---|---|
@@ -45,21 +45,21 @@ the work — matches the pack's severity-vocabulary stance):
 | **thin** | Under-addressed; a real gap to close before planning (Important). |
 | **broken** | Missing or wrong in a way that will cost a redo (Critical). |
 
-**Cite evidence before the band** — name the spec line / absence that justifies it; never score
+**Cite evidence before the band**: name the spec line / absence that justifies it; never score
 first and rationalize after. Borderline dimensions may be sampled twice; take the **lower** band
 (don't average up).
 
 ## The floor-gate
 - **Pass** only when every dimension is `adequate` or `strong` **and** no unmitigated top
-  pre-mortem risk remains. The verdict is the **weakest** dimension — a spec strong on clarity
+  pre-mortem risk remains. The verdict is the **weakest** dimension: a spec strong on clarity
   but `broken` on risk does **not** pass.
 - Individual findings carry the pack's standard severity labels (**Critical / Important /
   Suggestion / Nit / FYI**) so they compose with `$rite-review` and `$rite-seal`. `broken` →
-  Critical, `thin` → Important; **FYI is band-independent** — an observation on a `strong` /
+  Critical, `thin` → Important; **FYI is band-independent**: an observation on a `strong` /
   `adequate` dimension, not a failing band.
 - **Don't double-count overlap.** Some dimensions key on the same evidence (e.g. #7
   irreversibility & #9 convention-fit both touch codebase realism; #1 ambition & #2 scope both
-  touch over/under-reach). Don't fail two dimensions for the *same* root cause — cite the
+  touch over/under-reach). Don't fail two dimensions for the *same* root cause: cite the
   evidence once, band it once, so one problem isn't laundered into two floor failures.
 - Below-bar dimension after the ≤3-iteration reviewer loop → blocking question (HITL) or AFK
   gate-ceiling entry. Irreversible-risk findings always pause regardless of band.

package/pack/generated/codex/skills/rite-temper/reference/scope-modes.md

@@ -1,48 +1,48 @@
 # Scope modes + the two passes
 
 The heart of `$rite-temper`: two ordered passes (heat, then quench), converging on exactly
-one scope mode. Ambition is a **generative** move followed by a **required convergence** — the
+one scope mode. Ambition is a **generative** move followed by a **required convergence**: the
 divergence is never the spec; the converged sweet spot is.
 
-## Pass 1 — FORWARD (heat: raise ambition on the outcome)
+## Pass 1: FORWARD (heat: raise ambition on the outcome)
 Diverge on the *real problem*, not the obvious path. Ask:
 - What would an order-of-magnitude-better **outcome** look like (the 10-star version)? Design
-  the extreme, then come back to the feasible sweet spot — don't ship the extreme.
+  the extreme, then come back to the feasible sweet spot: don't ship the extreme.
 - Is a **premise** load-bearing and wrong? Name the assumptions the spec rests on; challenge
   the one that, if false, changes everything.
-- Where is **under-reaching** the real risk — a timid improvement to a path we should reframe?
+- Where is **under-reaching** the real risk: a timid improvement to a path we should reframe?
 
 Ambition aims at the **outcome** (problem definition, success bar, user value) and at
 complexity-**neutral** future-proofing. It never aims at the **solution surface** (that's Pass 2's
-job to prune). Ground every ambitious idea in the codebase's real seams and blast radius (a code-intelligence
-index if available — see `../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md`) — don't invent greenfield scope a
+job to prune). Ground every ambitious idea in the codebase's real seams and blast radius. Use a
+code-intelligence index if available (see `../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md`). Don't invent greenfield scope a
 constrained codebase can't absorb.
 
-## Pass 2 — INVERSION (quench: pre-mortem + prune)
+## Pass 2: INVERSION (quench: pre-mortem + prune)
 Invert. Two subtractive moves:
 - **Pre-mortem (prospective hindsight).** State it in past tense: *"It's six months out. This
   shipped and failed. What went wrong?"* List the top failure modes; for each: likelihood,
   mitigation, and the slice that will own the mitigation. Unmitigated top risks are **gating**.
 - **YAGNI ledger.** Each candidate scope item gets the "imagine the later refactor" test: if
   adding it *later* isn't materially more expensive, **defer it** (with a revisit note).
-  Bias hard toward defer — most presumed-needed features are never actually used. Reuse the
-  pack's existing standard — `patterns.md` ("no abstraction before two real callers",
-  "speculative generality") — don't invent a new YAGNI rule.
+  Bias hard toward defer: most presumed-needed features are never used. Reuse the
+  pack's existing `patterns.md` standards, including "no abstraction before two real callers"
+  and "speculative generality." Don't invent a new YAGNI rule.
 
-## The four modes — commit exactly one
+## The four modes: commit exactly one
 Mode selection is the first convergence move. Record the chosen mode + rationale + the
 **hinge** (what would change the call) in `strategy.md` and `decisions.md`.
 
 | Mode | When | What it does | YAGNI / Drift Guard |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| **EXPAND** *(opt-in, default OFF)* | Under-reaching on the outcome is the real risk | Raise the success bar / reframe to the deeper problem; thinner-but-more-complete path to a bigger target | Expands the *problem + acceptance*, not machinery. Each added criterion is a Drift-Guard-recorded, human-confirmed (HITL) decision — never auto-grown |
+| **EXPAND** *(opt-in, default OFF)* | Under-reaching on the outcome is the real risk | Raise the success bar / reframe to the deeper problem; thinner-but-more-complete path to a bigger target | Expands the *problem + acceptance*, not machinery. Each added criterion is a Drift-Guard-recorded, human-confirmed (HITL) decision: never auto-grown |
 | **SELECTIVE** | One or two high-leverage dimensions deserve more; the rest is right | Expand only the high-upside dimension; hold the rest at spec scope | Each selected expansion routes through the Guard; everything not selected is parked in Non-goals so it's neither dropped nor re-injected mid-build |
-| **HOLD-RIGOR** | The spec is right-sized (default for irreversible-risk-heavy or already-tight specs) | No scope change — pure hardening: pre-mortem, risk mitigations, acceptance sharpening, cross-cutting coverage | Adds zero surface; trivially Drift-Guard-clean (no acceptance change) |
-| **REDUCE-TO-MVP** | Over-scoped: second-system bloat, ~all must-haves, gold-plating | Hammer scope to the Minimum Usable Subset; move the rest to Non-goals with one-line reasons + revisit notes | Strongest YAGNI alignment. Cutting acceptance is **still a spec change** — record it via the Guard, never a silent trim |
+| **HOLD-RIGOR** | The spec is right-sized (default for irreversible-risk-heavy or already-tight specs) | No scope change: pure hardening: pre-mortem, risk mitigations, acceptance sharpening, cross-cutting coverage | Adds zero surface; trivially Drift-Guard-clean (no acceptance change) |
+| **REDUCE-TO-MVP** | Over-scoped: second-system bloat, ~all must-haves, gold-plating | Hammer scope to the Minimum Usable Subset; move the rest to Non-goals with one-line reasons + revisit notes | Strongest YAGNI alignment. Cutting acceptance is **still a spec change**: record it via the Guard, never a silent trim |
 
 ## Bound ambition by reversibility
 The bigger the bet, the more it must be reversible. Irreversible-risk areas (auth, migrations,
-public API, data model) get the **opposite** of ambition — maximum conservatism, explicit
+public API, data model) get the **opposite** of ambition: maximum conservatism, explicit
 rollback, and they **always pause** regardless of mode (the `afk-hitl.md` irreversible-risk
 list is honored verbatim). Size big bets so that if the whole thing vanished tomorrow, you'd be
 fine.
@@ -50,4 +50,4 @@ fine.
 ## Effort foresight (frame it now, not "later")
 While choosing scope, surface the late-stage questions early: *"What will surprise us at
 integration? What will we wish we'd planned for at polish/test time?"* Turn each into a
-constraint, a risk, or a deferred Non-goal **now** — not a "figure it out later".
+constraint, a risk, or a deferred Non-goal **now**, not a "figure it out later".

package/pack/generated/codex/skills/rite-temper/reference/significance.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Significance test — fire the full review, or skip it
+# Significance test: fire the full review, or skip it
 
 `$rite-temper` is **significance-gated**: full strategic rigor only when the work is big
 enough to earn it, a one-line skip otherwise. This is the shared definition used by both the
@@ -9,24 +9,24 @@ A strategic review of a five-line, reversible change is theatre; a strategic rev
 auth rewrite is the cheapest insurance you'll buy. Gate on stakes and shape, not uniformly.
 
 ## Fire the FULL review when ANY trips
-- **Irreversible-risk contact** — the slice/spec touches anything on the `afk-hitl.md`
+- **Irreversible-risk contact:** the slice/spec touches anything on the `afk-hitl.md`
   irreversible-risk list: destructive data migration, auth/authz boundary, public-API break,
   external-service contract, filesystem destruction outside the workspace.
-- **Data model** — new/changed entities, relationships, or persistence shape.
-- **Cross-module blast radius** — the impact (from a code-intelligence index if available — see
-  `../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md` — or an honest estimate) crosses
+- **Data model:** new/changed entities, relationships, or persistence shape.
+- **Cross-module blast radius:** the impact (from a code-intelligence index if available (see
+  `../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md`) or an honest estimate) crosses
   module/service boundaries or has many dependents.
-- **Greenfield / ambiguous scope** — a new surface with no existing seam to follow, or a spec
+- **Greenfield / ambiguous scope:** a new surface with no existing seam to follow, or a spec
   whose "right size" is genuinely open (multiple defensible scopes).
-- **Multi-slice / multi-day** — the work decomposes into several slices (large enough that a
+- **Multi-slice / multi-day:** the work decomposes into several slices (large enough that a
   wrong scope call is expensive to unwind).
-- **The user asked** — "think bigger", "is this ambitious enough", "scope check", "pre-mortem",
+- **The user asked:** "think bigger", "is this ambitious enough", "scope check", "pre-mortem",
   an explicit `$rite-temper` invocation, or a chosen `--mode`. An explicit ask always fires.
 
 ## Skip (low stakes) when ALL hold
 - Single-module, reversible, behavior-shaped-not-structural change.
 - No irreversible-risk contact; blast radius contained to the touched files.
-- Scope is unambiguous — there's one obvious right size and the spec already has it.
+- Scope is unambiguous: there's one obvious right size and the spec already has it.
 
 On skip, **don't run the passes**. Write only the one-line verdict to `strategy.md`:
 
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Significance: skipped — low stakes (<the trigger that was NOT met, e.g. "singl
 Next: $rite-define
 ```
 
-Then recommend `$rite-define`. A skip is a *recorded* decision, not a silent omission — the
+Then recommend `$rite-define`. A skip is a *recorded* decision, not a silent omission: the
 seal can see the call was made deliberately.
 
 ## In `$rite-autocomplete`

package/pack/generated/codex/skills/rite-temper/reference/strategy-template.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 # `strategy.md` template + fold-back rules
 
 `$rite-temper` produces two kinds of output. The `strategy.md` artifact is the durable
-**record** of the review; the **fold-back edits** are what the build actually follows. The
-record without the fold-back is dead prose — the build reads `spec.md`, not `strategy.md`.
+**record** of the review; the **fold-back edits** are what the build follows. The
+record without the fold-back is dead prose: the build reads `spec.md`, not `strategy.md`.
 
-## `strategy.md` — the record
+## `strategy.md`: the record
 Write to `.devrites/work/<slug>/strategy.md`. If one exists for the slug, **update** it, don't
 clobber.
 
@@ -58,33 +58,33 @@ Floor verdict: <weakest band> on <dimension> → pass | blocked
 - Final: floor = <band>; unresolved → <none | blocking qid>
 ```
 
-## Fold-back — the part the build follows
+## Fold-back: the part the build follows
 Apply through the **Spec Drift Guard** (these are spec changes, not free edits). If a plan
 already exists, record in `drift.md` and route via `$rite-plan repair` instead of editing
 `spec.md` blind.
 
-- **`spec.md`** (these are the spec template's actual section headings — edit each named one,
-  don't collapse pairs):
-  - *Success criteria* **and** *Acceptance criteria* (separate sections) — add to **both** for
+- **`spec.md`:** these are the spec template's actual section headings. Edit each named one;
+  don't collapse pairs.
+  - Add to *Success criteria* **and** *Acceptance criteria* (separate sections) for
     every opt-in **expansion**; remove (via the Guard) from both for every **reduction**. Each
     must stay measurable + technology-agnostic.
-  - *Non-goals* — append every deferred item (from the YAGNI ledger + the Deferred register), so
+  - *Non-goals*: append every deferred item (from the YAGNI ledger + the Deferred register), so
     it is neither silently dropped nor silently re-injected mid-build.
-  - *Constraints* **and** *Risks* (separate sections) — tighten *Constraints* where the pre-mortem
+  - *Constraints* **and** *Risks* (separate sections): tighten *Constraints* where the pre-mortem
     demands; add the top failure modes + mitigations to *Risks*.
-  - *Gaps, issues & decisions* table — one row per scope call (options offered → decision → owner).
+  - *Gaps, issues & decisions* table: one row per scope call (options offered → decision → owner).
   - **Re-run the Readiness gate** at the bottom of the spec after edits; it must still pass, and
     **every folded scope delta must trace to a recorded decision** (a `questions.md` qid or a
-    `decisions.md` ADR) — an untraceable change is the batch-dump failure.
-- **`decisions.md`** — one ADR-style entry per scope call and accepted trade-off:
+    `decisions.md` ADR): an untraceable change is the batch-dump failure.
+- **`decisions.md`:** one ADR-style entry per scope call and accepted trade-off:
   `context · decision · why-not-the-alternative · what-would-change-it`.
-- **`assumptions.md`** — every "we'll probably need X" demoted to an explicit
+- **`assumptions.md`:** every "we'll probably need X" demoted to an explicit
   **assumption-to-verify**, never smuggled into scope as a fact.
 
 ## Write discipline
 - **Single canonical writer.** The skill writes `strategy.md` and edits the canonical files; the
   `devrites-strategy-reviewer` agent is **read-only** and only returns findings + bands.
 - **No silent scope.** An expansion that the human didn't opt into, or a reduction that drops an
-  acceptance criterion without a recorded decision, is a defect — not a convenience.
+  acceptance criterion without a recorded decision, is a defect, not a convenience.
 - Add `strategy.md` to the workspace between `spec.md` and `plan.md`; `$rite-define`,
   `$rite-review`, and `$rite-seal` read it.