dsh-ecc-skills 0.4.0

package/skills/agent-payment-x402/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+---
+name: agent-payment-x402
+description: Add x402 payment execution to AI agents with per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets. Supports Base through agentwallet-sdk and X Layer through OKX Payments / OKX Agent Payments Protocol. Use when an agent must pay for something itself and needs per-task budgets, spending controls, and a non-custodial wallet.
+metadata:
+  origin: community
+---
+
+# Agent Payment Execution (x402)
+
+Enable AI agents to make policy-gated payments with built-in spending controls. Uses the x402 HTTP payment protocol and MCP tools so agents can pay for external services, APIs, or other agents without custodial risk.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use when: your agent needs to pay for an API call, purchase a service, settle with another agent, enforce per-task spending limits, or manage a non-custodial wallet. Pairs naturally with cost-aware-llm-pipeline and security-review skills.
+
+## Decision Tree
+
+Choose the integration path based on whether your agent is buying access to a paid API or charging others for one:
+
+| Need | Recommended path |
+|------|------------------|
+| Agent pays a 402-gated API on Base or another agentwallet-supported chain | Use `agentwallet-sdk` as an MCP payment server with strict spending policy |
+| Agent pays a 402-gated API on X Layer | Use OKX Agent Payments Protocol from `okx/onchainos-skills`; `okx-x402-payment` is a deprecated legacy alias |
+| TypeScript API charges agents | Use OKX Payments TypeScript seller SDK docs for Express, Hono, Fastify, or Next.js |
+| Go API charges agents | Use OKX Payments Go seller SDK docs for Gin, Echo, or `net/http` |
+| Rust API charges agents | Use OKX Payments Rust seller SDK docs for Axum |
+| Java API charges agents | Use OKX Payments Java seller SDK docs for Spring Boot 2/3, Java EE, or Jakarta |
+| Python API charges agents | Check the current OKX Payments repository before implementation; a Python seller guide may not be available |
+
+## Supported Networks
+
+- `agentwallet-sdk`: use the package docs to confirm current network coverage before production. Base Sepolia is the safest development default; Base mainnet is the production path called out by the original skill.
+- OKX Payments / X Layer: current seller docs target X Layer (`eip155:196`) and USDT0 settlement. Fetch current SDK docs before generating production code because payment packages and facilitator behavior can change quickly.
+
+## How It Works
+
+### x402 Protocol
+x402 extends HTTP 402 (Payment Required) into a machine-negotiable flow. When a server returns `402`, the agent's payment tool negotiates price, checks budget, signs a transaction, and retries only inside the policy and confirmation boundary set by the orchestrator.
+
+### Spending Controls
+Every payment tool call enforces a `SpendingPolicy`:
+- **Per-task budget** — max spend for a single agent action
+- **Per-session budget** — cumulative limit across an entire session
+- **Allowlisted recipients** — restrict which addresses/services the agent can pay
+- **Rate limits** — max transactions per minute/hour
+
+### Non-Custodial Wallets
+Agents hold their own keys via ERC-4337 smart accounts. The orchestrator sets policy before delegation; the agent can only spend within bounds. No pooled funds, no custodial risk.
+
+## MCP Integration
+
+The payment layer exposes standard MCP tools that slot into any Claude Code or agent harness setup.
+
+> **Security note**: Always pin the package version. This tool manages private keys — unpinned `npx` installs introduce supply-chain risk.
+
+### Option A: agentwallet-sdk (Base / multi-chain)
+
+```json
+{
+  "mcpServers": {
+    "agentpay": {
+      "command": "npx",
+      "args": ["agentwallet-sdk@6.0.0"]
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Available Tools (agent-callable)
+
+| Tool | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `get_balance` | Check agent wallet balance |
+| `send_payment` | Send payment to address or ENS |
+| `check_spending` | Query remaining budget |
+| `list_transactions` | Audit trail of all payments |
+
+> **Note**: Spending policy is set by the **orchestrator** before delegating to the agent — not by the agent itself. This prevents agents from escalating their own spending limits. Configure policy via `set_policy` in your orchestration layer or pre-task hook, never as an agent-callable tool.
+
+### Option B: OKX Agent Payments Protocol (X Layer)
+
+Use this path for X Layer x402, Multi-Party Payment (MPP), session payment, charge, and A2A charge flows.
+
+For buyer-side agent flows:
+
+1. Install or reference the current `okx/onchainos-skills` repository.
+2. Use `skills/okx-agent-payments-protocol/SKILL.md` as the dispatcher.
+3. Treat `skills/okx-x402-payment/SKILL.md` as a deprecated compatibility alias, not as the canonical skill.
+4. Require explicit user confirmation before wallet status checks or payment actions. Do not hide payment execution behind a generic tool call.
+
+For seller-side API flows, fetch the latest language-specific guide before generating code:
+
+| Runtime | Current guide |
+|---------|---------------|
+| TypeScript | `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/okx/payments/main/typescript/SELLER.md` |
+| Go | `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/okx/payments/main/go/x402/SELLER.md` |
+| Rust | `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/okx/payments/main/rust/x402/SELLER.md` |
+| Java | `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/okx/payments/main/java/SELLER.md` |
+
+Do not copy examples from older docs without checking the current OKX repository. Current OKX guidance uses `okx-agent-payments-protocol` as the dispatcher, and Java seller docs are now available.
+
+## Examples
+
+### Budget enforcement in an MCP client
+
+When building an orchestrator that calls the agentpay MCP server, enforce budgets before dispatching paid tool calls.
+
+> **Prerequisites**: Install the package before adding the MCP config — `npx` without `-y` will prompt for confirmation in non-interactive environments, causing the server to hang: `npm install -g agentwallet-sdk@6.0.0`
+
+```typescript
+import { Client } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/client/index.js";
+import { StdioClientTransport } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/client/stdio.js";
+
+async function main() {
+  // 1. Validate credentials before constructing the transport.
+  //    A missing key must fail immediately — never let the subprocess start without auth.
+  const walletKey = process.env.WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY;
+  if (!walletKey) {
+    throw new Error("WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY is not set — refusing to start payment server");
+  }
+
+  // Connect to the agentpay MCP server via stdio transport.
+  // Whitelist only the env vars the server needs — never forward all of process.env
+  // to a third-party subprocess that manages private keys.
+  const transport = new StdioClientTransport({
+    command: "npx",
+    args: ["agentwallet-sdk@6.0.0"],
+    env: {
+      PATH: process.env.PATH ?? "",
+      NODE_ENV: process.env.NODE_ENV ?? "production",
+      WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY: walletKey,
+    },
+  });
+  const agentpay = new Client({ name: "orchestrator", version: "1.0.0" });
+  await agentpay.connect(transport);
+
+  // 2. Set spending policy before delegating to the agent.
+  //    Always verify success — a silent failure means no controls are active.
+  const policyResult = await agentpay.callTool({
+    name: "set_policy",
+    arguments: {
+      per_task_budget: 0.50,
+      per_session_budget: 5.00,
+      allowlisted_recipients: ["api.example.com"],
+    },
+  });
+  if (policyResult.isError) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Failed to set spending policy — do not delegate: ${JSON.stringify(policyResult.content)}`
+    );
+  }
+
+  // 3. Use preToolCheck before any paid action
+  await preToolCheck(agentpay, 0.01);
+}
+
+// Pre-tool hook: fail-closed budget enforcement with four distinct error paths.
+async function preToolCheck(agentpay: Client, apiCost: number): Promise<void> {
+  // Path 1: Reject invalid input (NaN/Infinity bypass the < comparison)
+  if (!Number.isFinite(apiCost) || apiCost < 0) {
+    throw new Error(`Invalid apiCost: ${apiCost} — action blocked`);
+  }
+
+  // Path 2: Transport/connectivity failure
+  let result;
+  try {
+    result = await agentpay.callTool({ name: "check_spending" });
+  } catch (err) {
+    throw new Error(`Payment service unreachable — action blocked: ${err}`);
+  }
+
+  // Path 3: Tool returned an error (e.g., auth failure, wallet not initialised)
+  if (result.isError) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `check_spending failed — action blocked: ${JSON.stringify(result.content)}`
+    );
+  }
+
+  // Path 4: Parse and validate the response shape
+  let remaining: number;
+  try {
+    const parsed = JSON.parse(
+      (result.content as Array<{ text: string }>)[0].text
+    );
+    if (!Number.isFinite(parsed?.remaining)) {
+      throw new TypeError("missing or non-finite 'remaining' field");
+    }
+    remaining = parsed.remaining;
+  } catch (err) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `check_spending returned unexpected format — action blocked: ${err}`
+    );
+  }
+
+  // Path 5: Budget exceeded
+  if (remaining < apiCost) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Budget exceeded: need $${apiCost} but only $${remaining} remaining`
+    );
+  }
+}
+
+main().catch((err) => {
+  console.error(err);
+  process.exitCode = 1;
+});
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+- **Set budgets before delegation**: When spawning sub-agents, attach a SpendingPolicy via your orchestration layer. Never give an agent unlimited spend.
+- **Pin your dependencies**: Always specify an exact version in your MCP config (e.g., `agentwallet-sdk@6.0.0`). Verify package integrity before deploying to production.
+- **Audit trails**: Use `list_transactions` in post-task hooks to log what was spent and why.
+- **Fail closed**: If the payment tool is unreachable, block the paid action — don't fall back to unmetered access.
+- **Pair with security-review**: Payment tools are high-privilege. Apply the same scrutiny as shell access.
+- **Test with testnets first**: Use Base Sepolia for development; switch to Base mainnet for production.
+
+## Production Reference
+
+- **npm**: [`agentwallet-sdk`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/agentwallet-sdk)
+- **Merged into NVIDIA NeMo Agent Toolkit**: [PR #17](https://github.com/NVIDIA/NeMo-Agent-Toolkit-Examples/pull/17) — x402 payment tool for NVIDIA's agent examples
+- **Protocol spec**: [x402.org](https://x402.org)
+- **OKX Payments SDKs**: [`okx/payments`](https://github.com/okx/payments) — TypeScript, Go, Rust, and Java seller integrations for X Layer x402
+- **OKX Agent Payments Protocol skill**: [`okx/onchainos-skills`](https://github.com/okx/onchainos-skills/tree/main/skills/okx-agent-payments-protocol)
+- **OKX Payments overview**: [web3.okx.com/onchainos/dev-docs/payments/overview](https://web3.okx.com/onchainos/dev-docs/payments/overview)

package/skills/agent-self-evaluation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+---
+name: agent-self-evaluation
+description: Use after completing any non-trivial task. The agent self-rates its output on 5 axes — accuracy, completeness, clarity, actionability, conciseness — with concrete evidence per criterion. Produces a structured 1-5 scorecard with specific improvement suggestions.
+origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Agent Self-Evaluation
+
+After completing a complex task, the agent pauses to rate its own output against a structured 5-axis rubric. This is NOT a pass/fail gate — it's a deliberate reflection step that catches omissions, flags overconfidence, and surface areas for improvement before the user has to.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- After writing code that spans 3+ files or 50+ lines
+- After completing a multi-step workflow (implement → test → review)
+- After a debugging session that involved 3+ attempts
+- After producing a design document, architecture decision, or written analysis
+- When the user asks "how good was that?" or "rate yourself"
+- At the end of any session Stop hook (if configured — see `references/hook-integration.md`)
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+### The 5 Evaluation Axes
+
+| Axis | Question | What it catches |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Accuracy** | Are the facts, claims, and outputs correct? | Hallucinations, wrong API names, incorrect syntax, false statements |
+| **Completeness** | Did it cover everything the user asked for? | Missed edge cases, unhandled error paths, forgotten requirements, skipped subtasks |
+| **Clarity** | Is the explanation understandable and well-structured? | Confusing explanations, jargon without definition, missing context, rambling |
+| **Actionability** | Can the user act on the output immediately? | Vague suggestions, missing steps, "you should X" without showing how, no verification path |
+| **Conciseness** | Did it use the minimum words/tokens needed? | Redundancy, over-explanation, repeating the user's question verbatim, filler content |
+
+### Scoring Scale
+
+```
+5 — Exceptional: no reasonable improvement possible
+4 — Good: minor nits only, no substantive gaps
+3 — Adequate: meets the request but has a notable weakness on at least one axis
+2 — Weak: has a clear gap that affects usability or correctness
+1 — Poor: fundamentally misses the request or contains significant errors
+```
+
+### The Evidence Rule
+
+Every score below 5 MUST cite specific evidence. A score of 3 cannot just say "could be better" — it must say exactly what is missing or wrong. The mantra: **"Show the gap, don't just name it."**
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Collect the Raw Material
+
+Gather what you'll evaluate:
+
+```
+- The original user request (read back from conversation)
+- Your final response/output (the deliverable)
+- Any tool outputs that verify correctness (test results, exit codes, lint output)
+- Any user feedback received during the task (corrections, "try again", "that's not right")
+```
+
+### Step 2: Score Each Axis Independently
+
+Work through the 5 axes one at a time. For each:
+
+1. Read the axis question
+2. Find evidence (or lack of evidence) in the output
+3. Assign a score 1-5
+4. If score < 5, write a one-sentence improvement note citing the gap
+
+Do NOT average the scores in your head first and then work backwards. Score each axis fresh.
+
+### Step 3: Produce the Evaluation Report
+
+Use the template from `templates/evaluation-report.md`. The report must include:
+
+```
+- One-line summary
+- 5-axis scorecard (score + evidence per axis)
+- Overall score (simple average, rounded to 1 decimal)
+- 1-3 specific improvements ranked by impact
+- Self-check: "Would the user agree with this assessment?"
+```
+
+### Step 4: Apply the Improvement
+
+If any axis scored 3 or below:
+
+1. State what you would do differently
+2. If the gap is fixable in < 30 seconds (missing link, unclear phrasing), fix it now
+3. If the gap requires rework, flag it explicitly: "This axis scored [reason] because [evidence]. Re-running with [specific fix] would likely raise it to [score]."
+
+## Code Examples
+
+### Example: Good Evaluation (Score 4+)
+
+```
+Task: Add retry logic to HTTP client
+
+Scorecard:
+  Accuracy:    5 — All API calls correct. Verified: retries use
+                  exponential backoff. No hallucinated methods.
+  Completeness: 4 — Covered happy path + 3 error cases. Missing:
+                  timeout handling for hung connections.
+  Clarity:      5 — Code comments explain backoff formula.
+                  PR description links to incident that motivated this.
+  Actionability:5 — Single merge. No follow-up tasks. Tests pass.
+  Conciseness:  4 — 47 lines total. The retry loop could be extracted
+                  into a helper to drop ~8 lines.
+
+Overall: 4.6 — One gap (timeout handling). Fix before merging.
+```
+
+### Example: Weak Evaluation (Score 2-3)
+
+```
+Task: Add retry logic to HTTP client
+
+Scorecard:
+  Accuracy:    2 — Used urllib3 which doesn't match our
+                  httpx-based codebase. Wrong library.
+  Completeness: 3 — Works for GET. POST/PUT not handled (user
+                  said "all HTTP requests").
+  Clarity:      4 — Code is readable. Good variable names.
+  Actionability:2 — "Add tests" mentioned but no test file created.
+                  User has to write tests before merging.
+  Conciseness:  3 — 120 lines. The retry config is duplicated in
+                  3 places instead of one shared RetryConfig object.
+
+Overall: 2.8 — Wrong library used. Needs httpx rewrite.
+  Fix accuracy first (switch to httpx), then extend to all
+  HTTP methods, then consolidate config.
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+### "Everything is a 5"
+
+```
+FAIL: Accuracy:    5 — All good.
+   Completeness: 5 — Everything covered.
+   Clarity:      5 — Clear.
+```
+
+No evidence cited. This is self-congratulation, not evaluation. A real 5 requires proving there's nothing to improve.
+
+### Over-penalizing for scope creep
+
+```
+FAIL: Completeness: 2 — Didn't handle WebSocket connections or
+   gRPC streaming (user didn't ask for these)
+```
+
+Only evaluate against what the user actually requested, not what you could have additionally built.
+
+### Using the evaluation to re-litigate
+
+```
+FAIL: "As I said earlier, this approach is wrong. Score: 1"
+```
+
+The evaluation is about the delivered output, not about re-arguing design decisions that were already made. If the approach was wrong, that should have been caught before delivery.
+
+### Mixing personal preference with objective gaps
+
+```
+FAIL: "Score: 3. I don't like Python decorators."
+```
+
+"Don't like" is not evidence. Cite a concrete readability, testability, or correctness concern, or leave the score at 4+.
+
+## Best Practices
+
+- **Evaluate the output, not the process.** The user cares about what you delivered, not how many iterations you took.
+- **One improvement per weak axis.** Don't list 5 things for one axis — pick the highest-impact gap.
+- **Tie improvements to user impact.** "Missing error handling means the user's API call will crash silently" beats "add error handling."
+- **Be specific about what 'fixed' looks like.** "Re-run with httpx transport configured for retries" beats "fix the library issue."
+- **Use tool outputs as evidence.** If tests passed, cite them. If lint is clean, cite it. Don't guess — grep for the proof.
+- **If you can't find any gaps, try harder.** A perfect score across all 5 axes is rare. Ask: "If I were the user, what would annoy me about this output?"
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `agent-eval` — Head-to-head comparison of different coding agents on benchmark tasks
+- `verification-loop` — Systematic verification of outputs against expected results
+- `security-review` — Security-focused code review checklist

package/skills/agent-sort/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+---
+name: agent-sort
+description: Build an evidence-backed ECC install plan for a specific repo by sorting skills, commands, rules, hooks, and extras into DAILY vs LIBRARY buckets using parallel repo-aware review passes. Use when ECC should be trimmed to what a project actually needs instead of loading the full bundle.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Agent Sort
+
+Use this skill when a repo needs a project-specific ECC surface instead of the default full install.
+
+The goal is not to guess what "feels useful." The goal is to classify ECC components with evidence from the actual codebase.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- A project only needs a subset of ECC and full installs are too noisy
+- The repo stack is clear, but nobody wants to hand-curate skills one by one
+- A team wants a repeatable install decision backed by grep evidence instead of opinion
+- You need to separate always-loaded daily workflow surfaces from searchable library/reference surfaces
+- A repo has drifted into the wrong language, rule, or hook set and needs cleanup
+
+## Non-Negotiable Rules
+
+- Use the current repository as the source of truth, not generic preferences
+- Every DAILY decision must cite concrete repo evidence
+- LIBRARY does not mean "delete"; it means "keep accessible without loading by default"
+- Do not install hooks, rules, or scripts that the current repo cannot use
+- Prefer ECC-native surfaces; do not introduce a second install system
+
+## Outputs
+
+Produce these artifacts in order:
+
+1. DAILY inventory
+2. LIBRARY inventory
+3. install plan
+4. verification report
+5. optional `skill-library` router if the project wants one
+
+## Classification Model
+
+Use two buckets only:
+
+- `DAILY`
+  - should load every session for this repo
+  - strongly matched to the repo's language, framework, workflow, or operator surface
+- `LIBRARY`
+  - useful to retain, but not worth loading by default
+  - should remain reachable through search, router skill, or selective manual use
+
+## Evidence Sources
+
+Use repo-local evidence before making any classification:
+
+- file extensions
+- package managers and lockfiles
+- framework configs
+- CI and hook configs
+- build/test scripts
+- imports and dependency manifests
+- repo docs that explicitly describe the stack
+
+Useful commands include:
+
+```bash
+rg --files
+rg -n "typescript|react|next|supabase|django|spring|flutter|swift"
+cat package.json
+cat pyproject.toml
+cat Cargo.toml
+cat pubspec.yaml
+cat go.mod
+```
+
+## Parallel Review Passes
+
+If parallel subagents are available, split the review into these passes:
+
+1. Agents
+   - classify `agents/*`
+2. Skills
+   - classify `skills/*`
+3. Commands
+   - classify `commands/*`
+4. Rules
+   - classify `rules/*`
+5. Hooks and scripts
+   - classify hook surfaces, MCP health checks, helper scripts, and OS compatibility
+6. Extras
+   - classify contexts, examples, MCP configs, templates, and guidance docs
+
+If subagents are not available, run the same passes sequentially.
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+### 1. Read the repo
+
+Establish the real stack before classifying anything:
+
+- languages in use
+- frameworks in use
+- primary package manager
+- test stack
+- lint/format stack
+- deployment/runtime surface
+- operator integrations already present
+
+### 2. Build the evidence table
+
+For every candidate surface, record:
+
+- component path
+- component type
+- proposed bucket
+- repo evidence
+- short justification
+
+Use this format:
+
+```text
+skills/frontend-patterns | skill | DAILY | 84 .tsx files, next.config.ts present | core frontend stack
+skills/django-patterns   | skill | LIBRARY | no .py files, no pyproject.toml       | not active in this repo
+rules/typescript/*       | rules | DAILY | package.json + tsconfig.json            | active TS repo
+rules/python/*           | rules | LIBRARY | zero Python source files             | keep accessible only
+```
+
+### 3. Decide DAILY vs LIBRARY
+
+Promote to `DAILY` when:
+
+- the repo clearly uses the matching stack
+- the component is general enough to help every session
+- the repo already depends on the corresponding runtime or workflow
+
+Demote to `LIBRARY` when:
+
+- the component is off-stack
+- the repo might need it later, but not every day
+- it adds context overhead without immediate relevance
+
+### 4. Build the install plan
+
+Translate the classification into action:
+
+- DAILY skills -> install or keep in `.claude/skills/`
+- DAILY commands -> keep as explicit shims only if still useful
+- DAILY rules -> install only matching language sets
+- DAILY hooks/scripts -> keep only compatible ones
+- LIBRARY surfaces -> keep accessible through search or `skill-library`
+
+If the repo already uses selective installs, update that plan instead of creating another system.
+
+### 5. Create the optional library router
+
+If the project wants a searchable library surface, create:
+
+- `.claude/skills/skill-library/SKILL.md`
+
+That router should contain:
+
+- a short explanation of DAILY vs LIBRARY
+- grouped trigger keywords
+- where the library references live
+
+Do not duplicate every skill body inside the router.
+
+### 6. Verify the result
+
+After the plan is applied, verify:
+
+- every DAILY file exists where expected
+- stale language rules were not left active
+- incompatible hooks were not installed
+- the resulting install actually matches the repo stack
+
+Return a compact report with:
+
+- DAILY count
+- LIBRARY count
+- removed stale surfaces
+- open questions
+
+## Handoffs
+
+If the next step is interactive installation or repair, hand off to:
+
+- `configure-ecc`
+
+If the next step is overlap cleanup or catalog review, hand off to:
+
+- `skill-stocktake`
+
+If the next step is broader context trimming, hand off to:
+
+- `strategic-compact`
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return the result in this order:
+
+```text
+STACK
+- language/framework/runtime summary
+
+DAILY
+- always-loaded items with evidence
+
+LIBRARY
+- searchable/reference items with evidence
+
+INSTALL PLAN
+- what should be installed, removed, or routed
+
+VERIFICATION
+- checks run and remaining gaps
+```

package/skills/agentic-engineering/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+name: agentic-engineering
+description: Operate as an agentic engineer using eval-first execution, decomposition, and cost-aware model routing. Use when planning or executing engineering work that agents will carry out end to end.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Agentic Engineering
+
+Use this skill for engineering workflows where AI agents perform most implementation work and humans enforce quality and risk controls.
+
+## Operating Principles
+
+1. Define completion criteria before execution.
+2. Decompose work into agent-sized units.
+3. Route model tiers by task complexity.
+4. Measure with evals and regression checks.
+
+## Eval-First Loop
+
+1. Define capability eval and regression eval.
+2. Run baseline and capture failure signatures.
+3. Execute implementation.
+4. Re-run evals and compare deltas.
+
+## Task Decomposition
+
+Apply the 15-minute unit rule:
+- each unit should be independently verifiable
+- each unit should have a single dominant risk
+- each unit should expose a clear done condition
+
+## Model Routing
+
+- Haiku: classification, boilerplate transforms, narrow edits
+- Sonnet: implementation and refactors
+- Opus: architecture, root-cause analysis, multi-file invariants
+
+## Session Strategy
+
+- Continue session for closely-coupled units.
+- Start fresh session after major phase transitions.
+- Compact after milestone completion, not during active debugging.
+
+## Review Focus for AI-Generated Code
+
+Prioritize:
+- invariants and edge cases
+- error boundaries
+- security and auth assumptions
+- hidden coupling and rollout risk
+
+Do not waste review cycles on style-only disagreements when automated format/lint already enforce style.
+
+## Cost Discipline
+
+Track per task:
+- model
+- token estimate
+- retries
+- wall-clock time
+- success/failure
+
+Escalate model tier only when lower tier fails with a clear reasoning gap.