fdeops 3.15.1 → 3.15.2

package/skills/fde/references/ship.md

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ Score each dimension green/amber/red. This is the gate, not a suggestion:
 | Dimension | Green | Amber | Red |
 |-----------|-------|-------|-----|
 | **Value bucket** | `success.md` names primary bucket (`cost-save` \| `risk-mitigation` \| `revenue-uplift`) and a baseline→target metric; this slice’s value-ledger row has **Bucket** + **Promised** | Bucket named; **Measured** still `pending` with a pulse date | No bucket, or Promised empty / ticket-theater only |
-| **Audit receipt** | Dated line in `delivery.md` (`## Ship receipts` or ledger Evidence) proving exceptions/operating path were walked — cite `terrain.md` / `reality.md` / `audit.md` | Path described, not verified this ship | No audit receipt for this slice |
+| **Audit receipt** | Dated line in `delivery.md` (`## Ship receipts` or ledger Evidence) proving exceptions/operating path were walked - cite `terrain.md` / `reality.md` / `audit.md` | Path described, not verified this ship | No audit receipt for this slice |
 | **Eval receipt** | **n/a** (no AI on this slice) **or** `evals.md` Verdict SHIP with dated golden run + HITL gate named | Eval pack exists; known fails open with owner + date | AI in scope and no eval receipt |
 | **AI eval pack** | `.fde/evals.md` Verdict SHIP; goldens run this change; critical fails 0; HITL filled if policy requires | Pack exists; run stale vs change log | AI-touching deploy and pack missing / NO-SHIP / HITL required but empty |
 
@@ -59,13 +59,13 @@ Score each dimension green/amber/red. This is the gate, not a suggestion:
 2. If Verdict is not **SHIP**, or Last run is older than the latest change-log row → **RED.**
 3. If `trust-profile.md` requires human-in-the-loop and the HITL gate has no reviewer → **RED.**
 4. Log in `delivery.md` → `## Ship receipts` before deploy: audit cite + eval receipt.
-5. Non-AI deploys: Eval = **n/a** — do not invent an empty pack.
+5. Non-AI deploys: Eval = **n/a** - do not invent an empty pack.
 
 Write the readiness score (including value + receipts) to `delivery.md` before deploying. The score is the evidence if anything goes wrong.
 
 ## Intent vs diff (before pre-blast)
 
-Ship the change you intended — not the drift that snuck in. Run this on the deploy branch against the **one-line intent** from `decisions.md` / `success.md` (the slice you said you were building).
+Ship the change you intended - not the drift that snuck in. Run this on the deploy branch against the **one-line intent** from `decisions.md` / `success.md` (the slice you said you were building).
 
 ```bash
 git diff <base>...HEAD --stat
@@ -77,22 +77,22 @@ Score every touched path (or logical hunk):
 | Path / change | Verdict | Rule |
 |---------------|---------|------|
 | | **KEEP** | Directly required for the stated intent |
-| | **JUSTIFY** | Adjacent but load-bearing — one sentence why it must ship *now*, or split |
-| | **SPLIT** | Real work, wrong PR — park in `decisions.md` kill/Next; do not deploy with this slice |
-| | **DROP** | Noise (format-only, drive-by rename, unrelated tidy) — revert before ship |
+| | **JUSTIFY** | Adjacent but load-bearing - one sentence why it must ship *now*, or split |
+| | **SPLIT** | Real work, wrong PR - park in `decisions.md` kill/Next; do not deploy with this slice |
+| | **DROP** | Noise (format-only, drive-by rename, unrelated tidy) - revert before ship |
 
-**Any SPLIT or DROP still in the tree = fix-first.** JUSTIFY without a written sentence = treat as SPLIT. Log a one-line receipt in `delivery.md`: `intent vs diff: KEEP n · JUSTIFY n · SPLIT n · DROP n — <intent>`.
+**Any SPLIT or DROP still in the tree = fix-first.** JUSTIFY without a written sentence = treat as SPLIT. Log a one-line receipt in `delivery.md`: `intent vs diff: KEEP n · JUSTIFY n · SPLIT n · DROP n - <intent>`.
 
-This is **code drift**, not stakeholder "also can you…" (that is `scope-defense`). Same family as review Stage 1 — ship refuses green when the diff outgrew the claim.
+This is **code drift**, not stakeholder "also can you…" (that is `scope-defense`). Same family as review Stage 1 - ship refuses green when the diff outgrew the claim.
 
 ## Pre-blast challenge (before the deploy button)
 
-For any non-trivial go-live (shared infra, regulated data, irreversible migration, or first prod touch), run this once before canary — not as theater, as a stop-the-line check:
+For any non-trivial go-live (shared infra, regulated data, irreversible migration, or first prod touch), run this once before canary - not as theater, as a stop-the-line check:
 
 ```
 CLAIM: <what you are about to ship, in one sentence>
 WHY IT MATTERS: <blast radius / who feels pain if wrong>
-CHALLENGE: <the strongest argument this is not ready — grounded in delivery.md / risks.md / trust-profile.md>
+CHALLENGE: <the strongest argument this is not ready - grounded in delivery.md / risks.md / trust-profile.md>
 VERDICT: proceed | fix-first | sponsor conversation
 ```
 
@@ -116,11 +116,11 @@ grep -rnE "(api[_-]?key|secret|password|token)\s*[:=]\s*['\"][^'\"]{8,}" \
 
 ## Method - the deploy
 
-**Canary:** 1–5% of traffic, ≥10 minutes. Watch error rate, latency, and **the business metric this change affects**. Anything looks wrong → roll back immediately; investigate safely; redeploy when confident. Never investigate during the canary. Then stage up: 5% → 25% → 100%, each confirmed stable.
+**Canary:** 1-5% of traffic, ≥10 minutes. Watch error rate, latency, and **the business metric this change affects**. Anything looks wrong → roll back immediately; investigate safely; redeploy when confident. Never investigate during the canary. Then stage up: 5% → 25% → 100%, each confirmed stable.
 
 **Programme-scale rollout (transformations)** - different problem from one service:
 1. **Pilot** - one team, one use case; success metrics defined *before* it starts (after = fitting metrics to results).
-2. **Limited release** - 3–5 teams, real load; this is where the failure modes the pilot hid show up.
+2. **Limited release** - 3-5 teams, real load; this is where the failure modes the pilot hid show up.
 3. **Broad release** - self-serve onboarding; if teams still need the FDE to start, onboarding isn't finished.
 4. **Enterprise standard** - the FDE is no longer needed for this use case. That's the end state.
 Straight from pilot to standard = a high-profile failure at scale.
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ AI components: also define what *normal output* looks like and check a weekly sa
 
 **The scale sequence:**
 1. **Pilot** (1 team, controlled) → prove value, find failure modes
-2. **Limited** (3–5 teams, real load) → prove operability, find scale bugs
+2. **Limited** (3-5 teams, real load) → prove operability, find scale bugs
 3. **Broad** (self-serve onboarding) → prove the team doesn't need the FDE
 4. **Standard** (enterprise default) → the FDE exits this workstream
 
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ Adoption isn't a handoff-stage problem - it starts during build. Software that l
 - **Resistance signals.** Watch for: workaround creation (they built a spreadsheet instead of using the tool), drop-off after day 3 (onboarding fails), vocal detractors (one influential skeptic can kill adoption). Address these DURING build, not after launch.
 
 **At launch:**
-- **Champion network.** Identify 2–3 power users per team who adopt early. Support them intensely - they become your multiplier.
+- **Champion network.** Identify 2-3 power users per team who adopt early. Support them intensely - they become your multiplier.
 - **30-60-90 adoption targets.** Week 1: 20% of target users try it. Week 4: 50% use it weekly. Week 12: 80% can't imagine working without it. If week 1 misses → the onboarding is broken. If week 4 misses → the value proposition is wrong.
 - **The "switching cost" test.** If users can still do it the old way, they will. Adoption requires either: the old way is removed, the new way is dramatically better, or management mandates the switch. Know which lever applies.
 
@@ -190,9 +190,9 @@ Before 100%: canary clean, business metric verified, pulse written into `deliver
 
 Acme, shipping the failure-routing slice into a payments environment on a Thursday.
 
-Readiness scoring catches two things the diff does not. The audit receipt is missing: the operating map says Marco's manual re-run is the fallback, and nobody has checked whether the new page fires *before* his morning run or after — if after, the alert changes nothing. That gets walked and cited before deploy. Second, the intent-vs-diff read shows the PR also touches the settlement retry that was deferred in build; it comes out.
+Readiness scoring catches two things the diff does not. The audit receipt is missing: the operating map says Marco's manual re-run is the fallback, and nobody has checked whether the new page fires *before* his morning run or after - if after, the alert changes nothing. That gets walked and cited before deploy. Second, the intent-vs-diff read shows the PR also touches the settlement retry that was deferred in build; it comes out.
 
-Pre-blast challenge: "what does this break if it fires at 3am and nobody acks?" Answer: nothing breaks, but the rota is not yet agreed — so the deploy waits on a name, not on code. That is a one-day slip that prevents a fake green.
+Pre-blast challenge: "what does this break if it fires at 3am and nobody acks?" Answer: nothing breaks, but the rota is not yet agreed - so the deploy waits on a name, not on code. That is a one-day slip that prevents a fake green.
 
 After deploy: `delivery.md` ship receipt with the audit cite, the kill test evidence, and the rollback line. Eval receipt: n/a, no AI in this path.
 

package/skills/fde/references/sketch.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # sketch - prototype to kill or confirm a direction
 
-**Enter when:** a direction needs validating before committing real build time - show something, de-risk, pick between use cases.
+**Enter when:** a direction needs validating before committing real build time - POC, spike, show something, de-risk, pick between use cases. The output is something a sponsor can reject in a room this week, not a polished product.
 
 **Read first:** `context.md`, `reality.md`. Load `terrain.md` only if the prototype touches the existing codebase.
 
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 
 **1. Pick by score when several use cases compete.** Use the scoring model from `discover.md` - (Value × Data readiness) / Complexity. If discover already scored, reuse; never re-score independently.
 
-**2. Build the minimum that tests the assumption.** No error handling, no tests, no polish. Same-day demo if possible. Rough is honest - polish tricks people into believing it's further along than it is.
+**2. Build the minimum that tests the assumption.** No error handling, no polish. Same-day demo if possible. Rough is honest. The POC is done when the person who can say no has seen it and reacted, not when the code looks finished.
 
 **3. AI directions - test these before anything else:**
 - Data: available, clean, sufficient volume? Synthetic-data prototypes say nothing about production behaviour.
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
 
 **4. Kill it immediately if:** the assumption is disproven · the customer ignores it (indifference is a signal, not neutrality) · 3 iterations and feedback isn't converging · it works but the customer can't explain or trust the output (unexplainable AI in a high-stakes context is not a solution). When killed: write down what was *learned*, not what was built. The learning is the asset.
 
-**5. Translate to business language** once validated: problem solved, cost of inaction, success in numbers, 2–3 trade-offs. Three sentences max for the stakeholder - can't say it in three, don't understand it yet.
+**5. Translate to business language** once validated: problem solved, cost of inaction, success in numbers, 2-3 trade-offs. Three sentences max for the stakeholder - can't say it in three, don't understand it yet.
 
 ## Artifact
 

package/skills/fde/references/stakeholder-radar.md

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ The org chart tells you who reports to whom. The stakeholder radar tells you who
 
 **3. The 48-hour rule.** A stakeholder who goes amber has roughly 48 hours before they go red. A stakeholder who goes red is already escalating above you. Respond same-day to amber signals - not with more delivery, with a conversation.
 
-**3b. One name per person.** If the table says "Denise Chen" and Signal history says "Denise" or "D. Chen", trust keys fork and prep lies. Consolidate to one spelling. `fde doctor` flags these identity clusters — treat that as a fix, not a nit.
+**3b. One name per person.** If the table says "Denise Chen" and Signal history says "Denise" or "D. Chen", trust keys fork and prep lies. Consolidate to one spelling. `fde doctor` flags these identity clusters - treat that as a fix, not a nit.
 
 **4. Detect the invisible escalation.** Three markers:
 - Questions shift from "what are you building" to "when will it be done" - someone above is asking.
@@ -76,11 +76,11 @@ One line per stakeholder who changed signal this week. If nobody changed: "Map s
 
 Acme, week 6. Priya's replies have gone from same-day to two days, and a phase-2 go/no-go is scheduled for Thursday.
 
-Two signals, not one feeling: response time doubled *and* a finance analyst nobody introduced started asking when the work completes. That combination is an invisible escalation — someone above Priya is asking, and the meeting is already happening without the FDE.
+Two signals, not one feeling: response time doubled *and* a finance analyst nobody introduced started asking when the work completes. That combination is an invisible escalation - someone above Priya is asking, and the meeting is already happening without the FDE.
 
-Positions: Priya is a supporter under pressure. Marco is a supporter who does not vote. Denise (finance) is the swing, and what she is protecting is not the budget line she cites — it is that her team's escalation started this and she has nothing to show her own director. Raj is a firm opponent on the rewrite question, and no amount of the same argument moves him.
+Positions: Priya is a supporter under pressure. Marco is a supporter who does not vote. Denise (finance) is the swing, and what she is protecting is not the budget line she cites - it is that her team's escalation started this and she has nothing to show her own director. Raj is a firm opponent on the rewrite question, and no amount of the same argument moves him.
 
-Sequence: Denise one-on-one Tuesday with the incident numbers in her units, then Priya Wednesday, so Priya walks in already knowing finance is not going to object. Pre-mortem sentence: *"Denise says 'we still don't know if this actually caught anything'"* — which is precisely why Tuesday exists. `stakeholders.md` records `Priya | sponsor | green→amber | reply latency 1d → 2d, unintroduced analyst (Jul 3)`; `context.md` carries the sequence.
+Sequence: Denise one-on-one Tuesday with the incident numbers in her units, then Priya Wednesday, so Priya walks in already knowing finance is not going to object. Pre-mortem sentence: *"Denise says 'we still don't know if this actually caught anything'"* - which is precisely why Tuesday exists. `stakeholders.md` records `Priya | sponsor | green→amber | reply latency 1d → 2d, unintroduced analyst (Jul 3)`; `context.md` carries the sequence.
 
 ## Principles
 

package/skills/fde/references/status.md

@@ -6,16 +6,16 @@
 
 ## Method (you do this work)
 
-**First:** run `fde status`. It prints the value ledger before trust — promised → measured → accepted by, or `claimed, not yet accepted`. Those lines are the Situation. Do not invent a number the CLI did not print.
+**First:** run `fde status`. It prints the value ledger before trust - promised → measured → accepted by, or `claimed, not yet accepted`. Those lines are the Situation. Do not invent a number the CLI did not print.
 
 **Always draft in SCQA.** One page maximum. No other shape.
 
 | Block | What to write | Source |
 |-------|---------------|--------|
-| **S — Situation** | Where we are against `success.md`, in their words | success.md, delivery value ledger |
-| **C — Complication** | What changed, what is at risk, or what we learned (bad news first) | risks.md, assumptions DISPROVED/OPEN, stakeholders signal |
-| **Q — Question / Ask** | The one decision or help you need from them | decisions.md, access/sign-off needs |
-| **A — Answer** | What you recommend / what happens next week (≤3 bullets) | plan Now lane, delivery promised→measured |
+| **S - Situation** | Where we are against `success.md`, in their words | success.md, delivery value ledger |
+| **C - Complication** | What changed, what is at risk, or what we learned (bad news first) | risks.md, assumptions DISPROVED/OPEN, stakeholders signal |
+| **Q - Question / Ask** | The one decision or help you need from them | decisions.md, access/sign-off needs |
+| **A - Answer** | What you recommend / what happens next week (≤3 bullets) | plan Now lane, delivery promised→measured |
 
 Then add, still on the same page:
 1. **Value this week** - from the value ledger: promised → measured (or "pending") → **accepted by whom**, with evidence citation. A measured number nobody on the customer side has agreed to is written as `claimed`, and the Ask never rests on it - if the whole case for the next phase is a claimed number, the real ask this week is "who signs off that this is real?".
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Append the draft to `delivery.md` under `## Status - <date>` using the SCQA head
 **C:** ...
 **Q:** ...
 **A:** ...
-**Value ledger:** promised … / measured … / accepted by … (evidence) — or `claimed, unaccepted`
+**Value ledger:** promised … / measured … / accepted by … (evidence) - or `claimed, unaccepted`
 **Kill list reminder:** …
 **Hostile Qs:** 1) … 2) … 3) …
 ```
@@ -49,9 +49,9 @@ Walk the FDE through the Complication and the Ask - confirm the framing matches
 
 Acme, week 3, Priya's Friday update.
 
-**S:** failure routing is live; detection is 12 min against the 4h baseline in `success.md`. **C** leads with the bad news, not the win: the second incident was acked 40 minutes late because the rota has one name on it, and that name was on leave. **Q:** one ask — a second name on the rota by Wednesday. **A:** three bullets, top of the Now lane.
+**S:** failure routing is live; detection is 12 min against the 4h baseline in `success.md`. **C** leads with the bad news, not the win: the second incident was acked 40 minutes late because the rota has one name on it, and that name was on leave. **Q:** one ask - a second name on the rota by Wednesday. **A:** three bullets, top of the Now lane.
 
-Value ledger line: `promised 4h → 15min / measured 12min over 2 incidents / accepted by — (Marco confirmed operationally, finance not yet)` → written as `claimed, unaccepted`, which is what makes the Ask honest rather than a victory lap.
+Value ledger line: `promised 4h → 15min / measured 12min over 2 incidents / accepted by - (Marco confirmed operationally, finance not yet)` → written as `claimed, unaccepted`, which is what makes the Ask honest rather than a victory lap.
 
 Hostile Q prep, from memory not imagination: "why did we pay for alerting we already had?" → the receipt from `decisions.md` and the disabled-alerting finding in `reality.md`. Kill list reminder: the service rewrite is still deferred, accepted by Priya on Jun 12.
 

package/skills/fde/references/trust-engineering.md

@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ Mistakes happen. What matters is speed and honesty:
 **`trust-profile.md`** - updated sections:
 ```markdown
 ## Trust level
-Current: <level 0–5> as of <date>
+Current: <level 0-5> as of <date>
 Evidence: <what earned this level>
 Next target: <level> - requires: <specific action>
 

package/skills/fde/references/use-case-scoring.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ The most dangerous moment in a multi-use-case engagement is when the technically
 
 **1. List every candidate.** From the brief, from discovery conversations, from the FDE's own observations. Include the ones the customer hasn't said aloud but the codebase implies - a high-churn module with no tests is a candidate even if nobody named it.
 
-**2. Score on five dimensions.** Each 1–5, with the scoring rubric below:
+**2. Score on five dimensions.** Each 1-5, with the scoring rubric below:
 
 | Dimension | 1 | 3 | 5 |
 |-----------|---|---|---|