fdeops 3.6.1 → 3.7.1

package/bin/install.js

@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ function cmdInstall() {
   console.log('    node bin/install.js init <engagement-name>')
   console.log('')
   console.log('  Example:')
-  console.log('    node bin/install.js init acme-payments')
+  console.log('    node bin/install.js init garvey-payments')
   console.log('  (npm 3.0.0+: npx fdeops@latest init <engagement-name>)')
   console.log('')
   console.log('  Use another AI tool (Cursor, Codex, Gemini CLI, Copilot)? Wire it up:')

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "fdeops",
-  "version": "3.6.1",
+  "version": "3.7.1",
   "description": "Field kit for engineers embedded in client work - a real CLI (recon, memory, portfolio), one @fde skill with field judgment on top, and hooks that make it automatic. Claude Code plugin and any agent that loads skills.",
   "bin": {
     "fdeops": "bin/install.js",

package/skills/fde/SKILL.md

@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ After loading `context.md` via `fde resume`, run a quick integrity scan and open
 
 **Always open with a 2-3 line state summary:**
 
-> "Last session you shipped the payment retry slice. Plan is 3/5 tasks done. Diana saw the demo Tuesday - signal is green. One thing worth noting: [finding, or 'nothing flagged - where do you want to pick up?']"
+> "Last session you shipped the payment retry slice. Plan is 3/5 tasks done. Denise saw the demo Tuesday - signal is green. One thing worth noting: [finding, or 'nothing flagged - where do you want to pick up?']"
 
 **What to scan (in order, surface only what matters):**
 
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ After updating `.fde/` artifacts, suggest the ONE next move that accelerates the
 
 **The format:** One line, directed, based on engagement state. Not a menu.
 
-> "Updated. Terrain is mapped - ready to plan the slices, or does Diana need to see this first?"
+> "Updated. Terrain is mapped - ready to plan the slices, or does Denise need to see this first?"
 
 > "Shipped and logged. Task 4 touches the billing module where that open risk sits. Worth addressing that before starting?"
 

package/skills/fde/references/multi-customer-ops.md

@@ -12,9 +12,9 @@ The solo FDE running three customers simultaneously is the norm, not the excepti
 
 ```
 ~/fde-engagements/
-  acme-corp/.fde/         ← Acme's engagement memory
-  globex/.fde/            ← Globex's engagement memory
-  initech/.fde/           ← Initech's engagement memory
+  garvey-payments/.fde/    ← Garvey's engagement memory
+  kesterman-freight/.fde/  ← Kesterman's engagement memory
+  rennick-health/.fde/     ← Rennick's engagement memory
 ```
 
 **Never:**
@@ -32,11 +32,11 @@ Cross-contamination is the fastest way to lose two engagements at once.
 
 | Customer | Trust signal | Top risk | Today's action | Time budget |
 |----------|-------------|----------|---------------|-------------|
-| Acme | green | Migration deadline Fri | Finish data mapping, send status | 4h |
-| Globex | AMBER | Sponsor went quiet Tue | Proactive conversation TODAY | 2h |
-| Initech | green | None active | Build slice 3, push PR | 2h |
+| Garvey | green | Canary blocked on their security ticket | Chase ticket, prep ship checklist | 4h |
+| Kesterman | AMBER | Sponsor went quiet Tue | Proactive conversation TODAY | 2h |
+| Rennick | green | None active | Build slice 3, push PR | 2h |
 
-Priority order: Globex (amber trust), Acme (deadline), Initech (steady)
+Priority order: Kesterman (amber trust), Garvey (deadline), Rennick (steady)
 ```
 
 **3. The triage rules.** In order of priority:
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ BEFORE STARTING CUSTOMER B:
   1. Run: fde resume (loads Customer B's engagement)
   2. Read context.md - where did we leave off?
   3. Confirm: what's the one thing to accomplish in this block?
-  4. Set a time boundary (e.g., "2 hours on Globex, then back to Acme")
+  4. Set a time boundary (e.g., "2 hours on Kesterman, then back to Garvey")
 ```
 
 The 3-line context update is the bridge. Without it, the next session starts with "what was I doing?" - that's 20 minutes of re-discovery each time.

package/skills/fde/references/red-team.md

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ You are not a helpful peer right now. You are the skeptical senior who has seen
 | **Second-order** | If this succeeds, what new problem does it create? Who notices? |
 
 **4. Deliver the hits.** Three rules:
-- **Specific, not generic.** Not "have you considered stakeholder alignment?" but "Robert Tanaka hasn't signed off on the compliance scope change and he reports to Diana's boss - what happens when he raises it in the Thursday meeting?"
+- **Specific, not generic.** Not "have you considered stakeholder alignment?" but "Robert Tanaka hasn't signed off on the compliance scope change and he reports to Denise's boss - what happens when he raises it in the Thursday meeting?"
 - **Grounded in their data.** Use names, dates, and facts from the `.fde/` files. If `risks.md` says something is CRITICAL and `delivery.md` shows no mitigation logged, say so.
 - **One at a time.** Deliver a challenge. Wait for the response. Then the next. A barrage overwhelms; a sequence sharpens.
 
@@ -57,13 +57,13 @@ EXPOSED  - no answer, no plan, this will hurt them in the room
 The red-team adapts to what's being tested:
 
 ### Pre-meeting red-team
-The FDE is about to walk into a sponsor meeting, accumulation conversation, or exec presentation. Attack their talking points, their data, their ask. "If Diana says 'why should I keep paying for this when nothing shipped last week,' what are your first three words?"
+The FDE is about to walk into a sponsor meeting, accumulation conversation, or exec presentation. Attack their talking points, their data, their ask. "If Denise says 'why should I keep paying for this when nothing shipped last week,' what are your first three words?"
 
 ### Pre-ship red-team
 About to deploy, hand off, or mark complete. Attack the readiness. "It's 2am, the batch job fails, you're on a flight. Who fixes it? Show me the runbook they'll actually open. What's the first command?"
 
 ### Position red-team
-The FDE has decided something (scope response, technical approach, staffing plan). Attack the decision. "You're saying no to the reporting module. Diana asked for it personally. What happens to trust when you say no? What's your alternative offer?"
+The FDE has decided something (scope response, technical approach, staffing plan). Attack the decision. "You're saying no to the reporting module. Denise asked for it personally. What happens to trust when you say no? What's your alternative offer?"
 
 ### Brief red-team
 Day 1 or early discovery. Attack the brief itself. "This brief says 'migrate COBOL to Java.' That's a solution, not a problem. What's the actual problem? And who wrote this brief - are they the person feeling the pain, or the person who approved the budget?"