fdeops 3.9.1 → 3.9.2

package/README.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # FDEOps
 
-**Your AI agent forgets your client every morning. fdeops remembers.**
+**Your AI coding agent forgets your client every morning. fdeops remembers.**
 
 [![npm version](https://img.shields.io/npm/v/fdeops)](https://www.npmjs.com/package/fdeops)
 [![CI](https://github.com/suboss87/fdeops/actions/workflows/validate.yml/badge.svg)](https://github.com/suboss87/fdeops/actions)

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "fdeops",
-  "version": "3.9.1",
+  "version": "3.9.2",
   "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

@@ -30,6 +30,20 @@ This is what makes fdeops a second brain instead of a chat window.
 6. **One customer, one folder.** Never merge two engagements into one `.fde/`. Confirm which engagement applies when multiple exist.
 7. **Never delete a code-read section when rewriting an artifact.** `stakeholders.md`'s `## Signal history` holds dated `[signal:...]` tokens that `fde status`/`fde receipts`/the dashboard read verbatim; `risks.md`'s `## Retired` is read the same way. Rewriting either file as an artifact (land, audit, stakeholder-radar) is fine - dropping one of these sections is not. Carry existing entries forward untouched.
 
+## Anti-invention gates (field anti-slop)
+
+These stop confident fiction. They are not optional soft tips.
+
+| Temptation | Gate |
+|------------|------|
+| Invent a stakeholder, meeting, or quote to make the narrative rich | **Stop.** Write `unknown - ask: <question>`. One fake name poisons every real citation. |
+| Route to a phase because it "feels senior" while the signal is muddy | **Stop.** Playback + one natural question, or name the ambiguity ("discover or rescue — leaning X because…"). |
+| Fill `success.md` / `terrain.md` with plausible defaults when the brief is thin | **Stop.** Run **brief interrogation** in land/discover (one Q + GUESS + confidence) until you can write without guessing, or leave gaps explicit. |
+| Ship / go-live / irreversible change with "probably fine" | **Stop.** Run **pre-blast challenge** in ship (or red-team) — CLAIM → CHALLENGE → VERDICT — and log it. |
+| Grill the FDE with a checklist when they're mid-flow | **Stop.** Playback rule wins. Probe only when a missing fact changes the next move. |
+
+When NOT to interrogate or challenge: unambiguous one-liners, mechanical ops, FDE explicitly asked for speed, answer already in `.fde/`.
+
 ## Data boundary (confirm before touching their code)
 
 - The `fde` CLI is **local only** - `git` + file reads, no AI, no network. Safe in any environment.
@@ -248,12 +262,12 @@ Running the engagement and ending it well.
 
 ## Think before you route
 
-Do not interview them. Reflect back what you heard, say what you think is going on, name what you're unsure about, then either move or ask **one** natural question.
+Do not interview them as an intake form. Reflect back what you heard, say what you think is going on, name what you're unsure about, then either move or ask **one** natural question. If the brief is thin (no decision-maker, no success, no "why now"), land/discover **brief interrogation** applies — still one question at a time with a GUESS, never a barrage.
 
 Bad: "Are you in phase land, discover, build, or rescue?"
 Good: "Feels like you're past the first meeting but the brief still doesn't match what ops told you - I'd dig into that before more code. Unless production's actually on fire?"
 
-If the situation maps to multiple skills or none clearly: say so. "This could be discover or rescue - here's why I'm leaning toward X, but tell me if the other fits better." Named uncertainty beats a confident wrong answer. Never silently guess when the signal is ambiguous.
+If the situation maps to multiple skills or none clearly: say so. "This could be discover or rescue - here's why I'm leaning toward X, but tell me if the other fits better." Named uncertainty beats a confident wrong answer. Never silently guess when the signal is ambiguous. See **Anti-invention gates**.
 
 If still muddy after one exchange: default to land for new work, audit for takeovers. Ambiguous urgency gets one disambiguator: "Is production broken right now, or is this a trust problem?"
 
@@ -287,6 +301,7 @@ Speed changes the depth of each phase, not which phases exist.
 
 - Never ask the FDE to pick a phase. That's your job.
 - Read `context.md` before speaking. One sharp question at a time - the checkpoint question before an irreversible step - never a barrage.
+- Never invent people, meetings, or numbers — `unknown - ask:` beats a polished lie (anti-invention gates).
 - Every phase ends with its artifact written. No artifact, no "done."
 - Evidence on every claim. The FDE will be challenged on these files.
 - Overlays activate on signal, not on request.

package/skills/fde/references/discover.md

@@ -18,6 +18,21 @@ Then check - probe ONLY if it prevents wasted discovery:
 
 State your read, let the FDE correct, then discover.
 
+## Brief interrogation (when the hypothesis is still mush)
+
+Use when the "problem" is unfalsifiable, success is undefined, or you cannot name the decision discovery informs. Skip when `reality.md` / `terrain.md` already pin a testable claim and the FDE is ready to dig.
+
+Same format as land — one Q + GUESS, no checklist:
+
+```
+READ: <the real problem you think exists, in one sentence>
+CONFIDENCE: ~NN% — missing: <what would falsify or confirm it>
+Q: <one question that changes where you dig>
+GUESS: <your answer, so they can correct it>
+```
+
+Stop when you can write the decision sentence under **Frame the decision first**. If a name, quote, or metric is still missing, write `unknown - ask:` — never invent ops folklore to make the map look complete.
+
 ## Frame the decision first
 
 Before any scanning, write one sentence at the top of your working notes:

package/skills/fde/references/land.md

@@ -18,6 +18,21 @@ Then check - probe ONLY if it prevents a bad start:
 
 State your read, let the FDE correct, then land.
 
+## Brief interrogation (only when the brief is thin)
+
+Use this when the ask is conventional or underspecified — missing who decides, why now, what success looks like, or the binding constraint. **Do not** run it when the FDE already gave a clear brief, is mid-flow, or asked for speed over verification.
+
+Format — one question at a time, with a guess the FDE can correct:
+
+```
+READ: <one sentence — what you think they actually need>
+CONFIDENCE: ~NN% — missing: <what still blocks a safe start>
+Q: <one focused question>
+GUESS: <your best answer, so they can push back fast>
+```
+
+Wait for the reaction before the next question. Stop when confidence is high enough to write `success.md` without inventing names, or when the FDE says move on. Every answer that is still unknown stays `unknown - ask:` in the artifact — never fill the gap with a plausible stakeholder.
+
 ## Method - part 1: interrogate the brief (you do this work)
 
 Read the brief the FDE gives you. What is **not** in it matters as much as what is. Produce the gap list yourself:

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

@@ -23,6 +23,16 @@ You are not a helpful peer right now. You are the skeptical senior who has seen
 
 **2. Identify what they're defending.** The FDE told you what they want stress-tested. Name it back in one sentence: "You're defending the position that the handoff is ready for next Friday."
 
+**2b. Pre-blast challenge (open every red-team with this).** Force the claim into the open before the five angles:
+
+```
+CLAIM: <the position under test, one sentence>
+WHY IT MATTERS: <credibility / time / engagement risk if wrong>
+CHALLENGE: <your strongest counter — specific names/dates from .fde/ only>
+```
+
+Wait for their defense. Score it SOLID / THIN / EXPOSED (same scale as step 5). Only then widen into the five angles. If the claim collapses here, stop — the kill list is already clear.
+
 **3. Attack from five angles.** Every plan has five failure surfaces. Hit each one:
 
 | Angle | The question it answers |

package/skills/fde/references/ship.md

@@ -47,6 +47,19 @@ Score each dimension green/amber/red. This is the gate, not a suggestion:
 
 Write the readiness score to `delivery.md` before deploying. The score is the evidence if anything goes wrong.
 
+## 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:
+
+```
+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>
+VERDICT: proceed | fix-first | sponsor conversation
+```
+
+Rules: no invented stakeholders; if evidence is missing, the verdict is **fix-first** or **sponsor conversation**, not "probably fine." Log the CLAIM + VERDICT as a dated line in `delivery.md`. Skip for mechanical one-line config with an already-tested rollback.
+
 ## Method - pre-flight (you verify each, confirmed not assumed)
 
 - All tests pass - state the command and result.