maestro-flow 0.5.31 → 0.5.33

package/.agents/skills/delegation-check/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+---
+name: delegation-check
+description: Check workflow delegation prompts against agent role definitions for content separation violations. Detects conflicts, duplication, boundary leaks, and missing contracts. Triggers on "check delegation", "delegation conflict", "prompt vs role check".
+allowed-tools: read_file, find_files, search, shell, ask_user
+---
+<!-- Open-standard mirror generated by scripts/build-agents-standard.mjs — do not edit; re-run after editing .claude/ source. -->
+
+
+<purpose>
+Validate that command delegation prompts (delegate_subagent() calls) and agent role definitions respect GSD content separation boundaries. Detects 7 conflict dimensions: role re-definition, domain expertise leaking into prompts, quality gate duplication, output format conflicts, process override, scope authority conflicts, and missing contracts.
+
+Invoked when user requests "check delegation", "delegation conflict", "prompt vs role check", or when reviewing workflow skill quality.
+</purpose>
+
+<required_reading>
+- @.claude/skills/delegation-check/specs/separation-rules.md
+</required_reading>
+
+<process>
+
+## Pre-load (before execution)
+
+1. **Codebase docs**: If `.workflow/codebase/ARCHITECTURE.md` exists, read for project context
+2. **Specs**: `maestro spec load --category coding` — load coding conventions
+3. **Wiki knowledge**: `maestro search "skill design optimization" --json` — top 5 entries as prior context
+4. All optional — proceed without if unavailable
+
+## 1. Determine Scan Scope
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS` to identify what to check.
+
+| Signal | Scope |
+|--------|-------|
+| File path to command `.md` | Single command + its agents |
+| File path to agent `.md` | Single agent + commands that spawn it |
+| Directory path (e.g., `.claude/skills/team-*/`) | All commands + agents in that skill |
+| "all" or no args | Scan all `.claude/commands/`, `.claude/skills/*/`, `.claude/agents/` |
+
+If ambiguous, ask:
+
+```
+ask_user(
+  header: "Scan Scope",
+  question: "What should I check for delegation conflicts?",
+  options: [
+    { label: "Specific skill", description: "Check one skill directory" },
+    { label: "Specific command+agent pair", description: "Check one command and its spawned agents" },
+    { label: "Full scan", description: "Scan all commands, skills, and agents" }
+  ]
+)
+```
+
+## 2. Discover Command-Agent Pairs
+
+For each command file in scope:
+
+**2a. Extract delegate_subagent() calls from commands:**
+
+```bash
+# Search both delegate_subagent() (current) and Task() (legacy GSD) patterns
+grep -n "delegate_subagent(\|Task(" "$COMMAND_FILE"
+grep -n "subagent_type" "$COMMAND_FILE"
+```
+
+For each `delegate_subagent()` call, extract:
+- `subagent_type` → agent name
+- Full prompt content between the prompt markers (the string passed as `prompt=`)
+- Line range of the delegation prompt
+
+**2b. Locate agent definitions:**
+
+For each `subagent_type` found:
+```bash
+# Check standard locations
+ls .claude/agents/${AGENT_NAME}.md 2>/dev/null
+ls .claude/skills/*/agents/${AGENT_NAME}.md 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+**2c. Build pair map:**
+
+```
+$PAIRS = [
+  {
+    command: { path, agent_calls: [{ line, subagent_type, prompt_content }] },
+    agent: { path, role, sections, quality_gate, output_contract }
+  }
+]
+```
+
+If an agent file cannot be found, record as `MISSING_AGENT` — this is itself a finding.
+
+## 3. Parse Delegation Prompts
+
+For each delegate_subagent() call, extract structured blocks from the prompt content:
+
+| Block | What It Contains |
+|-------|-----------------|
+| `<objective>` | What to accomplish |
+| `<files_to_read>` | Input file paths |
+| `<additional_context>` / `<planning_context>` / `<verification_context>` | Runtime parameters |
+| `<output>` / `<expected_output>` | Output format/location expectations |
+| `<quality_gate>` | Per-invocation quality checklist |
+| `<deep_work_rules>` / `<instructions>` | Cross-cutting policy or revision instructions |
+| `<downstream_consumer>` | Who consumes the output |
+| `<success_criteria>` | Success conditions |
+| Free-form text | Unstructured instructions |
+
+Also detect ANTI-PATTERNS in prompt content:
+- Role identity statements ("You are a...", "Your role is...")
+- Domain expertise (decision tables, heuristics, comparison examples)
+- Process definitions (numbered steps, step-by-step instructions beyond scope)
+- Philosophy statements ("always prefer...", "never do...")
+- Anti-pattern lists that belong in agent definition
+
+## 4. Parse Agent Definitions
+
+For each agent file, extract:
+
+| Section | Key Content |
+|---------|------------|
+| `<role>` | Identity, spawner, responsibilities, mandatory read |
+| `<philosophy>` | Guiding principles |
+| `<upstream_input>` | How agent interprets input |
+| `<output_contract>` | Return markers (COMPLETE/BLOCKED/CHECKPOINT) |
+| `<quality_gate>` | Self-check criteria |
+| Domain sections | All `<section_name>` tags with their content |
+| YAML frontmatter | name, description, tools |
+
+## 5. Run Conflict Checks (7 Dimensions)
+
+### Dimension 1: Role Re-definition
+
+**Question:** Does the delegation prompt redefine the agent's identity?
+
+**Check:** Scan prompt content for:
+- "You are a..." / "You are the..." / "Your role is..."
+- "Your job is to..." / "Your responsibility is..."
+- "Core responsibilities:" lists
+- Any content that contradicts agent's `<role>` section
+
+**Allowed:** References to mode ("standard mode", "revision mode") that the agent's `<role>` already lists in "Spawned by:".
+
+**Severity:** `error` if prompt redefines role; `warning` if prompt adds responsibilities not in agent's `<role>`.
+
+### Dimension 2: Domain Expertise Leak
+
+**Question:** Does the delegation prompt embed domain knowledge that belongs in the agent?
+
+**Check:** Scan prompt content for:
+- Decision/routing tables (`| Condition | Action |`)
+- Good-vs-bad comparison examples (`| TOO VAGUE | JUST RIGHT |`)
+- Heuristic rules ("If X then Y", "Always prefer Z")
+- Anti-pattern lists ("DO NOT...", "NEVER...")
+- Detailed process steps beyond task scope
+
+**Exception:** `<deep_work_rules>` is an acceptable cross-cutting policy pattern from GSD — flag as `info` only.
+
+**Severity:** `error` if prompt contains domain tables/examples that duplicate agent content; `warning` if prompt contains heuristics not in agent.
+
+### Dimension 3: Quality Gate Duplication
+
+**Question:** Do the prompt's quality checks overlap or conflict with the agent's own `<quality_gate>`?
+
+**Check:** Compare prompt `<quality_gate>` / `<success_criteria>` items against agent's `<quality_gate>` items:
+- **Duplicate:** Same check appears in both → `warning` (redundant, may diverge)
+- **Conflict:** Contradictory criteria (e.g., prompt says "max 3 tasks", agent says "max 5 tasks") → `error`
+- **Missing:** Prompt expects quality checks agent doesn't have → `info`
+
+**Severity:** `error` for contradictions; `warning` for duplicates; `info` for gaps.
+
+### Dimension 4: Output Format Conflict
+
+**Question:** Does the prompt's expected output format conflict with the agent's `<output_contract>`?
+
+**Check:**
+- Prompt `<expected_output>` markers vs agent's `<output_contract>` return markers
+- Prompt expects specific format agent doesn't define
+- Prompt expects file output but agent's contract only defines markers (or vice versa)
+- Return marker names differ (prompt expects `## DONE`, agent returns `## TASK COMPLETE`)
+
+**Severity:** `error` if return markers conflict; `warning` if format expectations unspecified on either side.
+
+### Dimension 5: Process Override
+
+**Question:** Does the delegation prompt dictate HOW the agent should work?
+
+**Check:** Scan prompt for:
+- Numbered step-by-step instructions ("Step 1:", "First..., Then..., Finally...")
+- Process flow definitions beyond `<objective>` scope
+- Tool usage instructions ("Use grep to...", "Run bash command...")
+- Execution ordering that conflicts with agent's own execution flow
+
+**Allowed:** `<instructions>` block for revision mode (telling agent what changed, not how to work).
+
+**Severity:** `error` if prompt overrides agent's process; `warning` if prompt suggests process hints.
+
+### Dimension 6: Scope Authority Conflict
+
+**Question:** Does the prompt make decisions that belong to the agent's domain?
+
+**Check:**
+- Prompt specifies implementation choices (library selection, architecture patterns) when agent's `<philosophy>` or domain sections own these decisions
+- Prompt overrides agent's discretion areas
+- Prompt locks decisions that agent's `<context_fidelity>` says are "Claude's Discretion"
+
+**Allowed:** Passing through user-locked decisions from CONTEXT.md — this is proper delegation, not authority conflict.
+
+**Severity:** `error` if prompt makes domain decisions agent should own; `info` if prompt passes through user decisions (correct behavior).
+
+### Dimension 7: Missing Contracts
+
+**Question:** Are the delegation handoff points properly defined?
+
+**Check:**
+- Agent has `<output_contract>` with return markers → command handles all markers?
+- Command's return handling covers COMPLETE, BLOCKED, CHECKPOINT
+- Agent lists "Spawned by:" — does command actually spawn it?
+- Agent expects `<files_to_read>` — does prompt provide it?
+- Agent has `<upstream_input>` — does prompt provide matching input structure?
+
+**Severity:** `error` if return marker handling is missing; `warning` if agent expects input the prompt doesn't provide.
+
+## 6. Aggregate and Report
+
+### 6a. Per-pair summary
+
+For each command-agent pair, aggregate findings:
+
+```
+{command_path} → {agent_name}
+  delegate_subagent() at line {N}:
+    D1 (Role Re-def):      {PASS|WARN|ERROR} — {detail}
+    D2 (Domain Leak):       {PASS|WARN|ERROR} — {detail}
+    D3 (Quality Gate):      {PASS|WARN|ERROR} — {detail}
+    D4 (Output Format):     {PASS|WARN|ERROR} — {detail}
+    D5 (Process Override):  {PASS|WARN|ERROR} — {detail}
+    D6 (Scope Authority):   {PASS|WARN|ERROR} — {detail}
+    D7 (Missing Contract):  {PASS|WARN|ERROR} — {detail}
+```
+
+### 6b. Overall verdict
+
+| Verdict | Condition |
+|---------|-----------|
+| **CLEAN** | 0 errors, 0-2 warnings |
+| **REVIEW** | 0 errors, 3+ warnings |
+| **CONFLICT** | 1+ errors |
+
+### 6c. Fix recommendations
+
+For each finding, provide:
+- **Location:** file:line
+- **What's wrong:** concrete description
+- **Fix:** move content to correct owner (command or agent)
+- **Example:** before/after snippet if applicable
+
+## 7. Present Results
+
+```
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+ DELEGATION-CHECK ► SCAN COMPLETE
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+Scope: {description}
+Pairs checked: {N} command-agent pairs
+Findings: {E} errors, {W} warnings, {I} info
+
+Verdict: {CLEAN | REVIEW | CONFLICT}
+
+| Pair | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 |
+|------|----|----|----|----|----|----|-----|
+| {cmd} → {agent} | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| ... | | | | | | | |
+
+{If CONFLICT: detailed findings with fix recommendations}
+
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+## Fix Priority
+
+1. {Highest severity fix}
+2. {Next fix}
+...
+
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- [ ] Scan scope determined and all files discovered
+- [ ] All delegate_subagent() calls extracted from commands with full prompt content
+- [ ] All corresponding agent definitions located and parsed
+- [ ] 7 conflict dimensions checked for each command-agent pair
+- [ ] No false positives on legitimate patterns (mode references, user decision passthrough, `<deep_work_rules>`)
+- [ ] Fix recommendations provided for every error/warning
+- [ ] Summary table with per-pair dimension results displayed
+- [ ] Overall verdict determined (CLEAN/REVIEW/CONFLICT)
+</success_criteria>

package/.agents/skills/delegation-check/specs/separation-rules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,269 @@
+# GSD Content Separation Rules
+
+Rules for validating the boundary between **command delegation prompts** (delegate_subagent() calls) and **agent role definitions** (agent `.md` files). Derived from analysis of GSD's `plan-phase.md`, `execute-phase.md`, `research-phase.md` and their corresponding agents (`gsd-planner`, `gsd-plan-checker`, `gsd-executor`, `gsd-phase-researcher`, `gsd-verifier`).
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**Commands own WHEN and WHERE. Agents own WHO and HOW.**
+
+A delegation prompt tells the agent what to do *this time*. The agent definition tells the agent who it *always* is.
+
+## Ownership Matrix
+
+### Command Delegation Prompt Owns
+
+| Concern | XML Block | Example |
+|---------|-----------|---------|
+| What to accomplish | `<objective>` | "Execute plan 3 of phase 2" |
+| Input file paths | `<files_to_read>` | "- {state_path} (Project State)" |
+| Runtime parameters | `<additional_context>` | "Phase: 5, Mode: revision" |
+| Output location | `<output>` | "Write to: {phase_dir}/RESEARCH.md" |
+| Expected return format | `<expected_output>` | "## VERIFICATION PASSED or ## ISSUES FOUND" |
+| Who consumes output | `<downstream_consumer>` | "Output consumed by /gsd:execute-phase" |
+| Revision context | `<instructions>` | "Make targeted updates to address checker issues" |
+| Cross-cutting policy | `<deep_work_rules>` | Anti-shallow execution rules (applies to all agents) |
+| Per-invocation quality | `<quality_gate>` (in prompt) | Invocation-specific checks (e.g., "every task has `<read_first>`") |
+| Flow control | Revision loops, return routing | "If TASK COMPLETE → step 13. If BLOCKED → offer options" |
+| User interaction | `ask_user` | "Provide context / Skip / Abort" |
+| Banners | Status display | "━━━ GSD ► PLANNING PHASE {X} ━━━" |
+
+### Agent Role Definition Owns
+
+| Concern | XML Section | Example |
+|---------|-------------|---------|
+| Identity | `<role>` | "You are a GSD planner" |
+| Spawner list | `<role>` → Spawned by | "/gsd:plan-phase orchestrator" |
+| Responsibilities | `<role>` → Core responsibilities | "Decompose phases into parallel-optimized plans" |
+| Mandatory read protocol | `<role>` → Mandatory Initial Read | "MUST use Read tool to load every file in `<files_to_read>`" |
+| Project discovery | `<project_context>` | "Read CLAUDE.md, check .claude/skills/" |
+| Guiding principles | `<philosophy>` | Quality degradation curve by context usage |
+| Input interpretation | `<upstream_input>` | "Decisions → LOCKED, Discretion → freedom" |
+| Decision honoring | `<context_fidelity>` | "Locked decisions are NON-NEGOTIABLE" |
+| Core insight | `<core_principle>` | "Plan completeness ≠ Goal achievement" |
+| Domain expertise | Named domain sections | `<verification_dimensions>`, `<task_breakdown>`, `<dependency_graph>` |
+| Return protocol | `<output_contract>` | TASK COMPLETE / TASK BLOCKED / CHECKPOINT REACHED |
+| Self-check | `<quality_gate>` (in agent) | Permanent checks for every invocation |
+| Anti-patterns | `<anti_patterns>` | "DO NOT check code existence" |
+| Examples | `<examples>` | Scope exceeded analysis example |
+
+## Conflict Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Role Re-definition
+
+**Symptom:** Delegation prompt contains identity language.
+
+```
+# BAD — prompt redefines role
+delegate_subagent({
+  subagent_type: "gsd-plan-checker",
+  prompt: "You are a code quality expert. Your job is to review plans...
+    <objective>Verify phase 5 plans</objective>"
+})
+
+# GOOD — prompt states objective only
+delegate_subagent({
+  subagent_type: "gsd-plan-checker",
+  prompt: "<verification_context>
+    <files_to_read>...</files_to_read>
+  </verification_context>
+  <expected_output>## VERIFICATION PASSED or ## ISSUES FOUND</expected_output>"
+})
+```
+
+**Why it's wrong:** The agent's `<role>` section already defines identity. Re-definition in prompt can contradict, confuse, or override the agent's self-understanding.
+
+**Detection:** Regex for `You are a|Your role is|Your job is to|Your responsibility is|Core responsibilities:` in prompt content.
+
+### Pattern 2: Domain Expertise Leak
+
+**Symptom:** Delegation prompt contains decision tables, heuristics, or examples.
+
+```
+# BAD — prompt embeds domain knowledge
+delegate_subagent({
+  subagent_type: "gsd-planner",
+  prompt: "<objective>Create plans for phase 3</objective>
+    Remember: tasks should have 2-3 items max.
+    | TOO VAGUE | JUST RIGHT |
+    | 'Add auth' | 'Add JWT auth with refresh rotation' |"
+})
+
+# GOOD — agent's own <task_breakdown> section owns this knowledge
+delegate_subagent({
+  subagent_type: "gsd-planner",
+  prompt: "<planning_context>
+    <files_to_read>...</files_to_read>
+  </planning_context>"
+})
+```
+
+**Why it's wrong:** Domain knowledge in prompts duplicates agent content. When agent evolves, prompt doesn't update — they diverge. Agent's domain sections are the single source of truth.
+
+**Exception — `<deep_work_rules>`:** GSD uses this as a cross-cutting policy block (not domain expertise per se) that applies anti-shallow-execution rules across all agents. This is acceptable because:
+1. It's structural policy, not domain knowledge
+2. It applies uniformly to all planning agents
+3. It supplements (not duplicates) agent's own quality gate
+
+**Detection:**
+- Tables with `|` in prompt content (excluding `<files_to_read>` path tables)
+- "Good:" / "Bad:" / "Example:" comparison pairs
+- "Always..." / "Never..." / "Prefer..." heuristic statements
+- Numbered rules lists (>3 items) that aren't revision instructions
+
+### Pattern 3: Quality Gate Duplication
+
+**Symptom:** Same quality check appears in both prompt and agent definition.
+
+```
+# PROMPT quality_gate
+- [ ] Every task has `<read_first>`
+- [ ] Every task has `<acceptance_criteria>`
+- [ ] Dependencies correctly identified
+
+# AGENT quality_gate
+- [ ] Every task has `<read_first>` with at least the file being modified
+- [ ] Every task has `<acceptance_criteria>` with grep-verifiable conditions
+- [ ] Dependencies correctly identified
+```
+
+**Analysis:**
+- "Dependencies correctly identified" → **duplicate** (exact match)
+- "`<read_first>`" in both → **overlap** (prompt is less specific than agent)
+- "`<acceptance_criteria>`" → **overlap** (same check, different specificity)
+
+**When duplication is OK:** Prompt's `<quality_gate>` adds *invocation-specific* checks not in agent's permanent gate (e.g., "Phase requirement IDs all covered" is specific to this phase, not general).
+
+**Detection:** Fuzzy match quality gate items between prompt and agent (>60% token overlap).
+
+### Pattern 4: Output Format Conflict
+
+**Symptom:** Command expects return markers the agent doesn't define.
+
+```
+# COMMAND handles:
+- "## VERIFICATION PASSED" → continue
+- "## ISSUES FOUND" → revision loop
+
+# AGENT <output_contract> defines:
+- "## TASK COMPLETE"
+- "## TASK BLOCKED"
+```
+
+**Why it's wrong:** Command routes on markers. If markers don't match, routing breaks silently — command may hang or misinterpret results.
+
+**Detection:** Extract return marker strings from both sides, compare sets.
+
+### Pattern 5: Process Override
+
+**Symptom:** Prompt dictates step-by-step process.
+
+```
+# BAD — prompt overrides agent's process
+delegate_subagent({
+  subagent_type: "gsd-planner",
+  prompt: "Step 1: Read the roadmap. Step 2: Extract requirements.
+    Step 3: Create task breakdown. Step 4: Assign waves..."
+})
+
+# GOOD — prompt states objective, agent decides process
+delegate_subagent({
+  subagent_type: "gsd-planner",
+  prompt: "<objective>Create plans for phase 5</objective>
+    <files_to_read>...</files_to_read>"
+})
+```
+
+**Exception — Revision instructions:** `<instructions>` block in revision prompts is acceptable because it tells the agent *what changed* (checker issues), not *how to work*.
+
+```
+# OK — revision context, not process override
+<instructions>
+Make targeted updates to address checker issues.
+Do NOT replan from scratch unless issues are fundamental.
+Return what changed.
+</instructions>
+```
+
+**Detection:** "Step N:" / "First..." / "Then..." / "Finally..." patterns in prompt content outside `<instructions>` blocks.
+
+### Pattern 6: Scope Authority Conflict
+
+**Symptom:** Prompt makes domain decisions the agent should own.
+
+```
+# BAD — prompt decides implementation details
+delegate_subagent({
+  subagent_type: "gsd-planner",
+  prompt: "Use React Query for data fetching. Use Zustand for state management.
+    <objective>Plan the frontend architecture</objective>"
+})
+
+# GOOD — user decisions passed through from CONTEXT.md
+delegate_subagent({
+  subagent_type: "gsd-planner",
+  prompt: "<planning_context>
+    <files_to_read>
+    - {context_path} (USER DECISIONS - locked: React Query, Zustand)
+    </files_to_read>
+  </planning_context>"
+})
+```
+
+**Key distinction:**
+- **Prompt making decisions** = conflict (command shouldn't have domain opinion)
+- **Prompt passing through user decisions** = correct (user decisions flow through command to agent)
+- **Agent interpreting user decisions** = correct (agent's `<context_fidelity>` handles locked/deferred/discretion)
+
+**Detection:** Technical nouns (library names, architecture patterns) in prompt free text (not inside `<files_to_read>` path descriptions).
+
+### Pattern 7: Missing Contracts
+
+**Symptom:** Handoff points between command and agent are incomplete.
+
+| Missing Element | Impact |
+|-----------------|--------|
+| Agent has no `<output_contract>` | Command can't route on return markers |
+| Command doesn't handle all agent return markers | BLOCKED/CHECKPOINT silently ignored |
+| Agent expects `<files_to_read>` but prompt doesn't provide it | Agent starts without context |
+| Agent's "Spawned by:" doesn't list this command | Agent may not expect this invocation pattern |
+| Agent has `<upstream_input>` but prompt doesn't match structure | Agent misinterprets input |
+
+**Detection:** Cross-reference both sides for completeness.
+
+## The `<deep_work_rules>` Exception
+
+GSD's plan-phase uses `<deep_work_rules>` in delegation prompts. This is a deliberate design choice, not a violation:
+
+1. **It's cross-cutting policy**: applies to ALL planning agents equally
+2. **It's structural**: defines required fields (`<read_first>`, `<acceptance_criteria>`, `<action>` concreteness) — not domain expertise
+3. **It supplements agent quality**: agent's own `<quality_gate>` is self-check; deep_work_rules is command-imposed minimum standard
+4. **It's invocation-specific context**: different commands might impose different work rules
+
+**Rule:** `<deep_work_rules>` in a delegation prompt is `info` level, not error. Flag only if its content duplicates agent's domain sections verbatim.
+
+## Severity Classification
+
+| Severity | When | Action Required |
+|----------|------|-----------------|
+| `error` | Actual conflict: contradictory content between prompt and agent | Must fix — move content to correct owner |
+| `warning` | Duplication or boundary blur without contradiction | Should fix — consolidate to single source of truth |
+| `info` | Acceptable pattern that looks like violation but isn't | No action — document why it's OK |
+
+## Quick Reference: Is This Content in the Right Place?
+
+| Content | In Prompt? | In Agent? |
+|---------|-----------|-----------|
+| "You are a..." | ❌ Never | ✅ Always |
+| File paths for this invocation | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
+| Phase number, mode | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
+| Decision tables | ❌ Never | ✅ Always |
+| Good/bad examples | ❌ Never | ✅ Always |
+| "Write to: {path}" | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
+| Return markers handling | ✅ Yes (routing) | ✅ Yes (definition) |
+| Quality gate | ✅ Per-invocation | ✅ Permanent self-check |
+| "MUST read files first" | ❌ Agent's `<role>` owns this | ✅ Always |
+| Anti-shallow rules | ⚠️ OK as cross-cutting policy | ✅ Preferred |
+| Revision instructions | ✅ Yes (what changed) | ❌ No |
+| Heuristics / philosophy | ❌ Never | ✅ Always |
+| Banner display | ✅ Yes | ❌ Never |
+| ask_user | ✅ Yes | ❌ Never |