oh-my-codex 0.6.3 → 0.7.0

package/skills/plan/SKILL.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ description: Strategic planning with optional interview workflow
 ---
 
 <Purpose>
-Plan creates comprehensive, actionable work plans through intelligent interaction. It auto-detects whether to interview the user (broad requests) or plan directly (detailed requests), and supports consensus mode (iterative Planner/Architect/Critic loop) and review mode (Critic evaluation of existing plans).
+Plan creates comprehensive, actionable work plans through intelligent interaction. It auto-detects whether to interview the user (broad requests) or plan directly (detailed requests), and supports consensus mode (iterative Planner/Architect/Critic loop with RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation) and review mode (Critic evaluation of existing plans).
 </Purpose>
 
 <Use_When>
@@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ Jumping into code without understanding requirements leads to rework, scope cree
 - Ask one question at a time during interviews -- never batch multiple questions
 - Gather codebase facts via `explore` agent before asking the user about them
 - Plans must meet quality standards: 80%+ claims cite file/line, 90%+ criteria are testable
-- Consensus mode auto-proceeds by default; add `--interactive` to require explicit user approval before proceeding to implementation
+- Consensus mode outputs the final plan by default; add `--interactive` to enable execution handoff
+- Consensus mode uses RALPLAN-DR short mode by default; switch to deliberate mode with `--deliberate` or when the request explicitly signals high risk (auth/security, data migration, destructive/irreversible changes, production incident, compliance/PII, public API breakage)
 </Execution_Policy>
 
 <Steps>
@@ -42,8 +43,8 @@ Jumping into code without understanding requirements leads to rework, scope cree
 |------|---------|----------|
 | Interview | Default for broad requests | Interactive requirements gathering |
 | Direct | `--direct`, or detailed request | Skip interview, generate plan directly |
-| Consensus | `--consensus`, "ralplan" | Planner -> Architect -> Critic loop until agreement; auto-proceeds by default |
-| Consensus Interactive | `--consensus --interactive` | Same as Consensus but pauses for user feedback at draft and approval steps |
+| Consensus | `--consensus`, "ralplan" | Planner -> Architect -> Critic loop until agreement with RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation (short by default, `--deliberate` for high-risk); outputs plan by default |
+| Consensus Interactive | `--consensus --interactive` | Same as Consensus but pauses for user feedback at draft and approval steps, then hands off to execution |
 | Review | `--review`, "review this plan" | Critic evaluation of existing plan |
 
 ### Interview Mode (broad/vague requests)
@@ -63,31 +64,48 @@ Jumping into code without understanding requirements leads to rework, scope cree
 
 ### Consensus Mode (`--consensus` / "ralplan")
 
-Default behavior is **non-interactive**: the workflow auto-proceeds through all steps without pausing for user input. Add `--interactive` to enable confirmation prompts at the draft and approval steps.
-
-1. **Planner** creates initial plan
-2. **User feedback** (only in `--interactive` mode):
-   - Use `AskUserQuestion` to present the draft plan with these options:
-     - **Proceed to review** — send to Architect and Critic for evaluation
-     - **Request changes** — return to step 1 with user feedback incorporated
-     - **Skip review** — go directly to final approval (step 6)
-   - Without `--interactive`: automatically proceed to Architect review (step 3)
-3. **Architect** reviews for architectural soundness (prefer `ask_codex` with `architect` role)
-4. **Critic** evaluates against quality criteria (prefer `ask_codex` with `critic` role)
-5. If Critic rejects: iterate with feedback (max 5 iterations)
-6. On Critic approval:
-   - **`--interactive` mode**: use `AskUserQuestion` to present the plan with these options:
-     - **Approve and execute** — proceed to implementation via ralph+ultrawork
-     - **Request changes** — return to step 1 with user feedback
-     - **Reject** — discard the plan entirely
-   - **Default (non-interactive)**: automatically approve and proceed to execution
-7. (`--interactive` only) User chooses via the structured `AskUserQuestion` UI (never ask for approval in plain text)
-8. On approval: **MUST** invoke `/ralph` with the approved plan path from `.omx/plans/` as context. Do NOT implement directly. Do NOT edit source code files in the planning agent. The ralph skill handles execution via ultrawork parallel agents.
+**RALPLAN-DR modes**: **Short** (default, bounded structure) and **Deliberate** (for `--deliberate` or explicit high-risk requests). Both modes keep the same Planner -> Architect -> Critic sequence. The workflow auto-proceeds through planning steps (Planner/Architect/Critic) but outputs the final plan without executing.
+
+1. **Planner** creates initial plan and a compact **RALPLAN-DR summary** before any Architect review. The summary **MUST** include:
+   - **Principles** (3-5)
+   - **Decision Drivers** (top 3)
+   - **Viable Options** (>=2) with bounded pros/cons for each option
+   - If only one viable option remains, an explicit **invalidation rationale** for the alternatives that were rejected
+   - In **deliberate mode**: a **pre-mortem** (3 failure scenarios) and an **expanded test plan** covering **unit / integration / e2e / observability**
+2. **User feedback** *(--interactive only)*: If running with `--interactive`, **MUST** use `AskUserQuestion` to present the draft plan **plus the RALPLAN-DR Principles / Decision Drivers / Options summary for early direction alignment** with these options:
+   - **Proceed to review** — send to Architect and Critic for evaluation
+   - **Request changes** — return to step 1 with user feedback incorporated
+   - **Skip review** — go directly to final approval (step 7)
+   If NOT running with `--interactive`, automatically proceed to review (step 3).
+3. **Architect** reviews for architectural soundness using `ask_codex` with `agent_role: "architect"`. Architect review **MUST** include: strongest steelman counterargument (antithesis) against the favored option, at least one meaningful tradeoff tension, and (when possible) a synthesis path. In deliberate mode, Architect should explicitly flag principle violations. **Wait for this step to complete before proceeding to step 4.** Do NOT run steps 3 and 4 in parallel.
+4. **Critic** evaluates against quality criteria using `ask_codex` with `agent_role: "critic"`. Critic **MUST** verify principle-option consistency, fair alternative exploration, risk mitigation clarity, testable acceptance criteria, and concrete verification steps. Critic **MUST** explicitly reject shallow alternatives, driver contradictions, vague risks, or weak verification. In deliberate mode, Critic **MUST** reject missing/weak pre-mortem or missing/weak expanded test plan. Run only after step 3 is complete.
+5. **Re-review loop** (max 5 iterations): If Critic rejects or iterates, execute this closed loop:
+   a. Collect all feedback from Architect + Critic
+   b. Pass feedback to Planner to produce a revised plan
+   c. **Return to Step 3** — Architect reviews the revised plan
+   d. **Return to Step 4** — Critic evaluates the revised plan
+   e. Repeat until Critic approves OR max 5 iterations reached
+   f. If max iterations reached without approval, present the best version to user via `AskUserQuestion` with note that expert consensus was not reached
+6. **Apply improvements**: When reviewers approve with improvement suggestions, merge all accepted improvements into the plan file before proceeding. Final consensus output **MUST** include an **ADR** section with: **Decision**, **Drivers**, **Alternatives considered**, **Why chosen**, **Consequences**, **Follow-ups**. Specifically:
+   a. Collect all improvement suggestions from Architect and Critic responses
+   b. Deduplicate and categorize the suggestions
+   c. Update the plan file in `.omx/plans/` with the accepted improvements (add missing details, refine steps, strengthen acceptance criteria, ADR updates, etc.)
+   d. Note which improvements were applied in a brief changelog section at the end of the plan
+7. On Critic approval (with improvements applied): *(--interactive only)* If running with `--interactive`, use `AskUserQuestion` to present the plan with these options:
+   - **Approve and execute** — proceed to implementation via ralph+ultrawork
+   - **Approve and implement via team** — proceed to implementation via coordinated parallel team agents
+   - **Request changes** — return to step 1 with user feedback
+   - **Reject** — discard the plan entirely
+   If NOT running with `--interactive`, output the final approved plan and stop. Do NOT auto-execute.
+8. *(--interactive only)* User chooses via the structured `AskUserQuestion` UI (never ask for approval in plain text)
+9. On user approval (--interactive only):
+   - **Approve and execute**: **MUST** invoke `$ralph` with the approved plan path from `.omx/plans/` as context. Do NOT implement directly. Do NOT edit source code files in the planning agent. The ralph skill handles execution via ultrawork parallel agents.
+   - **Approve and implement via team**: **MUST** invoke `$team` with the approved plan path from `.omx/plans/` as context. Do NOT implement directly. The team skill coordinates parallel agents across the staged pipeline for faster execution on large tasks.
 
 ### Review Mode (`--review`)
 
 1. Read plan file from `.omx/plans/`
-2. Evaluate via Critic (prefer `ask_codex` with `critic` role)
+2. Evaluate via Critic using `ask_codex` with `agent_role: "critic"`
 3. Return verdict: APPROVED, REVISE (with specific feedback), or REJECT (replanning required)
 
 ### Plan Output Format
@@ -98,6 +116,9 @@ Every plan includes:
 - Implementation Steps (with file references)
 - Risks and Mitigations
 - Verification Steps
+- For consensus/ralplan: **RALPLAN-DR summary** (Principles, Decision Drivers, Options)
+- For consensus/ralplan final output: **ADR** (Decision, Drivers, Alternatives considered, Why chosen, Consequences, Follow-ups)
+- For deliberate consensus mode: **Pre-mortem (3 scenarios)** and **Expanded Test Plan** (unit/integration/e2e/observability)
 
 Plans are saved to `.omx/plans/`. Drafts go to `.omx/drafts/`.
 </Steps>
@@ -111,9 +132,10 @@ Plans are saved to `.omx/plans/`. Drafts go to `.omx/drafts/`.
 - Use `ask_codex` with `agent_role: "analyst"` for requirements analysis
 - Use `ask_codex` with `agent_role: "critic"` for plan review in consensus and review modes
 - If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable, fall back to equivalent OMX prompt agents -- never block on external tools
-- In consensus mode with `--interactive`, **MUST** use `AskUserQuestion` for the user feedback step (step 2) and the final approval step (step 6) -- never ask for approval in plain text
-- In consensus mode **without** `--interactive`, auto-proceed through all steps without pausing for user input
-- In consensus mode, on approval **MUST** invoke `/ralph` for execution (step 8) -- never implement directly in the planning agent
+- **CRITICAL — Consensus mode agent calls MUST be sequential, never parallel.** Always await the Architect result before issuing the Critic call.
+- In consensus mode, default to RALPLAN-DR short mode; enable deliberate mode on `--deliberate` or explicit high-risk signals (auth/security, migrations, destructive changes, production incidents, compliance/PII, public API breakage)
+- In consensus mode with `--interactive`: use `AskUserQuestion` for the user feedback step (step 2) and the final approval step (step 7) -- never ask for approval in plain text. Without `--interactive`, auto-proceed through planning steps without pausing. Output the final plan without execution.
+- In consensus mode with `--interactive`, on user approval **MUST** invoke `$ralph` for execution (step 9) -- never implement directly in the planning agent
 </Tool_Usage>
 
 <Examples>
@@ -169,8 +191,8 @@ Why bad: Decision fatigue. Present one option with trade-offs, get reaction, the
 <Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
 - Stop interviewing when requirements are clear enough to plan -- do not over-interview
 - In consensus mode, stop after 5 Planner/Architect/Critic iterations and present the best version
-- Consensus mode auto-proceeds to implementation by default; with `--interactive`, requires explicit user approval before implementation begins
-- If the user says "just do it" or "skip planning", **MUST** invoke `/ralph` to transition to execution mode. Do NOT implement directly in the planning agent.
+- Consensus mode outputs the plan by default; with `--interactive`, user can approve and hand off to ralph/team
+- If the user says "just do it" or "skip planning", **MUST** invoke `$ralph` to transition to execution mode. Do NOT implement directly in the planning agent.
 - Escalate to the user when there are irreconcilable trade-offs that require a business decision
 </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
 
@@ -180,8 +202,10 @@ Why bad: Decision fatigue. Present one option with trade-offs, get reaction, the
 - [ ] All risks have mitigations identified
 - [ ] No vague terms without metrics ("fast" -> "p99 < 200ms")
 - [ ] Plan saved to `.omx/plans/`
-- [ ] In consensus mode with `--interactive`: user explicitly approved before any execution
-- [ ] In consensus mode without `--interactive`: auto-proceeded to execution after Critic approval
+- [ ] In consensus mode: RALPLAN-DR summary includes 3-5 principles, top 3 drivers, and >=2 viable options (or explicit invalidation rationale)
+- [ ] In consensus mode final output: ADR section included (Decision / Drivers / Alternatives considered / Why chosen / Consequences / Follow-ups)
+- [ ] In deliberate consensus mode: pre-mortem (3 scenarios) + expanded test plan (unit/integration/e2e/observability) included
+- [ ] In consensus mode with `--interactive`: user explicitly approved before any execution; without `--interactive`: output final plan after Critic approval (no auto-execution)
 </Final_Checklist>
 
 <Advanced>
@@ -228,5 +252,5 @@ Before asking any interview question, classify it:
 
 ## Deprecation Notice
 
-The separate `/planner`, `/ralplan`, and `/review` skills have been merged into `/plan`. All workflows (interview, direct, consensus, review) are available through `/plan`.
+The separate `/planner`, `/ralplan`, and `/review` skills have been merged into `$plan`. All workflows (interview, direct, consensus, review) are available through `$plan`.
 </Advanced>

package/skills/ralplan/SKILL.md

@@ -1,46 +1,132 @@
 ---
 name: ralplan
-description: Alias for /plan --consensus
+description: Alias for $plan --consensus
 ---
 
 # Ralplan (Consensus Planning Alias)
 
-Ralplan is a shorthand alias for `/plan --consensus`. It triggers iterative planning with Planner, Architect, and Critic agents until consensus is reached.
+Ralplan is a shorthand alias for `$plan --consensus`. It triggers iterative planning with Planner, Architect, and Critic agents until consensus is reached, with **RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation** (short mode by default, deliberate mode for high-risk work).
 
 ## Usage
 
 ```
-/ralplan "task description"
-/ralplan --interactive "task description"
+$ralplan "task description"
 ```
 
 ## Flags
 
-| Flag | Description |
-|------|-------------|
-| *(none)* | Default non-interactive mode: auto-proceeds through all steps without pausing |
-| `--interactive` | Pauses at draft feedback (step 2) and final approval (step 6) to prompt the user |
+- `--interactive`: Enables user prompts at key decision points (draft review in step 2 and final approval in step 6). Without this flag the workflow runs fully automated — Planner → Architect → Critic loop — and outputs the final plan without asking for confirmation.
+- `--deliberate`: Forces deliberate mode for high-risk work. Adds pre-mortem (3 scenarios) and expanded test planning (unit/integration/e2e/observability). Without this flag, deliberate mode can still auto-enable when the request explicitly signals high risk (auth/security, migrations, destructive changes, production incidents, compliance/PII, public API breakage).
+
+## Usage with interactive mode
+
+```
+$ralplan --interactive "task description"
+```
 
 ## Behavior
 
 This skill invokes the Plan skill in consensus mode:
 
 ```
-/plan --consensus <arguments>
-/plan --consensus --interactive <arguments>
+$plan --consensus <arguments>
+$plan --consensus --interactive <arguments>
 ```
 
-The consensus workflow (default — non-interactive):
-1. **Planner** creates initial plan
-2. *(skipped in default mode)* Auto-proceeds to Architect review
-3. **Architect** reviews for architectural soundness
-4. **Critic** evaluates against quality criteria
-5. If Critic rejects: iterate with feedback (max 5 iterations)
-6. *(skipped in default mode)* Auto-approves on Critic approval
-7. **MUST** invoke `/ralph` for execution -- never implement directly
+The consensus workflow:
+1. **Planner** creates initial plan and a compact **RALPLAN-DR summary** before review:
+   - Principles (3-5)
+   - Decision Drivers (top 3)
+   - Viable Options (>=2) with bounded pros/cons
+   - If only one viable option remains, explicit invalidation rationale for alternatives
+   - Deliberate mode only: pre-mortem (3 scenarios) + expanded test plan (unit/integration/e2e/observability)
+2. **User feedback** *(--interactive only)*: If `--interactive` is set, use `AskUserQuestion` to present the draft plan **plus the Principles / Drivers / Options summary** before review (Proceed to review / Request changes / Skip review). Otherwise, automatically proceed to review.
+3. **Architect** reviews for architectural soundness and must provide the strongest steelman antithesis, at least one real tradeoff tension, and (when possible) synthesis — **await completion before step 4**. In deliberate mode, Architect should explicitly flag principle violations.
+4. **Critic** evaluates against quality criteria — run only after step 3 completes. Critic must enforce principle-option consistency, fair alternatives, risk mitigation clarity, testable acceptance criteria, and concrete verification steps. In deliberate mode, Critic must reject missing/weak pre-mortem or expanded test plan.
+5. **Re-review loop** (max 5 iterations): Any non-`APPROVE` Critic verdict (`ITERATE` or `REJECT`) MUST run the same full closed loop:
+   a. Collect Architect + Critic feedback
+   b. Revise the plan with Planner
+   c. Return to Architect review
+   d. Return to Critic evaluation
+   e. Repeat this loop until Critic returns `APPROVE` or 5 iterations are reached
+   f. If 5 iterations are reached without `APPROVE`, present the best version to the user
+6. On Critic approval *(--interactive only)*: If `--interactive` is set, use `AskUserQuestion` to present the plan with approval options (Approve and execute via ralph / Approve and implement via team / Request changes / Reject). Final plan must include ADR (Decision, Drivers, Alternatives considered, Why chosen, Consequences, Follow-ups). Otherwise, output the final plan and stop.
+7. *(--interactive only)* User chooses: Approve (ralph or team), Request changes, or Reject
+8. *(--interactive only)* On approval: invoke `$ralph` for sequential execution or `$team` for parallel team execution -- never implement directly
 
-With `--interactive` flag, steps 2 and 6 pause to ask the user via `AskUserQuestion`:
-- Step 2 options: Proceed to review / Request changes / Skip review
-- Step 6 options: Approve and execute / Request changes / Reject
+> **Important:** Steps 3 and 4 MUST run sequentially. Do NOT issue both agent calls in the same parallel batch. Always await the Architect result before invoking Critic.
 
 Follow the Plan skill's full documentation for consensus mode details.
+
+## Pre-Execution Gate
+
+### Why the Gate Exists
+
+Execution modes (ralph, autopilot, team, ultrawork) spin up heavy multi-agent orchestration. When launched on a vague request like "ralph improve the app", agents have no clear target — they waste cycles on scope discovery that should happen during planning, often delivering partial or misaligned work that requires rework.
+
+The ralplan-first gate intercepts underspecified execution requests and redirects them through the ralplan consensus planning workflow. This ensures:
+- **Explicit scope**: A PRD defines exactly what will be built
+- **Test specification**: Acceptance criteria are testable before code is written
+- **Consensus**: Planner, Architect, and Critic agree on the approach
+- **No wasted execution**: Agents start with a clear, bounded task
+
+### Good vs Bad Prompts
+
+**Passes the gate** (specific enough for direct execution):
+- `ralph fix the null check in src/hooks/bridge.ts:326`
+- `autopilot implement issue #42`
+- `team add validation to function processKeywordDetector`
+- `ralph do:\n1. Add input validation\n2. Write tests\n3. Update README`
+- `ultrawork add the user model in src/models/user.ts`
+
+**Gated — redirected to ralplan** (needs scoping first):
+- `ralph fix this`
+- `autopilot build the app`
+- `team improve performance`
+- `ralph add authentication`
+- `ultrawork make it better`
+
+**Bypass the gate** (when you know what you want):
+- `force: ralph refactor the auth module`
+- `! autopilot optimize everything`
+
+### When the Gate Does NOT Trigger
+
+The gate auto-passes when it detects **any** concrete signal. You do not need all of them — one is enough:
+
+| Signal Type | Example prompt | Why it passes |
+|---|---|---|
+| File path | `ralph fix src/hooks/bridge.ts` | References a specific file |
+| Issue/PR number | `ralph implement #42` | Has a concrete work item |
+| camelCase symbol | `ralph fix processKeywordDetector` | Names a specific function |
+| PascalCase symbol | `ralph update UserModel` | Names a specific class |
+| snake_case symbol | `team fix user_model` | Names a specific identifier |
+| Test runner | `ralph npm test && fix failures` | Has an explicit test target |
+| Numbered steps | `ralph do:\n1. Add X\n2. Test Y` | Structured deliverables |
+| Acceptance criteria | `ralph add login - acceptance criteria: ...` | Explicit success definition |
+| Error reference | `ralph fix TypeError in auth` | Specific error to address |
+| Code block | `ralph add: \`\`\`ts ... \`\`\`` | Concrete code provided |
+| Escape prefix | `force: ralph do it` or `! ralph do it` | Explicit user override |
+
+### End-to-End Flow Example
+
+1. User types: `ralph add user authentication`
+2. Gate detects: execution keyword (`ralph`) + underspecified prompt (no files, functions, or test spec)
+3. Gate redirects to **ralplan** with message explaining the redirect
+4. Ralplan consensus runs:
+   - **Planner** creates initial plan (which files, what auth method, what tests)
+   - **Architect** reviews for soundness
+   - **Critic** validates quality and testability
+5. On consensus approval, user chooses execution path:
+   - **ralph**: sequential execution with verification
+   - **team**: parallel coordinated agents
+6. Execution begins with a clear, bounded plan
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+| Issue | Solution |
+|-------|----------|
+| Gate fires on a well-specified prompt | Add a file reference, function name, or issue number to anchor the request |
+| Want to bypass the gate | Prefix with `force:` or `!` (e.g., `force: ralph fix it`) |
+| Gate does not fire on a vague prompt | The gate only catches prompts with <=15 effective words and no concrete anchors; add more detail or use `$ralplan` explicitly |
+| Redirected to ralplan but want to skip planning | In the ralplan workflow, say "just do it" or "skip planning" to transition directly to execution |

package/skills/team/SKILL.md

@@ -102,6 +102,14 @@ Important:
 - Workers may run in separate git worktrees (`omx team --worktree[=<name>]`) while sharing one team state root
 - Worker ACKs go to `mailbox/leader-fixed.json`
 - Notify hook updates worker heartbeat and nudges leader during active team mode
+- Submit routing uses this CLI resolution order per worker trigger:
+  1) explicit worker CLI provided by runtime state (persisted on worker identity/config),
+  2) `OMX_TEAM_WORKER_CLI_MAP` entry for that worker index,
+  3) fallback `OMX_TEAM_WORKER_CLI` / auto detection.
+- Mixed CLI-map teams are supported for both startup and trigger submit behavior.
+- Trigger submit differs by CLI:
+  - Codex may use queue-first `Tab` on busy panes (strategy-dependent).
+  - Claude always uses direct Enter-only (`C-m`) rounds (never queue-first `Tab`).
 
 ### Team worker model + thinking resolution (current contract)
 
@@ -212,7 +220,8 @@ Useful runtime env vars:
 - `OMX_TEAM_WORKER_CLI`
   - Worker CLI selector: `auto|codex|claude` (default: `auto`)
   - `auto` chooses `claude` when worker `--model` contains `claude`, otherwise `codex`
-  - In `claude` mode, workers launch as plain `claude` and ignore explicit model/config/effort launch overrides (uses default `settings.json`)
+  - In `claude` mode, workers launch with exactly one `--dangerously-skip-permissions`
+    and ignore explicit model/config/effort launch overrides (uses default `settings.json`)
 - `OMX_TEAM_WORKER_CLI_MAP`
   - Per-worker CLI selector (comma-separated `auto|codex|claude`)
   - Length must be `1` (broadcast) or exactly the team worker count

package/templates/AGENTS.md

@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ Do not ask for confirmation — just read the skill file and follow its instruct
 | "autopilot", "build me", "I want a" | `$autopilot` | Read `~/.agents/skills/autopilot/SKILL.md`, execute autonomous pipeline |
 | "ultrawork", "ulw", "parallel" | `$ultrawork` | Read `~/.agents/skills/ultrawork/SKILL.md`, execute parallel agents |
 | "plan this", "plan the", "let's plan" | `$plan` | Read `~/.agents/skills/plan/SKILL.md`, start planning workflow |
-| "ralplan", "consensus plan" | `$ralplan` | Read `~/.agents/skills/ralplan/SKILL.md`, start consensus planning |
+| "ralplan", "consensus plan" | `$ralplan` | Read `~/.agents/skills/ralplan/SKILL.md`, start consensus planning with RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation (short by default, `--deliberate` for high-risk) |
 | "team", "swarm", "coordinated team", "coordinated swarm" | `$team` | Read `~/.agents/skills/team/SKILL.md`, start team orchestration (swarm compatibility alias) |
 | "ecomode", "eco", "budget" | `$ecomode` | Read `~/.agents/skills/ecomode/SKILL.md`, enable token-efficient mode |
 | "cancel", "stop", "abort" | `$cancel` | Read `~/.agents/skills/cancel/SKILL.md`, cancel active modes |
@@ -164,6 +164,11 @@ Detection rules:
 - If multiple keywords match, use the most specific (longest match)
 - Conflict resolution: explicit `$name` invocation overrides keyword detection
 - The rest of the user's message (after keyword extraction) becomes the task description
+
+Ralph / Ralplan execution gate:
+- Enforce **ralplan-first** when ralph is active and planning is not complete.
+- Planning is complete only after both `.omx/plans/prd-*.md` and `.omx/plans/test-spec-*.md` exist.
+- Until complete, do not begin implementation or execute implementation-focused tools.
 </keyword_detection>
 
 ---
@@ -179,8 +184,8 @@ Workflow Skills:
 - `team`: N coordinated agents on shared task list
 - `swarm`: N coordinated agents on shared task list (compatibility facade over team)
 - `ultraqa`: QA cycling -- test, verify, fix, repeat
-- `plan`: Strategic planning with optional consensus mode
-- `ralplan`: Iterative consensus planning (planner + architect + critic)
+- `plan`: Strategic planning with optional RALPLAN-DR consensus mode
+- `ralplan`: Iterative consensus planning with RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation (planner + architect + critic); supports `--deliberate` for high-risk work
 
 Agent Shortcuts:
 - `analyze` -> debugger: Investigation and root-cause analysis
@@ -282,6 +287,9 @@ Parallelization:
 
 Continuation:
   Before concluding, confirm: zero pending tasks, all features working, tests passing, zero errors, verification evidence collected. If any item is unchecked, continue working.
+
+Ralph planning gate:
+  If ralph is active, verify PRD + test spec artifacts exist before any implementation work/tool execution. If missing, stay in planning and create them first (ralplan-first).
 </execution_protocols>
 
 <cancellation>