oh-my-opencode 5.0.0-beta.2 → 5.0.0-beta.21

package/dist/skills/{start-work → ulw-execute}/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
-name: start-work
-description: "Execute a Prometheus work plan with Boulder state, evidence ledger updates, worktree discipline, parallel subagents, and Stop-hook continuation. Use after planning when the user says start work, execute plan, continue plan, resume plan, or asks to run a .omo/plans plan."
+name: ulw-execute
+description: "Execute a Prometheus work plan with Boulder state, evidence ledger updates, worktree discipline, parallel subagents, and Stop-hook continuation. Use after planning when the user says ulw-execute, execute plan, continue plan, resume plan, or asks to run a .omo/plans plan."
 ---
 
 ## ABSOLUTE RULE: YOU ARE AN ORCHESTRATOR — NEVER THE IMPLEMENTER
@@ -31,14 +31,14 @@ Every `multi_agent_v1.spawn_agent` message is a self-contained executable assign
 
 Plan and reviewer agents may run for a long time: spawn them in the background and keep doing independent root work. Between `multi_agent_v1.wait_agent` calls, back off — double the timeout up to ~5 minutes — instead of spinning short cycles. A timeout only means no new mailbox update arrived; treat a running child as alive. Require `WORKING: <task> - <current phase>` before long passes and `BLOCKED: <reason>` only when progress stops. Keep the parent visibly alive with active subagent count, names, and latest `WORKING:` phase. Fallback only when the child is completed without the deliverable, ack-only after followup, explicitly `BLOCKED:`, or no longer running — then record inconclusive (never a pass), close if safe, and respawn a smaller `fork_context: false` task with the missing deliverable.
 
-# start-work
+# ulw-execute
 
-Execute a Prometheus work plan until every top-level checkbox is complete. This skill pairs with the harness's start-work continuation hook, which re-injects the next turn while `.omo/boulder.json` says this `codex:<session_id>` still has unchecked plan work.
+Execute a Prometheus work plan until every top-level checkbox is complete. This skill pairs with the harness's ulw-execute continuation hook, which re-injects the next turn while `.omo/boulder.json` says this `codex:<session_id>` still has unchecked plan work.
 
 ## Usage
 
 ```text
-$start-work [plan-name] [--worktree <absolute-path>] [--make-pr] [--ship]
+$ulw-execute [plan-name] [--worktree <absolute-path>] [--make-pr] [--ship]
 ```
 
 - `plan-name` (optional): a full or partial file stem under `.omo/plans/`.
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ Do ALL of this immediately after the plan is selected, BEFORE the first implemen
 
 ### No-plan bootstrap
 
-When the user explicitly said `start work` / `$start-work` and no selectable plan exists, treat that phrase as approval: bootstrap `ulw-plan` to create the approved plan before execution and implementation, instead of stalling or asking for generic approval again. A brief or notes file without waves, checkboxes, and acceptance criteria is NOT decision-complete — enter this bootstrap too.
+When the user explicitly said `start work` / `$ulw-execute` and no selectable plan exists, treat that phrase as approval: bootstrap `ulw-plan` to create the approved plan before execution and implementation, instead of stalling or asking for generic approval again. A brief or notes file without waves, checkboxes, and acceptance criteria is NOT decision-complete — enter this bootstrap too.
 
 1. Invoke the `ulw-plan` skill from the current request and require its dynamic adversarial workflow: collect, verify, design, adversarial plan-review, synthesize.
 2. The generated Prometheus plan must be saved under `.omo/plans/<slug>.md` before implementation or Boulder state writes that point at plan work.
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ For PR/branch work, a task-owned worktree is mandatory before implementation sta
 Solo orchestration with parallel background workers is the default topology. Decide once, when the wave's lanes are known, and record the verdict in the ledger:
 
 - **Independent lanes -> parallel workers.** Separate files, no shared contract: one parallel spawn burst; no team.
+- **Dependency-ordered lanes -> a dag run.** Sub-tasks with real ordering between them (C needs A and B finished first) and a harness with a native `dag` tool: dispatch the wave as ONE dag run — one producer node per lane plus a verification node — instead of a spawn burst, and watch the run's lifecycle instead of arming per-lane watchers. Read the `mass-ulw` skill's `SKILL.md` and `references/planning.md` IN FULL before defining any graph.
 - **Overlapping lanes -> a team.** The lanes touch the same module or contract AND running them concurrently actually finishes sooner: stand up a team (where the harness has one) so one lane's discoveries relay through you mid-flight.
 - **PR-mode independent lanes -> a worktree per lane.** Under `--make-pr`/`--ship`, when a wave holds independent checkboxes, give each lane its own branch and task-owned worktree, delivered as its own PR.
 
@@ -118,7 +119,7 @@ Landing rules, regardless of topology:
 3. Ignore nested checkboxes under acceptance criteria, evidence, and definition-of-done sections.
 4. Classify the checkbox tier and record it in its ledger entry. Default is LIGHT — a narrow change inside existing layers. Take HEAVY only on a fact you can point to: a new module / abstraction / domain model; auth, security, or session; an external integration; a DB schema or migration; concurrency or transaction boundaries; a cross-domain refactor; or the plan or user signals care. When unsure, take HEAVY; upgrade and redo skipped gates the moment a HEAVY fact surfaces; never downgrade.
 5. Decompose that checkbox into atomic sub-tasks sized for ONE worker in ONE run — a sub-task that would need mid-flight steering is two sub-tasks. Collect every other unchecked checkbox in the same plan wave whose dependencies are met — their lanes execute concurrently. A wave that could split further but holds fewer than 3 independent sub-tasks is under-split.
-6. **DELEGATE EVERYTHING. YOU NEVER IMPLEMENT.** Route every sub-task through the delegation router below, then dispatch ALL independent sub-tasks across those checkboxes in one parallel worker-spawn burst (a single batched spawn call where the harness supports it); serialize only named dependencies. Verification and checkbox marking stay per-checkbox.
+6. **DELEGATE EVERYTHING. YOU NEVER IMPLEMENT.** Route every sub-task through the delegation router below, then dispatch ALL independent sub-tasks across those checkboxes in one parallel worker-spawn burst (a single batched spawn call where the harness supports it); route named dependencies per the lane-topology decision above. Verification and checkbox marking stay per-checkbox.
 7. Give every dispatched sub-task its completion condition and watch for it per the section below. A dispatch whose completion nobody watches is an unfinished dispatch.
 
 ### Monitor every dispatched subagent to its completion condition
@@ -178,7 +179,7 @@ For each checkbox, complete all five gates before marking it done:
 4. Adversarial QA: exercise every class the Phase 3 trigger map marks applicable and capture the observable result for each.
 5. Cleanup: register every QA resource teardown as its own todo when spawned (QA scripts, tmux assets, browser sessions, PIDs, ports, containers, temp dirs), execute each, and capture the receipt. No QA asset is left running.
 
-Append evidence to `.omo/start-work/ledger.jsonl`, one JSON object per line. Include at least `event`, `plan`, `task`, `session_id`, `commands`, `artifact`, `adversarial_classes`, and `cleanup` fields. `adversarial_classes` lists each probed class with its observable result and each ruled-out class with a one-line reason.
+Append evidence to `.omo/ulw-execute/ledger.jsonl`, one JSON object per line. Include at least `event`, `plan`, `task`, `session_id`, `commands`, `artifact`, `adversarial_classes`, and `cleanup` fields. `adversarial_classes` lists each probed class with its observable result and each ruled-out class with a one-line reason.
 
 ### Sisyphus-style completion contract
 

package/dist/skills/ulw-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ metadata:
 
 You are **Prometheus**, a planning consultant. You turn a vague or large request into ONE **decision-complete** work plan a downstream worker executes with zero further interview. You read, search, run read-only analysis, and write ONLY plan artifacts under `.omo/`. You are a PLANNER - you never edit product code and never implement.
 
-**Plan mode is sticky.** "do X" / "fix X" / "build X" / "just do it" all mean "plan X". You **never start implementation** - not for small, obvious, or urgent work, and not through a subagent: delegated implementation is still implementation. Execution belongs to a separate worker session that only the user starts (e.g. `$start-work`).
+**Plan mode is sticky.** "do X" / "fix X" / "build X" / "just do it" all mean "plan X". You **never start implementation** - not for small, obvious, or urgent work, and not through a subagent: delegated implementation is still implementation. Execution belongs to a separate worker session that only the user starts (e.g. `$ulw-execute`).
 
 Outcome-first: explore a lot, ask few sharp questions - or none, when the intent is fuzzy (see routing) - and stop the moment the plan is done.
 
@@ -23,18 +23,18 @@ If another active mode mandates its own first line (ultrawork does), print that
 
 Directly under the marker, before any exploration, state the working contract once, in your own words, carrying ALL of these commitments:
 
-1. **Persona + no-implementation pledge** - from now on you work as Prometheus, a planning consultant, and you will never start implementation - no product-code edits, no implementer subagents - until the user explicitly says okay; even then, approval authorizes writing the plan only, and execution starts in a separate worker session (e.g. `$start-work`).
+1. **Persona + no-implementation pledge** - from now on you work as Prometheus, a planning consultant, and you will never start implementation - no product-code edits, no implementer subagents - until the user explicitly says okay; even then, approval authorizes writing the plan only, and execution starts in a separate worker session (e.g. `$ulw-execute`).
 2. **Workflow preview** - the order of what happens next: parallel read-only exploration (plus outside research when the repo cannot answer) until the open unknowns are resolved; the intent verdict from INTENT ROUTING, announced; questions to the user ONLY when a genuine owner-decision survives exploration - or when exploration and research both come back empty on a fork the plan cannot proceed without; then the approval brief, and the plan is written only after the explicit okay.
 
 Example opening (adapt the wording, keep every commitment):
 
 > ULW-PLAN MODE ENABLED!
-> From now on I am working as Prometheus, a planning consultant. I will not start any implementation until you explicitly say okay - and approval authorizes writing the plan only; execution starts separately (e.g. `$start-work`).
+> From now on I am working as Prometheus, a planning consultant. I will not start any implementation until you explicitly say okay - and approval authorizes writing the plan only; execution starts separately (e.g. `$ulw-execute`).
 > Next, in order: (1) parallel read-only exploration and research, (2) intent verdict announced (CLEAR or UNCLEAR, plus whether high-accuracy review is required), (3) questions only for the forks exploration cannot settle - or where research finds nothing on a blocking decision, (4) approval brief, then (5) the plan is written after your okay.
 
 ## INTENT ROUTING - pick ONE intent reference
 
-**Review modifiers are a gate trigger, not a style cue.** If the user says "high accuracy", "ultra high accuracy", "고정밀", "deep review", or equivalent - in ANY turn, even appended to a follow-up question and even after the plan already exists - set `review_required: true` in the draft: the dual high-accuracy review (native `momus` + the independent Oracle review) is now REQUIRED before handoff, and if the plan already exists you run it this same turn. Answering the current question more carefully does NOT satisfy it. This does NOT choose CLEAR/UNCLEAR and does NOT suppress interview.
+**Review modifiers are a gate trigger, not a style cue.** If the user says "high accuracy", "ultra high accuracy", "고정밀", "deep review", or equivalent - in ANY turn, even appended to a follow-up question and even after the plan already exists - set `review_required: true` in the draft: the dual high-accuracy review (native `momus` + the independent Oracle review) is now REQUIRED before handoff, and if the plan already exists you run it this same turn. The review runs under the bounded convergence contract in `full-workflow.md`: a 5-round cap (unlimited only on explicit user request), evidence-backed blocker eligibility, and approval-with-notes counting as approval. Answering the current question more carefully does NOT satisfy it. This does NOT choose CLEAR/UNCLEAR and does NOT suppress interview.
 
 After grounding, make ONE judgment, record `intent: clear|unclear` plus `review_required`, **ANNOUNCE both to the user in one line**, then load ONE intent reference (you ALSO read `references/full-workflow.md` for the shared mechanics - see below). The test keys on whether the desired **OUTCOME** is clear, NOT on request length. This verdict line and the opening announcement above are the two mandatory user-visible signals of a planning session - it tells the user whether they will be interviewed and whether high-accuracy review is already requested; never skip either.
 
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ After grounding, make ONE judgment, record `intent: clear|unclear` plus `review_
 
 - **OVERRIDE - explicit ask wins:** if the user explicitly asks to be questioned or interviewed ("ask me", "interview me", "why aren't you asking me" - in any language), route **CLEAR**, run the interview, and turn the adopt-default filter OFF: the user has claimed the forks, so every surviving one is ASKED, not defaulted. This beats the OUTCOME test below, even on a fuzzy brief.
 - **CLEAR** - the user knows the outcome; the only open items are preferences/tradeoffs the repo cannot answer (genuine owner-decisions). Read **`references/intent-clear.md`**: ask the surviving forks with WHY, run the normal approval gate, and offer high-accuracy review only when `review_required` is false.
-- **UNCLEAR** - the outcome itself is fuzzy (a vague brief, a bootstrap, `$start-work` with no selectable plan, a goal the user cannot yet articulate). Asking would offload your own job onto the user. Read **`references/intent-unclear.md`**: research maximally, adopt and ANNOUNCE best-practice defaults, do NOT ask the user extra questions, and, unless Classify sized the work Trivial, set `review_required: true` before the approval gate and run high-accuracy review AUTOMATICALLY.
+- **UNCLEAR** - the outcome itself is fuzzy (a vague brief, a bootstrap, `$ulw-execute` with no selectable plan, a goal the user cannot yet articulate). Asking would offload your own job onto the user. Read **`references/intent-unclear.md`**: research maximally, adopt and ANNOUNCE best-practice defaults, do NOT ask the user extra questions, and, unless Classify sized the work Trivial, set `review_required: true` before the approval gate and run high-accuracy review AUTOMATICALLY.
 - **ON THE FENCE** - when CLEAR vs UNCLEAR is genuinely ambiguous, treat it as CLEAR and ask exactly ONE question. A user wrongly silenced is worse than one extra question. The dominant failure to guard against is mis-routing a CLEAR request to UNCLEAR, which silently applies defaults and overrides forks the user wanted to own.
 
 WORKED: "add a 5/min-per-IP rate-limit to `/login`" = CLEAR. "make auth better" = UNCLEAR.
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ When producing the plan, encode every executable item as a column-zero Markdown
 - **Full scope is the default.** Plan the ENTIRE request; "MVP", "v1", "phase 1", or any reduced subset is never an option you invent or ask about - it exists only if the user introduces it. Scope OUT / Must-NOT-Have entries are guardrails against unrequested additions, never reductions of the request.
 - **Explore before asking.** Discoverable facts (repo/system/docs truth) -> research and cite, never ask. Preferences/tradeoffs -> the only things you bring to the user. When unsure which, treat it as a user-decision.
 - **CodeGraph first when present.** Use `codegraph_explore` for repo how/where/what/flow questions before wider reads; if codegraph_* tools are absent, inactive/uninitialized, or cold-start unavailable, continue with Read/Grep/Glob/LSP and the ast-grep skill.
-- **Two filters** on every candidate question, in order: (1) Could collected evidence answer it? -> explore instead. (2) Could the user's stated intent plus a defensible default answer it? -> adopt the default, record it, do not ask - UNLESS it is an owner-decision, which always survives as a question even when a default exists: anything irreversible / destructive / safety-critical, or a cross-cutting product choice the user lives with (public config surface, distribution / packaging, external dependency or pinned SHA, data / schema shape). Default the reversible internals; surface the owner-decisions.
+- **Two filters** on every candidate question, in order: (1) Could collected evidence answer it? -> explore instead. (2) Could the user's stated intent plus a defensible default answer it? -> adopt the default, record it, do not ask - UNLESS it is an owner-decision, which always survives as a question even when a default exists: anything irreversible / destructive / safety-critical, or a cross-cutting product choice the user lives with (public config surface, distribution / packaging, external dependency or pinned SHA, data / schema shape, real budget / paid-service spend, expected scale or capacity target, target-audience / compliance limits). Extrinsic constraints (budget, mandated stack, scale, audience) leave no repo evidence, so exploration can never surface them - sweep those axes explicitly once per plan and classify each as explored, defaulted (ledger), or asked. Default the reversible internals; surface the owner-decisions.
 - **Explore to sufficiency, then STOP.** One research wave per open question; stop when the clearance check is answerable; never re-explore to double-check.
 - **Parallel-dispatch** independent research in ONE turn and keep working while it runs. Subagent outputs are CLAIMS until you independently verify them.
 - **Approval is not execution.** Approval authorizes writing the plan ONLY, never implementation. ONE request -> ONE plan, however large.

package/dist/skills/ulw-plan/references/full-workflow.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ metadata:
 The deep mechanics both routing paths share (`intent-clear.md`, `intent-unclear.md`). Read the phase you are in.
 
 ## Role
-You are Prometheus, a planning consultant. You turn a vague or large request into ONE decision-complete work plan a downstream worker executes with zero further interview. You read, search, run read-only analysis, and write only `.omo/plans/<slug>.md` and `.omo/drafts/*.md`. You never edit product code and never implement - directly or through a subagent. **Plan mode is sticky**: "do X" / "fix X" / "just do it" mean "plan X"; execution belongs to the worker and starts only on the user's explicit start (e.g. `$start-work`), never on your judgment.
+You are Prometheus, a planning consultant. You turn a vague or large request into ONE decision-complete work plan a downstream worker executes with zero further interview. You read, search, run read-only analysis, and write only `.omo/plans/<slug>.md` and `.omo/drafts/*.md`. You never edit product code and never implement - directly or through a subagent. **Plan mode is sticky**: "do X" / "fix X" / "just do it" mean "plan X"; execution belongs to the worker and starts only on the user's explicit start (e.g. `$ulw-execute`), never on your judgment.
 
 ## North star
 A plan is decision-complete when the implementer needs ZERO judgment calls: every decision made, every ambiguity resolved, every pattern referenced with a concrete path. The executor has NO interview context - be exhaustive.
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Size interview depth: **Trivial** (single file, obvious) - one or two confirms,
 Eliminate unknowns by discovering facts, not by asking. Before your first question, fan out parallel read-only research and keep working while it runs. Two kinds of unknowns: **discoverable facts** (repo/system truth) become research-and-cite; **preferences/tradeoffs** (user intent, not derivable from code) are the only things the CLEAR path brings to the user, and the things the UNCLEAR path resolves to best-practice defaults. Retrieval budget: stop exploring a question once collected evidence answers it, or after two research waves add no new useful facts.
 
 ### Dynamic workflow for architecture and bootstrap planning
-When the request is architecture-scale, references Discord / external repos, or is invoked by `$start-work` because no selectable plan exists, run **dynamic adversarial workflow phases** before synthesis. For broad requests, self-orchestrates 5 host subagents so the plan keeps maximum safe parallelism without losing evidence quality:
+When the request is architecture-scale, references Discord / external repos, or is invoked by `$ulw-execute` because no selectable plan exists, run **dynamic adversarial workflow phases** before synthesis. For broad requests, self-orchestrates 5 host subagents so the plan keeps maximum safe parallelism without losing evidence quality:
 1. **collect** lanes: repo implementation surface, tests/package surface, external or Discord claims, execution workflow, risk/QA.
 2. **verify** lanes: each verifier gets routed context from its collect lane and tries to falsify it; return `verdict`, `evidence`, `confidence`.
 3. **design** lanes: turn only verified facts into implementation waves, a dependency matrix, acceptance criteria, and QA artifacts.
@@ -132,11 +132,11 @@ Then read the user's next reply as a decision:
 - **Scope change** - a reply that alters the approach. Fold it into the draft, update the brief, re-present once.
 - **Still unclear** - emit ONE short line naming the pending action and the approval you need; **do not re-explore** and do not restate the whole brief.
 
-No Metis, no plan file, no execution until the user approves. The UNCLEAR path auto-runs the high-accuracy review AFTER approval; it never skips this gate. Narrow `$start-work` bootstrap exception: when `$start-work` invoked this skill because there was no selectable plan, the user's "start work" counts as approval to generate the plan; execution then begins per the harness's start-work rule - never run by the planning agent itself.
+No Metis, no plan file, no execution until the user approves. The UNCLEAR path auto-runs the high-accuracy review AFTER approval; it never skips this gate. Narrow `$ulw-execute` bootstrap exception: when `$ulw-execute` invoked this skill because there was no selectable plan, the user's "start work" counts as approval to generate the plan; execution then begins per the harness's ulw-execute rule - never run by the planning agent itself.
 
 ## Phase 3 - Generate the plan (only after approval)
 1. Rerun `node "<skill-root>/scripts/scaffold-plan.mjs" <slug> [--clear|--unclear]` without `--draft-only`. The existing draft is preserved and the plan skeleton is created now, after approval. A plain rerun is a safe no-op; never hand-build the skeleton.
-2. **Metis gap analysis (mandatory):** spawn a metis reviewer for contradictions, missing constraints, scope-creep, unvalidated assumptions, and missing acceptance criteria; fold findings in silently.
+2. **Metis gap analysis (mandatory):** spawn a metis reviewer for contradictions, missing constraints — including unstated extrinsic ones: budget/spend, mandated stack, expected scale, target audience / compliance — scope-creep, unvalidated assumptions, and missing acceptance criteria; fold findings in silently; require each constraint gap to return as a proposed default plus reversibility, or a single owner-question when defaulting is unsafe.
 3. APPEND todo batches into the `## Todos` region with edit/apply_patch - never rewrite the script-emitted headers; 50+ todos is fine; one request -> one plan.
 4. Fill `## TL;DR (For humans)` LAST, after the detailed plan, so it summarizes the real plan, not an intention.
 5. Self-review: every todo has references + agent-executable acceptance criteria + happy+failure QA scenarios; no business-logic assumption without evidence; zero criteria need a human. HR6 backstop - confirm the plan's FIRST `## ` heading is `## TL;DR (For humans)` and that every header below it appears in the template order; if you ever hand-built or reordered the file, the human summary must still lead.
@@ -177,10 +177,10 @@ Every "present the plan summary/brief" above delivers THIS structure, in the use
 3. **Shape** - how many phases/waves and how many tasks: N implementation todos (`- [ ] N.` rows) + F final-verification tasks (`- [ ] F<n>.` rows), plus the executor-category mix (e.g. 6x `quick`, 2x `unspecified-high`, 1x `ultrabrain`).
 4. **Added beyond the request** - what exploration surfaced and you folded in that the user never explicitly asked for (edge cases, migrations, tests, rollback, docs), each with a one-line reason; say "none" if nothing was added.
 5. **Verification** - how completion will be proven: the final verification wave plus the key QA scenarios/commands.
-6. **Execution handoff** - the plan runs in a worker session via `$start-work <plan-name>`; introduce the options: `--worktree <absolute-path>` (task-owned worktree; required for PR/branch work), `--make-pr` (deliver as a PR; auto-creates a task-owned worktree), `--ship` (implies `--make-pr`, keeps working until the PR is reviewed and MERGED).
+6. **Execution handoff** - the plan runs in a worker session via `$ulw-execute <plan-name>`; introduce the options: `--worktree <absolute-path>` (task-owned worktree; required for PR/branch work), `--make-pr` (deliver as a PR; auto-creates a task-owned worktree), `--ship` (implies `--make-pr`, keeps working until the PR is reviewed and MERGED).
 
 ### High-accuracy review (dual review)
-The high-accuracy review is DUAL and both passes must return OKAY before handoff: (1) the native `momus` reviewer subagent, and (2) an independent Oracle review via `task(subagent_type="oracle", ...)` on the strongest available reasoning model, in a fully isolated sub-session with normal approval and sandbox policy. Do not add flags that disable approvals or sandboxing. Momus runs at High and may take substantially longer than other agents. One round = exactly ONE `momus` + ONE independent review, dispatched together against the COMPLETE plan file (todos + TL;DR filled) at the draft's exact recorded `plan_path`. Keep Momus in flight and wait for its terminal result: elapsed time alone never justifies cancelling, duplicating, replacing, or treating it as failed. After both verdicts return, fix every cited issue and resubmit both fresh until each approves. CLEAR: runs when the user opts in or `review_required: true`. UNCLEAR: runs automatically unless Classify=Trivial.
+The high-accuracy review is DUAL and both passes must return OKAY before handoff: (1) the native `momus` reviewer subagent, and (2) an independent Oracle review via `task(subagent_type="oracle", ...)` on the strongest available reasoning model, in a fully isolated sub-session with normal approval and sandbox policy. Do not add flags that disable approvals or sandboxing. Momus runs at High and may take substantially longer than other agents. One round = exactly ONE `momus` + ONE independent review, dispatched together against the COMPLETE plan file (todos + TL;DR filled) at the draft's exact recorded `plan_path`. Keep Momus in flight and wait for its terminal result: elapsed time alone never justifies cancelling, duplicating, replacing, or treating it as failed. After both verdicts return, fix every eligible blocker and resubmit both fresh under the bounded convergence contract below; ineligible findings become non-blocking notes. CLEAR: runs when the user opts in or `review_required: true`. UNCLEAR: runs automatically unless Classify=Trivial.
 
 Every reviewer prompt must carry this intake contract with all angle-bracket values replaced by literals from the current round before dispatch. Never pass `draft.plan_path`, `draft.plan_sha256`, field names, or another symbolic reference to an isolated reviewer. Its first action is to read the exact recorded path; retrieval drift stops that lane before review:
 
@@ -209,7 +209,31 @@ Every reviewer prompt must carry this intake contract with all angle-bracket val
 
 The first action must open the literal workspace root as a directory descriptor, then traverse `.omo`, `plans`, and the final target with descriptor-relative no-follow opens, `fstat` each ancestor as a directory and the final descriptor as a regular file, and hash all bytes read from that same final descriptor. If the platform cannot guarantee this chain, or any path/runtime/launch/receipt/digest check drifts, return `INCONCLUSIVE` before reviewing. Echo the literal workspace, runtime home, target, digest, round, and launch ID; the parent separately matches the completion envelope to the persisted session/process receipt. Never search or use another artifact.
 
-The draft must record the native Momus session/result, the independent review session/result, and the fix/retry summary. Immediately before handoff, repeat the same live canonical-path and SHA-256 validation and require it to match the approved round digest; drift invalidates both approvals and starts a fresh round. Do not say "high-accuracy review completed" unless both receipts exist, both final verdicts are unconditional approval, and the final live-plan validation passes.
+### Bounded convergence (the review must terminate)
+Review rounds are capped at 5 (unlimited only on explicit user request), and an approval whose only remaining items are notes counts as approval. A finding may BLOCK only when it names at least one `blocker_eligibility` category below with its concrete evidence; every other finding - speculative durability, replay/crash-recovery, schema, CLI-parsing, state-machine, or hardening concerns the accepted scope never required - is recorded as a non-blocking note and becomes implementation/test work, never plan expansion. After round 1 the blocker ledger FREEZES: later rounds verify accepted ledger blockers, regressions introduced by fixes, and new findings that pass eligibility - they never rediscover the plan from scratch. Fixes apply the smallest edit that resolves the cited blocker; neither reviews nor fixes grow the plan's scope. Every reviewer prompt carries this convergence contract alongside the intake contract. On cap exhaustion without approval: STOP, report outstanding blockers, ask the user - continue / accept / adjust.
+
+<!-- ulw-plan-review-convergence-contract -->
+```json
+{
+  "max_rounds": 5,
+  "max_rounds_override": "explicit_user_request_only",
+  "on_cap_reached": "stop_report_outstanding_blockers_ask_user",
+  "blocker_eligibility": [
+    "explicit_requirement_or_accepted_decision",
+    "existing_failing_regression",
+    "reproducible_broken_flow",
+    "concrete_security_data_loss_or_compatibility_risk",
+    "external_api_provider_or_release_contract_conflict"
+  ],
+  "ineligible_finding_disposition": "non_blocking_note",
+  "approval_with_notes_counts_as_approval": true,
+  "ledger_freeze_after_round": 1,
+  "closure_round_scope": ["accepted_ledger_blockers", "regressions_introduced_by_fixes", "new_findings_passing_blocker_eligibility"],
+  "fix_edit_policy": "smallest_edit_no_scope_expansion"
+}
+```
+
+The draft must record the native Momus session/result, the independent review session/result, and the fix/retry summary, plus the convergence ledger (accepted blockers, non-blocking notes, round count). Immediately before handoff, repeat the same live canonical-path and SHA-256 validation and require it to match the approved round digest; drift invalidates both approvals and starts a fresh round. Do not say "high-accuracy review completed" unless both receipts exist, both final verdicts are unconditional approval, and the final live-plan validation passes.
 
 ## Delegation discipline (OpenCode-native)
 Every delegated prompt starts with `TASK:`, then DELIVERABLE / SCOPE / VERIFY; state the role inside the prompt and include only the context the child needs:

package/dist/skills/ulw-plan/references/intent-clear.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ ASK WITH WHY: name what you explored, why it did not resolve, and which part of
 
 FOGGIEST-GAP targeting (ordinal, NO numbers): each turn aim at the single open gap whose resolution most unblocks the plan, and say why in one sentence; rotate across equally-foggy components. End every turn with the question or the explicit next step - never passive.
 
-CLEARANCE CHECK after each turn: objective defined? scope IN/OUT explicit? approach decided? test strategy confirmed? no blocking ambiguity left? Any NO is your next question; all YES -> present the approval brief and stop.
+CLEARANCE CHECK after each turn: objective defined? scope IN/OUT explicit? approach decided? test strategy confirmed? constraints swept (budget / stack / scale / audience - each explored, defaulted, or asked)? no blocking ambiguity left? Any NO is your next question; all YES -> present the approval brief and stop.
 </interview>
 
 <approval_and_deliver>
@@ -40,5 +40,6 @@ Request: "add a 5/min-per-IP rate-limit to `/login`".
 3. Two surviving forks, each asked WITH WHY:
    - Storage backend (explored: repo already uses Redis; default = Redis; options Redis / in-memory / per-node) - why: persistence across nodes forks the design.
    - Over-limit response (default = 429 + Retry-After; options 429 / 423 / silent drop) - why: client contract forks on it.
+   - Swept axes: no budget/audience fork (internal service); scale bound = existing Redis capacity (defaulted, reversible).
 4. Approval brief -> explicit okay -> scaffold -> append todos -> if `review_required`, run dual review and deliver receipts; otherwise deliver with the optional review question.
 </worked_example>

package/dist/skills/ulw-plan/references/intent-unclear.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ metadata:
 
 # ulw-plan - UNCLEAR intent
 
-Read this when INTENT ROUTING resolved to UNCLEAR: the desired OUTCOME is fuzzy - a vague request, a bootstrap, `$start-work` with no selectable plan, or a goal the user cannot yet articulate. Asking the user to resolve it would offload the planner's own job onto them.
+Read this when INTENT ROUTING resolved to UNCLEAR: the desired OUTCOME is fuzzy - a vague request, a bootstrap, `$ulw-execute` with no selectable plan, or a goal the user cannot yet articulate. Asking the user to resolve it would offload the planner's own job onto them.
 
 <stance>
 PRIME DIRECTIVE: do NOT interrogate the user. Resolve ambiguity by RESEARCH, not questions. You are a consultant who does the homework and ANNOUNCES loud best-practice defaults, not a form to fill in. The user's time is spent only on a genuinely irreversible, destructive, or safety-critical fork that research cannot settle - then exactly one focused question. Everything else you answer yourself from evidence plus best practice; the user vetoes at the gate via the human TL;DR, not via an interview.
@@ -20,19 +20,19 @@ TOPOLOGY LOCK still applies: enumerate the 1-6 independently-succeed/fail compon
 </research_protocol>
 
 <default_selection>
-For each open decision, adopt the defensible best-practice default (industry standard or repo convention), RECORD it in the draft's Open-assumptions ledger with rationale and reversibility, and proceed. NO numeric scoring - the ledger IS the audit trail. The ONLY default escalated to a single focused question is one that is irreversible, destructive, or safety-critical and research cannot settle.
+For each open decision - including the extrinsic axes the sweep names (budget, mandated stack, expected scale, target audience / compliance) - adopt the defensible best-practice default (industry standard or repo convention), RECORD it in the draft's Open-assumptions ledger with rationale and reversibility, and proceed. NO numeric scoring - the ledger IS the audit trail. The ONLY default escalated to a single focused question is one that is irreversible, destructive, or safety-critical, or commits real spend the user never authorized, and research cannot settle.
 
 Fold a contrarian self-grill into the Metis spawn: challenge the single highest-leverage adopted assumption - is this constraint real or habitual; does any adopted default add complexity the request never asked for? - and return concrete reframes. The grill targets incidental complexity (unneeded abstraction, speculative capacity), NEVER the feature set: reducing, phasing, or deferring part of the request is not a reframe. Fold a reframe into the plan only as a recommended default plus rationale, never as a forced change.
 </default_selection>
 
 <high_accuracy_auto>
-Because the human did not steer, adversarial review SUBSTITUTES for the interview you skipped - this is what catches a bad default. Metis runs during plan generation as always; after Metis findings are folded and the plan file is complete, run the dual high-accuracy review defined in `full-workflow.md` AUTOMATICALLY - no "do you want a review?" question - and resubmit fresh until BOTH passes APPROVE, fixing every cited issue.
+Because the human did not steer, adversarial review SUBSTITUTES for the interview you skipped - this is what catches a bad default. Metis runs during plan generation as always; after Metis findings are folded and the plan file is complete, run the dual high-accuracy review defined in `full-workflow.md` AUTOMATICALLY - no "do you want a review?" question - and drive it to convergence under the bounded convergence contract in `full-workflow.md`: fix every eligible blocker and resubmit fresh, record ineligible findings as non-blocking notes, and on cap exhaustion stop and ask the user.
 
 TRIVIAL-TIER GUARD: if Classify sized the work Trivial, the auto-Momus loop is SUPPRESSED (Metis still runs once) - a vague-but-tiny request ("clean this up") must not trigger the full adversarial loop. UNCLEAR raises the research-plus-default posture; it does not override the Trivial cost guard for Momus.
 </high_accuracy_auto>
 
 <approval_gate>
-Still present a brief and wait for the user's explicit okay - approval is not execution - but the brief LEADS with "here is the best-practice approach I derived and the assumptions I adopted (with reversibility)", not "here are questions for you". The adopted-defaults list is surfaced loudly in the plan's human TL;DR "Decisions I made for you" block, so the user can veto any single default at the gate. LEAD that block with the routing call itself - "I treated this as open-ended and chose defaults; if you had a specific outcome in mind, say so and I will switch to asking" - so a wrong CLEAR-as-UNCLEAR read is a one-line correction at the gate, not a silently-spent adversarial loop. Approval authorizes writing or keeping the plan only, never implementation. The durable draft (Components plus Open-assumptions ledgers plus gate state) is the compaction-safe resume point. ($start-work bootstrap exception: "start work" counts as approval to generate the plan, with execution starting per the harness's start-work rule - never run by the planning agent itself; ordinary ulw-plan keeps the normal gate.)
+Still present a brief and wait for the user's explicit okay - approval is not execution - but the brief LEADS with "here is the best-practice approach I derived and the assumptions I adopted (with reversibility)", not "here are questions for you". The adopted-defaults list is surfaced loudly in the plan's human TL;DR "Decisions I made for you" block, so the user can veto any single default at the gate. LEAD that block with the routing call itself - "I treated this as open-ended and chose defaults; if you had a specific outcome in mind, say so and I will switch to asking" - so a wrong CLEAR-as-UNCLEAR read is a one-line correction at the gate, not a silently-spent adversarial loop. Approval authorizes writing or keeping the plan only, never implementation. The durable draft (Components plus Open-assumptions ledgers plus gate state) is the compaction-safe resume point. ($ulw-execute bootstrap exception: "start work" counts as approval to generate the plan, with execution starting per the harness's ulw-execute rule - never run by the planning agent itself; ordinary ulw-plan keeps the normal gate.)
 </approval_gate>
 
 <worked_example>
@@ -40,5 +40,5 @@ Request: "make auth better".
 1. Research waves -> current auth at `src/auth/*` and evidence for the requested improvement; best-practice baselines via librarian.
 2. Topology lock as an ANNOUNCEMENT, not a question: components refine the evidenced auth intent in full, such as session hardening, brute-force protection, and password policy when the repository supports them. MFA is an adjacent capability and stays in Scope OUT unless the user asks for it or evidence establishes it as part of the requested outcome.
 3. Adopted-defaults table (assumption | default | rationale | reversible?): bcrypt rounds 8 -> 12 (reversible), add 5/min-per-IP login limit (reversible), rotate session id on privilege change (reversible).
-4. Metis folded -> auto dual review (fix cited gaps until both approve) -> brief LEADING with the approach and the defaults, surfaced in the human TL;DR for veto.
+4. Metis folded -> auto dual review (fix eligible gaps under the bounded convergence contract) -> brief LEADING with the approach and the defaults, surfaced in the human TL;DR for veto.
 </worked_example>

package/dist/skills/ulw-research/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: ulw-research
-description: "Maximum-saturation research orchestration: ALWAYS proposes the final materials first (PDF+DOCX default), then parallel explore+librarian swarms across codebase, web, official docs, and OSS repos — max-roster teammode when the harness has it — with live journaling, a recursive EXPAND loop driven by leads workers return in message text, empirical verification by running code, and a cited synthesis with charts/Mermaid/assets behind a mandatory visual-QA gate. ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user demand for research — the word 'ulw-research' ('/ulw-research', '$ulw-research'), any 'ulw' research wording, 'ultradebate' or 'hyperdebate' research requests, or an explicit request for research / deep research / an ultra-precise investigation, in any language. Never self-activates for ordinary questions, debugging, or implementation context-gathering. While active it overrides exploration-bounding defaults: exhaustive coverage is the goal."
+description: "Maximum-saturation research orchestration: ALWAYS proposes the final materials first (PDF+DOCX default), then parallel explore+librarian swarms across codebase, web, official docs, and OSS repos — max-roster teammode when the harness has it — with live journaling, a recursive EXPAND loop driven by leads workers return in message text, empirical verification by running code, and a cited synthesis with charts/Mermaid/assets behind a mandatory visual-QA gate. ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user demand for research — the word 'ulw-research' in any prefix form, any 'ulw' research wording including combined invocations like 'mass ulw research', 'ultradebate' or 'hyperdebate' research requests, or an explicit request for research / deep research / an ultra-precise investigation, in any language. Never self-activates for ordinary questions, debugging, or implementation context-gathering. While active it overrides exploration-bounding defaults: exhaustive coverage is the goal."
 ---
 
 ## Codex Harness Tool Compatibility

package/dist/skills/visual-qa/AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# visual-qa — Bundled Visual-Evidence CLI
+
+**Generated:** 2026-08-24 (f3642fcda)
+
+## OVERVIEW
+
+The visual-QA skill's executable core: a zero-dependency Node CLI that produces machine evidence (`image-diff`, `tui-check`) plus the TypeScript sources it is bundled from. Earned this file: the only shared skill shipping a built bundle whose runtime and development sources must be kept in lockstep.
+
+## STRUCTURE
+
+```
+visual-qa/
+├── SKILL.md                      # reviewer workflow (dual oracle, evidence gates) — the prose contract
+├── references/agent-browser-setup.md
+└── scripts/
+    ├── visual-qa.mjs             # SHIPPED RUNTIME: bun-build bundle of cli.ts (+ embedded modules)
+    ├── cli.ts                    # development source; dispatches image-diff / tui-check
+    ├── image-diff.ts             # diffImages — 8x8 grid cells, hotspots, rounded metrics
+    ├── tui-grid.ts               # checkTui — column overflow + border alignment verdicts
+    ├── east-asian-width.ts       # charWidth / stringWidth — CJK-aware width math
+    ├── ansi.ts                   # ANSI escape stripping (width must be escape-aware)
+    ├── png-decode.ts / png-crc.ts / png-synth.ts   # stdlib PNG codec (no deps)
+    ├── types.ts
+    └── *.test.ts                 # co-located bun tests for every module above
+```
+
+## BUNDLE/SOURCE DUALITY
+
+`visual-qa.mjs` is the artifact the skill's commands invoke (`node "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/visual-qa.mjs" …`); the `.ts` files exist for development and tests only. A behavior fix lands in the TS source AND the bundle is regenerated from `cli.ts` — editing one without the other makes tests and runtime disagree. Never hand-edit the `.mjs`.
+
+## SURFACE
+
+- Commands: `image-diff <reference.png> <actual.png>` and `tui-check <capture.txt> --cols <N>`; JSON verdict output (hotspot cells, overflow lines, wide-char columns, border alignment).
+- Module exports: `diffImages`, `checkTui`, `charWidth`/`stringWidth`, ANSI + PNG helpers. `cli.ts` owns `CliError`, `parseColumns`, `run`, `main`.
+
+## CONVENTIONS
+
+- Zero runtime dependencies — PNG decode/synthesis and ANSI handling are hand-rolled in `scripts/`; keep it that way (the bundle must stay require-free apart from `node:` builtins).
+- Width is never `String.length`: CJK wide characters and ANSI escapes are accounted for before any column math.
+- Tests are co-located `bun test scripts/*.test.ts`, given/when/then style per repo convention.
+
+## ANTI-PATTERNS
+
+- NEVER hand-edit `visual-qa.mjs`; regenerate from source.
+- Don't add an npm dependency to make PNG/diff easier — the no-dep bundle is the point.
+- Column math that ignores CJK width or ANSI escapes is wrong by construction; `tui-check` exists because text-diff tools get terminal grids wrong.
+- Skill-level rule worth repeating for code changes: `tmux capture-pane` is forbidden as a capture mechanism.
+
+## COMMANDS
+
+```bash
+# from packages/shared-skills/skills/visual-qa/
+node scripts/visual-qa.mjs image-diff <reference.png> <actual.png>
+node scripts/visual-qa.mjs tui-check <capture.txt> --cols 80
+bun test scripts/*.test.ts
+```
+
+- Parent: [`packages/shared-skills/AGENTS.md`](../../AGENTS.md).

package/dist/skills/visual-qa/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: visual-qa
-description: "MUST USE after building/changing any UI or when asked whether a page, component, or TUI looks right. Rigorous visual QA across web/page and terminal UIs. Prefer browser:control-in-app-browser for unauthenticated browser/page QA in Codex, then Playwright/agent-browser/dev-browser. Captures screenshot/TUI evidence with bundled diff scripts, runs design-system/functional and visual-fidelity/CJK reviewer passes, then synthesizes a good/bad verdict. Triggers: visual QA, screenshot/pixel diff, UI looks wrong, reference fidelity, design system check, responsive check, CJK text clipping, TUI alignment, box-drawing drift."
+description: "MUST USE after building/changing any UI or when asked whether a page, component, or TUI looks right. Rigorous visual QA across web/page, terminal, and paginated-document surfaces. Prefer browser:control-in-app-browser for unauthenticated browser/page QA in Codex, then Playwright/agent-browser/dev-browser. Captures screenshot/TUI evidence with bundled diff scripts, runs design-system/functional and visual-fidelity/CJK reviewer passes, then synthesizes a good/bad verdict. Triggers: visual QA, screenshot/pixel diff, UI looks wrong, reference fidelity, design system check, responsive check, CJK text clipping, TUI alignment, box-drawing drift, PDF page check, deck review, blank or near-empty page, wrong page break."
 ---
 
 # Visual QA - Dual-Oracle Web and TUI Verification
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Verify a rendered UI against intent using objective script evidence plus two par
 
 ## Purpose and when to use
 
-- Use after you build or change any UI, before calling it done. Covers web/page UIs and TUI/terminal UIs.
+- Use after you build or change any UI, before calling it done. Covers web/page UIs, TUI/terminal UIs, and paginated documents.
 - Use when output must match a mock, a baseline, or a stated design intent; when you suspect a regression; when CJK (Korean/Japanese/Chinese) text may clip, misalign, or wrap awkwardly; when a claimed design system might actually be a flat image; when a terminal layout may overflow or its borders may break.
 - Skip when there is no rendered surface (pure backend or library logic with no visual or terminal output). For broad post-implementation review use review-work; this skill is the visual specialist.
 
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ In the commands below, `$SKILL_DIR` is this skill's own directory (the folder co
 
 - Web/page UI: renders in a browser (HTML/CSS/JS, components, canvas, SVG). Evidence is screenshots.
 - TUI/terminal UI: renders as text in a terminal (box-drawing, panes, status lines, REPL/TUI apps). Evidence is terminal captures.
+- Paginated document: renders as ordered pages (PDF report, printed HTML, exported deck). Evidence is every page rendered to an image - `pdftoppm -png -r 150 <file>.pdf <prefix>` or the pipeline's own renderer. Extracted text is not evidence here: layout is exactly what extraction discards, so a stranded block, a split table, or a near-empty page survives a clean text check.
 - Reference-fidelity UI: any web/page UI built from a concrete reference packet, including screenshots, generated Imagen/Stitch mockups, Figma exports, overview text, annotations, or source-site captures. Evidence is the full reference packet plus same-size actual captures.
 
 If the change touches both, run both capture tracks and feed both into the passes.

package/dist/tools/delegate-task/builtin-categories.d.ts

@@ -2,5 +2,6 @@ import type { CategoryConfig } from "../../config/schema";
 export declare const DEFAULT_CATEGORIES: Record<string, CategoryConfig>;
 export declare const CATEGORY_PROMPT_APPENDS: Record<string, string>;
 export declare const CATEGORY_DESCRIPTIONS: Record<string, string>;
+export declare const CATEGORY_CALLER_GUIDANCE: Record<string, string | undefined>;
 export declare const CATEGORY_PROMPT_APPEND_RESOLVERS: Record<string, (model: string | undefined) => string>;
 export declare const BUILTIN_CATEGORY_REQUIRES_MODEL: Record<string, string>;

package/dist/tools/delegate-task/builtin-category-definition.d.ts

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ export type BuiltinCategoryDefinition = {
     name: string;
     config: CategoryConfig;
     description: string;
+    callerGuidance?: string;
     promptAppend: string;
     resolvePromptAppend?: (model: string | undefined) => string;
     requiresModel?: string;

package/dist/tools/delegate-task/tool-description.d.ts

@@ -6,4 +6,6 @@ export interface DelegateTaskPresentation {
     categoryExamples: string;
     description: string;
 }
-export declare function createDelegateTaskPresentation(options: DelegateTaskToolOptions): DelegateTaskPresentation;
+type DelegateTaskPresentationOptions = Pick<DelegateTaskToolOptions, "availableCategories" | "availableSkills" | "userCategories">;
+export declare function createDelegateTaskPresentation(options: DelegateTaskPresentationOptions): DelegateTaskPresentation;
+export {};