opencode-skills-collection 4.0.53 → 4.0.55

package/bundled-skills/ckw-design/SKILL.md

@@ -122,6 +122,12 @@ the wrong set.
   check-all) needs its inverse one tap away. Symmetry of action — see
   restraint-rule (don't strand the user mid-task).
 
+## Example
+
+**User request:**
+
+> Review this interface with @ckw-design, identify the highest-impact design problems, and propose an implementation-ready improvement.
+
 ## Limitations
 
 - This skill improves visual direction and review discipline, but it does not replace rendering the actual UI and checking it in target browsers or devices.

package/bundled-skills/claimable-postgres/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: claimable-postgres
-description: Provision instant temporary Postgres databases via Claimable Postgres by Neon (neon.new) with no login, signup, or credit card. Supports REST API, CLI, and SDK. Use when users ask for a quick Postgres environment, a throwaway DATABASE_URL for prototyping/tests, or "just give me a DB...
+description: "Provision instant temporary Postgres databases via Claimable Postgres by Neon (neon.new) with no login, signup, or credit card. Supports REST API, CLI, and SDK."
 risk: critical
 source: https://github.com/neondatabase/agent-skills/tree/main/skills/claimable-postgres
 source_repo: neondatabase/agent-skills

package/bundled-skills/clarity-gate/SKILL.md

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 name: clarity-gate
 risk: critical
 source: community
+date_added: "2026-09-04"
 version: 2.1.3
 description: >
   Pre-ingestion verification for epistemic quality in RAG systems.
@@ -43,138 +44,9 @@ spec_version: "2.1"
 
 ---
 
-## What's New in v2.1
+## Detailed Guide
 
-| Feature | Description |
-|---------|-------------|
-| **Claim Completion Status** | PENDING/VERIFIED determined by field presence (no explicit status field) |
-| **Source Field Semantics** | Actionable source (PENDING) vs. what-was-found (VERIFIED) |
-| **Claim ID Format Guidance** | Hash-based IDs preferred, collision analysis for scale |
-| **Body Structure Requirements** | HITL Verification Record section mandatory when claims exist |
-| **New Validation Codes** | E-ST10, W-ST11, W-HC01, W-HC02, E-SC06 (FORMAT_SPEC); E-TB01-07 (SOT validation) |
-| **Bundled Scripts** | `claim_id.py` and `document_hash.py` for deterministic computations |
-
----
-
-## Specifications
-
-This skill implements and references:
-
-| Specification | Version | Location |
-|---------------|---------|----------|
-| Clarity Gate Format (Unified) | v2.1 | docs/CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md |
-
-**Note:** v2.0 unifies CGD and SOT into a single `.cgd.md` format. SOT is now a CGD with an optional `tier:` block.
-
----
-
-## Validation Codes
-
-Clarity Gate defines validation codes for structural and semantic checks per FORMAT_SPEC v2.1:
-
-### HITL Claim Validation (§1.3.2-1.3.3)
-| Code | Check | Severity |
-|------|-------|----------|
-| **W-HC01** | Partial `confirmed-by`/`confirmed-date` fields | WARNING |
-| **W-HC02** | Vague source (e.g., "industry reports", "TBD") | WARNING |
-| **E-SC06** | Schema error in `hitl-claims` structure | ERROR |
-
-### Body Structure (§1.2.1)
-| Code | Check | Severity |
-|------|-------|----------|
-| **E-ST10** | Missing `## HITL Verification Record` when claims exist | ERROR |
-| **W-ST11** | Table rows don't match `hitl-claims` count | WARNING |
-
-### SOT Table Validation (§3.1)
-| Code | Check | Severity |
-|------|-------|----------|
-| **E-TB01** | No `## Verified Claims` section | ERROR |
-| **E-TB02** | Table has no data rows | ERROR |
-| **E-TB03** | Required columns missing | ERROR |
-| **E-TB04** | Column order wrong | ERROR |
-| **E-TB05** | Empty cell in required column | ERROR |
-| **E-TB06** | Invalid date format in Verified column | ERROR |
-| **E-TB07** | Verified date in future (beyond 24h grace) | ERROR |
-
-**Note:** Additional validation codes may be defined in RFC-001 (clarification document) but are not part of the normative FORMAT_SPEC.
-
----
-
-## Bundled Scripts
-
-This skill includes Python scripts for deterministic computations per FORMAT_SPEC.
-
-### scripts/claim_id.py
-
-Computes stable, hash-based claim IDs for HITL tracking (per §1.3.4).
-
-```bash
-# Generate claim ID
-python scripts/claim_id.py "Base price is $99/mo" "api-pricing/1"
-# Output: claim-75fb137a
-
-# Run test vectors
-python scripts/claim_id.py --test
-```
-
-**Algorithm:**
-1. Normalize text (strip + collapse whitespace)
-2. Concatenate with location using pipe delimiter
-3. SHA-256 hash, take first 8 hex chars
-4. Prefix with "claim-"
-
-**Test vectors:**
-- `claim_id("Base price is $99/mo", "api-pricing/1")` → `claim-75fb137a`
-- `claim_id("The API supports GraphQL", "features/1")` → `claim-eb357742`
-
-### scripts/document_hash.py
-
-Computes document SHA-256 hash per FORMAT_SPEC §2.2-2.4 with full canonicalization.
-
-```bash
-# Compute hash
-python scripts/document_hash.py my-doc.cgd.md
-# Output: 7d865e959b2466918c9863afca942d0fb89d7c9ac0c99bafc3749504ded97730
-
-# Verify existing hash
-python scripts/document_hash.py --verify my-doc.cgd.md
-# Output: PASS: Hash verified: 7d865e...
-
-# Run normalization tests
-python scripts/document_hash.py --test
-```
-
-**Algorithm (per §2.2-2.4):**
-1. Extract content between opening `---\n` and `<!-- CLARITY_GATE_END -->`
-2. Remove `document-sha256` line from YAML frontmatter ONLY (with multiline continuation support)
-3. Canonicalize:
-   - Strip trailing whitespace per line
-   - Collapse 3+ consecutive newlines to 2
-   - Normalize final newline (exactly 1 LF)
-   - UTF-8 NFC normalization
-4. Compute SHA-256
-
-**Cross-platform normalization:**
-- BOM removed if present
-- CRLF to LF (Windows)
-- CR to LF (old Mac)
-- Boundary detection (prevents hash computation on content outside CGD structure)
-- Whitespace variations produce identical hashes (deterministic across platforms)
-
----
-
-## The Key Distinction
-
-Existing tools like UnScientify and HedgeHunter (CoNLL-2010) **detect** uncertainty markers already present in text ("Is uncertainty expressed?").
-
-Clarity Gate **enforces** their presence where epistemically required ("Should uncertainty be expressed but isn't?").
-
-| Tool Type | Question | Example |
-|-----------|----------|---------|
-| **Detection** | "Does this text contain hedges?" | UnScientify/HedgeHunter find "may", "possibly" |
-| **Enforcement** | "Should this claim be hedged but isn't?" | Clarity Gate flags "Revenue will be $50M" |
-
----
+Read [the detailed guide](references/detailed-guide.md) before executing this skill. It retains the complete procedure and reference material. Treat its safety, prerequisites, and validation requirements as mandatory. For focused work, load the relevant sections; for end-to-end work, read the guide completely.
 
 ## Critical Limitation
 
@@ -198,436 +70,6 @@ Clarity Gate **enforces** their presence where epistemically required ("Should u
 
 ---
 
-## The 9 Verification Points
-
-### Relationship to Spec Suite
-
-The 9 Verification Points guide **semantic review** — content quality checks that require judgment (human or AI). They answer questions like "Should this claim be hedged?" and "Are these numbers consistent?"
-
-When review completes, output a CGD file conforming to CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md. The C/S rules in CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md validate **file structure**, not semantic content.
-
-**The connection:**
-1. Semantic findings (9 points) determine what issues exist
-2. Issues are recorded in CGD state fields (`clarity-status`, `hitl-status`, `hitl-pending-count`)
-3. State consistency is enforced by structural rules (C7-C10)
-
-*Example: If Point 5 (Data Consistency) finds conflicting numbers, you'd mark `clarity-status: UNCLEAR` until resolved. Rule C7 then ensures you can't claim `REVIEWED` while still `UNCLEAR`.*
-
----
-
-### Epistemic Checks (Core Focus: Points 1-4)
-
-**1. HYPOTHESIS vs FACT LABELING**
-Every claim must be clearly marked as validated or hypothetical.
-
-| Fails | Passes |
-|-------|--------|
-| "Our architecture outperforms competitors" | "Our architecture outperforms competitors [benchmark data in Table 3]" |
-| "The model achieves 40% improvement" | "The model achieves 40% improvement [measured on dataset X]" |
-
-**Fix:** Add markers: "PROJECTED:", "HYPOTHESIS:", "UNTESTED:", "(estimated)", "~", "?"
-
----
-
-**2. UNCERTAINTY MARKER ENFORCEMENT**
-Forward-looking statements require qualifiers.
-
-| Fails | Passes |
-|-------|--------|
-| "Revenue will be $50M by Q4" | "Revenue is **projected** to be $50M by Q4" |
-| "The feature will reduce churn" | "The feature is **expected** to reduce churn" |
-
-**Fix:** Add "projected", "estimated", "expected", "designed to", "intended to"
-
----
-
-**3. ASSUMPTION VISIBILITY**
-Implicit assumptions that affect interpretation must be explicit.
-
-| Fails | Passes |
-|-------|--------|
-| "The system scales linearly" | "The system scales linearly [assuming <1000 concurrent users]" |
-| "Response time is 50ms" | "Response time is 50ms [under standard load conditions]" |
-
-**Fix:** Add bracketed conditions: "[assuming X]", "[under conditions Y]", "[when Z]"
-
----
-
-**4. AUTHORITATIVE-LOOKING UNVALIDATED DATA**
-Tables with specific percentages and checkmarks look like measured data.
-
-**Red flag:** Tables with specific numbers (89%, 95%, 100%) without sources
-
-**Fix:** Add "(guess)", "(est.)", "?" to numbers. Add explicit warning: "PROJECTED VALUES - NOT MEASURED"
-
----
-
-### Data Quality Checks (Complementary: Points 5-7)
-
-**5. DATA CONSISTENCY**
-Scan for conflicting numbers, dates, or facts within the document.
-
-**Red flag:** "500 users" in one section, "750 users" in another
-
-**Fix:** Reconcile conflicts or explicitly note the discrepancy with explanation.
-
----
-
-**6. IMPLICIT CAUSATION**
-Claims that imply causation without evidence.
-
-**Red flag:** "Shorter prompts improve response quality" (plausible but unproven)
-
-**Fix:** Reframe as hypothesis: "Shorter prompts MAY improve response quality (hypothesis, not validated)"
-
----
-
-**7. FUTURE STATE AS PRESENT**
-Describing planned/hoped outcomes as if already achieved.
-
-**Red flag:** "The system processes 10,000 requests per second" (when it hasn't been built)
-
-**Fix:** Use future/conditional: "The system is DESIGNED TO process..." or "TARGET: 10,000 rps"
-
----
-
-### Verification Routing (Points 8-9)
-
-**8. TEMPORAL COHERENCE**
-Document dates and timestamps must be internally consistent and plausible.
-
-| Fails | Passes |
-|-------|--------|
-| "Last Updated: December 2024" (when current is 2026) | "Last Updated: January 2026" |
-| v1.0.0 dated 2024-12-23, v1.1.0 dated 2024-12-20 | Versions in chronological order |
-
-**Sub-checks:**
-1. Document date vs current date
-2. Internal chronology (versions, events in order)
-3. Reference freshness ("current", "now", "today" claims)
-
-**Fix:** Update dates, add "as of [date]" qualifiers, flag stale claims
-
----
-
-**9. EXTERNALLY VERIFIABLE CLAIMS**
-Specific numbers that could be fact-checked should be flagged for verification.
-
-| Type | Example | Risk |
-|------|---------|------|
-| Pricing | "Costs ~$0.005 per call" | API pricing changes |
-| Statistics | "Papers average 15-30 equations" | May be wildly off |
-| Rates/ratios | "40% of researchers use X" | Needs citation |
-| Competitor claims | "No competitor offers Y" | May be outdated |
-
-**Fix options:**
-1. Add source with date
-2. Add uncertainty marker
-3. Route to HITL or external search
-4. Generalize ("low cost" instead of "$0.005")
-
----
-
-## The Verification Hierarchy
-
-```
-Claim Extracted --> Does Source of Truth Exist?
-                           |
-           +---------------+---------------+
-           YES                             NO
-           |                               |
-   Tier 1: Automated              Tier 2: HITL
-   Consistency & Verification     Two-Round Verification
-           |                               |
-   PASS / BLOCK                   Round A → Round B → APPROVE / REJECT
-```
-
-### Tier 1: Automated Verification
-
-**A. Internal Consistency**
-- Figure vs. Text contradictions
-- Abstract vs. Body mismatches
-- Table vs. Prose conflicts
-- Numerical consistency
-
-**B. External Verification (Extension Interface)**
-- User-provided connectors to structured sources
-- Financial systems, Git commits, CRM, etc.
-
-### Tier 2: Two-Round HITL Verification — MANDATORY
-
-**Round A: Derived Data Confirmation**
-- Claims from sources found in session
-- Human confirms interpretation, not truth
-
-**Round B: True HITL Verification**
-- Claims needing actual verification
-- No source found, human's own data, extrapolations
-
----
-
-## CGD Output Format
-
-When producing a Clarity-Gated Document, use this format per CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md v2.1:
-
-```yaml
----
-clarity-gate-version: 2.1
-processed-date: 2026-01-12
-processed-by: Claude + Human Review
-clarity-status: CLEAR
-hitl-status: REVIEWED
-hitl-pending-count: 0
-points-passed: 1-9
-rag-ingestable: true          # computed by validator - do not set manually
-document-sha256: 7d865e959b2466918c9863afca942d0fb89d7c9ac0c99bafc3749504ded97730
-hitl-claims:
-  - id: claim-75fb137a
-    text: "Revenue projection is $50M"
-    value: "$50M"
-    source: "Q3 planning doc"
-    location: "revenue-projections/1"
-    round: B
-    confirmed-by: Francesco
-    confirmed-date: 2026-01-12
----
-
-# Document Title
-
-[Document body with epistemic markers applied]
-
-Claims like "Revenue will be $50M" become "Revenue is **projected** to be $50M *(unverified projection)*"
-
----
-
-## HITL Verification Record
-
-### Round A: Derived Data Confirmation
-- Claim 1 (source) ✓
-- Claim 2 (source) ✓
-
-### Round B: True HITL Verification
-| # | Claim | Status | Verified By | Date |
-|---|-------|--------|-------------|------|
-| 1 | [claim] | ✓ Confirmed | [name] | [date] |
-
-<!-- CLARITY_GATE_END -->
-Clarity Gate: CLEAR | REVIEWED
-```
-
-**Required CGD Elements (per spec):**
-- YAML frontmatter with all required fields:
-  - `clarity-gate-version` — Tool version (no "v" prefix)
-  - `processed-date` — YYYY-MM-DD format
-  - `processed-by` — Processor name
-  - `clarity-status` — CLEAR or UNCLEAR
-  - `hitl-status` — PENDING, REVIEWED, or REVIEWED_WITH_EXCEPTIONS
-  - `hitl-pending-count` — Integer ≥ 0
-  - `points-passed` — e.g., `1-9` or `1-4,7,9`
-  - `hitl-claims` — List of verified claims (may be empty `[]`)
-- End marker (HTML comment + status line):
-  ```
-  <!-- CLARITY_GATE_END -->
-  Clarity Gate: <clarity-status> | <hitl-status>
-  ```
-- HITL verification record (if status is REVIEWED)
-
-**Optional/Computed Fields:**
-- `rag-ingestable` — **Computed by validators**, not manually set. Shows `true` only when `CLEAR | REVIEWED` with no exclusion blocks.
-- `document-sha256` — Required. 64-char lowercase hex hash for integrity verification. See spec §2 for computation rules.
-- `exclusions-coverage` — Optional. Fraction of body inside exclusion blocks (0.0–1.0).
-
-**Escape Mechanism:** To write about markers like `*(estimated)*` without triggering parsing, wrap in backticks: `` `*(estimated)*` ``
-
-### Claim Completion Status (v2.1)
-
-Claim verification status is determined by field **presence**, not an explicit status field:
-
-| State | `confirmed-by` | `confirmed-date` | Meaning |
-|-------|----------------|------------------|----------|
-| **PENDING** | absent | absent | Awaiting human verification |
-| **VERIFIED** | present | present | Human has confirmed |
-| *(invalid)* | present | absent | W-HC01: partial fields |
-| *(invalid)* | absent | present | W-HC01: partial fields |
-
-**Why no explicit status field?** Field presence is self-enforcing—you can't accidentally set status without providing who/when.
-
-### Source Field Semantics (v2.1)
-
-The `source` field meaning changes based on claim state:
-
-| State | `source` Contains | Example |
-|-------|-------------------|----------|
-| **PENDING** | Where to verify (actionable) | `"Check Q3 planning doc"` |
-| **VERIFIED** | What was found (evidence) | `"Q3 planning doc, page 12"` |
-
-**Vague source detection (W-HC02):** Sources like `"industry reports"`, `"research"`, `"TBD"` trigger warnings.
-
-### Claim ID Format (v2.1)
-
-**General pattern:** `claim-[a-z0-9._-]{1,64}` (alphanumeric, dots, underscores, hyphens)
-
-| Approach | Pattern | Example | Use Case |
-|----------|---------|---------|----------|
-| **Hash-based** (preferred) | `claim-[a-f0-9]{8,}` | `claim-75fb137a` | Deterministic, collision-resistant |
-| **Sequential** | `claim-[0-9]+` | `claim-1`, `claim-2` | Simple documents |
-| **Semantic** | `claim-[a-z0-9-]+` | `claim-revenue-q3` | Human-friendly |
-
-**Collision probability:** At 1,000 claims with 8-char hex IDs: ~0.012%. For >1,000 claims, use 12+ hex characters.
-
-**Recommendation:** Use hash-based IDs generated by `scripts/claim_id.py` for consistency and collision resistance.
-
----
-
-## Exclusion Blocks
-
-When content cannot be resolved (no SME available, legacy prose, etc.), mark it as excluded rather than leaving it ambiguous:
-
-```markdown
-<!-- CG-EXCLUSION:BEGIN id=auth-legacy-1 -->
-Legacy authentication details that require SME review...
-<!-- CG-EXCLUSION:END id=auth-legacy-1 -->
-```
-
-**Rules:**
-- IDs must match: `[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9._-]{0,63}`
-- No nesting or overlapping blocks
-- Each ID used only once
-- Requires `hitl-status: REVIEWED_WITH_EXCEPTIONS`
-- Must document `exceptions-reason` and `exceptions-ids` in frontmatter
-
-**Important:** Documents with exclusion blocks are **not RAG-ingestable**. They're rejected entirely (no partial ingestion).
-
-See CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md §4 for complete rules.
-
----
-
-## SOT Validation
-
-When validating a Source of Truth file, the skill checks both **format compliance** (per CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md) and **content quality** (the 9 points).
-
-### Format Compliance (Structural Rules)
-
-SOT documents are CGDs with a `tier:` block. They require a `## Verified Claims` section with a valid table.
-
-| Code | Check | Severity |
-|------|-------|----------|
-| E-TB01 | No `## Verified Claims` section | ERROR |
-| E-TB02 | Table has no data rows | ERROR |
-| E-TB03 | Required columns missing (Claim, Value, Source, Verified) | ERROR |
-| E-TB04 | Column order wrong (Claim not first or Verified not last) | ERROR |
-| E-TB05 | Empty cell in required column | ERROR |
-| E-TB06 | Invalid date format in Verified column | ERROR |
-| E-TB07 | Verified date in future (beyond 24h grace) | ERROR |
-
-### Content Quality (9 Points)
-
-The 9 Verification Points apply to SOT content:
-
-| Point | SOT Application |
-|-------|-----------------|
-| 1-4 | Check claims in `## Verified Claims` are actually verified |
-| 5 | Check for conflicting values across tables |
-| 6 | Check claims don't imply unsupported causation |
-| 7 | Check table doesn't state futures as present |
-| 8 | Check dates are chronologically consistent |
-| 9 | Flag specific numbers for external check |
-
-### SOT-Specific Requirements
-
-- **Tier block required:** SOT is a CGD with `tier:` block containing `level`, `owner`, `version`, `promoted-date`, `promoted-by`
-- **Structured claims table:** `## Verified Claims` section with columns: Claim, Value, Source, Verified
-- **Table outside exclusions:** The verified claims table must NOT be inside an exclusion block
-- **Staleness markers:** Use `[STABLE]`, `[CHECK]`, `[VOLATILE]`, `[SNAPSHOT]` in content
-  - `[STABLE]` — Safe to cite without rechecking
-  - `[CHECK]` — Verify before citing
-  - `[VOLATILE]` — Changes frequently; always verify
-  - `[SNAPSHOT]` — Point-in-time data; include date when citing
-
----
-
-## Output Format
-
-After running Clarity Gate, report:
-
-```
-## Clarity Gate Results
-
-**Document:** [filename]
-**Issues Found:** [number]
-
-### Critical (will cause hallucination)
-- [issue + location + fix]
-
-### Warning (could cause equivocation)  
-- [issue + location + fix]
-
-### Temporal (date/time issues)
-- [issue + location + fix]
-
-### Externally Verifiable Claims
-| # | Claim | Type | Suggested Verification |
-|---|-------|------|------------------------|
-| 1 | [claim] | Pricing | [where to verify] |
-
----
-
-## Round A: Derived Data Confirmation
-
-- [claim] ([source])
-
-Reply "confirmed" or flag any I misread.
-
----
-
-## Round B: HITL Verification Required
-
-| # | Claim | Why HITL Needed | Human Confirms |
-|---|-------|-----------------|----------------|
-| 1 | [claim] | [reason] | [ ] True / [ ] False |
-
----
-
-**Would you like me to produce an annotated CGD version?**
-
----
-
-**Verdict:** PENDING CONFIRMATION
-```
-
----
-
-## Severity Levels
-
-| Level | Definition | Action |
-|-------|------------|--------|
-| **CRITICAL** | LLM will likely treat hypothesis as fact | Must fix before use |
-| **WARNING** | LLM might misinterpret | Should fix |
-| **TEMPORAL** | Date/time inconsistency detected | Verify and update |
-| **VERIFIABLE** | Specific claim that could be fact-checked | Route to HITL or external search |
-| **ROUND A** | Derived from witnessed source | Quick confirmation |
-| **ROUND B** | Requires true verification | Cannot pass without confirmation |
-| **PASS** | Clearly marked, no ambiguity, verified | No action needed |
-
----
-
-## Quick Scan Checklist
-
-| Pattern | Action |
-|---------|--------|
-| Specific percentages (89%, 73%) | Add source or mark as estimate |
-| Comparison tables | Add "PROJECTED" header |
-| "Achieves", "delivers", "provides" | Use "designed to", "intended to" if not validated |
-| Checkmarks | Verify these are confirmed |
-| "100%" anything | Almost always needs qualification |
-| "Last Updated: [date]" | Check against current date |
-| Version numbers with dates | Verify chronological order |
-| "$X.XX" or "~$X" (pricing) | Flag for external verification |
-| "averages", "typically" | Flag for source/citation |
-| Competitor capability claims | Flag for external verification |
-
----
-
 ## What This Skill Does NOT Do
 
 - Does not classify document types (use Stream Coding for that)
@@ -637,77 +79,3 @@ Reply "confirmed" or flag any I misread.
 - **Does not check factual accuracy autonomously** (requires HITL)
 
 ---
-
-## Related Projects
-
-| Project | Purpose | URL |
-|---------|---------|-----|
-| Source of Truth Creator | Create epistemically calibrated docs | github.com/frmoretto/source-of-truth-creator |
-| Stream Coding | Documentation-first methodology | github.com/frmoretto/stream-coding |
-| ArXiParse | Scientific paper verification | arxiparse.org |
-
----
-
-## Changelog
-
-### v2.1.3 (2026-03-02)
-- **FIXED:** `document_hash.py` now implements full FORMAT_SPEC §2.1-2.4 compliance
-- **FIXED:** Fence-aware end marker detection (Quine Protection per §2.3/§8.5)
-- **FIXED:** All 4 deployment copies converged to single canonical implementation
-- **ADDED:** `canonicalize()` function: trailing whitespace stripping, newline collapsing, NFC normalization
-- **ADDED:** YAML-aware `document-sha256` removal with multiline continuation support (§2.2)
-- **ADDED:** Fence-tracking test vectors (7 new tests, 15 total)
-
-### v2.1.0 (2026-01-27)
-- **ADDED:** Claim Completion Status semantics (PENDING/VERIFIED by field presence)
-- **ADDED:** Source Field Semantics (actionable vs. what-was-found)
-- **ADDED:** Claim ID Format guidance with collision analysis
-- **ADDED:** Body Structure Requirements (HITL Verification Record mandatory when claims exist)
-- **ADDED:** New validation codes: E-ST10, W-ST11, W-HC01, W-HC02, E-SC06 (FORMAT_SPEC §1.2-1.3)
-- **ADDED:** Bundled scripts: `claim_id.py`, `document_hash.py`
-- **UPDATED:** References to FORMAT_SPEC v2.1
-- **UPDATED:** CGD output example to version 2.1
-
-### v2.0.0 (2026-01-13)
-- **ADDED:** agentskills.io compliant YAML frontmatter
-- **ADDED:** Clarity Gate Format Specification v2.0 compliance (unified CGD/SOT)
-- **ADDED:** SOT validation support with E-TB* error codes
-- **ADDED:** Validation rules mapping (9 points → rule codes)
-- **ADDED:** CGD output format template with `<!-- CLARITY_GATE_END -->` markers
-- **ADDED:** Quine Protection note (§2.3 fence-aware marker detection)
-- **ADDED:** Redacted Export feature (§8.11)
-- **UPDATED:** `hitl-claims` format to v2.0 schema (id, text, value, source, location, round)
-- **UPDATED:** End marker format to HTML comment style
-- **UPDATED:** Unified format spec v2.0 (single `.cgd.md` extension)
-- **RESTRUCTURED:** For multi-platform skill discovery
-
-### v1.6 (2025-12-31)
-- Added Two-Round HITL verification system
-- Round A: Derived Data Confirmation
-- Round B: True HITL Verification
-
-### v1.5 (2025-12-28)
-- Added Point 8: Temporal Coherence
-- Added Point 9: Externally Verifiable Claims
-
-### v1.4 (2025-12-23)
-- Added CGD annotation output mode
-
-### v1.3 (2025-12-21)
-- Restructured points into Epistemic (1-4) and Data Quality (5-7)
-
-### v1.2 (2025-12-21)
-- Added Source of Truth request step
-
-### v1.1 (2025-12-21)
-- Added HITL Fact Verification (mandatory)
-
-### v1.0 (2025-11)
-- Initial release with 6-point verification
-
----
-
-**Version:** 2.1.3
-**Spec Version:** 2.1
-**Author:** Francesco Marinoni Moretto
-**License:** CC-BY-4.0