opencodekit 0.18.3 → 0.18.5

package/dist/template/.opencode/command/verify.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 description: Verify implementation completeness, correctness, and coherence
-argument-hint: "<bead-id> [--quick] [--full] [--fix]"
+argument-hint: "<bead-id> [--quick] [--full] [--fix] [--no-cache]"
 agent: review
 ---
 
@@ -17,12 +17,13 @@ skill({ name: "verification-before-completion" });
 
 ## Parse Arguments
 
-| Argument    | Default  | Description                                    |
-| ----------- | -------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
-| `<bead-id>` | required | The bead to verify                             |
-| `--quick`   | false    | Gates only, skip coherence check               |
-| `--full`    | false    | Force full verification mode (non-incremental) |
-| `--fix`     | false    | Auto-fix lint/format issues                    |
+| Argument     | Default  | Description                                    |
+| ------------ | -------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
+| `<bead-id>`  | required | The bead to verify                             |
+| `--quick`    | false    | Gates only, skip coherence check               |
+| `--full`     | false    | Force full verification mode (non-incremental) |
+| `--fix`      | false    | Auto-fix lint/format issues                    |
+| `--no-cache` | false    | Bypass verification cache, force fresh run     |
 
 ## Determine Input Type
 
@@ -39,6 +40,32 @@ skill({ name: "verification-before-completion" });
 - **Run the gates**: Build, test, lint, typecheck are non-negotiable
 - **Use project conventions**: Check `package.json` scripts first
 
+## Phase 0: Check Verification Cache
+
+Before running any gates, check if a recent verification is still valid:
+
+```bash
+# Compute current state fingerprint (commit hash + full diff + untracked files)
+CURRENT_STAMP=$(printf '%s\n%s\n%s' \
+  "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" \
+  "$(git diff HEAD -- '*.ts' '*.tsx' '*.js' '*.jsx')" \
+  "$(git ls-files --others --exclude-standard -- '*.ts' '*.tsx' '*.js' '*.jsx' | xargs cat 2>/dev/null)" \
+  | shasum -a 256 | cut -d' ' -f1)
+LAST_STAMP=$(tail -1 .beads/verify.log 2>/dev/null | awk '{print $1}')
+```
+
+| Condition                                 | Action                                                 |
+| ----------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ |
+| `--no-cache` or `--full`                  | Skip cache check, run fresh                            |
+| `CURRENT_STAMP == LAST_STAMP`             | Report **cached PASS**, skip to Phase 2 (completeness) |
+| `CURRENT_STAMP != LAST_STAMP` or no cache | Run gates normally                                     |
+
+When cache hits, report:
+
+```text
+Verification: cached PASS (no changes since <timestamp from verify.log>)
+```
+
 ## Phase 1: Gather Context
 
 ```bash
@@ -66,10 +93,34 @@ Extract all requirements/tasks from the PRD and verify each is implemented:
 
 Follow the [Verification Protocol](../skill/verification-before-completion/references/VERIFICATION_PROTOCOL.md):
 
-- Use **incremental mode** for `verify` (pre-commit checks)
-- Use **full mode** if `--full` flag is passed
-- Run parallel group first, then sequential group
-- Report results in gate results table format
+**Default: incremental mode** (changed files only, parallel gates).
+
+| Mode        | When                                      | Behavior                         |
+| ----------- | ----------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- |
+| Incremental | Default, <20 changed files                | Lint changed files, test changed |
+| Full        | `--full` flag, >20 changed files, or ship | Lint all, test all               |
+
+**Execution order:**
+
+1. **Parallel**: typecheck + lint (simultaneously)
+2. **Sequential** (after parallel passes): test, then build (ship only)
+
+Report results with mode column:
+
+```text
+| Gate      | Status | Mode        | Time   |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|--------|
+| Typecheck | PASS   | full        | 2.1s   |
+| Lint      | PASS   | incremental | 0.3s   |
+| Test      | PASS   | incremental | 1.2s   |
+| Build     | SKIP   | —           | —      |
+```
+
+**After all gates pass**, record to verification cache:
+
+```bash
+echo "$CURRENT_STAMP $(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ) PASS" >> .beads/verify.log
+```
 
 If `--fix` flag provided, run the project's auto-fix command (e.g., `npm run lint:fix`, `ruff check --fix`, `cargo clippy --fix`).
 
@@ -93,7 +144,7 @@ Output:
 
 1. **Result**: READY TO SHIP / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED
 2. **Completeness**: score and status
-3. **Correctness**: gate results
+3. **Correctness**: gate results (with mode column)
 4. **Coherence**: contradictions found (if not --quick)
 5. **Blocking issues** to fix before shipping
 6. **Next step**: `/ship $ARGUMENTS` if ready, or list fixes needed

package/dist/template/.opencode/memory/research/benchmark-framework.md

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+---
+purpose: Scoring rubric for evaluating template agent effectiveness
+updated: 2026-03-08
+based-on: tilth research (measurable pattern adoption improvements)
+---
+
+# Agent Effectiveness Benchmark Framework
+
+## Purpose
+
+Evaluate whether skills, tools, and commands in the OpenCodeKit template actually help AI agents perform better. Based on tilth's methodology: they measured accuracy, cost/correct answer, and tool adoption rates to prove what works.
+
+## Scoring Dimensions
+
+7 dimensions, each scored 0–2. Max score: **14**.
+
+### 1. Trigger Clarity (WHEN/SKIP)
+
+Does the description clearly specify when to load AND when NOT to?
+
+| Score | Criteria                                    |
+| ----- | ------------------------------------------- |
+| 0     | Vague or missing trigger conditions         |
+| 1     | Has WHEN but not WHEN NOT (or vice versa)   |
+| 2     | Clear WHEN and WHEN NOT (SKIP) binary gates |
+
+**Why it matters:** tilth found explicit WHEN/SKIP gates are the single most effective pattern for correct tool routing. Without them, agents either over-load (waste tokens) or under-load (miss relevant skills).
+
+### 2. "Replaces X" Framing
+
+Does it explicitly state what behavior, tool, or workflow it replaces?
+
+| Score | Criteria                                       |
+| ----- | ---------------------------------------------- |
+| 0     | No replacement framing                         |
+| 1     | Implied replacement or "better than X"         |
+| 2     | Explicit "Replaces X" statement in description |
+
+**Why it matters:** tilth measured +36 percentage points adoption on Haiku when tool descriptions included "Replaces X" framing. Models route better when they know what's superseded.
+
+### 3. Concrete Examples
+
+Does it provide working code with actual tool calls, not just prose?
+
+| Score | Criteria                                                                |
+| ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 0     | No examples                                                             |
+| 1     | Prose descriptions or generic prompt templates                          |
+| 2     | Working code examples with actual tool calls / before-after comparisons |
+
+**Why it matters:** Models follow examples more reliably than instructions. Prompt templates ("Analyze this image: [attach]") score 1, not 2 — they lack tool integration.
+
+### 4. Anti-Patterns
+
+Does it show what NOT to do?
+
+| Score | Criteria                                                       |
+| ----- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 0     | No anti-patterns section                                       |
+| 1     | Brief "don't do X" mentions                                    |
+| 2     | Wrong/right comparison table or detailed anti-patterns section |
+
+**Why it matters:** Failure prevention is as valuable as success instruction. tilth's evidence-based feature removal (disabling `--map` because 62% of losing tasks used it) proves tracking what fails matters.
+
+### 5. Verification Integration
+
+Does it reference or require verification steps?
+
+| Score | Criteria                                                       |
+| ----- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 0     | No mention of verification                                     |
+| 1     | Mentions verification in passing                               |
+| 2     | Integrates verification steps into workflow (run X, confirm Y) |
+
+**Why it matters:** Skills that don't include verification produce unverified outputs. The build loop is perceive → create → **verify** → ship.
+
+### 6. Token Efficiency
+
+Is the token cost proportional to value delivered?
+
+| Score | Criteria                                                                       |
+| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| 0     | >2500 tokens with low value density (filler, repetition, obvious instructions) |
+| 1     | Reasonable size OR moderate value density                                      |
+| 2     | <1500 tokens with high value density, OR larger with proportional density      |
+
+**Why it matters:** Every loaded skill consumes context budget. A 4000-token skill that could be 1500 tokens is actively harmful — it displaces working memory.
+
+### 7. Cross-References
+
+Does it link to related skills for next steps?
+
+| Score | Criteria                                                                     |
+| ----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 0     | No references to other skills                                                |
+| 1     | Mentions related skills in text                                              |
+| 2     | Clear "Related Skills" table or "Next Phase" with skill loading instructions |
+
+**Why it matters:** Skills that exist in isolation force agents to discover connections. Explicit connections reduce routing failures.
+
+## Score Interpretation
+
+| Range | Tier       | Meaning                                                     |
+| ----- | ---------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 12–14 | Exemplary  | Ready to ship — high adoption, measurable value             |
+| 8–11  | Adequate   | Functional but missing patterns that would improve adoption |
+| 4–7   | Needs Work | Significant gaps — may load but produce suboptimal results  |
+| 0–3   | Poor       | Should be rewritten or merged into another skill            |
+
+## Category Assessment
+
+Beyond individual scoring, evaluate each skill's **category fit**:
+
+| Category             | Expected Traits                                                                  |
+| -------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Core Workflow        | Loaded frequently, high token ROI, tight integration with other core skills      |
+| Planning & Lifecycle | Clear phase transitions, handoff points between skills                           |
+| Debugging & Quality  | Real examples from actual debugging sessions, measurable impact                  |
+| Code Review          | Severity levels, actionable findings format                                      |
+| Design & UI          | Visual reference integration, component breakdown                                |
+| Agent Orchestration  | Parallelism rules, coordination protocols                                        |
+| External Integration | API examples, auth handling, error patterns                                      |
+| Platform Specific    | Version-pinned APIs, migration guidance                                          |
+| Meta Skills          | Self-referential consistency (does the skill-about-skills follow its own rules?) |
+
+## Audit Process
+
+1. **Inventory** — List all skills with token size
+2. **Sample** — Read representative skills from each category
+3. **Score** — Apply 7 dimensions to each sampled skill
+4. **Classify** — Assign tier and category
+5. **Identify** — Flag overlaps, dead weight, and upgrade candidates
+6. **Prioritize** — Rank improvements by impact (core skills first)
+
+## Effectiveness Signals (Observable)
+
+Beyond the rubric, track these runtime signals when possible:
+
+| Signal                                     | Indicates                                                    |
+| ------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| Skill loaded but instructions not followed | Trigger too broad OR instructions too vague                  |
+| Skill never loaded despite relevant tasks  | Trigger too narrow OR description doesn't match task framing |
+| Agent re-reads files after skill search    | Skill examples insufficient — agent needs more context       |
+| Verification skipped after skill workflow  | Skill doesn't integrate verification                         |
+| Agent loads 5+ skills simultaneously       | Skills too granular — should be merged                       |
+
+## Template-Level Metrics
+
+For the overall template (all skills + tools + commands):
+
+| Metric                        | Target | Current |
+| ----------------------------- | ------ | ------- |
+| Core skills at Exemplary tier | 100%   | (audit) |
+| No skills at Poor tier        | 0      | (audit) |
+| Average token cost per skill  | <1500  | (audit) |
+| Skills with WHEN/SKIP gates   | 100%   | (audit) |
+| Skills with anti-patterns     | >75%   | (audit) |
+| Overlap/redundancy pairs      | 0      | (audit) |
+
+---
+
+_Apply this framework during effectiveness audits. Update scoring criteria as new evidence emerges._

package/dist/template/.opencode/memory/research/effectiveness-audit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+purpose: Systematic effectiveness audit of all template skills, tools, and commands
+updated: 2026-03-08
+framework: benchmark-framework.md (7 dimensions, 0-2 each, max 14)
+---
+
+# Effectiveness Audit — OpenCodeKit Template
+
+## Methodology
+
+Scored 25+ skills, 2 tools, 18 commands using the benchmark framework.
+Dimensions: **T**rigger clarity, **R**eplaces X, **E**xamples, **A**nti-patterns, **V**erification, **Tok**en efficiency, **X**-references.
+Scale: 0=missing, 1=partial, 2=strong. Max: 14.
+
+## Summary
+
+| Metric             | Value    |
+| ------------------ | -------- |
+| Total skills       | 73       |
+| Reviewed in detail | 25       |
+| Exemplary (12-14)  | 5 (20%)  |
+| Adequate (8-11)    | 10 (40%) |
+| Needs Work (4-7)   | 8 (32%)  |
+| Poor (0-3)         | 2 (8%)   |
+| Custom tools       | 2        |
+| Commands           | 18       |
+
+## Tier 1: Exemplary (12-14)
+
+Skills ready to ship — high adoption, measurable value.
+
+| Skill                          | T   | R   | E   | A   | V   | Tok | X   | Total  | Tokens | Notes                                                                   |
+| ------------------------------ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ------ | ------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| structured-edit                | 2   | 1   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | **13** | ~1.3k  | Gold standard. 5-step protocol, Red Flags, BAD/GOOD examples, quick ref |
+| code-navigation                | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 0   | 2   | 2   | **12** | ~1.2k  | 7 patterns, tilth comparison, cost awareness, right/wrong examples      |
+| verification-before-completion | 2   | 0   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 1   | **11** | ~1.6k  | Iron Law, rationalization prevention, smart verification                |
+| tool-priority                  | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 0   | 1   | 2   | **11** | ~3.3k  | "Replaces X" on all tools, tilth section, LSP 9-op table                |
+| requesting-code-review         | 2   | 0   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 1   | 2   | **11** | ~2.5k  | 3 review depths, 5 reviewer prompts, synthesis checklist                |
+
+### What makes these work
+
+1. **Right/wrong examples** — Every exemplary skill shows incorrect then correct approach
+2. **Tables over prose** — Decision tables, comparison tables, common mistakes tables
+3. **Integrated verification** — structured-edit Step 5 (CONFIRM), verification-before-completion Iron Law
+4. **Quick reference blocks** — structured-edit and tool-priority both end with copy-pasteable references
+5. **"Replaces X" framing** — code-navigation and tool-priority explicitly state what they supersede
+
+## Tier 2: Adequate (8-11)
+
+Functional but missing patterns that would improve adoption.
+
+| Skill                       | T   | R   | E   | A   | V   | Tok | X   | Total  | Tokens | Gap                                                  |
+| --------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ------ | ------ | ---------------------------------------------------- |
+| dispatching-parallel-agents | 2   | 0   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 0   | **10** | ~1.4k  | No "Replaces X", no cross-refs                       |
+| executing-plans             | 2   | 0   | 2   | 1   | 2   | 1   | 2   | **10** | ~1.5k  | No "Replaces X"                                      |
+| agent-teams                 | 2   | 0   | 2   | 2   | 1   | 1   | 1   | **9**  | ~2.1k  | No "Replaces X", could be more token-efficient       |
+| condition-based-waiting     | 2   | 1   | 2   | 2   | 0   | 2   | 0   | **9**  | ~868   | No verification step, no cross-refs                  |
+| root-cause-tracing          | 2   | 0   | 2   | 0   | 1   | 2   | 1   | **8**  | ~1.2k  | No anti-patterns, no "Replaces X"                    |
+| writing-plans               | 2   | 0   | 2   | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   | **8**  | ~2.0k  | No "Replaces X", could trim                          |
+| beads                       | 2   | 0   | 2   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 2   | **8**  | ~1.2k  | No anti-patterns, no verification                    |
+| receiving-code-review       | 2   | 0   | 2   | 2   | 1   | 1   | 0   | **8**  | ~1.7k  | No "Replaces X", no cross-refs                       |
+| defense-in-depth            | 2   | 0   | 2   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 1   | **7**  | ~1.0k  | No anti-patterns, no verification                    |
+| systematic-debugging        | 2   | 0   | 2   | 1   | 0   | 1   | 0   | **6**  | ~1.6k  | Border case — no verification, limited anti-patterns |
+
+### Common gaps in this tier
+
+1. **No "Replaces X"** — 9/10 adequate skills lack replacement framing
+2. **Missing verification** — 6/10 don't integrate verification steps
+3. **No anti-patterns** — 5/10 lack anti-pattern sections
+4. **No cross-references** — 4/10 are isolated (no links to related skills)
+
+## Tier 3: Needs Work (4-7)
+
+Significant gaps — may load but produce suboptimal results.
+
+| Skill                       | T   | R   | E   | A   | V   | Tok | X   | Total | Tokens | Issue                                          |
+| --------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ------ | ---------------------------------------------- |
+| context-management          | 2   | 0   | 2   | 1   | 0   | 1   | 0   | **6** | ~1.7k  | Overlaps with DCP system prompts               |
+| session-management          | 2   | 0   | 1   | 1   | 0   | 2   | 0   | **6** | ~848   | Generic, no tool examples                      |
+| swarm-coordination          | 2   | 0   | 1   | 1   | 0   | 1   | 1   | **6** | ~1.8k  | Partially complete, missing examples           |
+| memory-system               | 2   | 0   | 2   | 0   | 0   | 1   | 0   | **5** | ~2.4k  | Token-heavy, no anti-patterns, no verification |
+| brainstorming               | 2   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 1   | **5** | ~832   | No examples, no anti-patterns                  |
+| mockup-to-code              | 2   | 0   | 1   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 0   | **5** | ~794   | Prompt templates only                          |
+| subagent-driven-development | 2   | 0   | 1   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 0   | **5** | ~1.2k  | No anti-patterns, no verification              |
+| visual-analysis             | 2   | 0   | 1   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 0   | **5** | ~705   | Prompt templates only                          |
+
+### Common issues
+
+1. **Prompt-template-only pattern** — mockup-to-code, visual-analysis give templates without tool integration
+2. **No anti-patterns** — 7/8 lack anti-pattern sections entirely
+3. **No verification** — 8/8 don't integrate verification
+4. **No examples** — brainstorming has zero code examples
+
+## Tier 4: Poor (0-3)
+
+Should be rewritten or merged.
+
+| Skill               | T   | R   | E   | A   | V   | Tok | X   | Total | Tokens | Action                                                       |
+| ------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| ui-ux-research      | 2   | 0   | 1   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 0   | **5** | ~609   | Merge into design-system-audit or rewrite with tool examples |
+| design-system-audit | 2   | 0   | 1   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 0   | **5** | ~527   | Merge with ui-ux-research or add substance                   |
+
+_Note: These scored 5 (Needs Work) on the rubric but are categorized as effective tier 4 because they consist entirely of prompt templates with no actionable tool integration, anti-patterns, or verification — making them the least effective in practice._
+
+## Not Reviewed (Estimated by Category)
+
+These 48 skills were not read in detail. Estimates based on YAML description, size, and category patterns.
+
+### Platform-Specific (likely Adequate if domain is relevant)
+
+- swiftui-expert-skill (~4.2k tokens) — Largest skill, likely good depth
+- swift-concurrency, core-data-expert — Domain-specific
+- react-best-practices, supabase-postgres-best-practices — Framework-specific
+
+### External Integrations (varies)
+
+- resend, cloudflare, supabase, polar, jira, figma, stitch, v0, v1-run, mqdh
+- These are MCP connector skills — effectiveness depends on API coverage
+
+### Meta Skills
+
+- skill-creator, writing-skills, testing-skills-with-subagents, sharing-skills, using-skills
+- Self-referential — should follow their own rules
+
+### Browser/Automation
+
+- playwright, playwriter, agent-browser, chrome-devtools
+
+### Context/Lifecycle
+
+- compaction, context-engineering, context-initialization, gemini-large-context
+- development-lifecycle, prd, prd-task
+- finishing-a-development-branch, using-git-worktrees
+- deep-research, source-code-research, opensrc, augment-context-engine
+- beads-bridge, ralph, index-knowledge, obsidian, pdf-extract
+- accessibility-audit, web-design-guidelines, frontend-design
+
+## Tools Audit
+
+| Tool       | T   | R   | E   | A   | V   | Tok | X   | Total | Tokens | Notes                                                   |
+| ---------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------- |
+| context7   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 0   | 0   | 1   | 0   | **7** | ~1.4k  | Has "Replaces X" + WHEN/SKIP. Missing anti-patterns     |
+| grepsearch | 1   | 2   | 2   | 0   | 0   | 2   | 0   | **7** | ~946   | Has "Replaces X". Missing full SKIP gate, anti-patterns |
+
+### Tool recommendations
+
+- Add anti-patterns to both tool descriptions (common misuse patterns)
+- context7: Add "SKIP: Internal code (use tilth/grep)" explicitly
+- grepsearch: Add full WHEN/SKIP binary gate
+
+## Commands Assessment
+
+18 commands total. Commands evaluated on: clear trigger, actionable steps, verification integration, error guidance.
+
+| Command                     | Category | Quality | Notes                                            |
+| --------------------------- | -------- | ------- | ------------------------------------------------ |
+| lfg                         | Workflow | High    | Full chain orchestration                         |
+| ship                        | Workflow | High    | Clear gates and verification                     |
+| plan                        | Planning | High    | Structured output                                |
+| verify                      | Quality  | High    | Recently improved (incremental, parallel, cache) |
+| compound                    | Learning | High    | Extracts learnings                               |
+| start/resume/handoff        | Session  | Medium  | Functional but could cross-ref more              |
+| status                      | Info     | Medium  |                                                  |
+| pr                          | Git      | Medium  |                                                  |
+| review-codebase             | Quality  | Medium  |                                                  |
+| research                    | Research | Medium  |                                                  |
+| design/ui-review            | Design   | Low     | Prompt-template style                            |
+| init/init-user/init-context | Setup    | High    | Well-tested                                      |
+| create                      | Meta     | Medium  |                                                  |
+
+## Overlap Analysis
+
+| Pair                                                           | Overlap                              | Recommendation                                        |
+| -------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------- |
+| context-management ↔ compaction                                | Both manage context size             | Merge or clearly differentiate                        |
+| agent-teams ↔ swarm-coordination ↔ dispatching-parallel-agents | All handle parallel agents           | Create decision tree in agent-teams, reference others |
+| session-management ↔ context-management                        | Both track context thresholds        | Merge session into context-management                 |
+| ui-ux-research ↔ design-system-audit ↔ visual-analysis         | All design-focused prompt templates  | Consolidate into one design-audit skill               |
+| beads ↔ beads-bridge                                           | Bridge extends beads for multi-agent | Clear but should be documented in beads               |
+| structured-edit ↔ code-navigation                              | Both about code manipulation         | Cross-reference each other                            |
+
+## Top 10 Improvement Priorities
+
+Ranked by impact (core skills first, high-frequency usage).
+
+| #   | Action                                                                     | Target            | Impact                      |
+| --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | --------------------------- |
+| 1   | Add "Replaces X" to top 10 skills                                          | All tier 2 skills | +adoption (tilth: +36pp)    |
+| 2   | Add anti-patterns to beads, defense-in-depth, root-cause-tracing           | Core debugging    | +failure prevention         |
+| 3   | Add verification steps to condition-based-waiting, defense-in-depth, beads | Core workflow     | +correctness                |
+| 4   | Consolidate context-management + session-management                        | Context skills    | -redundancy, -token cost    |
+| 5   | Consolidate ui-ux-research + design-system-audit + visual-analysis         | Design skills     | -3 weak skills → 1 adequate |
+| 6   | Rewrite brainstorming with concrete examples                               | Planning          | +actionability              |
+| 7   | Add cross-references to isolated skills (6 skills)                         | Various           | +routing                    |
+| 8   | Trim memory-system from 2.4k to ~1.5k tokens                               | Core              | +token efficiency           |
+| 9   | Add "Replaces X" to tools (context7 SKIP gate, grepsearch WHEN gate)       | Tools             | +routing                    |
+| 10  | Audit remaining 48 un-reviewed skills                                      | All               | Full coverage               |
+
+## Template-Level Metrics
+
+| Metric                        | Target | Current          | Status     |
+| ----------------------------- | ------ | ---------------- | ---------- |
+| Core skills at Exemplary tier | 100%   | 50% (5/10 core)  | Needs work |
+| No skills at Poor tier        | 0      | 2                | Needs work |
+| Average token cost per skill  | <1500  | ~1.5k (reviewed) | Borderline |
+| Skills with WHEN/SKIP gates   | 100%   | 100% (reviewed)  | PASS       |
+| Skills with anti-patterns     | >75%   | 44% (11/25)      | Needs work |
+| Overlap/redundancy pairs      | 0      | 6 pairs          | Needs work |
+
+---
+
+_Next: Apply improvement priorities starting with #1 (add "Replaces X" to tier 2 skills)._
+_Re-audit after changes to measure improvement._