openplanr 1.25.3 → 2.0.0

package/lib/host-packages/claude/openplanr/skills/challenger-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+---
+name: challenger-review
+description: "Challenge an Operate cycle's claims, alternatives, downside, and confidence. Use when assumptions or executive consensus need an independent stress test."
+license: MIT
+allowed-tools: "Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(git log:*), Bash(git show:*), Bash(git diff:*), Write"
+---
+
+# Challenger review (`independent-challenge`)
+
+Test only claims that could change a decision. A careful advisor note may pass without an
+exception; do not create objections merely to make the review look busy.
+
+## Context
+
+Use `<cycle-dir>`, `<brief-path>`, `<output-path>`, and `<scope>`. Inspect the available `ceo.md`,
+`cto.md`, `cpo.md`, `cmo.md`, and `coo.md` notes after the advisor pass. Do not read `chair.md` or
+`board-report.md`. Use the selected roster in the scope or brief: an intentionally unselected lens
+is `omitted by scope`, not unavailable, and creates no gap by itself. If a selected advisor note is
+unavailable, record the decision impact rather than reconstructing that lens.
+
+Write only `<output-path>`.
+
+## Material exceptions
+
+Report an exception when:
+
+- a consequential claim lacks support or conflicts with stronger project context;
+- multiple advisors repeat the same weak assumption as corroboration;
+- a realistic alternative or dependency is missing;
+- material downside or irreversibility is absent;
+- confidence or comparative language exceeds the available context; or
+- relevant qualitative context was dismissed only because ideal metrics were unavailable.
+
+Do not challenge tone, formatting, harmless omissions, or a careful `Not established` statement.
+Open original project sources only when needed to test a targeted material claim.
+
+## File contract
+
+```markdown
+# Challenger review — independent-challenge
+
+> **Contract:** operate-review-quality-contract@2.0.0
+> **Verdict:** holds | holds with exceptions | not decision-ready
+> **Bottom line:** <one sentence>
+
+## Material exceptions
+
+### X1 — <short title>
+- **Target:** `<advisor file>#<finding or recommendation>`
+- **Type:** unsupported | contradicted | correlated reasoning | missing alternative | unpriced downside | overconfident
+- **Decision impact:** <choice that could change>
+- **Challenge:** <concise explanation>
+- **Sources:** <advisor sources and any direct contradicting path>
+- **Resolution:** <smallest context or edit that settles it>
+
+<At most five. If none: `No material exception found.`>
+
+## Decisions that still hold
+
+- <One line per advisor recommendation that remains usable, with its source ID.>
+
+## Risks and dissent
+
+- **Dissent:** <statement that must remain visible, or `None.`>
+- **Resolution condition:** <observable condition>
+
+## Decision-changing gaps
+
+- <At most three gaps caused by unavailable or incomplete advisor context. Or `None.`>
+```
+
+Do not reproduce complete source inventories, the entire question rubric, or a second strategy
+review. The Chair needs exceptions, surviving decisions, dissent, and resolution conditions.
+
+## Optional quality check and return
+
+When available, use this as a structural quality check:
+
+```sh
+node "<skill-root>/scripts/validate-note.mjs" "<absolute-output-path>" --profile challenger --contract-version 2.0.0 --json
+```
+
+Use diagnostics when useful and report any remaining structural issue.
+
+Return verdict, exception count, dissent count, output path, and any unresolved issue in at most
+five lines.

package/lib/host-packages/claude/openplanr/skills/challenger-review/openplanr.skill.json

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{
+  "kind": "openplanr-skill-package",
+  "schemaVersion": "1.0.0",
+  "protocolVersion": "1.8.0",
+  "skillId": "planr-challenger-review",
+  "skillVersion": "2.0.0",
+  "entrypoint": "SKILL.md",
+  "hosts": [
+    "claude-code",
+    "codex",
+    "chatgpt",
+    "cursor"
+  ],
+  "execution": "host-agent",
+  "resources": [
+    {
+      "path": "scripts/validate-note.mjs",
+      "kind": "script",
+      "hosts": [
+        "claude-code",
+        "codex",
+        "chatgpt",
+        "cursor"
+      ],
+      "executable": true
+    },
+    {
+      "path": "scripts/operate-review-note.mjs",
+      "kind": "script",
+      "hosts": [
+        "claude-code",
+        "codex",
+        "chatgpt",
+        "cursor"
+      ],
+      "executable": false
+    },
+    {
+      "path": "scripts/operate-review-contract.mjs",
+      "kind": "script",
+      "hosts": [
+        "claude-code",
+        "codex",
+        "chatgpt",
+        "cursor"
+      ],
+      "executable": false
+    },
+    {
+      "path": "scripts/errors.mjs",
+      "kind": "script",
+      "hosts": [
+        "claude-code",
+        "codex",
+        "chatgpt",
+        "cursor"
+      ],
+      "executable": false
+    },
+    {
+      "path": "agents/openai.yaml",
+      "kind": "agent-metadata",
+      "hosts": [
+        "codex",
+        "chatgpt"
+      ],
+      "executable": false
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/lib/host-packages/claude/openplanr/skills/challenger-review/scripts/errors.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+export class SkillRuntimeError extends Error {
+  constructor(code, message, details = {}) {
+    super(message);
+    this.name = 'SkillRuntimeError';
+    this.code = code;
+    this.details = details;
+  }
+}

package/lib/host-packages/claude/openplanr/skills/challenger-review/scripts/operate-review-contract.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,438 @@
+const deepFreeze = (value) => {
+  if (value && typeof value === 'object' && !Object.isFrozen(value)) {
+    for (const child of Object.values(value)) deepFreeze(child);
+    Object.freeze(value);
+  }
+  return value;
+};
+
+/**
+ * Historical Operate Markdown contract.
+ *
+ * This remains available only so notes written by released 1.x guidance can be
+ * identified and read. Canonical skills must use the current v2 contract below.
+ */
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_NOTE_PROFILES_V1 = deepFreeze({
+  advisor: {
+    maxBytes: 16 * 1024,
+    sections: [
+      'Findings',
+      'Recommended next move',
+      'Decision-changing gaps',
+      'Evidence index',
+      'Review coverage',
+      'Audit note',
+    ],
+    summaryFields: ['Signal', 'Bottom line'],
+    summaryValues: {
+      Signal: ['action', 'watch', 'insufficient evidence'],
+    },
+    item: {
+      section: 'Findings',
+      idPrefix: 'F',
+      maxItems: 5,
+      emptyText: 'No decision-relevant finding was established.',
+      fields: [
+        'Priority',
+        'Status',
+        'Why it matters',
+        'Evidence',
+        'Confidence',
+        'Decision implication',
+      ],
+      fieldValues: {
+        Priority: ['P0', 'P1', 'P2', 'unranked'],
+        Status: ['observed', 'inferred'],
+      },
+    },
+    sectionFields: {
+      'Recommended next move': [
+        'Recommendation',
+        'Proposed owner',
+        'First step',
+        'Expected result',
+        'Verification',
+        'Reversible / revisit when',
+        'Evidence',
+      ],
+      'Review coverage': [
+        'Questions answered',
+        'Questions not established',
+        'Evidence boundary',
+      ],
+    },
+    sectionEmptyStates: {
+      'Recommended next move': 'No recommendation from current evidence.',
+    },
+    sectionItemLimits: {
+      'Decision-changing gaps': 3,
+    },
+  },
+  challenger: {
+    maxBytes: 12 * 1024,
+    sections: [
+      'Material exceptions',
+      'Decisions that still hold',
+      'Material dissent',
+      'Decision-changing gaps',
+      'Audit note',
+    ],
+    summaryFields: ['Verdict', 'Bottom line'],
+    summaryValues: {
+      Verdict: ['holds', 'holds with exceptions', 'not decision-ready'],
+    },
+    item: {
+      section: 'Material exceptions',
+      idPrefix: 'X',
+      maxItems: 5,
+      emptyText: 'No material exception found.',
+      fields: ['Target', 'Type', 'Decision impact', 'Challenge', 'Evidence', 'Resolution'],
+      fieldValues: {
+        Type: [
+          'unsupported',
+          'contradicted',
+          'correlated reasoning',
+          'missing alternative',
+          'unpriced downside',
+          'overconfident',
+        ],
+      },
+    },
+    sectionFields: {
+      'Material dissent': ['Dissent', 'Resolution condition'],
+    },
+    sectionItemLimits: {
+      'Decision-changing gaps': 3,
+    },
+  },
+  chair: {
+    maxBytes: 24 * 1024,
+    sections: [
+      'Decision queue',
+      'Action plan',
+      'Material risks and dissent',
+      'Decision-changing gaps',
+      'Review trail',
+      'Evidence index',
+      'Human gate',
+    ],
+    summaryFields: ['Overall signal', 'Executive call'],
+    summaryValues: {
+      'Overall signal': ['act now', 'decide next', 'watch', 'insufficient evidence'],
+    },
+    item: {
+      section: 'Decision queue',
+      idPrefix: 'D',
+      maxItems: 5,
+      emptyText: 'No decision-ready proposal was established.',
+      headingSuffixPattern: /^\[(?:P0|P1|P2|unranked)\]\s+\S/u,
+      fields: [
+        'Recommendation',
+        'Why now',
+        'Owner',
+        'Confidence',
+        'Alternative',
+        'First step',
+        'Expected result',
+        'Verification',
+        'Dependencies',
+        'Reversible / revisit when',
+        'Evidence',
+        'Dissent',
+      ],
+    },
+    sectionFields: {},
+    sectionItemLimits: {
+      'Decision-changing gaps': 5,
+    },
+  },
+  'board-report': {
+    maxBytes: 24 * 1024,
+    sections: [
+      'Scope and custody',
+      'Executive call',
+      'Decision queue',
+      'Action plan',
+      'Material risks and dissent',
+      'Decision-changing gaps',
+      'Review trail',
+      'Human gate',
+    ],
+    summaryFields: [],
+    item: {
+      section: 'Decision queue',
+      idPrefix: 'D',
+      maxItems: 5,
+      emptyText: 'No decision-ready proposal was established.',
+      headingSuffixPattern: /^\[(?:P0|P1|P2|unranked)\]\s+\S/u,
+      fields: [
+        'Recommendation',
+        'Why now',
+        'Owner',
+        'Confidence',
+        'Alternative',
+        'First step',
+        'Expected result',
+        'Verification',
+        'Dependencies',
+        'Reversible / revisit when',
+        'Evidence',
+        'Dissent',
+      ],
+    },
+    sectionFields: {
+      'Scope and custody': ['Subject', 'Evidence window', 'Pending decision', 'Cycle owner', 'Custody'],
+    },
+    sectionItemLimits: {
+      'Decision-changing gaps': 5,
+    },
+  },
+});
+
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_NOTE_PROFILES = deepFreeze({
+  advisor: {
+    maxBytes: 16 * 1024,
+    sections: [
+      'Findings',
+      'Recommended next move',
+      'Decision-changing gaps',
+      'Sources consulted',
+    ],
+    summaryFields: ['Signal', 'Bottom line'],
+    summaryValues: {
+      Signal: ['action', 'watch', 'insufficient context'],
+    },
+    item: {
+      section: 'Findings',
+      idPrefix: 'F',
+      maxItems: 5,
+      emptyText: 'No decision-relevant finding was established.',
+      fields: [
+        'Priority',
+        'Status',
+        'Why it matters',
+        'Sources',
+        'Confidence',
+        'Decision impact',
+      ],
+      fieldValues: {
+        Priority: ['P0', 'P1', 'P2', 'unranked'],
+        Status: ['observed', 'inferred'],
+      },
+    },
+    sectionFields: {
+      'Recommended next move': [
+        'Recommendation',
+        'Suggested owner',
+        'First step',
+        'Expected result',
+        'Check',
+        'Revisit when',
+      ],
+    },
+    sectionEmptyStates: {
+      'Recommended next move': 'No recommendation from current context.',
+    },
+    sectionItemLimits: {
+      'Decision-changing gaps': 3,
+    },
+  },
+  challenger: {
+    maxBytes: 12 * 1024,
+    sections: [
+      'Material exceptions',
+      'Decisions that still hold',
+      'Risks and dissent',
+      'Decision-changing gaps',
+    ],
+    summaryFields: ['Verdict', 'Bottom line'],
+    summaryValues: {
+      Verdict: ['holds', 'holds with exceptions', 'not decision-ready'],
+    },
+    item: {
+      section: 'Material exceptions',
+      idPrefix: 'X',
+      maxItems: 5,
+      emptyText: 'No material exception found.',
+      fields: ['Target', 'Type', 'Decision impact', 'Challenge', 'Sources', 'Resolution'],
+      fieldValues: {
+        Type: [
+          'unsupported',
+          'contradicted',
+          'correlated reasoning',
+          'missing alternative',
+          'unpriced downside',
+          'overconfident',
+        ],
+      },
+    },
+    sectionFields: {
+      'Risks and dissent': ['Dissent', 'Resolution condition'],
+    },
+    sectionItemLimits: {
+      'Decision-changing gaps': 3,
+    },
+  },
+  chair: {
+    maxBytes: 24 * 1024,
+    sections: [
+      'Decision queue',
+      'Action plan',
+      'Risks and dissent',
+      'Decision-changing gaps',
+      'Review coverage',
+    ],
+    summaryFields: ['Overall signal', 'Executive call'],
+    summaryValues: {
+      'Overall signal': ['act now', 'decide next', 'watch', 'insufficient context'],
+    },
+    item: {
+      section: 'Decision queue',
+      idPrefix: 'D',
+      maxItems: 5,
+      emptyText: 'No decision-ready proposal was established.',
+      headingSuffixPattern: /^\[(?:P0|P1|P2|unranked)\]\s+\S/u,
+      fields: [
+        'Recommendation',
+        'Why now',
+        'Suggested owner',
+        'Confidence',
+        'Alternative',
+        'First step',
+        'Expected result',
+        'Check',
+        'Dependencies',
+        'Revisit when',
+        'Sources',
+        'Dissent',
+      ],
+    },
+    sectionFields: {},
+    sectionItemLimits: {
+      'Decision-changing gaps': 5,
+    },
+  },
+  'board-report': {
+    maxBytes: 24 * 1024,
+    sections: [
+      'Scope',
+      'Executive summary',
+      'Decision queue',
+      'Action plan',
+      'Risks and dissent',
+      'Decision-changing gaps',
+      'Review coverage',
+      'Issues',
+    ],
+    summaryFields: [],
+    item: {
+      section: 'Decision queue',
+      idPrefix: 'D',
+      maxItems: 5,
+      emptyText: 'No decision-ready proposal was established.',
+      headingSuffixPattern: /^\[(?:P0|P1|P2|unranked)\]\s+\S/u,
+      fields: [
+        'Recommendation',
+        'Why now',
+        'Suggested owner',
+        'Confidence',
+        'Alternative',
+        'First step',
+        'Expected result',
+        'Check',
+        'Dependencies',
+        'Revisit when',
+        'Sources',
+        'Dissent',
+      ],
+    },
+    sectionFields: {
+      Scope: ['Subject', 'Window', 'Requested decision', 'Custody'],
+    },
+    sectionItemLimits: {
+      'Decision-changing gaps': 5,
+    },
+  },
+});
+
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_NOTE_PROFILES_V2 = OPERATE_REVIEW_NOTE_PROFILES;
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACT_VERSION = '2.0.0';
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACT_VERSIONS = Object.freeze(['1.0.0', '2.0.0']);
+
+/**
+ * Additive human-note rubric overlay for Operate's five executive advisors.
+ *
+ * The closed Operate 2.0 machine registry remains the runtime contract. These
+ * questions govern concise Markdown projections produced by canonical skills.
+ */
+export const OPERATE_ADVISOR_REVIEW_RUBRICS = deepFreeze({
+  'strategy-finance': {
+    skillId: 'planr-ceo-review',
+    requiredQuestions: [
+      'What current evidence changes or constrains company direction?',
+      'Which objectives appear mis-resourced relative to evidenced expected value?',
+      'What runway, margin, or cost consequence is established, and what remains unknown?',
+      'Which decisions carry an evidenced cost of delay, and which remain unranked?',
+    ],
+  },
+  'technology-risk': {
+    skillId: 'planr-cto-review',
+    requiredQuestions: [
+      'Which technical constraints now block a stated objective?',
+      'Which technical risks are decision-relevant, and which remain unranked?',
+      'Which architectural decision, if any, is being made implicitly by in-flight work?',
+      'How reversible are the evidenced high-impact changes?',
+    ],
+  },
+  'product-activation': {
+    skillId: 'planr-cpo-review',
+    requiredQuestions: [
+      'Where does current evidence show users failing to reach value?',
+      'Which product bets remain unvalidated, and what bounded next test is supported?',
+      'Is committed scope ordered by evidenced value and risk?',
+      'Which committed scope, if any, should be cut to protect the activation path?',
+      'Are acceptance criteria testable and tied to a customer or product outcome?',
+    ],
+  },
+  'growth-market': {
+    skillId: 'planr-cmo-review',
+    requiredQuestions: [
+      'What current evidence changes or constrains demand and positioning?',
+      'Which acquisition-channel evidence is strong, weak, or absent?',
+      'Which explicit market or positioning claim, if any, is unsupported?',
+      'Which growth loop is evidenced as repeatable rather than merely proposed?',
+    ],
+  },
+  'operations-customer': {
+    skillId: 'planr-coo-review',
+    requiredQuestions: [
+      'Can the organization deliver current commitments at evidenced capacity?',
+      'Where, if anywhere, is customer health degrading, and what operational cause is evidenced?',
+      'Which process, if any, is a single point of failure or single-person dependency?',
+      'Which operational commitment, if any, should be renegotiated before it is missed?',
+    ],
+  },
+});
+
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACT_V1 = deepFreeze({
+  kind: 'operate-human-review-contract',
+  schemaVersion: '1.0.0',
+  protocolBaseline: { id: 'operate', version: '2.0.0' },
+  profiles: OPERATE_REVIEW_NOTE_PROFILES_V1,
+  advisorRubrics: OPERATE_ADVISOR_REVIEW_RUBRICS,
+});
+
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACT_V2 = deepFreeze({
+  kind: 'operate-review-quality-contract',
+  schemaVersion: '2.0.0',
+  protocolBaseline: { id: 'operate', version: '2.0.0' },
+  profiles: OPERATE_REVIEW_NOTE_PROFILES,
+  advisorRubrics: OPERATE_ADVISOR_REVIEW_RUBRICS,
+});
+
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACTS = deepFreeze({
+  '1.0.0': OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACT_V1,
+  '2.0.0': OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACT_V2,
+});
+
+export const OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACT = OPERATE_REVIEW_CONTRACT_V2;