pi-gauntlet 7.1.1 → 7.1.2

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v7.1.2 - 2026-10-04
+
+### Changed
+
+- **brainstorming + gauntlet-resume: the standing amend grant lives in the spec header.** Spec-writing emits `**Amend-grant:** none` under `**Goal:**`; a `2` / `auto-apply amends` reply at the spec gate sets the line to the granting sentence and amends it into the spec commit; mid-flow grants and revocations persist as `grant: <value>` commits (or ride the open `amend:` batch); a post-revert restore reads the pre-revert HEAD's line. Every reader applies one predicate (`none`/missing -> no grant; one other single-line value -> active; two lines, an empty value, or a continued value -> malformed, stop). `/skill:gauntlet-resume` runs it as entry check 6 before the route's first tracker call and prints `Standing grant active: <sentence>` or `No standing grant.` after its closing line; the handoff brief stays grant-free. The `Amend-grant:` commit trailer is gone; council members, chair, and the worker critique leave the line alone. Supersedes the grant-recording / fresh-session-resume boundary of the 2026-09-18, 2026-09-19, and 2026-10-04 approval-menu specs.
+
 ## v7.1.1 - 2026-10-04
 
 ### Changed

package/README.md

@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ pi-gauntlet is **opinionated**: it recommends this pipeline for non-trivial chan
 
 ## Handoff and resume
 
-`/skill:gauntlet-handoff` and `/skill:gauntlet-resume` are a pair: cohort's `handoff` skill writes the six flow-agnostic headings, gauntlet-handoff appends `## Process state`, and gauntlet-resume reads the whole brief back. Both gauntlet skills read one grammar file, `skills/gauntlet-resume/reference/brief-contract.md`; the repo validator (`scripts/ci.mjs`) fails if a grammar line appears anywhere else under `skills/`. Requires pi-cohort >= 7.1.0 (the `handoff` skill, [pi-cohort #18](https://github.com/jjuraszek/pi-cohort/issues/18)); on an older pi-cohort, gauntlet-handoff stops before writing.
+`/skill:gauntlet-handoff` and `/skill:gauntlet-resume` are a pair: cohort's `handoff` skill writes the six flow-agnostic headings, gauntlet-handoff appends `## Process state`, and gauntlet-resume reads the whole brief back. Both gauntlet skills read one grammar file, `skills/gauntlet-resume/reference/brief-contract.md`; the repo validator (`scripts/ci.mjs`) fails if a grammar line appears anywhere else under `skills/`. Requires pi-cohort >= 7.1.0 (the `handoff` skill, [pi-cohort #18](https://github.com/jjuraszek/pi-cohort/issues/18)); on an older pi-cohort, gauntlet-handoff stops before writing. A resume also reads the spec's `**Amend-grant:**` header line and prints `Standing grant active: <sentence>` or `No standing grant.` on the line after its closing line; the brief itself carries no grant.
 
 ### Smoke walkthrough (release-gated)
 
@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ Run by a human against pi-cohort >= 7.1.0, before a pi-gauntlet release claims t
 6. Primary session, idle trackers, spec tracked on main: `/skill:gauntlet-resume doc/specs/<x>.md` creates the worktree and asks the approval question; approval leaves `phase_tracker` at plan in_progress with brainstorm `⊘ (resume: ...)`.
 7. Fresh idle session, same seed: the registered worktree is reused (no creation) and the question repeats. Run once on a consumer whose `## using-git-worktrees` override lays worktrees out as sibling dirs, once on `.worktrees/`.
 8. After writing-plans commits the plan beside the seeded spec: `/skill:gauntlet-handoff` then a fresh `/skill:gauntlet-resume <brief>` restores plan phase; a fresh `/skill:gauntlet-resume <worktree>` reaches "Spec with plan" with task evidence from the plan commit.
+9. Spec approved with `2`, then `/skill:gauntlet-handoff` and a fresh `/skill:gauntlet-resume <brief>`: the closing line is followed by `Standing grant active: <sentence>` and the next amend batch applies without a menu. A spec approved with `1` prints `No standing grant.`; a spec with two `**Amend-grant:**` lines stops before any tracker call, naming both lines.
 
 ## Key concepts
 

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "pi-gauntlet",
-  "version": "7.1.1",
+  "version": "7.1.2",
   "description": "Opinionated, gated workflow skills, subagent personas, and runtime extensions for the pi coding agent.",
   "author": "Jacek Juraszek",
   "type": "module",

package/skills/brainstorming/reference/amendment-surface.md

@@ -4,9 +4,37 @@
 
 ## Standing grants
 
-Honor a user sentence in this flow that waives per-diff review for later amends (`auto-apply amends`, `approve, auto-apply amends` or a bare `2` at the spec gate, `auto-apply amends, stop only for redraws`, `apply spec fixes without asking`, or the same intent in other words). The digit grants only at the spec gate, and a prose grant after a `1` approval still counts. Apply every later amend-class change without review, scope changes included; redraws always stop and the grant never satisfies the spec gate. Start a new brainstorm or a fresh-session resume with no grant; never infer one from history.
+Honor a user sentence in this flow that waives per-diff review for later amends (`auto-apply amends`, `approve, auto-apply amends` or a bare `2` at the spec gate, `auto-apply amends, stop only for redraws`, `apply spec fixes without asking`, or the same intent in other words). The digit grants only at the spec gate, and a prose grant after a `1` approval still counts. Apply every later amend-class change without review, scope changes included; redraws always stop and the grant never satisfies the spec gate.
 
-Before proceeding to planning, quote a grant given at or before spec approval in the spec commit body via `git -C <abs worktree path> commit --amend --no-edit -q --trailer "Amend-grant: <the sentence>"`, so the worktree history shows when the grant began. When the reply was the digit `2`, `<the sentence>` is the grant description sentence from the gate menu (the text after `2 - approve, auto-apply amends:` in the spec gate template), never the digit; the same substitution applies wherever this file quotes the granting sentence in a commit body.
+A grant is the spec's `**Amend-grant:**` line read through the shared predicate; `none` or a missing line means no grant. A new brainstorm writes `none`; a resume honors the line as written. Never take a grant from commit history, a handoff brief, or the transcript; the one read of a prior commit is the post-revert restore, which reads the pre-revert HEAD's spec line.
+
+**The line.** `**Amend-grant:** none` or `**Amend-grant:** <granting sentence verbatim, one physical line>`, in the header block (the span between the H1 and the first `##`). Writers place it directly below `**Goal:**` when that line exists, otherwise on the first line after the H1, its blank line, and any `> **Superseded by:**` banner lines; readers never depend on the position. When the reply was the digit `2`, the sentence is the grant description from the gate menu (the text after `2 - approve, auto-apply amends:` in `spec-finalization.md`), never the digit. Collapse a prose grant to one physical line before the write: newlines and runs of whitespace become single spaces, wording preserved. The same substitution applies wherever this file quotes the granting sentence in a commit body.
+
+**The predicate.** Every reader (gauntlet-resume at entry, this file at each batch boundary) applies it verbatim over the header block; occurrences below the first `##` never count.
+
+| Header block contains | Reading |
+|---|---|
+| no `**Amend-grant:**` line | no grant (legacy spec; gauntlet-resume reports `No standing grant.`) |
+| exactly one line whose trimmed value is `none` | no grant |
+| exactly one line whose trimmed value is any other non-empty single-line text | grant active; the sentence is that value |
+| two or more lines, one line with an empty value, or a value continued onto the next physical line (any non-blank line directly below the field that is neither a `**Key:**` header line nor a `> **Superseded by:**` banner line) | malformed -> stop, print the offending line(s) |
+
+**Writers.** Spec-writing and the spec gate are owned by `spec-finalization.md`; this file owns the mid-flow changes:
+
+| Event | Edit |
+|---|---|
+| Grant given at a tier-2 footer | `edit` the value to the sentence |
+| Line absent (legacy spec) | insert the line at the writer placement above; when a plan exists, the insertion shifts every heading by one line, so run the section 5 aftermath's anchor repair (`plan_check` until PASS) and commit spec and plan together |
+| Revocation (`revoke auto-apply amends`, `stop auto-applying amends`, or the same intent in other words) | `edit` the value to `none` |
+| Hand-edited line | not an event; the next batch boundary re-reads it and the value found is the current consent |
+
+**Persisting a consent change.** If HEAD's copy of the spec already carries the new value, commit nothing. Otherwise, when the spec file has no other uncommitted change, commit that one file with the message on stdin:
+
+```bash
+printf 'grant: %s\n' "<new value>" | git -C <abs worktree path> commit -q -F - -- <spec path>
+```
+
+When the spec file is mid-batch (uncommitted amend edits), the consent edit rides in that batch's `amend:` commit and the footer acknowledgment says so. Either way, verify `git -C <abs worktree path> show HEAD:<spec path>` satisfies the predicate with the new value; otherwise stop and report. After the line exists, every later change is a same-line value edit; a grant given in a resumed session is an ordinary mid-flow grant.
 
 ## 1. Prepare - never apply yet
 
@@ -26,7 +54,7 @@ Collect every amendment pending at this decision point (same spec-review round,
 
 The working tree stays at pre-batch HEAD until apply (section 5) - nothing is edited before the reviewer and, where needed, the human have answered. A redraw item stops alone first (`../SKILL.md` redraw path); amend items are held and re-batched after it resolves.
 
-**Standing grant active** ([boundaries](#standing-grants)): skip steps 2-4, apply every item, print one line each `amended the spec: <title> - <what>`, record `granted`, and quote the sentence in the commit body.
+**Standing grant active** ([boundaries](#standing-grants)): at every batch boundary re-read the spec's `**Amend-grant:**` line through the predicate; malformed stops the batch with the offending line(s). Active -> skip steps 2-4, apply every item, print one line each `amended the spec: <title> - <what>`, record `granted`, and quote the line's value in the commit body - the record kind `finishing-a-development-branch` Step 4's digest reads is unchanged.
 
 ## 2. Prefilter - no model call
 
@@ -116,7 +144,7 @@ amend: <N> item(s) - <first title>[, <second title>]
 <the granting sentence, quoted, when a grant applied>
 ```
 
-`amend:` is the subject marker `finishing-a-development-branch` Step 4 greps for its digest; `<what>` is the item's one-sentence what-changes field, so the digest renders `<title> - <what changed>` from the body alone. When no item applied (every item dropped or redirected), nothing changed on disk; the commit still lands, with `git commit --allow-empty`, so the per-item `custom(<effect>)` records stay in the batch body - the digest ignores them because it reads only `auto-apply` and `granted` records. Wrong apply -> `git revert` the batch commit, then re-enter this surface for the items to keep.
+`amend:` is the subject marker `finishing-a-development-branch` Step 4 greps for its digest; `<what>` is the item's one-sentence what-changes field, so the digest renders `<title> - <what changed>` from the body alone. When no item applied (every item dropped or redirected), nothing changed on disk; the commit still lands, with `git commit --allow-empty`, so the per-item `custom(<effect>)` records stay in the batch body - the digest ignores them because it reads only `auto-apply` and `granted` records. Wrong apply -> `git revert` the batch commit; then read the `**Amend-grant:**` line from the pre-revert HEAD (`git -C <abs worktree path> show HEAD^:<spec path>` through the predicate) and, if the working tree's line differs, restore that value and persist it per [Standing grants](#standing-grants) before re-entering this surface for the items to keep - the pre-revert HEAD holds every consent change committed so far, revocations included.
 
 ## Conformance entry
 

package/skills/brainstorming/reference/spec-finalization.md

@@ -8,7 +8,9 @@ Spec-writing replaces the context draft, in this exact order:
    pruned questionary plus a full-replacement `write` destroys the only copy of the
    gathered context at the moment it feeds the spec.
 2. Write the spec with the `write` tool (**full replacement**) at the spec path.
-   Using `edit` at this step is a red flag.
+   Using `edit` at this step is a red flag. The header block (between the H1 and the
+   first `##`) carries `**Amend-grant:** none` directly below `**Goal:**`; a redraw's
+   rewrite carries `none` too - a redraw is a new approval, with no carry-over.
 3. **Immediately after the write**, confirm line 1 of the file is no longer
    `# CONTEXT DRAFT - NOT A SPEC - fully replaced at spec-writing` - before
    dispatching lint, critique, council, or summarizer. The phase-tracker commit
@@ -35,13 +37,13 @@ Spec-writing replaces the context draft, in this exact order:
 After writing the spec to `<project>/doc/specs/<filename>.md` (per [Filename Convention](../SKILL.md#filename-convention)) and before showing it to the user, run a self-review pass. Read all six bullets first, then act.
 
 - **Placeholder scan.** Any `TODO`, `TBD`, `<fill in>`, `[example]`, `xxx`? Either resolve them or convert to explicit "Open Questions" with names.
-- **Internal consistency.** Does Section 4 contradict Section 2? Are component names and field names consistent throughout? If the spec replaces a prior design, confirm the predecessor carries the supersession banner and its href resolves to this spec's final filename.
+- **Internal consistency.** Does Section 4 contradict Section 2? Does the header block carry `**Amend-grant:**` exactly once with the value `none` (the [predicate](amendment-surface.md#standing-grants))? Are component names and field names consistent throughout? If the spec replaces a prior design, confirm the predecessor carries the supersession banner and its href resolves to this spec's final filename.
 - **Documentation named.** Does the spec name all three classes (feature/user-facing introduced; materially amended; derived/memory invalidated), or an explicit "none" for each? Enforce the materiality bar in `documentation-impact.md` without restating it: each listed doc names the category it clears, none is a code-mirror, amend-over-create was applied, and skill/agent bodies are implementation surface, not doc-impact entries here.
 - **Ticket contract present.** Does `## Acceptance criteria` exist with either verbatim ticket rows plus dispositions or one `none - <reason>` line? Presence is enforced here, at authoring, and nowhere later.
 - **Scope check.** Does every paragraph serve the goal? Cut filler. If something is out of scope, say it's out of scope.
 - **Ambiguity check.** Is every "we should..." backed by a concrete decision? Replace "we could probably" with "we will" or "we won't".
 
-The first four are the inline **lint**: run them here and fix what they surface. The last two are the **critique pass**, dispatched per [Spec Council](#spec-council). After it returns, re-run the placeholder scan over the applied spec; if a predecessor banner exists, confirm its `<scope>` still matches and reconcile it; carry any ambiguity the critique could not resolve to the [User Review Gate](#user-review-gate).
+The first four are the inline **lint**: run them here and fix what they surface. The last two are the **critique pass**, dispatched per [Spec Council](#spec-council). After it returns, re-run the placeholder scan over the applied spec and re-apply the predicate to the header block - if the critique pass removed or altered the `**Amend-grant:**` line, repair it to `none`, exactly once; if a predecessor banner exists, confirm its `<scope>` still matches and reconcile it; carry any ambiguity the critique could not resolve to the [User Review Gate](#user-review-gate).
 
 ## Spec Council
 
@@ -56,6 +58,7 @@ subagent({ agent: "worker", context: "fresh", async: false, cwd: "<abs worktree
   "Problem statement: <the problem the spec addresses + the user's stated intent>.\n" +
   "Read the spec at <abs path to doc/specs/...>. Edit ONLY that file.\n" +
   "The portable citation `reference/documentation-impact.md` in the spec is the pi-gauntlet guideline at <DOCUMENTATION_IMPACT_GUIDELINE>, not a consumer doc; do not flag it as an external reference, and preserve it - never remove it as redundant or replace it with the resolved absolute path.\n" +
+  "The `**Amend-grant:**` header line is flow machinery owned by the brainstorming gate; never cut, shrink, flag, or edit it.\n" +
   "Apply two checks and fix what you find in place: (1) Scope - does every paragraph serve the goal? Cut filler;\n" +
   "state out-of-scope explicitly. (2) Ambiguity - is every 'we should' a concrete decision?\n" +
   "Replace 'we could probably' with 'we will'/'we won't'. Also inline any load-bearing\n" +
@@ -120,7 +123,7 @@ If you believe the summary needs correcting, do **not** silently rewrite it - re
 
 **Revert valve.** "Revert applied council edit X" is a normal change request: revise the spec to undo edit X, re-dispatch the summarizer with a **fresh** temp path (per the re-dispatch rule below), and re-present the gate. This is cheap here - the spec is not yet plan- or code-bearing.
 
-Wait for the user. On a change request (including a revert), revise the spec and re-present - mint a **fresh** temp path for the re-dispatched summarizer (never reuse a prior round's path, so stale content can never be mistaken for the new summary). On approval - `1`, `approve`, or equivalent prose approves without a grant; `2`, `approve, auto-apply amends`, or equivalent prose approves and grants - proceed immediately to `/skill:writing-plans` with no further prompt; first read [Standing grants](amendment-surface.md#standing-grants) (stop if unreadable) and record any grant. A reply that mixes approval with a change request ("2 but rename the section") is a change request: revise, re-present, and read the grant only from the reply to the re-presented gate. If the grant's `git commit --amend --trailer` step fails, stop and report; never proceed as granted without the trailer. The plan and execution mode are mechanical derivatives, so the only human gate here is spec approval itself. Don't land the spec on `main`; it stays in the worktree and ships in the same squash commit as the implementation.
+Wait for the user. On a change request (including a revert), revise the spec and re-present - mint a **fresh** temp path for the re-dispatched summarizer (never reuse a prior round's path, so stale content can never be mistaken for the new summary). On approval - `1`, `approve`, or equivalent prose approves without a grant; `2`, `approve, auto-apply amends`, or equivalent prose approves and grants - proceed immediately to `/skill:writing-plans` with no further prompt; first read [Standing grants](amendment-surface.md#standing-grants) (stop if unreadable). On a grant (`2`, `approve, auto-apply amends`, or equivalent prose), `edit` the spec's `**Amend-grant:**` value to the granting sentence (the digit `2` becomes the grant description after `2 - approve, auto-apply amends:` above), then `git -C <abs worktree path> add -- <spec path>` and `git -C <abs worktree path> commit --amend --no-edit -q`, so the spec commit carries the line and keeps its council-audit body; then confirm `git -C <abs worktree path> show HEAD:<spec path>` reads "grant active" through the predicate. On a plain approval (`1`, `approve`) the value stays `none` and the commit is untouched. A reply that mixes approval with a change request ("2 but rename the section") is a change request: revise, re-present, and read the grant only from the reply to the re-presented gate. If the amend or the HEAD check fails, stop and report; never proceed as granted. The plan and execution mode are mechanical derivatives, so the only human gate here is spec approval itself. Don't land the spec on `main`; it stays in the worktree and ships in the same squash commit as the implementation.
 
 Post-approval changes follow [Amending an approved spec](../SKILL.md#amending-an-approved-spec).
 

package/skills/gauntlet-resume/SKILL.md

@@ -58,14 +58,14 @@ tried at `<primary>/<specDir>/name.md` per resolved spec dir in order, first hit
 `dirname "$(git rev-parse --path-format=absolute --git-common-dir)"` run in the session
 cwd - absolute from any primary subdirectory and from inside a linked worktree
 (`--show-toplevel` would return the linked worktree there). A pasted brief that needs
-an override uses the file form. A brief then runs entry checks 1-5, so a stale or
+an override uses the file form. A brief then runs entry checks 1-6, so a stale or
 foreign-repo brief stops there.
 
 ## Entry checks
 
 In order. All before any tracker mutation; entry check 1 is read-only. A spec
 seed runs check 1 here, then `reference/seed.md`, which runs check 3 itself;
-checks 2, 4, 5 do not apply.
+checks 2, 4, 5 do not apply; check 6 runs on the seed's pinned spec path.
 
 1. **Idle session.** `phase_tracker({ action: "status" })`. Any phase not pending ->
    stop: "session already carries flow state - reset is your call".
@@ -94,6 +94,24 @@ checks 2, 4, 5 do not apply.
    `skills/*/SKILL.md` in this package; `Read` each match's complete file into the
    transcript; list non-matches as skipped. Loaded bodies are context only - no skill's
    entry actions run until Dispatch names one.
+6. **Grant field.** Runs once the route has resolved `<spec path>` - the `S` path that
+   `reference/brief-contract.md` "Process-state restore" resolves for `skip brainstorm`
+   (process-state briefs), the spec reconstruction resolves and the human approves
+   (Spec without plan) or confirms (Spec with plan) (`reference/reconstruction.md`), or
+   the pinned `<full-path>/<rel>` of a spec tracked on `main` (`reference/seed.md`) -
+   and before that route's first tracker call; the path is carried, never re-resolved.
+   Read the spec's header block (between the H1 and the first `##`) through the
+   predicate in
+   [Standing grants](../brainstorming/reference/amendment-surface.md#standing-grants): no
+   `**Amend-grant:**` line -> no grant (legacy spec);
+   exactly one line whose trimmed value is `none` -> no grant;
+   exactly one line whose trimmed value is any other non-empty single-line text ->
+   grant active, the sentence is that value;
+   two or more lines, one line with an empty value, or a value continued onto the next physical line ->
+   malformed, stop, print the offending line(s), no tracker call. Routes that resolve no
+   approved spec (hotfix, `worktree: no`, a brief whose active phase is brainstorm,
+   reconstruction's unapproved-draft brainstorming handoff) skip this check and print
+   no grant line. Resume reports the line; it never writes it.
 
 ## Dispatch
 
@@ -115,7 +133,7 @@ re-derive the record.
 ## Post-restore continuation
 
 After a successful restore, print the closing line from `reference/brief-contract.md`
-(gate history not restored; the task to re-validate), then continue in the stage's
+(gate history not restored; the task to re-validate), then on its own line exactly one of `Standing grant active: <sentence>` or `No standing grant.` from check 6 (nothing when the check was skipped), then continue in the stage's
 owning skill **without** its reset-bearing entry:
 
 | Active after restore | Continue in | Entry point |

package/skills/gauntlet-resume/reference/brief-contract.md

@@ -119,10 +119,12 @@ Facts that fix the order (from the extensions):
 
 Per-stage call table, keyed by the brief's active phase (`→`). Use
 `R = resume: <brief file or "pasted brief">` for plan/implement/verify skips and
-`S = resume: <spec path>` for brainstorm skips. Resolve `<spec path>` to the absolute
-path of the single `*.md` spec added after base in the worktree under `flowGuards.specDirs`
-(as enumerated in `reconstruction.md`, "Candidates"). Zero specs -> stop; more than
-one -> human picks.
+`S = resume: <spec path>` for brainstorm skips. Resolve `<spec path>` as
+`reconstruction.md` "Candidates" does, to an absolute path under the worktree: the single
+`*.md` spec added after base under `flowGuards.specDirs`, or a spec tracked from base when
+a plan added after base pairs with it by basename. Zero specs -> stop; more than one ->
+human picks. The consumer carries this path to its entry check 6 and its post-restore
+announcement without re-resolving it.
 
 | Active | Calls, in order |
 |---|---|

package/skills/gauntlet-resume/reference/reconstruction.md

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ Ask exactly one question: is this spec approved, or do you select `/skill:brains
 with this unapproved spec as the draft? Show the spec path (and the brief's
 `## Intent`/`## Decisions` when present).
 
-- Approved: `start brainstorm`; `skip brainstorm resume: <spec path>`; `start plan`;
+- Approved: run SKILL.md entry check 6 on `<spec path>` first (a malformed `**Amend-grant:**` line stops here, no tracker call); then `start brainstorm`; `skip brainstorm resume: <spec path>`; `start plan`;
   continue in writing-plans (its own `start plan` is skipped - plan is already
   in_progress).
 - Selected unapproved-draft brainstorming handoff: invoke [`/skill:brainstorming`](../../brainstorming/SKILL.md) with
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ edits override proposals; never rewrite confirmed state silently.
 
 After confirmation:
 
-1. `start brainstorm`; `skip brainstorm resume: <spec path>`; `start plan`.
+1. Run SKILL.md entry check 6 on `<spec path>` (a malformed `**Amend-grant:**` line stops here, no tracker call); then `start brainstorm`; `skip brainstorm resume: <spec path>`; `start plan`.
 2. `plan_check` with `planPath` = the plan's absolute path. FAIL -> print the findings, stop with plan
    in_progress, no `init`.
 3. PASS -> `skip plan` with the same `resume:` reason; for stage verify also

package/skills/roasting-the-spec/SKILL.md

@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ subagent({
     cwd: "<abs worktree path>",
     task: "Problem statement: <the problem the spec addresses, from its Context section and the user's stated intent>.\n" +
           "Human input (verbatim; off-limits for over-spec):\n```\n<original prompt>\n<ticket AC snapshot, if any>\n<questionary answers that changed scope>\n```\n" +
-          "Read the spec at <abs path to doc/specs/...>. The portable citation `reference/documentation-impact.md` in the spec is the pi-gauntlet guideline at <DOCUMENTATION_IMPACT_GUIDELINE>, not a consumer doc; do not flag it as an external reference. Verify the spec's load-bearing claims against the codebase, bounded per your verification-hygiene rules (rg, explicit paths, timeout 30). Critique it on your five axes and emit your template.",
+          "Read the spec at <abs path to doc/specs/...>. The portable citation `reference/documentation-impact.md` in the spec is the pi-gauntlet guideline at <DOCUMENTATION_IMPACT_GUIDELINE>, not a consumer doc; do not flag it as an external reference. The `**Amend-grant:**` header line is flow machinery owned by the brainstorming gate; never cut, shrink, flag, or edit it. Verify the spec's load-bearing claims against the codebase, bounded per your verification-hygiene rules (rg, explicit paths, timeout 30). Critique it on your five axes and emit your template.",
     output: "<tmpdir>/member-" + i + "-" + slug(model) + ".md"
   }))
 })
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ subagent({
         "Member critiques (already injected via reads — do not search for them):\n" +
         usableMemberPaths.join("\n") + "\n" +
         "Coverage: <N> of <M> members reported<; <slug>: <one-line reason> per missing member>.\n" +
-        "The portable citation `reference/documentation-impact.md` in the spec is the pi-gauntlet guideline at <DOCUMENTATION_IMPACT_GUIDELINE>, not a consumer doc; do not flag it as an external reference.\n" +
+        "The portable citation `reference/documentation-impact.md` in the spec is the pi-gauntlet guideline at <DOCUMENTATION_IMPACT_GUIDELINE>, not a consumer doc; do not flag it as an external reference. The `**Amend-grant:**` header line is flow machinery owned by the brainstorming gate; never cut, shrink, flag, or edit it.\n" +
         "Consolidate and adjudicate the member critiques. Codebase access is permitted for contested-claim checks only, bounded per your hygiene rules (rg, explicit paths, timeout 30)."
 })
 ```