pstack-dsh 0.2.3

package/skills/create-verification-skill/references/feature-map-example/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Notes verification map
+
+This directory is the maintained source for verifying the user-facing behavior of Notes. Read the index before driving the app, then use the matching feature file as the recipe.
+
+## Baseline preconditions
+
+- Launch Notes at `http://127.0.0.1:4173` with a disposable data directory.
+- Set `NOTES_DATA_DIR=/tmp/notes-verify-$RUN_ID` so concurrent runs do not share state.
+- Seed notes titled `Quarterly plan` and `Grocery list`.
+- Put `control-notes` and the `notes` CLI on `PATH`.
+- Run `control-notes doctor` and require the expected URL, data directory, and build revision.
+- Never drive an instance that was not started by this verification run.
+
+## Driving conventions
+
+- Start every recipe from the baseline state unless its preconditions say otherwise.
+- Prefer ARIA roles and accessible names over CSS selectors or DOM position.
+- Treat every command as literal. Keep quoted names and flags unchanged.
+- Run browser actions through `control-notes browser`.
+- Run terminal actions through `control-notes cli -- <command>`.
+- Restore seeded data after a mutation. Do not remove proof artifacts during cleanup.
+
+## Proof and skip reporting
+
+- Capture the user action and the resulting state, not only the final screen.
+- UI proof includes an ARIA snapshot and a screenshot with the app identity visible.
+- CLI proof includes the command, stdout, stderr, and exit code.
+- Mutation proof includes a read-only second view of the stored value.
+- Record the feature ID and entry point used with every artifact.
+- Report an unreachable path with the attempted command and the unmet precondition.
+- Do not report a skipped entry point as verified through a different path.
+
+## Feature entry contract
+
+Each feature file starts with an H1 title and one paragraph describing the user-visible behavior. It then uses exactly four H2 sections in this order.
+
+1. `Sub-features` lists short IDs with one line for each behavior.
+2. `How to get to it (user POV)` lists every user entry point.
+3. `Driving it with <harness>` starts with `Preconditions:` and uses labeled bullets that pair each user action with an exact command and observable result.
+4. `Gotchas` lists traps that can waste or invalidate a verification run.
+
+Keep implementation details out of the map. Name only user paths, stable handles, required state, commands, and observable proof.
+
+## Features
+
+- [Create a note](./create-note.md) covers browser and CLI creation, cancellation, persistence, and cleanup.
+- [Search notes](./search.md) covers toolbar, keyboard, and CLI search with matching, empty, and clear states.

package/skills/create-verification-skill/references/feature-map-example/create-note.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# Create a note
+
+Create note lets a user save a titled note from the browser or CLI, cancel an unfinished draft, and confirm the saved note from a second user-facing view.
+
+## Sub-features
+
+- `create-open` opens a blank editor from each browser entry point.
+- `create-save` persists a title and body.
+- `create-cancel` discards an unfinished browser draft.
+- `create-cli` creates the same note shape from the terminal.
+
+## How to get to it (user POV)
+
+- Choose the `New note` button in the browser toolbar.
+- Press `n` in the browser while focus is outside an editable field.
+- Run `notes create --title <title> --body <body>` in a terminal.
+
+## Driving it with control-notes
+
+Preconditions:
+
+- Notes is healthy at `http://127.0.0.1:4173`.
+- No note is titled `Release checklist`.
+- `control-notes doctor` reports the expected URL and disposable data directory.
+
+- **Open editor.** Choose `New note`. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "New note"`. A form named `Note editor` appears with focus in the `Title` textbox.
+- **Enter content.** Type the title and body. Run `control-notes browser fill --role textbox --name "Title" --value "Release checklist"` and `control-notes browser fill --role textbox --name "Body" --value "Tag and publish"`. The `Save note` button becomes enabled.
+- **Save note.** Choose `Save note`. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "Save note"`. A status named `Note saved` appears and the heading reads `Release checklist`.
+- **Confirm persistence.** Return to the note list and reopen the note. Run `control-notes browser click --role link --name "All notes"` and `control-notes browser click --role link --name "Release checklist"`. The editor shows both saved values.
+- **Cancel draft.** Open a new note, enter `Discard me`, and choose `Cancel`. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "New note"`, `control-notes browser fill --role textbox --name "Title" --value "Discard me"`, and `control-notes browser click --role button --name "Cancel"`. The note list returns and has no `Discard me` link.
+- **CLI entry.** Create a second note. Run `control-notes cli -- notes create --title "CLI note" --body "Created from terminal" --format json`. Exit code `0` and stdout contain the new note ID and title.
+- **Proof.** Reopen both saved notes from `All notes`. Run `control-notes browser snapshot --aria --path artifacts/create-note/list.aria.txt` and `control-notes browser screenshot --path artifacts/create-note/list.png`. The artifacts show `Release checklist` and `CLI note`.
+
+## Gotchas
+
+- Pressing `n` while a textbox has focus types the character instead of opening a new editor.
+- Titles are trimmed on save. Assert the rendered title, not the draft input value.
+- A save status alone is insufficient proof. Reopen the note from the list.
+- Remove `Release checklist` and `CLI note` during fixture cleanup, but retain their proof artifacts.

package/skills/create-verification-skill/references/feature-map-example/search.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Search notes
+
+Search lets a user find notes by title or body text, inspect a matching note, and distinguish no matches from an unavailable search.
+
+## Sub-features
+
+- `search-open` opens search from each supported browser entry point.
+- `search-match` returns title and body matches without changing note data.
+- `search-open-result` opens a result in the note editor.
+- `search-empty` shows a complete empty state for a query with no matches.
+- `search-clear` removes the query and restores the recent-notes view.
+- `search-cli` returns the same matching notes from the terminal.
+
+## How to get to it (user POV)
+
+- Choose the `Search` button in the browser toolbar.
+- Press `/` in the browser while focus is outside an editable field.
+- Run `notes search <query>` in a terminal.
+
+## Driving it with control-notes
+
+Preconditions:
+
+- Notes is healthy at `http://127.0.0.1:4173`.
+- The disposable data directory contains `Quarterly plan` with body text `Draft budget`.
+- `control-notes doctor` reports the expected URL and data directory.
+
+- **Toolbar entry.** Choose the `Search` button. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "Search"`. A dialog named `Search notes` appears with focus in its searchbox.
+- **Keyboard entry.** Close the dialog, focus the page, and press `/`. Run `control-notes browser press --key "/"`. The same dialog appears and the page does not insert a slash.
+- **Title match.** Type `quarterly`. Run `control-notes browser fill --role searchbox --name "Search notes" --value "quarterly"`. The `Search results` list contains `Quarterly plan` and does not contain `Grocery list`.
+- **Body match.** Replace the query with `budget`. Run `control-notes browser fill --role searchbox --name "Search notes" --value "budget"`. The result `Quarterly plan` remains visible with a body-match excerpt.
+- **Open result.** Choose `Quarterly plan`. Run `control-notes browser click --role link --name "Quarterly plan"`. The dialog closes and the editor heading reads `Quarterly plan`.
+- **Empty state.** Reopen search and enter `volcano`. Run `control-notes browser fill --role searchbox --name "Search notes" --value "volcano"`. A status named `No matching notes` appears after search completes.
+- **Clear query.** Choose `Clear search`. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "Clear search"`. The searchbox is empty and the `Recent notes` region replaces the result list.
+- **CLI match.** Search from the terminal. Run `control-notes cli -- notes search "quarterly" --format json`. Exit code `0` and stdout contain one object whose title is `Quarterly plan`.
+- **CLI miss.** Search for an absent value. Run `control-notes cli -- notes search "volcano" --format json`. Exit code `0` and stdout are `[]`.
+- **Proof.** Capture the populated result state. Run `control-notes browser snapshot --aria --path artifacts/search/results.aria.txt` and `control-notes browser screenshot --path artifacts/search/results.png`. Both artifacts identify Notes, the query, and `Quarterly plan`.
+
+## Gotchas
+
+- Pressing `/` while the editor or searchbox has focus inserts text instead of opening search.
+- Results update after a short debounce. Wait for the results list or empty status, not a fixed sleep.
+- Archived notes are excluded unless the user enables `Include archived`.
+- The CLI defaults to human-readable output. Use `--format json` for stable assertions.
+- Opening a result changes browser state. Reopen search before proving another query.

package/skills/figure-it-out/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+name: figure-it-out
+description: "Design an auditable playbook when no narrower one fits: a large migration, an ambitious multi-part change, or work a human reviews after stepping away. Scales rigor to the task, runs a hypothesis loop, and logs decisions via show-me-your-work. Use for /figure-it-out, 'figure it out', a large migration, or when no narrower playbook applies."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Figure it out
+
+When the task matches no playbook, design one. The deliverable before any code is the workflow itself: a sequence of phases that scales rigor to the task, runs the scientific method, and leaves a decision trail a human can audit after stepping away. Bias toward more rigor. The cost of building the wrong thing dwarfs the cost of being careful.
+
+## Start
+
+Open a todolist whose first item is to read the Principles section of the **poteto-mode** skill. Then add the phases below as todos.
+
+## Phase A: Frame
+
+Ground first, then commit. Don't start the run until you can state:
+
+- The definition of done as a falsifiable predicate, per the **prove-it-works** principle skill.
+- Scope, quantified. Rough units and effort, plus the blockers grounding surfaced.
+- The rigor level, biased high. One-way doors and high blast radius get more. Reversible low-stakes steps get less. Rigor is gates and artifacts, not "try harder".
+
+Present the framing and tradeoffs before committing to a long run. Reversible work proceeds (the **never-block-on-the-human** principle skill), but a multi-hour run earns one checkpoint.
+
+## Phase B: Design the workflow
+
+Decompose into atomic, independently-landable units. Sequence riskiest-unknown-first. Scaffold and verification come before features (the **foundational-thinking** principle skill).
+
+- Build the verification harness before the work, with the baseline captured from the pre-change state, so the check reads as "old value vs new value".
+- For one-way-door design decisions, run the **architect** skill, which runs **arena**. Skip it for mechanical work whose shape is already concrete. A second arena over a settled design is over-engineering (the **laziness-protocol** principle skill).
+- Decide what fans out. Parallelize only across genuine seams, and give each worker its own worktree or branch (the **separate-before-serializing-shared-state** principle skill). Don't over-fan.
+- Write the designed phase list down. That list is what the human reviews.
+
+Then execute the design. Add its steps to the todolist as concrete items, after the Phase C entry and before Phase D. Run each under the Phase C loop discipline, and weave the Phase D log through them, a row as each step lands, rather than saving the whole trail for the end.
+
+## Phase C: Run the loop
+
+Each unit is an experiment. State the hypothesis, make the smallest change, measure against the predicate on the real artifact, keep it if it advanced, revert it if it didn't.
+Apply the **sequence-verifiable-units** principle skill, verifying each unit before starting the next instead of batching checks at the end.
+
+- Verify by inspecting the artifact, never a self-report. When something passes too easily, suspect the observation method before the system.
+- Pair delegated work with a judge and audit the delegates' artifacts yourself before trusting them. If a worker games the gate, reset and harden the contract. If the gate itself is wrong, fix the gate in its own change rather than routing around it.
+- A verdict is VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE. Inconclusive is not a pass. Don't hide a negative.
+
+## Phase D: Keep the audit trail
+
+Log the run via the **show-me-your-work** skill, one canonical TSV with a row per decision and per unit, evidence as links. figure-it-out's work is usually ambitious enough to commit the trail so the reviewer can read it in the PR. Commit it when confidence has to be shown. Prefer evidence produced by committed scripts. The trail plus the diff is what lets the human come back and trust the work.
+
+## Phase E: Verify and hand back
+
+Check the whole against the Phase A predicate on the real product, not just the harness. Encode any recurring correction as a gate, a lint rule, a check, or a script, per the **encode-lessons-in-structure** principle skill.
+
+**Reply:** the playbook you designed, the rigor level and why, the decision-trail path, what's verified against the predicate, and what's still open.

package/skills/how/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+name: how
+description: "Use for \"how does X work\", code walkthroughs before changing something, and placement / ownership / layering questions (\"where should this live\", \"which package owns this\", \"is this the right layer\"). Explains subsystem architecture, runtime flow, onboarding mental models. Use why for motivation."
+---
+
+# How
+
+Explore the codebase to answer "how does X work?" questions. Produce architectural explanations at the level of a senior engineer onboarding onto a subsystem, enough to build a working mental model without annotating the source code.
+
+## Step 1. Assess complexity
+
+If the scope is ambiguous, state your interpretation and explore. The user can redirect.
+
+- **Simple**, a single module, small utility, or narrow question such as "how does function X work". No explorers. One explainer explores and explains in a single pass. Go to Step 2b.
+- **Complex**, a subsystem spanning multiple files or services, a cross-cutting feature, or a full architectural overview. Spawn parallel explorers first, then hand off to the explainer. Go to Step 2a.
+
+When in doubt, take the simple path.
+
+## Step 2a. Explore, complex questions only
+
+Decompose the question into 2 to 4 exploration angles, each a distinct slice of the subsystem.
+
+Spawn all explorers in a single message with `pstack_spawn` (`role: how-explorer`, `run_in_background: true`). Follow [`../setup-pstack/references/spawn.md`](../setup-pstack/references/spawn.md). Do not send `model`. Overlay maps the route when setup wrote one, otherwise inherit this conversation. Instruct no writes in the prompt. Posture, not a sandbox.
+
+Each explorer gets the prompt in `references/explorer-prompt.md` with its angle filled in. Then go to Step 3.
+
+## Step 2b. Direct explain, simple questions
+
+Spawn a single `pstack_spawn` (`role: how-explainer`, `run_in_background: true`) that explores and explains in one pass. Do not send `model`. Overlay or inherit. Instruct no writes in the prompt.
+
+Build its prompt from `references/explainer-prompt.md` without the explorer-findings section. Go to Step 4.
+
+## Step 3. Synthesize, complex questions only
+
+Once all explorers return, spawn a single `pstack_spawn` (`role: how-explainer`) to synthesize their findings into one explanation. Do not send `model`. Overlay or inherit. Instruct no writes in the prompt.
+
+Build its prompt from `references/explainer-prompt.md` with every explorer's findings filled in.
+
+## Step 4. Present
+
+Present the explainer's output to the user. Light edits for clarity or context from the conversation are fine. Do not substantially rewrite it.
+
+## Output format
+
+The explanation uses the sections defined in `references/explainer-prompt.md`, dropping any that do not apply: Overview, Key Concepts, How It Works, Where Things Live, Gotchas.

package/skills/how/references/explainer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Explainer Prompt Template
+
+Build the explainer subagent's prompt from this template. Fill in the placeholders.
+
+---
+
+You are writing an architectural explanation for a senior engineer. Multiple explorer agents have traced different slices of the codebase in parallel and gathered findings. Synthesize their findings into one coherent, well-structured explanation.
+
+## Original Question
+
+> {QUESTION}
+
+## Explorer Findings
+
+{EXPLORER_FINDINGS_ALL}
+
+## Instructions
+
+The explorers each investigated a different angle of the same subsystem. Their findings will overlap in places and may occasionally contradict. Reconcile them. Merge overlapping descriptions, resolve contradictions by checking the code yourself, and combine the separate slices into a unified picture.
+
+Write an explanation a senior engineer unfamiliar with this area could read and walk away with a solid mental model, understanding the architecture well enough to start working in it confidently.
+
+You have read-only access to the codebase to check anything, clarify a detail, or fill a gap. Use Read, Grep, and Glob as needed. The explorers did the work, so you shouldn't need to re-explore from scratch.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Use this structure, adapted to what makes sense for the question. Not every section is needed for every question.
+
+### Overview
+1-2 paragraphs. What is this thing, what does it do, why does it exist. Someone should be able to read just this and decide whether to keep reading.
+
+### Key Concepts
+The important types, services, or abstractions needed to follow the rest. Brief definitions, not exhaustive.
+
+### How It Works
+The core of the explanation, and the longest section. Walk through the flow: what triggers it, what happens step by step, where data goes, what the decision points are.
+
+Use prose, not pseudocode. Reference specific files and functions so the reader knows where to look, but don't dump large code blocks unless a snippet is essential to a point.
+
+When the flow involves multiple components talking to each other, or data transforming through stages, include a diagram. Use mermaid (```mermaid) for structured flows (sequence diagrams, flowcharts, component graphs) or ASCII art for simpler relationships where mermaid would be overkill. Use your judgment. A diagram should clarify, not decorate. If prose covers the flow, skip the diagram.
+
+### Where Things Live
+A brief file/directory map. Just the ones someone would need to start working here.
+
+### Gotchas
+Non-obvious things, surprising behavior, historical context, pitfalls. Skip this section if there's nothing worth calling out.
+
+## Communication Style
+
+- Use concrete language, not abstractions-about-abstractions
+- Say "the `UserService` calls `AuthClient.refresh()`" not "the service delegates to the client"
+- When something is complex, explain why it's complex. Don't just describe the complexity
+- When something is simple, don't pad it out
+- If there's a helpful analogy, use it. If there isn't, don't force one
+- If the explorers flagged open questions or gaps, acknowledge them rather than hiding them

package/skills/how/references/explorer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Explorer Prompt Template
+
+Build each explorer subagent's prompt from this template. Fill in the placeholders.
+
+---
+
+You are exploring a codebase to understand how something works. Gather facts: trace code paths, read implementations, map components. A separate agent will write the human-facing explanation from your findings, so favor thoroughness and accuracy over prose.
+
+Other explorers are investigating different slices of the same subsystem in parallel. Don't try to cover everything. Focus on your assigned angle and go deep.
+
+## Question
+
+> {QUESTION}
+
+## Your Exploration Angle
+
+{EXPLORATION_ANGLE}
+
+## Exploration Instructions
+
+Start by finding the relevant code. Use Glob to find directories and files, Grep to find key symbols, Read to understand the actual implementation. Don't guess from names. Read the code.
+
+Follow this pattern:
+1. **Find the entry point.** What triggers this behavior? A user action, an API call, a scheduled job? Find where it starts.
+2. **Trace the flow.** Follow the call chain from the entry point. Read each function. Understand what data flows through and how it transforms.
+3. **Map the key abstractions.** What types, interfaces, services, or classes are central? Read their definitions. Understand what they represent and why they exist.
+4. **Find the boundaries.** Where does this subsystem interface with others? What goes in, what comes out?
+5. **Look for the non-obvious.** Anything surprising? Anything that looks like a historical artifact? Anything a newcomer would misunderstand?
+
+Keep exploring until you can describe the full picture without hand-waving. If you hit a part you can't trace, say so explicitly. "I couldn't determine how X connects to Y" is better than making something up.
+
+## Output
+
+Return your findings in this structure. Be factual and specific. Reference exact file paths, function names, type names, and line numbers where relevant.
+
+### Components Found
+The key types, services, classes, and abstractions. For each: name, file path, and a one-sentence description of what it does.
+
+### Flow
+The execution flow step by step. For each step: what function/method runs, what file it's in, what it does, what it calls next. Include the data that flows between steps.
+
+### Files Read
+Every file you read during exploration, so the explainer can reference them.
+
+### Boundaries
+Where this subsystem connects to other parts of the codebase. The inputs and outputs.
+
+### Non-Obvious Things
+Anything surprising, historically motivated, or easy to get wrong. Things that look like they should work one way but work another.
+
+### Open Questions
+Anything you couldn't fully trace or understand. Be honest about gaps.

package/skills/interrogate/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+---
+name: interrogate
+description: "Use for \"interrogate\", \"adversarial review\", \"multi-model review\", \"challenge this\", \"stress test this code\", \"find blind spots\", or \"tear this apart\". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Interrogate
+
+Spawn one reviewer per configured model to adversarially review code changes. Each model gets the same prompt and rubric. The adversarial signal comes from model diversity, not assigned personas.
+
+The deliverable is a synthesized verdict. Do NOT auto-apply changes.
+
+## Step 1, Determine Scope
+
+Identify what to review from context:
+
+- If the user points at specific files or a diff, use that
+- If on a feature branch, run `git diff main...HEAD` (or the appropriate base branch) for the full changeset
+- If the user's message references recent work, gather the relevant files
+
+Package the diff (or file contents) plus any surrounding context files the reviewers need to understand the code.
+
+## Step 2, State the Intent
+
+Before spawning reviewers, state the intent explicitly. Derive this from:
+
+- The user's message
+- Commit messages
+- PR description if one exists
+- The code itself
+
+Write one clear paragraph. If you're unsure about the intent, ask the user before proceeding.
+
+## Step 3, Spawn Reviewers
+
+Launch all reviewers in a single message using `pstack_spawn`. Call `pstack_overlay_read` for `interrogate-reviewers`. If the overlay lists routes, one reviewer per entry with `route_index`. If it inherits, spawn two independent reviewers both inheriting this conversation. Do not invent slugs. Do not use a default Cursor panel table.
+
+For each reviewer: `role: interrogate-reviewers`, `run_in_background: true`. Do not send `model` or `readonly`. Instruct no writes in the prompt. Follow [`../setup-pstack/references/spawn.md`](../setup-pstack/references/spawn.md).
+
+Read `references/reviewer-prompt.md` and fill in the template with:
+1. The stated intent
+2. The diff or file contents
+3. The review rubric from `references/rubric.md`
+4. The code-quality lens from `references/code-quality-review.md`
+
+The same filled template goes to all reviewers, so every model applies the code-quality lens.
+
+## Step 4, Synthesize
+
+As results come back, build a unified picture:
+
+1. **Parse all findings** from the reviewers
+2. **Identify consensus**. Findings raised by 2+ models independently are highest signal.
+3. **Identify lone-model findings**. Still worth reading, but weight accordingly.
+4. **Deduplicate**. Different models may describe the same issue differently. Merge these and note which models raised it.
+5. **Note disagreements**. If one model flags something and another explicitly says the opposite, that's useful context for the verdict.
+
+## Step 5, Lead Judgment
+
+You are the lead reviewer, a pragmatic senior engineer, not a neutral aggregator.
+
+Read `references/lead-judgment.md` for the full framework.
+
+Categorize every finding using these buckets:
+
+- **Act on**. Real issues affecting correctness, security, or maintainability given the actual goals. These would block a real PR.
+- **Consider**. Legitimate points, but you're not sure they outweigh the cost of addressing them right now. Worth the user's attention.
+- **Noted**. Technically valid but not actionable. Context-dependent, premature optimization, or low-impact given the current stage.
+- **Dismissed**. Wrong, nitpicky, or missing context. Brief explanation why.
+
+For each finding, include:
+- Which model(s) raised it
+- The category (act on / consider / noted / dismissed)
+- A one-line rationale for the categorization
+
+## Output Format
+
+Present the verdict in this structure:
+
+### Intent
+> [The stated intent paragraph from Step 2]
+
+### Reviewers
+- Reviewer [label]: [model name], [N findings] (one bullet per reviewer)
+
+### Act On
+[Findings that should be addressed. For each: description, which models raised it, why it matters.]
+
+### Consider
+[Findings worth thinking about. For each: description, which models raised it, tradeoff involved.]
+
+### Noted
+[Valid but low-priority. Brief list.]
+
+### Dismissed
+[Rejected findings with brief rationale.]
+
+### Agreement Map
+[Where did models agree, where did they diverge, and what does the pattern of agreement/disagreement tell us?]

package/skills/interrogate/references/code-quality-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Code Quality Review
+
+Each reviewer applies this code-quality lens in addition to the rubric. It is a strict standard focused on implementation quality, maintainability, abstraction quality, and codebase health.
+
+Above all, be ambitious about code structure. Do not merely identify local cleanup. Actively search for "code judo" moves, restructurings that preserve behavior while making the implementation dramatically simpler, smaller, more direct, and more elegant.
+
+## Core Prompt
+
+Start from this baseline:
+
+> Perform a deep code quality audit of the current branch's changes.
+> Rethink how to structure / implement the changes to meaningfully improve code quality without impacting behavior.
+> Work to improve abstractions, modularity, reduce Spaghetti code, improve succinctness and legibility.
+> Be ambitious, if there is a clear path to improving the implementation that involves restructuring some of the codebase, go for it.
+> Be extremely thorough and rigorous. Measure twice, cut once.
+
+## Dimensions
+
+Each dimension is stated once. Apply the ones that are relevant.
+
+0. **Be ambitious about structural simplification.** Do not stop at "this could be a bit cleaner." Look for reframings that make whole branches, helpers, modes, conditionals, or layers disappear. Assume a "code judo" move is often available. It uses the existing architecture more effectively and makes the change dramatically simpler. If you can delete complexity rather than rearrange it, push hard for that.
+
+1. **Do not let a PR push a file from under 1k lines to over 1k lines without a very strong reason.** Treat this as a strong smell. Prefer extracting helpers, subcomponents, or modules. If the diff crosses that threshold, ask whether the code should be decomposed first. Waive only for a compelling structural reason where the resulting file stays clearly organized.
+
+2. **Do not allow spaghetti growth in existing code.** Be suspicious of new ad-hoc conditionals, scattered special cases, or one-off branches inserted into unrelated flows. Treat "weird if statements in random places" as a design problem, not a style nit. Prefer pushing the logic into a dedicated helper, state machine, or module instead of tangling an existing path.
+
+3. **Bias toward cleaning the design, not just accepting working code.** If behavior can stay the same while the structure becomes meaningfully cleaner, push for the cleaner version. Prefer simplifications that remove moving pieces over refactors that spread the same complexity around.
+
+4. **Prefer direct, boring, maintainable code over hacky or magical code.** Treat brittle, ad-hoc, or "magic" behavior as a problem. Be skeptical of generic mechanisms that hide simple data-shape assumptions. Flag thin abstractions, identity wrappers, or pass-through helpers that add indirection without buying clarity.
+
+5. **Push on type and boundary cleanliness when it affects maintainability.** Question unnecessary optionality, `unknown`, `any`, or cast-heavy code when a clearer type boundary could exist. Prefer explicit typed models over loosely-shaped ad-hoc objects. If a branch leans on a silent fallback to paper over an unclear invariant, ask whether the boundary should be made explicit.
+
+6. **Keep logic in the canonical layer and reuse existing helpers.** Call out feature logic leaking into shared paths or implementation details leaking through APIs. Prefer existing canonical utilities over bespoke one-offs. Push code toward the right package, service, or module instead of normalizing drift.
+
+7. **Treat unnecessary sequential orchestration and non-atomic updates as design smells when the cleaner structure is obvious.** If independent work is serialized for no reason, ask whether it should run in parallel. If related updates can leave state half-applied, push for a more atomic structure. Do not over-index on micro-optimizations, but do flag avoidable orchestration complexity that makes the code more brittle.
+
+## Output Expectations
+
+Prioritize structural code-quality regressions and missed simplifications first, then spaghetti and branching complexity, then boundary, type, and file-size concerns, then smaller modularity and legibility issues. Do not flood the review with low-value nits when larger structural issues exist. Prefer a few high-conviction comments over a long list of cosmetic notes.
+
+## Approval Bar
+
+Do not approve merely because behavior seems correct. Treat these as presumptive blockers unless the author can justify them: the PR keeps a lot of incidental complexity when a code-judo move would delete it. Pushes a file from below 1000 lines to above 1000 lines. Adds ad-hoc branching that tangles an existing flow. Scatters feature checks across shared code. Adds an unnecessary abstraction, wrapper, or cast-heavy contract, or duplicates an existing helper or puts logic in the wrong layer when there is a clear canonical home. If those conditions are not met, leave explicit, actionable feedback and push for a cleaner decomposition.
+
+## Review Tone
+
+Be direct, serious, and demanding about quality. Do not be rude, but do not soften major maintainability issues into mild suggestions. If the code is making the codebase messier, say so. If the implementation missed an obvious dramatic simplification, say that too. Do not be satisfied with "maybe rename this" when the real issue is structural.

package/skills/interrogate/references/lead-judgment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Lead Judgment Framework
+
+You are the lead reviewer. The configured reviewers have produced their findings. Apply pragmatic engineering judgment. Don't aggregate. Filter, contextualize, and decide.
+
+## Why This Step Matters
+
+Adversarial reviewers are useful because they're aggressive. But aggression without context produces noise. The reviewers only saw a slice of the codebase and a one-paragraph intent statement. They don't know:
+
+- What was already tried and rejected
+- What constraints exist outside the code (timeline, dependencies, migration plans)
+- Which parts of the code are temporary scaffolding vs. permanent architecture
+- What the next PR in the stack will address
+
+You have the full conversation context. Use it.
+
+## Filtering Principles
+
+### Nitpick Gravity
+
+Reviewers, especially adversarial ones, tend to fill their review. If they don't find critical issues, they'll inflate nits to fill the space. If a reviewer's findings are all nits and style preferences, the code is probably fine. Say so.
+
+### Hypothetical vs. Actual
+
+"What if someone passes null here?" is only a finding if the caller can actually pass null. Trace the call site. If the input is validated upstream or the type system prevents it, dismiss the finding. Reviewers working from a diff can't always see the full call chain. You can.
+
+### Premature Abstraction Warnings
+
+Reviewers often suggest extracting functions, adding interfaces, or creating abstractions. Does this code need to change in a second way? If not, the abstraction is premature. Simple inline code that works beats a clean abstraction that's overkill for the current scope.
+
+### "I Would Have Done It Differently"
+
+This is the most common false positive in code review. A finding that amounts to "I prefer a different approach" is not a bug, not a design flaw, and not actionable unless the reviewer shows a concrete problem with the current approach. Dismiss these, and say why.
+
+### Missing Context Signals
+
+Watch for findings that reveal the reviewer didn't understand the context:
+- Suggesting changes to code the author didn't write or modify
+- Flagging patterns that are consistent with the rest of the codebase (the reviewer just doesn't know that)
+- Recommending approaches that conflict with constraints you know about
+
+These are honest mistakes from reviewers working with limited information. Dismiss them gracefully.
+
+## When Reviewers Are Right
+
+Don't dismiss findings just because they're uncomfortable. The whole point of adversarial review is to catch things you'd miss. Signs a finding deserves attention:
+
+- Multiple models flag the same issue independently (consensus signal)
+- The finding identifies a concrete execution path, not a hypothetical
+- The finding reveals a gap in your mental model of the code
+- You read the finding and think "...yeah, actually"
+
+Be especially careful about dismissing security findings and correctness bugs. These deserve more scrutiny even when they come from a single model.
+
+## Verdict Calibration
+
+A good verdict is useful, not comprehensive. The user should be able to read the "Act On" section, fix those issues, and ship with confidence. If your "Act On" list has more than 5 items, you're probably not filtering hard enough.
+
+The "Dismissed" section is not busywork. It's a trust mechanism. Showing the user what you rejected and why lets them override your judgment where they disagree. This is more valuable than hiding the rejected findings.

package/skills/interrogate/references/reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Build each reviewer subagent's prompt from this template, filling in the placeholders.
+
+---
+
+You are an adversarial code reviewer. Find real problems in the code below: bugs, design flaws, security issues, and maintainability concerns. You are not here to be helpful or encouraging. You are here to stress-test.
+
+## Intent
+
+The author's stated intent for this change:
+
+> {INTENT}
+
+You are reviewing whether the code achieves this intent well. Do NOT question the intent itself. Assume the goal is correct and challenge the execution.
+
+## Code Under Review
+
+{DIFF_OR_FILES}
+
+## Review Rubric
+
+{RUBRIC_CONTENTS}
+
+## Code Quality Lens
+
+{CODE_QUALITY_CONTENTS}
+
+## Instructions
+
+Review the code through every lens in the rubric and the code-quality lens above that you find relevant. Do not force lenses that don't apply. A simple bug fix does not need paragraphs about architectural integrity.
+
+For each finding, provide:
+
+1. **Severity**: `critical` | `warning` | `nit`
+   - `critical`: Would cause bugs, data loss, security issues, or fundamentally broken behavior
+   - `warning`: Design concern, maintainability risk, or correctness issue that isn't immediately broken but will cause pain
+   - `nit`: Style, naming, minor improvement. Only include nits if they're genuinely useful, not to pad your review.
+2. **Finding**: What the problem is, in concrete terms. Reference specific lines/functions.
+3. **Evidence**: Why you believe this is a problem. Show your reasoning. Don't just assert.
+4. **Suggestion** (optional): What you'd do instead, if you have a concrete alternative. Skip this if you don't have a clear fix.
+
+## What Makes a Good Finding
+
+- It references specific code, not vague concerns ("this could be better")
+- It explains WHY something is a problem, not just THAT it is
+- It distinguishes between "this is broken" and "I would have done this differently"
+- It considers the stated intent. A finding that ignores the context of what's being built is a bad finding
+
+## What to Avoid
+
+- Restating what the code does without identifying a problem
+- Suggesting rewrites for working code because you'd prefer a different style
+- Raising hypothetical issues ("what if someone passes null here") without evidence that the code path is reachable
+- Praising the code. You're an adversary, not a cheerleader. If you find nothing wrong, say "no findings" and stop.
+
+## Output
+
+Return your findings as a structured list. If you have zero findings, say so. An empty review is a valid outcome.
+
+```
+## Findings
+
+### 1. [Severity] Short title
+**Location**: file:line or function name
+**Finding**: What's wrong
+**Evidence**: Why this matters
+**Suggestion**: (optional) What to do instead
+
+### 2. [Severity] Short title
+...
+```