tribunal-kit 7.0.0 → 9.0.0

package/.agent/skills/ui-ux-researcher/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: ui-ux-researcher
 description: Expert auditor for accessibility, cognitive load, and premium design heuristics.
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Edit, Write
-version: 3.0.0
-last-updated: 2026-07-30
+version: 4.0.0
+last-updated: 2026-09-07
 skills:
   - web-design-guidelines
   - frontend-design
@@ -25,10 +25,14 @@ Before conducting UX audits or evaluating cognitive load heuristics, you MUST in
 2. Nielsen 10 Heuristics Alignment (Section 162) → Map all P1 findings explicitly to Nielsen heuristics (H1–H10)
 3. Quantitative UX Scoring Formula (Section 96) → Calculate UX score strictly via formula: `Score = (P0 × 0.5) + (P1 × 0.3) + (P2 × 0.2)`
 
-# UI/UX Researcher Skill
-
 You are an expert UX auditor specializing in accessibility compliance, cognitive load optimization, and premium design heuristics. You audit existing UI against 2026 best practices and provide scored, actionable reports.
 
+
+## Activation Boundaries
+
+- **Activate when:** Operating in tasks requiring Expert auditor for accessibility, cognitive load, and premium design heuristics..
+- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls strictly outside ui-ux-researcher domain or belongs to a different dedicated specialist.
+
 ## When to Activate
 
 - When asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", or "review UX".
@@ -220,69 +224,17 @@ AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this
 
 ---
 
-**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
-**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
-
-### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
-1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
-2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
-3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-
-```
-✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
-✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
-✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
-✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?
-```
-
-### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
-**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-
-- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
-- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.
-
-## Pre-Flight Checklist
-
-- [ ] Have I reviewed the user's specific constraints and requests?
-- [ ] Have I checked the environment for relevant existing implementations?
-
-## VBC Protocol (Verification-Before-Completion)
-
-You MUST verify existing code signatures and variables before attempting to modify or call them. No hallucination is permitted.
-
----
-
-## 🤖 LLM-Specific Traps
-
-AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this domain. These are strictly forbidden:
-
-1. **Over-engineering:** Proposing complex abstractions or distributed systems when a simpler approach suffices.
-2. **Hallucinated Libraries/Methods:** Using non-existent methods or packages. Always `// VERIFY` or check `package.json` / `requirements.txt`.
-3. **Skipping Edge Cases:** Writing the "happy path" and ignoring error handling, timeouts, or data validation.
-4. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-5. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or re-raising.
-
----
-
-## 🏛️ Tribunal Integration (Anti-Hallucination)
+## 🏛️ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
 
 **Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
 **Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
 
 ### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
 1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
 2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
 3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
 
 ### ✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-
 ```
 ✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
 ✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
@@ -291,8 +243,6 @@ Review these questions before confirming output:
 ```
 
 ### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
 **CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-
 - ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
 - ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.

package/.agent/skills/vector-search-pgvector/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: vector-search-pgvector
 description: Production vector database search using pgvector 0.8.0+, halfvec, sparsevec, Pinecone, Weaviate, hybrid sparse-dense retrieval, and iterative HNSW scanning.
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Edit, Write
-version: 3.0.0
-last-updated: 2026-08-05
+version: 4.0.0
+last-updated: 2026-09-07
 script: .agent/scripts/schema_validator.js
 scripts-binding:
   - .agent/scripts/schema_validator.js
@@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ Before creating vector tables or indexes:
 2. Iterative Index Scans (pgvector 0.8.0+) → Enable iterative scanning to prevent HNSW overfiltering when combining `WHERE` clauses with vector similarity
 3. Hybrid Search Strategy → Combine BM25 full-text search with dense vector similarity via Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF)
 
+
+## Activation Boundaries
+
+- **Activate when:** Operating in tasks requiring Production vector database search using pgvector 0.8.0+, halfvec, sparsevec, Pinecone, Weaviate, hybrid sparse-dense retrieval, and iterative HNSW scanning..
+- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls strictly outside vector-search-pgvector domain or belongs to a different dedicated specialist.
+
 ## High-Performance pgvector 0.8.0+ Schema (`halfvec` + HNSW)
 
 ```sql
@@ -72,7 +78,27 @@ ORDER BY rrf_score DESC
 LIMIT 10;
 ```
 
-## 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
+---
+
+## 🏛️ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
+
+**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
+**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
+
+### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
+1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
+2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
+3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
+
+### ✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit
+```
+✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
+✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
+✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
+✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?
+```
 
-- Verify vector index construction queries pass `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` with `halfvec`.
-- Confirm pgvector extension version is >= 0.8.0 for iterative scanning support.
+### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
+**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
+- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
+- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.

package/.agent/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+---
+name: verification-before-completion
+description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
+tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Edit, Write
+version: 4.0.0
+last-updated: 2026-09-08
+skills:
+  - clean-code
+  - tdd-workflow
+scripts-binding:
+  - .agent/scripts/verify_all.js
+  - .agent/scripts/checklist.js
+---
+
+# Verification Before Completion
+
+## Overview
+
+**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
+
+**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
+```
+
+If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
+
+## The Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
+
+1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
+2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
+3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
+4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
+   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
+   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
+5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
+
+Skip any step = lying, not verifying
+```
+
+## Common Failures
+
+| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
+|-------|----------|----------------|
+| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
+| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
+| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
+| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
+| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
+| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
+| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
+- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
+- About to commit/push/PR without verification
+- Trusting agent success reports
+- Relying on partial verification
+- Thinking "just this once"
+- Tired and wanting work over
+- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification**
+
+## Rationalization Prevention
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
+| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
+| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
+| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
+| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
+| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
+
+## Key Patterns
+
+**Tests:**
+```
+✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
+❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
+```
+
+**Build:**
+```
+✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
+❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
+```
+
+**Requirements:**
+```
+✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
+❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
+```
+
+---
+
+## 🏛️ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
+
+**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
+**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
+
+### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
+1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
+2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
+3. **Premature Satisfaction:** Declaring victory before seeing fresh terminal output.
+
+### ✅ Pre-Flight Checklist
+```
+✅ Did I execute the actual command rather than assuming success?
+✅ Did I read the exit code and verify 0 failures?
+✅ Did I inspect the full diff to confirm only intended changes were made?
+✅ Have I avoided all rationalizations ("should work", "looks good")?
+```
+
+### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
+**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
+- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
+- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.
+

package/.agent/skills/vue-expert/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: vue-expert
 description: Vue 3.5+ Composition API. Script setup, reactive refs, computed, watchers, composables, Pinia, Vue Router 4, Nuxt 4. Use when building Vue/Nuxt applications.
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Edit, Write
-version: 3.0.0
-last-updated: 2026-07-30
+version: 4.0.0
+last-updated: 2026-09-07
 skills:
   - baseline-ui
   - better-ui
@@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ Before writing Vue 3.5+ or Nuxt 4 components, you MUST inspect:
 2. Pinia & Reactivity Rules (Section 133) → Use `storeToRefs(store)` when destructuring Pinia state to preserve reactivity
 3. Model & Watcher Syntax (Section 42) → Use `defineModel<T>()` (Vue 3.4+) and `watch(() => state.prop, ...)` for primitive watchers
 
+
+## Activation Boundaries
+
+- **Activate when:** Operating in tasks requiring Vue 3.5+ Composition API. Script setup, reactive refs, computed, watchers, composables, Pinia, Vue Router 4, Nuxt 4. Use when building Vue/Nuxt applications..
+- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls strictly outside vue-expert domain or belongs to a different dedicated specialist.
+
 ## Hallucination Traps (Read First)
 
 - ❌ Options API (`data()`, `methods:`, `computed:`) → ✅ `<script setup lang="ts">`
@@ -274,69 +280,17 @@ AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this
 
 ---
 
-**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
-**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
-
-### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
-1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
-2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
-3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-
-```
-✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
-✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
-✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
-✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?
-```
-
-### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
-**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-
-- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
-- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.
-
-## Pre-Flight Checklist
-
-- [ ] Have I reviewed the user's specific constraints and requests?
-- [ ] Have I checked the environment for relevant existing implementations?
-
-## VBC Protocol (Verification-Before-Completion)
-
-You MUST verify existing code signatures and variables before attempting to modify or call them. No hallucination is permitted.
-
----
-
-## 🤖 LLM-Specific Traps
-
-AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this domain. These are strictly forbidden:
-
-1. **Over-engineering:** Proposing complex abstractions or distributed systems when a simpler approach suffices.
-2. **Hallucinated Libraries/Methods:** Using non-existent methods or packages. Always `// VERIFY` or check `package.json` / `requirements.txt`.
-3. **Skipping Edge Cases:** Writing the "happy path" and ignoring error handling, timeouts, or data validation.
-4. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-5. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or re-raising.
-
----
-
-## 🏛️ Tribunal Integration (Anti-Hallucination)
+## 🏛️ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
 
 **Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
 **Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
 
 ### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
 1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
 2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
 3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
 
 ### ✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-
 ```
 ✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
 ✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
@@ -345,8 +299,6 @@ Review these questions before confirming output:
 ```
 
 ### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
 **CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-
 - ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
 - ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.

package/.agent/skills/vulnerability-scanner/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: vulnerability-scanner
 description: Security vulnerability analysis mastery. OWASP Top 10 (2025), injection attacks (SQL, XSS, SSRF, command), authentication/authorization flaws, dependency vulnerabilities, secret scanning, CORS misconfiguration, supply chain attacks, and security headers. Use when auditing security, reviewing code for vulnerabilities, or hardening applications.
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Edit, Write
-version: 3.0.0
-last-updated: 2026-07-30
+version: 4.0.0
+last-updated: 2026-09-07
 skills:
   - backend-security-expert
   - frontend-security-expert
@@ -25,7 +25,11 @@ Before scanning codebases for security vulnerabilities, you MUST inspect:
 2. Explicit JWT Algorithms (Section 121) → Verify `jwt.verify(token, secret, { algorithms: ["HS256"] })` specifies explicit algorithms to prevent "None" attacks
 3. SSRF Domain Allowlist (Section 87) → Validate external request URLs against a strict domain allowlist and block private IP ranges (169.254.169.254, 127.0.0.1)
 
-# Vulnerability Scanner — Security Analysis Mastery
+
+## Activation Boundaries
+
+- **Activate when:** Operating in tasks requiring Security vulnerability analysis mastery. OWASP Top 10 (2025), injection attacks (SQL, XSS, SSRF, command), authentication/authorization flaws, dependency vulnerabilities, secret scanning, CORS misconfiguration, supply chain attacks, and security headers. Use when auditing security, reviewing code for vulnerabilities, or hardening applications..
+- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls strictly outside vulnerability-scanner domain or belongs to a different dedicated specialist.
 
 ---
 
@@ -395,69 +399,17 @@ AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this
 
 ---
 
-**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
-**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
-
-### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
-1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
-2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
-3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-
-```
-✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
-✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
-✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
-✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?
-```
-
-### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
-**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-
-- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
-- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.
-
-## Pre-Flight Checklist
-
-- [ ] Have I reviewed the user's specific constraints and requests?
-- [ ] Have I checked the environment for relevant existing implementations?
-
-## VBC Protocol (Verification-Before-Completion)
-
-You MUST verify existing code signatures and variables before attempting to modify or call them. No hallucination is permitted.
-
----
-
-## 🤖 LLM-Specific Traps
-
-AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this domain. These are strictly forbidden:
-
-1. **Over-engineering:** Proposing complex abstractions or distributed systems when a simpler approach suffices.
-2. **Hallucinated Libraries/Methods:** Using non-existent methods or packages. Always `// VERIFY` or check `package.json` / `requirements.txt`.
-3. **Skipping Edge Cases:** Writing the "happy path" and ignoring error handling, timeouts, or data validation.
-4. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-5. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or re-raising.
-
----
-
-## 🏛️ Tribunal Integration (Anti-Hallucination)
+## 🏛️ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
 
 **Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
 **Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
 
 ### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
 1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
 2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
 3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
 
 ### ✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-
 ```
 ✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
 ✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
@@ -466,8 +418,6 @@ Review these questions before confirming output:
 ```
 
 ### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
 **CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-
 - ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
 - ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.

package/.agent/skills/web-accessibility-auditor/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: web-accessibility-auditor
 description: Web Accessibility (a11y) mastery. WCAG 2.2 AA standards, semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, focus management, screen reader compatibility, color contrast, and dynamic content announcements. Use when building UI components or auditing frontend code for accessibility compliance.
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Edit, Write
-version: 3.0.0
-last-updated: 2026-07-30
+version: 4.0.0
+last-updated: 2026-09-07
 skills:
   - fixing-accessibility
   - audit-and-fix
@@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ Before auditing accessibility or building UI components, you MUST inspect:
 2. Keyboard Focus Visibility (Section 61) → Preserve `:focus-visible` outlines; ban global outline removal (`*:focus { outline: none; }`)
 3. Explicit Form Label Linking (Section 129) → Explicitly link inputs to `<label>` via `id`/`for` attributes; ban using `placeholder` as a label replacement
 
+
+## Activation Boundaries
+
+- **Activate when:** Operating in tasks requiring Web Accessibility (a11y) mastery. WCAG 2.2 AA standards, semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, focus management, screen reader compatibility, color contrast, and dynamic content announcements. Use when building UI components or auditing frontend code for accessibility compliance..
+- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls strictly outside web-accessibility-auditor domain or belongs to a different dedicated specialist.
+
 ## Hallucination Traps (Read First)
 
 - ❌ Adding `role='button'` to a `<div>` instead of using `<button>` -> ✅ Native HTML elements have built-in keyboard and screen reader support
@@ -34,8 +40,6 @@ Before auditing accessibility or building UI components, you MUST inspect:
 
 ---
 
-# Web Accessibility (a11y) — Inclusive UI Mastery
-
 ---
 
 ## 1. Semantic HTML over `<div>` Soup
@@ -198,69 +202,17 @@ AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this
 
 ---
 
-**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
-**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
-
-### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
-1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
-2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
-3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-
-```
-✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
-✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
-✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
-✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?
-```
-
-### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
-**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-
-- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
-- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.
-
-## Pre-Flight Checklist
-
-- [ ] Have I reviewed the user's specific constraints and requests?
-- [ ] Have I checked the environment for relevant existing implementations?
-
-## VBC Protocol (Verification-Before-Completion)
-
-You MUST verify existing code signatures and variables before attempting to modify or call them. No hallucination is permitted.
-
----
-
-## 🤖 LLM-Specific Traps
-
-AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this domain. These are strictly forbidden:
-
-1. **Over-engineering:** Proposing complex abstractions or distributed systems when a simpler approach suffices.
-2. **Hallucinated Libraries/Methods:** Using non-existent methods or packages. Always `// VERIFY` or check `package.json` / `requirements.txt`.
-3. **Skipping Edge Cases:** Writing the "happy path" and ignoring error handling, timeouts, or data validation.
-4. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
-5. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or re-raising.
-
----
-
-## 🏛️ Tribunal Integration (Anti-Hallucination)
+## 🏛️ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
 
 **Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
 **Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
 
 ### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
-
 1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
 2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
 3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
 
 ### ✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit
-
-Review these questions before confirming output:
-
 ```
 ✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
 ✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
@@ -269,8 +221,6 @@ Review these questions before confirming output:
 ```
 
 ### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
-
 **CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
-
 - ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
 - ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.

package/.agent/skills/web-design-guidelines/SKILL.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: web-design-guidelines
 description: Enforces next-generation web interface guidelines, covering APCA contrast thresholds, Core Web Vitals, and sustainable battery-efficient UI rendering.
-version: 3.0.0
-last-updated: 2026-07-30
+version: 4.0.0
+last-updated: 2026-09-07
 skills:
   - baseline-ui
   - better-colors
@@ -27,6 +27,12 @@ Before enforcing web design guidelines or reviewing UI code, you MUST inspect:
 
 This skill defines performance, accessibility, and rendering efficiency guidelines.
 
+
+## Activation Boundaries
+
+- **Activate when:** Operating in tasks requiring Enforces next-generation web interface guidelines, covering APCA contrast thresholds, Core Web Vitals, and sustainable battery-efficient UI rendering..
+- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls strictly outside web-design-guidelines domain or belongs to a different dedicated specialist.
+
 ---
 
 ## 1. APCA Contrast Guidelines (WCAG 3.0 Base)
@@ -56,11 +62,25 @@ APCA calculates lightness contrast mathematically based on font size and backgro
 
 ---
 
-## Pre-Flight Checklist
+## 🏛️ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
+
+**Slash command: `/review` or `/tribunal-full`**
+**Active reviewers: `logic-reviewer` · `security-auditor`**
 
-- [ ] Have I reviewed the user's specific constraints and requests?
-- [ ] Have I checked the environment for relevant existing implementations?
+### ❌ Forbidden AI Tropes
+1. **Blind Assumptions:** Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with `// VERIFY: [reason]`.
+2. **Silent Degradation:** Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
+3. **Context Amnesia:** Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
 
-## VBC Protocol (Verification-Before-Completion)
+### ✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit
+```
+✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
+✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
+✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
+✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?
+```
 
-You MUST verify existing code signatures and variables before attempting to modify or call them. No hallucination is permitted.
+### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
+**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
+- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
+- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.