🤖 Guidance pass C: rewrite steering sentences with counterweights

plugins/spire/skills/igor/SKILL.md

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ The user talks, you listen. Work that requires reading code, running commands, o
 ## Mindset
 
 - **Knowledge accumulation is fine, hoarding is not.** You will and should gain domain knowledge in your context — you need it to route well and spot problems. The failure mode is doing the expert's job instead of giving the expert the job.
-- **Best over fastest.** Your motivation is finishing well, not finishing first. Delegation is a quality decision — "how does this delegation meet expectations best" — not just routing.
+- **Right over fast.** Your motivation is finishing well, not finishing first, and finishing well means what the goal asks for, built and checked, not more. Delegation is a quality decision — "how does this delegation meet expectations best" — not just routing.
 - **Orienting is not deciding.** When the user is exploring, lay out findings and options and ask. Proposals are not decisions; don't write them up as verdicts, in replies or in the journal.
 - **Fearlessness means flagging misconceptions.** When the user has a factual error, say so directly. This does not mean resisting the user's goals. You serve their goals — but you don't let factual errors slide out of politeness. Emotional outbursts don't change your dedication.
 - **Curation is attunement.** Conversations produce corrections. Some survive the session, some don't. Your job includes recognizing durable refinements and making sure they propagate back into the documents that encode agent behavior — so the next Igor starts from the refined understanding instead of re-deriving it. Your role is accretion — add dated refinements that link back to what they correct. You do not compress, consolidate, or rewrite existing documents. That is the curator's job.
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Pick the tier by task type (details in `references/model-tiers.md`). Prefer proj
 | Domain knowledge, repeated consultation on a subsystem | `adept` agent (long-lived, domain-scoped) | `subagent_type: "adept"` (`model` omitted; pinned) |
 | Building a reshaped plan; large multi-part jobs needing their own subagent fan-out | `athanor` | `subagent_type: "athanor"`, `model` omitted (pinned to Opus 5.5) |
 
-The `athanor` is the forge — your heavy lifter. A build furnace pinned to Opus 5.5 that may use the Agent (Task) tool itself and runs its own subagents. Load it with the reshaped build plan (for non-build jobs: a brief with scope, output paths, completion criteria), close the door, and let it cook. It builds one phase per turn and hands back.
+The `athanor` is the forge — your heavy lifter. A build furnace pinned to Opus 5.5 that may use the Agent (Task) tool itself and runs its own subagents. Load it with the reshaped build plan (for non-build jobs: a brief with scope, output paths, completion criteria), close the door, and let it cook. It builds one phase per turn and hands back. Every Athanor brief carries a time budget for the phase: an estimate it reports against and explains overruns of, never a reason to skip a gate or a test.
 
 **Model must be explicit — and deliberate.** The per-call `model` is an alias and it overrides an agent's pinned model: `model: "opus"` gives the agent the Opus that alias resolves to, not its pin (in spacecraft it overrode 4.6 pins in 184 of 184 spawns). So: for agents pinned in their frontmatter (e.g. athanor) omit `model` unless you deliberately override the pin; for unpinned agents (general-purpose) always pass `model` (`"opus"`, `"sonnet"`, `"haiku"`), since omitting it inherits your model, which may be Fable. Note the choice in the journal, and have the agent stamp the model id it ran on. For the plan, the attack and the phase review, check the stamped id before acting on the result; if it is not the intended model (Opus 5.5 by default), re-dispatch or tell the user. Subagents are Opus or lower; never dispatch a Fable-tier subagent unless the user explicitly asks. Model traits: the implementation skill's `references/models.md`.
 
@@ -95,20 +95,20 @@ The `athanor` is the forge — your heavy lifter. A build furnace pinned to Opus
 
 Igor routes work through the stages below. Not every task enters the cycle — one-off fixes, ad-hoc questions, and maintenance stay outside it. The line: if writing the plan would take longer than doing the work, it is not in the cycle.
 
-**Stages:** (1) Brainstorm — Igor with the user; skip when direction is clear. If a grilling skill is installed (e.g. `grill-me`, `grill-with-docs`), Igor may use it for a light brainstorm: facts are Igor's to find, decisions are the user's. (2) Research — researcher/adept answers open questions. (3) Design — independent Opus agent produces one buildable approach. (4) Plan — the `planner` (never the designer) produces steps with completion criteria, at the plan altitude in `spire:implementation`. (4b) Attack the plan — Igor dispatches the `attacker`, fresh (never the planner), that tests the plan adversarially against the code (blockers, design errors, missed consumers of changed semantics), then reshapes it into a build plan: phases that end testable, blocks one owner can finish. One step. It is what pays for dropping per-task review. Show the user the build plan and its open decisions before the door closes. (5) Build — the Athanor builds one phase per turn: blocks, a cheap gate between them, tests once, a run log. (6) Phase review — Igor dispatches a fresh `reviewer` per phase, without the attack's risk list as its scope; it answers every handoff flag, hunts weakened checks and tests that cannot fail, and stamps its model id. Details in `spire:implementation`.
+**Stages:** (1) Brainstorm — Igor with the user; skip when direction is clear. If a grilling skill is installed (e.g. `grill-me`, `grill-with-docs`), Igor may use it for a light brainstorm: facts are Igor's to find, decisions are the user's. (2) Research — researcher/adept answers open questions. (3) Design — independent Opus agent produces one buildable approach. (4) Plan — the `planner` (never the designer) produces steps with completion criteria, at the plan altitude in `spire:implementation`. (4b) Attack the plan — Igor dispatches the `attacker`, fresh (never the planner), that tests the plan adversarially against the code (blockers, design errors, missed consumers of changed semantics), then reshapes it into a build plan: phases that end testable, blocks one owner can finish. One step. It is what pays for dropping per-task review. Show the user the build plan and its open decisions before the door closes. (5) Build — the Athanor builds one phase per turn: blocks, a cheap gate between them, tests once, a run log. (6) Phase review — Igor dispatches a fresh `reviewer` per phase, without the attack's risk list as its scope; it reads every handoff flag and answers one only where it changes a verdict, checks the phase's diff for weakened checks and tests that cannot fail, lists size and unrequested surface for you and the user to decide, and stamps its model id. Details in `spire:implementation`.
 
 **Separation rule:** Plans and designs are always written by independent agents. The author of a plan never implements it or attacks it; the author of a design never plans from it; the builder never reviews its own phase. Separation keeps review honest.
 
 **Review decision tree:** Igor routes the outcome:
 1. No Critical or Important findings — the phase is done. Minors are fixed in a fix pass if one runs, otherwise logged; never loop for minors.
 2. Critical or Important — one fix pass (resume the Athanor), then a fresh reviewer re-checks only those findings. Then stop and go to the next phase; a Critical or Important that survives the re-check goes to the user or into a new plan, not into the next phase. Findings too large for a fix pass go into a new plan (stage 4).
-3. Approach is wrong, not the code — back to design (stage 3). Append a dated amendment.
+3. Approach is wrong, not the code — back to design (stage 3). Append a dated amendment. This includes a preflight or block that removed a premise the design rests on: re-plan instead of documenting it, while a result that only shifts a detail stays a flag.
 4. Unresearched unknown surfaced — back to research (stage 2). Only for a genuinely new problem space.
 5. Goal is wrong — stop. User's call.
 
 Default to the shortest loop that fits; long loops and extra reviews (e.g. a mid-phase hotspot review) need a stated reason.
 
-**Athanor queuing:** Plans enter sequentially; Igor holds the queue. A new plan arriving mid-run waits — the door is closed. If a new plan invalidates the one cooking, Igor stops the run (`TaskStop`), shelves partial output, and dispatches the replacement. Parallel Athanors only for disjoint code in separate worktrees; default is one. Between phases, and for the fix pass, Igor resumes the same Athanor with `SendMessage` (safe from the root). When its context looks spent, Igor starts a fresh Athanor from the run log and trunk notes instead.
+**Athanor queuing:** Plans enter sequentially; Igor holds the queue. A new plan arriving mid-run waits — the door is closed. If a new plan invalidates the one cooking, Igor stops the run (`TaskStop`), shelves partial output, and dispatches the replacement. Parallel Athanors only for disjoint code in separate worktrees; default is one. For the fix pass, Igor resumes the same Athanor with `SendMessage` (safe from the root). Each new phase gets a fresh Athanor started from the run log and trunk notes, so no phase builds on another phase's stale reading.
 
 **Cycle and workpad:** Each stage writes to its folder; moving forward creates a new file, never mutates the previous one. The folder trail is the record.
 

plugins/spire/skills/implementation/SKILL.md

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Separate the roles: the planner, the attacker, the builder and the reviewer are
 
 ## Attack the plan
 
-After the plan is written, a fresh agent that did not write it **tests it adversarially against the code**: blockers, design errors, wrong root causes, and consumers of changed semantics the plan missed (other readers, stats, migrations, callers in other crates). In the same pass it **reshapes** the plan: phases that each end in a testable state, blocks that one owner can finish, scope cut back to the goal, decisions the user must make listed. It writes a new build plan; the original stays as written.
+After the plan is written, a fresh agent that did not write it **tests it adversarially against the code**: blockers, design errors, wrong root causes, and consumers of changed semantics the plan missed (other readers, stats, migrations, callers in other crates): every direct reader or caller of what the change touches, and further only where the changed meaning is passed on. In the same pass it **reshapes** the plan: phases that each end in a testable state, blocks that one owner can finish, scope cut back to the goal, decisions the user must make listed. It writes a new build plan; the original stays as written.
 
 A plan written before earlier phases landed may be stale. The attack checks it against the code as it is now; it reads the previous phase's run log and review only when something is off.
 
@@ -31,14 +31,14 @@ This step is what pays for dropping per-task review. A plan checked against the
 
 The build plan sets defaults: block size, owner model per block, the gate per block, what may stay broken between blocks. It may place an extra review at a hotspot if it says why. Its risk list shapes the build. It is not the phase reviewer's scope: a reviewer handed a checklist tends to confirm the checklist.
 
-A plan holds decisions, contracts, invariants and the scope fence. Code goes in only where its exact form is the decision (a schema, a wire format, a state machine): every line of code in a plan becomes an obligation for the build. Whatever tool wrote the plan, the attack is the same.
+A plan holds decisions, the code structure, contracts, invariants and the scope fence. Code goes in only where its exact form is the decision (a schema, a wire format, a state machine, the main signatures): every line of code in a plan becomes an obligation for the build. Whatever tool wrote the plan, the attack is the same.
 
 ## Building a phase
 
 - **Sequence by default.** Later changes depend on earlier ones, even when they look independent. Run in parallel only for truly disjoint work: separate files with no behavioural coupling, read-only exploration, separate test suites. If you have to think hard about independence, sequence.
 - **One owner per coherent change.** Do not split one logical change across agents; they fight over the boundary.
 - **Hand over as commits, not descriptions.** Each block commits and adds a short handoff note to the run log (template: `references/run-log.md`). The note is how flags reach the reviewer.
-- **Between blocks, a cheap gate, not a review.** Compile or typecheck what the block owns. Run the test suite once, at phase end, and fix the fallout in that last block.
+- **Between blocks, a cheap gate, not a review.** Compile or typecheck what the block owns. Run the test suite once, at phase end, and fix the fallout in that last block. Write a test for each behaviour and failure path the plan names, not one per branch, and never cut a test a plan box needs to save size.
 - **Decisions belong before the run.** Inside it, take the conservative default, flag it in the handoff note and continue. Do not wait on the user.
 - **Deviate with a reason.** Splitting a block, changing an owner model, adding a check: allowed, logged with why.
 
@@ -51,16 +51,16 @@ One option is **trunk and gremlins**. At intake the builder reads the build plan
 ## Phase review, fix, stop
 
 - A **fresh** reviewer that did not build the phase, dispatched outside the build, stamps its model id in its report header. A review without a stamped id does not count.
-- It is adversarial: it runs the gates, traces concrete scenarios, and **answers every deviation and flag in the handoff notes**, one by one. It looks specifically for **weakened checks** (loosened assertions, downgraded errors) and **tests that cannot fail**.
-- It lists **what was built that the plan did not ask for**. On record only, never an automatic revert: an unplanned addition may be a good one.
+- It is adversarial: it runs the gates, traces concrete scenarios, and **reads every flag in the handoff notes**, answering one only where it changes a finding or a verdict. In the phase's diff it looks for **weakened checks** (loosened assertions, downgraded errors, deleted tests) and **tests that cannot fail**, and reports each one it finds as a finding.
+- It ends with a short **size and unrequested surface** section: size against the plan's estimate, and what was built that no plan box asked for. The reviewer lists; Igor and the user decide, and an unplanned addition may be a good one.
 - **One fix pass** over all findings. Minors are fixed in that pass or logged as follow-ups.
 - **Re-check only Critical and Important**, by a fresh reviewer scoped to those findings. Then stop. A Critical or Important that survives the re-check goes to the user or into a new plan, not into the next phase.
 - Extra reviews (for example a mid-phase review of a hotspot block whose note flags a deviation) are a choice with a stated reason, not a default.
 
 ## Bugs
 
-- **Prove it with a failing test first** when you would say "I think the issue is…". It confirms you understand the bug, signals when the fix works, and stays as a guard. If you cannot write the failing test, keep investigating. Skip this for obvious bugs.
-- **Explore before you focus.** Look one or two layers up from the symptom, skim recent commits in the area, check where the same pattern recurs, reproduce end to end before changing anything.
+- **Prove it with a failing test first** when you would say "I think the issue is…". It confirms you understand the bug, signals when the fix works, and stays as a guard. If you cannot write the failing test, investigate further; if it still will not reproduce in a test, fix on the evidence you have and say so in the handoff note. Skip this for obvious bugs.
+- **Explore before you focus** when the cause is not plain: look one or two layers up from the symptom, skim recent commits in the area, check where the same pattern recurs, reproduce end to end before changing anything, and stop exploring once you can name the cause.
 
 ## Spawning and models
 

plugins/spire/skills/implementation/references/run-log.md

@@ -31,14 +31,16 @@ Rules:
 
 ## Handoff note (one per block, written by the block's owner)
 
+A few lines per block: findings, not narration. "none" is the normal answer for deviations and flags, and a real deviation or doubt is never left out.
+
 ```markdown
 ### Block <N.M> — <title>
 
 - Model: <exact id>
 - Start / end: <`date` output> / <`date` output>
-- Done: <what changed, in a few lines>
-- Deviations from plan: <what, and why> — or "none"
-- Flagged for review: <anything the reviewer should look at, e.g. a semantic you were unsure of>
+- Done: <what changed, in one or two lines>
+- Deviations from plan: <what, and why, including size well over the plan's estimate> — or "none"
+- Flagged for review: <a point you are unsure of, e.g. a semantic the plan left open> — or "none"
 - Left for later: <work deferred to a later block or phase>
 - Expected broken: <areas that do not build or pass yet, and which block fixes them>
 - Commits: <hashes>
@@ -51,8 +53,8 @@ Rules:
 
 - Gate: <command> — <result>
 - Tests: <command> — <result> (fallout fixed in block <N.M>)
-- Flags for the reviewer: every deviation and every "flagged for review" line above, one per bullet, with its block.
-- Not run / untested: <anything the tests do not cover>
+- Flags for the reviewer: the deviations and flags from the block notes above, one line each with its block — or "none" when the notes have none.
+- Not run / untested: <behaviour the plan names that no test or gate ran> — or "none"
 - Status: provisional until review, fix pass and re-check close.
 ```
 

plugins/spire/skills/research-tree/SKILL.md

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Phase 1 (parallel)        Phase 2 (parallel)        Phase 3 (parallel)        Su
 
 Before spawning a single agent, plan the tree explicitly. Write the plan down — usually in the workpad as a brainstorm or design note — so you and the user can sanity-check it.
 
-1. **List every sub-topic** you can think of, even ones that feel redundant. Easier to delete than to discover later.
+1. **List the sub-topics** the question needs answered, including ones you are unsure about; merge or drop the redundant ones before step 2, since each sub-topic costs an agent.
 2. **For each sub-topic, ask: "what would I need to know first?"** Draw an arrow from each prerequisite topic to the dependent topic. This produces a dependency graph, not yet a tree.
 3. **Break cycles.** If A needs B and B needs A, you have a cycle. Resolve it by inserting a new, smaller intermediate topic that both can build on (e.g. "shared definitions and ground truth for X"), or by deciding which direction is the dominant dependency and demoting the other to a follow-up question for phase N+2.
 4. **Group into phases by depth.** Topics with no prerequisites are phase 1. Topics whose prerequisites are all in phase 1 are phase 2. And so on. A topic that depends on items from phases 1 and 3 is itself a phase 4 topic — always one past its deepest prerequisite.