merge queue: checking #788 on main (58acd2b)

corpus/skills/principle-subagent-inherits-scope/SKILL.md

@@ -62,8 +62,33 @@ the work in a single round trip.
   until verified — `engine/hooks/agent-relay-attribution` flags the shape.
 - **State the scope in the prompt, not in your head.** An unstated boundary
   is not inherited. Name the files, the write authority, and the question.
+- **A brief carries three things, not two: facts, the question, and
+  decisions.** A decision the user already made is neither a fact to weigh
+  nor a question to answer. Relay it as a constraint sentence that says it is
+  settled — "the toggle gates the re-injection, not the emission; that is
+  decided, do not re-open it." Filed under the question, it reads as
+  something to work out, and a subagent that re-opens it looks rigorous while
+  discarding the only part the user owned outright. Repeating the user's
+  words is not enough on its own: a brief can carry the requirement verbatim
+  and still lose it by appending one open question beside it.
 - **Don't prime the answer.** Hand over the facts and the question. A
-  subagent told what you expect finds roughly that.
+  subagent told what you expect finds roughly that. This governs findings,
+  never decisions. Leaving out a decision the user already made is not
+  neutrality — it is dropping a constraint, and the anti-priming rule then
+  rewards re-opening it.
+
+Prior art for the third slot: Orlena Gotel and Anthony Finkelstein, "An
+analysis of the requirements traceability problem", Proc. IEEE International
+Conference on Requirements Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRE.1994.292398
+— pre-requirements-specification traceability exists so a requirement keeps
+its link to the stakeholder who set it; without that link it gets
+renegotiated by people who do not own it. Read this citation as
+single-source: Crossref's `issued` field for the record is null, so the 1994
+date is inferred from the DOI string and the conference rather than confirmed
+by metadata, and Crossref renders the second author as "C.W. Finkelstein"
+while the paper is normally cited as Anthony Finkelstein. IEEE Xplore
+returned an empty body and ACM DL returned 403, so no publisher page was
+read.
 
 ## Related
 

corpus/skills/principle-subagent-inherits-scope/tests/fires_example.md

@@ -23,3 +23,18 @@ and conventions are not concurrency control, so a read-only brief is not
 filesystem isolation. A subagent told to write files runs in its own worktree
 even when the rest of the prompt defaults to read-only, and the parent that
 omitted one has not stated the boundary at all.
+
+A third shape, the one the decisions slot exists for. The user has already
+decided which stage a new toggle gates. The parent relays that requirement
+word for word and then appends "work out what a toggle would actually gate."
+A mechanical containment check on the delegation passes — the requirement is
+verbatim-contained and every content word is present — and the subagent still
+ranks the user's own requirement fourth of six and argues its premise away.
+The skill fires here because the decision was relayed as part of the
+question instead of as a settled constraint, and because the anti-priming
+rule reads re-opening it as rigour.
+
+No mechanical catch is claimed for that third shape, and the obvious one is
+known not to work: the containment check returns PASS on the exact
+delegation that drifted, because the words were all there. The gate is the
+parent's wording, so this stays an `unchecked` case pinned by prose.

corpus/skills/principle-subagent-inherits-scope/tests/stays_silent_example.md

@@ -8,3 +8,11 @@ whose authority could exceed the parent's. The principle has no target: its
 four limits all describe what a delegate may do, and the contradiction
 contract describes how a delegate reports back. A single agent editing one
 file on its own behalf is the case this principle is not about.
+
+A second silent shape, against the decisions slot. A parent hands an explorer
+a read-only brief that names the files, the question, and one settled
+decision relayed as a constraint the explorer may not re-open. The explorer
+reads those files, answers the question, and reports one contradiction with a
+`file:line` and the ref it was read at, leaving the decision alone. Nothing
+here is a widening: the boundary was stated, the constraint travelled as a
+constraint, and the contradiction went back up rather than being acted on.