Combined integration: #77-#80 + #82 through a seven-round tri-lens gate

skills/cross-model-review/SKILL.md

@@ -105,6 +105,42 @@ objection is not re-litigated — but a *reproduced* correctness or safety defec
 stays must-fix (§3 triage): it may be deferred only with the owner's explicit
 acceptance, never closed by the reviewers on their own.
 
+**Pre-existing is a disposition you establish, not assume — reproduce the
+finding on the merge-base too** (`unprobed` — see Provenance). On a
+behavior-preserving refactor branch a
+*reproduced* defect can still be one the branch faithfully carried over from
+its base, not one it introduced; recording it against the branch is a false
+regression that blocks a clean refactor for a fault it did not create. Before
+you count a reproduced finding as the branch's defect, re-run it against the
+merge-base: the SAME failure on both — same trigger, same outcome,
+comparable blast radius — → `pre-existing-tracked`, spun off as its own
+fix, never bloating the refactor — pre-existing moves where a reproduced
+correctness or safety defect gets fixed, never whether (deferral stays the
+owner's call per this section's triage), and any widening the branch adds
+(a new trigger path, a broader blast radius) is not carried over: the
+widened part is the branch's own regression; gone on the merge-base and
+live on the branch → a real regression this branch owns. Reviewers do not
+see the base (§2 packet is your
+inlined lines), so this classification is yours to make, not theirs — a
+reviewer's severity label ("not merge-ready", "CRITICAL") is a claim about
+the code in front of it, blind to whether the branch introduced the behavior.
+And applicability is itself a **runtime/deployment-state** question, not a
+source one: adjudicate a migration or identifier case-collision finding
+against what actually shipped (query the collection, check the deploy),
+never only against synthetic data the bug reproduces on but the running
+system never holds. A finding whose premise no shipped state satisfies —
+empty store, writer never deployed — is recorded `rejected-with-reason`
+with that runtime counter-evidence attached, or held as an owner-accepted
+deferral where the state could yet arrive; do not file it under §4's
+irreproducible-false-positive bucket, which is for findings that do not
+reproduce at all. Non-applicability is severity evidence, not ownership
+evidence: a latent path the branch itself introduces stays its own
+must-fix however empty today's store is — deployment catches up.
+neg: filing a reviewer's "P1, not merge-ready" against a refactor for a quirk
+that reproduces identically on the merge-base — the review still pays off (spin
+the quirk off as its own fix), but the branch is clean and the label was
+baseline-blind.
+
 **A proposed fix is a suggestion, not a patch.** Reproducing a finding
 licenses the finding, not its remedy — these are separate judgments, and a
 reviewer writes the remedy against only the lines you inlined (§2), so a real
@@ -232,6 +268,19 @@ the reason recorded. The landed side is verifiable in-repo (PR #32's
 commits); the held side was never pushed, so the comparison itself is
 contributor-reported — the rule ships with an in-body `unprobed` marker
 per the README covenant's second branch.
+The §3 baseline-classification and runtime-state adjudication rules
+(2026-07-24) are class-distilled from a mining pass over the owner's own
+sessions (no code taken): a moira-web behavior-preserving refactor where
+codex's "not merge-ready" and agy's "CRITICAL" both dissolved under
+reproduction as pre-existing base-branch behaviors the branch faithfully
+preserved
+(0 regressions, 4 pre-existing quirks spun off), and a TG-bot review where
+codex's identifier-migration and case-collision findings were non-applicable
+because the store was empty and the writer had never deployed. The lesson
+is the general one — pre-existing-vs-regression is a baseline diff, and
+applicability is a runtime-state question — not the specific findings.
+Both rules ship `unprobed` per the covenant; their probes join the private
+round-5 queue.
 Re-verify
 line: model families, CLI availability, "flagship" identity, and effort tiers
 are volatile — re-discover at session time; never trust a model name or tier

skills/delegation-and-review/SKILL.md

@@ -576,6 +576,22 @@ reviewers that they silently absorb as implementers.
   its inputs arrived.
   ❌ "the synthesis stage returned a thorough report, so the finders
   must have run."
+- **A read-only survey reports leads, not facts — re-verify each in source
+  before you spec work on it** (`unprobed` — private evidence as shape; see
+  Provenance). Fan-out finders scanning for dedup targets,
+  dead code, or duplication over-claim in the direction that makes the work
+  look bigger: a substring grep calls "66 import sites" what is really 2
+  files; "byte-identical" components turn out to diverge on a prop or a
+  fallback; a "duplicated" helper is two semantically incompatible families
+  that must not be merged; "dead" code has a live registry entry the finder
+  never traced. Each finding is a hypothesis — open the cited files, tracing
+  the references its verdict depends on (registries, routes, call sites), and
+  confirm the claim before it enters the plan, and re-check after any finding
+  that reverses scope (a dissolved dedup, a resurrected dead file), because
+  the tier ranking built on the survey is now stale. Speccing on an
+  unverified survey buys a plan that reverses mid-execution.
+  ❌ "the survey found 66 three.js sites, so the dedup is a big win" — the
+  finder counted substrings; there are 2.
 - **Miss-is-costly audits** ("find ALL of X": security holes, money paths,
   data leaving the machine) need a different loop than one review pass:
   - Scout the work-list once in-context first — fan out over a known list,
@@ -975,6 +991,19 @@ Rules bullet was also extended from "do not merge" to "do not commit, push, or
 merge" (generalizing mindfold-ai/Trellis's check-agent forbidden-operations
 list, AGPLv3 — strictly ideas only) — a widening of an existing prohibition, not
 a new standalone rule, so it owes no separate probe.
+The §3 survey-reports-leads bullet (2026-07-24) is class-distilled from a
+private mining pass over the owner's own sessions (no code taken): a single
+codebase-lightening session whose read-only fan-out survey was wrong four
+separate ways, each over-claiming — a substring count of "66 three.js sites"
+that was 2 files, "byte-identical" components that diverged on a prop and a
+fallback, a "NumField duplication" that dissolved into two incompatible
+families, and a "dead" component with a live registry entry — each reversal
+re-ordering the tiered plan. Distinct from the synthesizer-fed-nothing bullet
+above (empty input → confident synthesis) and the settled-tree bullet
+(re-reading an already-fixed file): here the survey ran and returned
+non-empty, confidently wrong leads. Private evidence, cited as shape per the
+README covenant's second branch; no in-repo probe has run — in-body
+`unprobed` marker.
 Stable behavioral rules; re-check
 worktree/agent mechanics and any recorded hosted-endpoint behavioral
 claims against the current environment.

skills/ground-truth-gates/SKILL.md

@@ -269,6 +269,36 @@ A generic green test is not proof. A gate is real only if:
    elsewhere — is legitimate as-is and needs no anchor, as does an intrinsic gate
    like a syntax or forbidden-character scan. The rule bites only when agreement
    is made to stand in for an external fact.)
+8. **A gate over hardcoded facts asserts the facts, not just the shape — and
+   the cross-check that established them belongs IN the fixture, not in the
+   chat** (`unprobed` — private incident as shape; see Provenance). When code
+   embeds domain constants (holiday dates, a tax rate, a fee schedule, a
+   jurisdiction's valid state codes), a suite that checks structure — the
+   array is non-empty,
+   each entry parses, the shape is right — passes identically whether the
+   values are correct or a later edit corrupted one. Those values were usually
+   cross-checked once, against an authority or several independent sources or a
+   reviewer's recall — but that check happened in the conversation and
+   evaporates when the session ends, so the next bad edit sails through a
+   shape-only gate. Anchor the fact: assert every load-bearing value
+   (a fixed holiday falls on its known date, the standard rate equals the
+   published number), each assertion naming its authority (source, and its
+   version or URL where it has one) and consultation date beside the value —
+   an unattributed literal is indistinguishable from item 3's copied-back
+   expected value — so a future silent change to a constant fails. This *extends* item 2's carve-out —
+   from an output-interface string to an embedded input constant — and is NOT
+   item 3's "hardcoded expected value" fake pass: the anchor's value comes from
+   an external authority, not copied back from the code's own output. Item 3's
+   tautology asserts the code agrees with its own output; this asserts the
+   code matches the world. It shares rule 7's remedy — an external anchor — but not its
+   trigger: rule 7 bites where *agreement between artifacts* is made to stand
+   in for an external fact, this one where *structure* is. A fact that
+   legitimately changes gets its anchor updated as a contract edit (rule 4:
+   state which contract changed and who approved it); an always-fixed one is
+   cheap to anchor permanently.
+   ❌ "the holiday tests pass" — they assert the list has the right count and
+   types, never that any date is the right day; a fat-fingered edit to one
+   date stays green.
 
 **A red result is not automatically a real defect** — but ruling one
 "environmental" is a gate change, not the worker's call (rule 4): quarantine it
@@ -446,5 +476,13 @@ unless the project opted in (MIT, ideas only), corroborated by
 NYCU-Chung/my-claude-devteam's bypassPermissions-hook framing (MIT) — it
 matches this pack's own no-auto-registered-hooks invariant. All three ship
 `unprobed` per the covenant; their probes join the private round-5 queue.
+Rule 8 (fact-anchoring; 2026-07-24) is class-distilled from a mining pass
+over the owner's own sessions (no code taken): hardcoded public-holiday dates
+were cross-checked against four independent sources, but a cross-model
+reviewer noted the suite validated structure only — "tests check shape, not
+date-truth" — so the truth evidence lived in the conversation, not the gate;
+the fix added anchor-date assertions as a regression guard against a future
+bad edit. Ships `unprobed` per the covenant; its probe joins the private
+round-5 queue.
 `template/` scripts are self-contained (Node + bash, zero deps) and were run
 green on 2026-07-06 with Node v23; re-verify with `bash template/run-all.sh`.