Sync 4-template PR-body checklist wording to match #102 NSQL doctrine

[kiki830621]

Problem

Source: surfaced during /idd-plan #102 Step 2.5 tangential sweep (PR will be on branch idd/102-acceptance-review-doctrine once filed).
Tracks the consistency family that the #102 narrow scope deliberately does not unify.

#102 ships the NSQL Confirmation Protocol doctrine: verify-gated is the terminal default disposition — a clean 6/6 verify PASS is sufficient to merge; --review is an opt-in to re-open the confirmation loop, not a quality gate.

Per the doctrine, the user-facing PR-body checklist line currently reading - [ ] **Pending: human review of this PR + /idd-close after merge** should become - [x] **Verify-gated**: cluster/PR verify PASS — ready to merge by default, with --review flipping it to - [ ] **Pending: human acceptance review** (per --review flag).

#102 only updates this for idd-all-chain Phase 5 (line 553). Three sister files keep the old wording:

File	Line	Status
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-implement/SKILL.md	503	OLD wording
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-all/SKILL.md	746	OLD wording
plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/pr-flow.md	135	OLD wording

Result: post-#102, 4 PR-body templates that should all read the same now have a 1-vs-3 split. Doctrine is unified, surface is not.

Type

documentation (template family consistency)

Expected

After this issue ships, all 4 PR-body templates use the same doctrine-aligned wording — default = Verify-gated PASS — ready to merge, with --review opt-in flipping to Pending: human acceptance review (per --review flag).

idd-implement is special: it does not currently accept --review (the flag lives on idd-all and idd-all-chain). Decision for this issue:

• Option A: only the default wording changes for idd-implement (the --review opt-in only meaningful when invoked via orchestrator).
• Option B: idd-implement also accepts --review and threads it into PR body template. Slightly larger surface but symmetric.

Recommend Option A unless there's a need to invoke idd-implement directly with --review.

Actual

• idd-all-chain Phase 5 PR body checklist: doctrine-aligned wording (conditional on --review).
• idd-implement Step 5.5 PR body checklist: old wording (Pending: human review).
• idd-all Phase 5 PR body checklist: old wording (Pending: human review).
• references/pr-flow.md canonical: old wording (Pending: human review).

Impact

• Affected surfaces: 3 templates (idd-implement/SKILL.md line 503, idd-all/SKILL.md line 746, references/pr-flow.md line 135).
• Affected users: anyone who reads PR descriptions assumes the checklist wording reflects IDD's actual review doctrine. Stale wording invites confusion: "Is human review still pending? But verify already passed."
• Related: [enhancement] acceptance-review 缺在 IDD mode model — 「人不 review」需要 first-class 做法 #102 (doctrine source), feature: /idd-all (無參數) bulk-solve mode — AI 自動 sequence + bundle 所有 open issue #37 (autopilot auto-merge mechanics).

Notes

Not blocking #102 merge — the 1-vs-3 split is documented as a known follow-up in #102's Implementation Plan Out-of-scope section. Issue exists to make sure the cleanup actually happens.

Step 5.7 sister sweep update (added 2026-05-20 during /idd-implement #102)

A 4th file in the consistency family surfaced during the implementation sweep:

File	Line	Status
plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/chain-flow.md	254	OLD wording (Pending: human review of cluster PR)

chain-flow.md is the canonical contract reference for the chain shell algorithm — its PR body template should follow the same NSQL doctrine wording as the other 3 files. Scope of this issue updated 4-template → 5-template consistency family.

Source: surfaced during /idd-implement #102 Step 5.7 sweep (PR #109).

/idd-verify --pr 109 follow-up additions (added 2026-05-20)

The 6-AI verify of PR #109 (which ships the #102 doctrine that motivates this issue) surfaced additional consistency items worth grouping into this same family follow-up rather than opening separate issues:

F3 — idd-all-chain Phase 4 final report stdout text

• Source: regression review (LOW); also surfaced by Devil's Advocate adversarial angle 2 ("messaging-only" claim audit)
• Where: plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-all-chain/SKILL.md Phase 4 final report block (the forest-tree printout + STOP message rendered to the chain orchestrator's terminal, distinct from the PR-body checklist that [enhancement] acceptance-review 缺在 IDD mode model — 「人不 review」需要 first-class 做法 #102 PR [enhancement] acceptance-review 缺在 IDD mode model — 「人不 review」需要 first-class 做法 #109 already made --review-aware in commit dc61ffb)
• What: Phase 4's stdout report (forest tree + "STOP — ..." message) is currently not conditional on $REVIEW_FLAG. It still emits the same text under both default and --review invocations. PR-body is the audit artifact and is fixed; stdout is for the human watching the chain run.
• Action: dispatch Phase 4 final-report text on $REVIEW_FLAG the same way Phase 6 of /idd-all does (verify-gated PASS across cluster, ready to merge default vs verify-gated PASS — awaiting human acceptance (per --review) variant)

Req cosmetic — stale Trace 1 example block in idd-all/SKILL.md

• Source: requirements review (LOW cosmetic)
• Where: plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-all/SKILL.md around lines 893-901 (Trace 1 example documentation block)
• What: example block still demonstrates the pre-v2.65 Verify: PASS + Next: review PR, merge wording. Functional Phase 6 report logic was swapped in 1fdcba0, but the example narrative in the doc was not updated to match.
• Action: refresh Trace 1 example to show the new Verify: verify-gated PASS + Next: merge default + --review variant

DA3 — "messaging-only" wording precision

• Source: Devil's Advocate review (INFO)
• Where: idd-all + idd-all-chain Phase 0 args parsing comments (both files), and MANIFESTO Human-in-the-loop section
• What: The phrase "messaging-only" is true at the orchestrator scope (the flag doesn't change skill execution or make the orchestrator wait), but humans + CI parsers downstream can react to the changed text differently — so it isn't messaging-only in the strict end-to-end sense.
• Action: optional refinement to "orchestrator-scope messaging-only" or similar tightening — purely a clarity improvement, not a behavior fix

Updated scope of this issue

Originally: 4-template PR-body checklist wording sync.
After Step 5.7: 5-template (added chain-flow.md:254).
After this PR #109 verify: 5-template + 3 satellite follow-ups (F3 / Trace 1 example / DA3 wording) — all share the theme "NSQL doctrine consistency across the IDD documentation family".

(DA2 from PR #109 verify — logic reviewer's bash analysis process improvement — is intentionally NOT added here. It's a process observation about the verify reviewer pool itself, not a code fix.)

Current Status

Phase: diagnosed
Last updated: 2026-05-20 by idd-diagnose

Key Decisions

• Complexity = Plan (Layer V: V≤3, untriggered)
• Strategy: 5 PR-body wording sync + 3 satellite items (F3 / Trace 1 / DA3) = 8 edit sites across 6 files
• Plan-tier triggers: 2+ files sequence dependency, decision-heavy (Option A vs B + version bump strategy + Trace 1 rewrite scope), cross-file refactor without external contract change
• Sister concerns: none surfaced
• Residue: deeper Spectra-tier question — should PR-body fragment be factored into shared template? (out of Sync 4-template PR-body checklist wording to match #102 NSQL doctrine #108 scope)

Scope Changes

• (none — diagnosed scope matches issue body)

Blocking

• (none — ready for /idd-plan Sync 4-template PR-body checklist wording to match #102 NSQL doctrine #108 (per chain shell unattended, idd-plan EnterPlanMode auto-applies))

Commits

• (none yet)

[kiki830621]

Diagnosis

Type

refactor (consistency family sync) — propagate the #102 NSQL doctrine wording across the IDD documentation family.

Analysis

#102 shipped the doctrine that verify-gated PASS is the terminal default disposition, with --review as opt-in re-open. The orchestrators (idd-all Phase 6 + idd-all-chain Phase 4 PR-body checklist) were updated in PR #109. The sibling templates that share the same wording-of-record were intentionally left at the legacy Pending: human review of this PR framing to keep #109's scope narrow.

Post-#102 + post-PR #109 verify, the consistency family has grown:

Surface	Touched in PR #109?	Wording state
idd-all-chain Phase 5 PR-body line 553	✓	doctrine-aligned (conditional on $REVIEW_FLAG)
idd-implement Step 5.5 line 503	✗	legacy Pending: human review of this PR
idd-all Phase 5 line 746	✗	legacy Pending: human review of this PR
references/pr-flow.md line 135 (canonical)	✗	legacy Pending: human review of this PR
references/chain-flow.md line 254 (chain canonical)	✗	legacy Pending: human review of cluster PR
idd-all-chain Phase 4 final-report stdout (forest tree + STOP msg)	✗	not --review-aware (F3 from PR #109 regression)
idd-all Trace 1 example block (lines 893-901)	✗	shows old Verify: PASS + Next: review PR, merge (req cosmetic from PR #109)
idd-all + idd-all-chain Phase 0 args comments + MANIFESTO	✗	uses messaging-only (DA3: should be orchestrator-scope messaging-only)

= 5 PR-body wording sync + 3 satellite items = 8 separate edit sites, 4 distinct files (idd-implement, idd-all, idd-all-chain, pr-flow.md, chain-flow.md, MANIFESTO).

The 5-template wording sync IS the canonical scope; the 3 satellites accumulated as PR #109's 6-AI verify found related drift the doctrine should also tighten. All 8 share the theme "NSQL doctrine consistency across the IDD documentation family".

Option A vs Option B (idd-implement and --review): per the issue body, recommended Option A — only the default wording changes for idd-implement. The --review flag remains an orchestrator-only flag (idd-all + idd-all-chain); when user invokes idd-implement directly, they get the verify-gated default wording without --review awareness. Symmetric Option B (threading --review into idd-implement) is unnecessary scope.

Impact

• Affected files (4 in plugin):
  • plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-implement/SKILL.md (Step 5.5 PR-body line 503)
  • plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-all/SKILL.md (Phase 5 line 746 + Trace 1 example 893-901 + Phase 0 args parsing comment)
  • plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-all-chain/SKILL.md (Phase 4 final-report stdout + Phase 0 args parsing comment)
  • plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/pr-flow.md (line 135)
  • plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/chain-flow.md (line 254)
  • plugins/issue-driven-dev/MANIFESTO.md ("messaging-only" wording in Human-in-the-loop section)
  • plugins/issue-driven-dev/CHANGELOG.md (v2.65.1 patch entry — or v2.66.0 minor)
  • plugins/issue-driven-dev/.claude-plugin/plugin.json (version bump)
• Affected user flow: post-merge PR descriptions emitted by any IDD orchestrator will read Verify-gated: ready to merge consistently regardless of which orchestrator opened the PR. Plan tier Trace 1 example narrative aligns with current Phase 6 output. MANIFESTO + Phase 0 comments use precise scope wording.

Strategy

• PR-body wording sync (4 sites):

  • idd-implement/SKILL.md Step 5.5 line 503 → - [x] **Verify-gated**: PR verify PASS — ready to merge → /idd-close #${NUMBER} after merge
  • idd-all/SKILL.md Phase 5 line 746 → same swap
  • references/pr-flow.md line 135 → same swap
  • references/chain-flow.md line 254 → cluster variant - [x] **Verify-gated**: per-issue verify PASS — cluster ready to merge → /idd-close <REFS> per issue after merge

  Per Option A: none of these accept --review flag — the conditional --review variant only ships in idd-all + idd-all-chain (already in v2.65.0).

• F3 — idd-all-chain Phase 4 final report stdout --review-aware: dispatch the forest-tree printout's STOP message on $REVIEW_FLAG analogous to Phase 6 of /idd-all

• Trace 1 example refresh: rewrite the example block in idd-all/SKILL.md lines 893-901 to show Verify: verify-gated PASS + Next: merge ... then /idd-close (default) and add a parallel --review variant example

• DA3 wording refinement: replace messaging-only with orchestrator-scope messaging-only in 3 locations (idd-all Phase 0 args comment, idd-all-chain Phase 0 args comment, MANIFESTO Human-in-the-loop --review paragraph)

• CHANGELOG entry under [Unreleased] — patch or minor decision in plan

• Plugin version bump — patch (v2.65.1) vs minor (v2.66.0) decision in plan

Complexity

Plan — triggered by Layer P signals:

• 2+ files with sequence dependency: 6 distinct files, 8 edit sites; some are coordinated wording (the 4 PR-body templates must use identical text to maintain "family consistency")
• Decision-heavy with 2+ valid approaches: (1) Option A vs B for idd-implement --review — recommend A but plan should explicitly decide; (2) version bump strategy — patch (v2.65.1, "no behavior change, just consistency cleanup") vs minor (v2.66.0, "MANIFESTO doctrine prose change + multi-file wording change") — defensible both ways; (3) Trace 1 example: full rewrite vs minimal edit
• Cross-file refactor but no external contract change: doctrine + wording, no new API / no skill behavior change. Internal consistency family.

Risks

• R1: 4 PR-body templates accidentally drift again if future skill changes don't sync all 4 — there is no automated check enforcing the wording. Mitigation: each of the 4 sites cross-references the others as the "consistency family" in inline comments. Long-term fix would be a single canonical PR-body fragment extracted into shared template, but that is Spectra-tier and out of Sync 4-template PR-body checklist wording to match #102 NSQL doctrine #108 scope.
• R2: Option B advocates surfacing: someone might want idd-implement --review (direct invocation with review opt-in) — Option A defers that. Mitigation: explicit "Out-of-scope" note in plan + this issue body already lists it as alternative.
• R3: Trace 1 rewrite could trigger Plan-tier scope-creep into rewriting Trace 2, Trace 3, etc. — they may have similar staleness. Mitigation: scope explicitly to Trace 1 (named example). If Trace 2/3/N are also stale, file as follow-up.
• R4: Version bump decision affects downstream /idd-close Step 6.5 marketplace sync — patch vs minor changes which entries in marketplace.json description chain. Mitigation: explicit decision in plan; cite IDD human-in-the-loop should conform to the NSQL confirmation protocol (v4.1.0) #103 precedent (v2.64.0 was minor for behavior change + new flag).

Residue

The doctrine consistency this issue is enforcing is prose-wording consistency, not behavioral consistency. Different orchestrators (idd-implement / idd-all / idd-all-chain) actually have different behaviors (verify scope, branch state, multi-vs-single-issue), so "same words" papers over real semantic differences. A purer fix would be to template the PR-body fragment into a shared file all 4 orchestrators include — but that's Spectra-tier (new abstraction with future-caller contract) and well out of #108 scope. The deferred "should we factor out a shared template?" question is the residue here.

Vagueness Pre-check

• V1: 2 — 5-template + 3-satellite scope explicitly listed in issue body + this Diagnosis Strategy table.
• V4: 3 — acceptance is mostly clear (wording aligned across 4 PR-body sites + 3 satellites updated); version bump strategy (patch vs minor) is Plan-tier deliberation.
• Triggered: no — both axes ≤ 3

Sister Concerns Filed (mid-diagnose, v2.47.0+ #528)

none surfaced — 8 edit sites are all named in Diagnosis Strategy; no additional out-of-scope mentions during analysis. Trace 2/3/N example staleness (R3) is contingent on whether they are stale — leave as conditional follow-up if discovered during implementation, not pre-emptive sister.

[kiki830621]

Implementation Complete

PR: TBD (cluster — Phase 3 next) · branch idd/chain-multi-5439e76b-idd-close-residue-acknowledgement-prompt

Checklist (synced from TaskList)

4 PR-body templates (verify-gated default wording):

• plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-implement/SKILL.md:503 — - [x] Verify-gated: PR verify PASS — ready to merge → 7f94c96
• plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-all/SKILL.md:755 (Phase 5) — same swap → 7f94c96
• plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/pr-flow.md:135 (canonical) — same swap → 7f94c96
• plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/chain-flow.md:254 — cluster variant Verify-gated: per-issue verify PASS — cluster ready to merge → 7f94c96

3 satellite items:

• F3 — plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-all-chain/SKILL.md Phase 4 final stdout report --review-aware via explicit if/else before heredoc (avoids ${VAR:-word} mutex pitfall from PR [enhancement] acceptance-review 缺在 IDD mode model — 「人不 review」需要 first-class 做法 #109 F1) → 7a81617
• Trace 1 refresh — plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-all/SKILL.md:893-901 example block updated to show default Verify: verify-gated PASS + parallel --review variant block → 3708304
• DA3 wording precision — orchestrator-scope messaging-only in 3 sites (idd-all/idd-all-chain args parsing comments + MANIFESTO Human-in-the-loop section) → 3708304

Cluster bump:

• CHANGELOG v2.66.0 entry (covers idd-close: Residue acknowledgement prompt — close the F3 write-only loop #105 + idd-issue Step 5: add CI/loop hard-parse warning for echo expansion (parallel to --no-multi-finding warning) #107 + Sync 4-template PR-body checklist wording to match #102 NSQL doctrine #108) → 0370516
• plugin.json 2.65.0 → 2.66.0 → 0370516

Legend: - [x] done. idd-close will refuse to close if any - [ ] remains.

Changes

• 7f94c96 feat(consistency): sync 4 PR-body templates to NSQL verify-gated wording (Refs Sync 4-template PR-body checklist wording to match #102 NSQL doctrine #108)
• 7a81617 feat(idd-all-chain): Phase 4 final stdout dispatch on $REVIEW_FLAG (Refs Sync 4-template PR-body checklist wording to match #102 NSQL doctrine #108 F3)
• 3708304 feat(consistency): Trace 1 example refresh + DA3 wording precision (Refs Sync 4-template PR-body checklist wording to match #102 NSQL doctrine #108)
• 0370516 chore: bump issue-driven-dev to v2.66.0 (cluster bump shared with idd-close: Residue acknowledgement prompt — close the F3 write-only loop #105 + idd-issue Step 5: add CI/loop hard-parse warning for echo expansion (parallel to --no-multi-finding warning) #107)

Scope Compliance

On-plan — exactly the 5-template + 3-satellite scope. Per Option A from diagnosis: idd-implement does NOT accept --review flag (remains idd-all + idd-all-chain only). F3 satellite explicitly avoids the ${VAR:-word} mutex pitfall hardcoded into doctrine after PR #109 F1 — uses if/else building VERIFY_LINE + NEXT_STEPS before heredoc interpolation.

Sister Bugs Filed (mid-impl, Step 5.7)

none surfaced — the consistency family was already enumerated in the diagnosis (5 + 3 = 8 specific sites). Trace 2-5 are mentioned in idd-all/SKILL.md (lines 906+, 933+) — they describe different (path, interaction) modes, not (default vs --review) outputs, so they don't need the same refresh. Other docs that might reference "Verify: PASS" wording: pre-emptive search via grep -rn 'Verify:.*PASS' plugins/ returns the touched files + already-doctrine-aligned idd-close/idd-verify strings + #105's new Step 3.6 audit text — no drift surface remaining.

Next: verification pending

/idd-verify --pr <PR> after cluster PR open (Phase 3 next) — cluster verify mode with per-issue findings sections.