[#221] feat: quality model document (3 layers + 3 pillars + classification rules + taxonomy)

[rucka]

PR Information

PR Title: [#229] feat: pair-capability-grill interview engine
Story/Epic: #229 (pair-capability-grill — interview engine); Parent Epic #205 (Structured & parametrized brainstorming)
Type: Feature
Priority: P0 (Must-Have)
Assignee: N/A (agent-authored)
Reviewers: N/A
Labels: feature, documentation, skills

Summary

What Changed

Adds a new capability skill, pair-capability-grill (.claude/skills/pair-capability-grill/SKILL.md), a reusable write-free interview engine with two modes:

• interview — freeform exploration of a topic, one question at a time, always with a recommendation.
• sync — systematic AI↔human alignment across six story aspects (Goal, AC, Edge Cases, Dependencies, Design, Risks), ending only on explicit shared-understanding confirmation.

The skill explores the KB/codebase before asking anything answerable that way, never writes to adoption files or PM tool issues (the only permitted write is an optional .pair/working/ handoff), and is invocable standalone or composed by /pair-process-brainstorm (phase 1) and a future /pair-process-refine-story phase 0.

Docs and distribution were updated to catalog the new skill and reconcile capability/total skill counts (20→22 capability, 32/33→34 total) across the docs site and .pair/knowledge/skills-guide.md, plus the packaged knowledge-hub dataset copy.

A second commit (0b55179 / e12cb71 on this branch) fixed a mapping bug found during self-review: the Sync Coverage Checklist's Goal row referenced a User Value section that only exists in the template's Initial Breakdown, not the Refined User Story Template that sync mode targets — removed. The same commit also reconciled the capability count, which had been bumped 20→21 in the first commit against a stale baseline rather than the actual directory count (22).

Why This Change

Interviews currently happen ad hoc and inconsistently across brainstorm and refine-story. This story extracts a single, reusable, write-free interview engine so both flows (and standalone use) share the same one-at-a-time / always-recommend / explore-first discipline, and so the sync mode can gate the Ready transition (R3.11) on an explicit, systematically-covered shared understanding rather than an implicit one.

Story Context

User Story: As a pair user in discovery or refinement, I want pair-capability-grill — a reusable, write-free interview engine (one question at a time, always with a recommendation, exploring KB/codebase before asking) with a sync mode for AI↔human story alignment — so that interviews are consistent across brainstorm and refine, and shared understanding gates the Ready transition (R3.11).

Acceptance Criteria:

1. One question at a time, each with a recommendation; anything answerable by exploring KB/codebase is explored instead of asked.
2. $mode: sync covers all six story aspects systematically and ends only at explicit shared understanding, returning the alignment synthesis to the caller.
3. Grill writes nothing to adoption/issues in any mode — returns synthesis to caller; standalone allows an optional .pair/working/ handoff on request.
4. Standalone invocation works with no composition context (decision Q8).

Changes Made

Implementation Details

• Change 1: Authored .claude/skills/pair-capability-grill/SKILL.md — frontmatter, Arguments ($mode/$topic/$story/$context/$aspects), Modes, 7-step Algorithm (Step 0 mode/target detection + HALT, Step 1 explore-first, Step 2 queue building, Step 3 one-question-at-a-time with mandatory recommendation, Step 4 explicit-confirmation-only exit, Step 5 synthesis assembly, Step 6 return-never-write + optional handoff), Sync Coverage Checklist, Output Format, Composition Interface, Example Transcripts, Edge Cases, HALT Conditions, Graceful Degradation, Notes.
• Change 2: Built the six-row Sync Coverage Checklist mapping each aspect (Goal, AC, Edge Cases, Dependencies, Design, Risks) to the exact Refined User Story Template section(s), each with an "Explore First" source and a "Sample Probe".
• Change 3: Specified the Composition Interface (brainstorm phase 1, refine-story phase 0 as a documented future extension, standalone) and the .pair/working/ handoff file convention (naming, content, degradation path if the directory can't be written).
• Change 4: Updated docs site (skills-catalog.mdx, writing-skills.mdx, skill-management.mdx) and .pair/knowledge/skills-guide.md (project + distributed copies) with a new "Discovery" category and reconciled skill counts; added the distributed copy packages/knowledge-hub/dataset/.skills/capability/grill/SKILL.md.

Files Changed

• Modified: .pair/knowledge/skills-guide.md, packages/knowledge-hub/dataset/.pair/knowledge/skills-guide.md, apps/website/content/docs/contributing/writing-skills.mdx, apps/website/content/docs/reference/skill-management.mdx, apps/website/content/docs/reference/skills-catalog.mdx
• Added: .claude/skills/pair-capability-grill/SKILL.md, packages/knowledge-hub/dataset/.skills/capability/grill/SKILL.md
• Deleted: None
• Renamed: None

Database Changes

N/A — no database involved in this repo/change.

API Changes

N/A — no API surface changed; this is a prose skill definition (no runtime code per story sizing).

Testing

Test Coverage

• Unit Tests: None — no runtime code to test (skill is a markdown prose asset).
• Integration Tests: None.
• End-to-End Tests: None specific to this change; existing @pair/website e2e suite re-run (see Test Results) since this branch touches docs-site pages/counts.
• Manual Testing: Not performed as scripted, recorded session transcripts. The story's own Validation and Testing Strategy calls for "scripted session transcripts (interview + sync); write-free audit" — none exist in this diff or repo-wide. The two dialogues in SKILL.md's "Example Transcripts" section are illustrative documentation, not executed-and-captured verification evidence.

Test Results

Test Suite: quality-gate (ts:check, test, lint, prettier:fix, mdlint:fix, hygiene:check, docs:staleness) — PASS
Coverage: N/A (no runtime code added)
Performance Tests: N/A
Security Scan: N/A (no automated security scan configured in this repo)
Linting: Clean
Smoke tests (scripts/smoke-tests/run-all.sh): PASS — all scenarios passed
Website e2e (@pair/website, 35 tests): PASS on re-run (first run hit a 120s webserver cold-start timeout, unrelated to this diff — confirmed by clean retry with 35/35 green)

Testing Strategy

• Happy Path: Not exercised via a scripted transcript — see gap noted above.
• Edge Cases: "Don't know" → provisional-answer-as-assumption, and session-interrupted → handoff-offer are specified in prose (SKILL.md Edge Cases section) but not exercised in an actual session.
• Error Handling: sync mode's HALT when no target story is resolvable is specified (Step 0.4 / HALT Conditions) but not exercised.
• Performance: N/A.

Quality Assurance

Code Quality Checklist

• Code (prose) follows established skill-authoring conventions (Check/Act/Verify step structure, matches other pair-capability-* skills)
• Frontmatter and sections documented per skill-authoring guide
• Edge cases documented (don't-know, interrupted session, already-answered aspect)
• No security-sensitive logic (no runtime code, no secrets)
• Performance considerations: N/A (no runtime code)
• No debugging code or console logs (no code at all)

Review Areas

• Business Logic: Verified prose against AC1–AC4 (see review comment for detail)
• Code Structure: Single markdown file, consistent with sibling capability skills
• Error Handling: Specified but unverified by execution — see review comment
• Performance: N/A
• Security: N/A — no code, no secrets, no external calls
• Testing: Coverage gap — see review comment (no scripted transcripts / write-free audit)

Deployment Information

Environment Impact

• Development: Ready — skill file is picked up by any agent reading .claude/skills/
• Staging: N/A — no staging environment for skill content
• Production: N/A — distributed via packages/knowledge-hub/dataset/ on next knowledge-hub release
• Configuration: N/A

Deployment Notes

• Database Migration: N/A
• Configuration Changes: N/A
• Feature Flags: N/A
• Dependencies: None added (no package.json changes in this diff)

Rollback Plan

Revert the commits / delete .claude/skills/pair-capability-grill/ and the distributed dataset copy, and revert the doc count changes. No data or runtime state to roll back.

Breaking Changes

API Breaking Changes

N/A — no API in this repo affected.

Integration Breaking Changes

N/A — grill is a net-new, opt-in composition point; nothing currently calls it (refine-story's phase 0 composition is documented as a future extension, not yet wired).

Migration Guide

N/A.

Documentation

Documentation Updates

• README: N/A — no README changes
• API Documentation: N/A
• User Documentation: Docs site updated — new "Discovery Capabilities" section in skills-catalog.mdx, count bumps in writing-skills.mdx / skill-management.mdx
• Technical Documentation: .pair/knowledge/skills-guide.md updated with new "Discovery Skills (1)" subsection and directory tree entry

Knowledge Sharing

• Technical Decisions: Composition contract (brainstorm/refine-story/standalone) documented inline in SKILL.md's Composition Interface section
• Learning Notes: First-commit mapping bug (stray User Value section reference) and count-reconciliation miss are both disclosed in the issue's Task Breakdown notes and fixed in the follow-up commit on this branch
• Best Practices: N/A beyond following the existing capability-skill authoring pattern

Performance Impact

Performance Metrics

• Load Time: N/A
• Response Time: N/A
• Memory Usage: N/A
• Database Performance: N/A

Benchmarking Results

N/A — no runtime code, nothing to benchmark.

Monitoring

• Metrics Added: N/A
• Alerts Configured: N/A
• Dashboards Updated: N/A

Security Considerations

Security Review

• Authentication: N/A — no auth surface
• Authorization: N/A
• Data Protection: N/A — grill's write-free contract is itself the main safety property of this story (AC3); asserted in three places in SKILL.md (Step 6, Composition Interface, Notes) but not independently audited (see Testing gap)
• Input Validation: N/A — no code accepting untrusted input
• Dependency Security: N/A — no dependencies added

Security Testing

• Security Scan: N/A — no automated scan in this repo's pipeline
• Penetration Testing: N/A
• Compliance Check: N/A

Accessibility

Accessibility Compliance

N/A — no UI shipped in this change (docs-site count/text edits only, no new components).

Accessibility Testing

N/A.

Risk Assessment

Technical Risks

Risk	Impact	Probability	Mitigation
Write-free contract (AC3) never independently exercised/audited	Medium	Medium	Add a scripted write-free audit before this composes into refine-story's real writes
Sessions too long in sync mode (story's own risk table)	Medium	Medium	Coverage checklist ordered by risk of omission; explored/already-answered aspects skipped
Composition contract with refine-story unverified (phase 0 not built)	Low	Medium	Verify with a mock caller once /pair-process-refine-story phase 0 lands

Business Risks

Risk	Impact	Probability	Mitigation
Docs count drift again as more skills are added	Low	Medium	docs:staleness quality-gate check already catches this (ran PASS)
Inconsistent interview UX until brainstorm/refine actually adopt grill	Low	Low	Tracked by dependent stories #230 (brainstorm) and refine-story extension (#202 epic)

Reviewer Guide

Review Focus Areas

1. Business Logic Validation: Confirm the Algorithm's Steps 3/4/6 actually implement AC1 (one-at-a-time + recommendation + explore-first), AC2 (sync systematic coverage + explicit-only exit), AC3 (write-free), AC4 (standalone works with no context).
2. Code Quality Assessment: Prose structure, consistency with sibling pair-capability-* skills, correctness of the Sync Coverage Checklist's section-name mapping against user-story-template.md.
3. Technical Implementation: No architectural decision required (no runtime code, no new dependency); verify doc/count changes match the actual skill directory counts.

Testing the Changes

git checkout feature/#229-pair-capability-grill
pnpm install
pnpm quality-gate
pnpm smoke-tests
pnpm --filter @pair/website e2e
# Manually: invoke /pair-capability-grill in an agent session, standalone and with a mock $story, to exercise the modes.

Key Test Scenarios

1. Scenario 1: Standalone interview mode with no $topic — should ask for the topic first, then proceed one question at a time with recommendations.
2. Scenario 2: sync mode with $story pointing at a partially-refined story — should skip already-covered aspects and only queue genuinely open ones.
3. Scenario 3: sync mode with no $story and no composer $context — should HALT per Step 0.4.

Dependencies & Related Work

Blocking Dependencies

• PR Dependency: None
• Infrastructure: None
• Third-party: None

Related PRs

• Follows: Structured & parametrized brainstorming (interview → domain → tree triage) #205 (parent epic — Structured & parametrized brainstorming)
• Blocks: pair-process-brainstorm — 3 phases, parametrized ($root, orientation) #230 (brainstorm phase 1 composition), refine-story phase 0 extension (epic Canonical states, n-m mapping, DoR/DoD, refine=Draft→Ready #202)
• Related: Split implement: checkpoint + publish-pr via subagent #206 (checkpoint capability — handoff format alignment noted in SKILL.md Notes)

Follow-up Work

• Technical Debt: Missing QA transcripts / write-free audit (DoD checklist items "Composition contract verified with a mock caller" and "Write-free property verified" are unchecked on issue pair-capability-grill — interview engine (interview|sync modes) #229) — flagged in review comment, not fixed in this PR per task scope.
• Future Enhancements: Wire refine-story phase 0 to actually compose grill (currently documented as future extension only).
• Monitoring: N/A.

Stakeholder Communication

Stakeholder Notification

• Product Owner: N/A
• Business Stakeholders: N/A
• Customer Support: N/A
• Operations Team: N/A

Communication Plan

• Before Merge: N/A
• After Deployment: N/A
• Issue Response: N/A

[rucka]

Review Information

PR Number: #268
Author: (branch author, feature/#221-quality-model-document)
Reviewer: pair-review agent
Review Date: 2026-07-07
Story/Epic: #221 (Refined) — parent epic #208 Unified classification & assessments
Review Type: Documentation
Estimated Review Time: 25 minutes

Review Summary

Overall Assessment

• Approved with Comments — 3 known gaps present, all already disclosed by the author in the story's own task notes; none block merge for a docs-only, zero-runtime-code PR that is the first story of its epic.

Key Changes Summary

Adds quality-model.md — the single KB source of default quality rules (3-layer principle, 3 pillars, 5 classification dimensions with tier=max, per-tier requirements table, tech/risk-matrix.md adoption-delta schema, chromatic tag projection, and a 10-item nested taxonomy). Ships a companion risk-matrix-example.md, a mirrored docs-site page (quality-model.mdx) wired into meta.json/guidelines-catalog.mdx, a README index entry, and a 13-assertion Vitest structural test suite (quality-model.test.ts) including a real existsSync link-check for the taxonomy pointers.

Business Value Validation

Confirmed. This is the FIRST story of epic #208 and unblocks assess-cost, assess-security, review-template, and classify — all listed as dependent stories. AC1–AC4 are covered by §1–§7 of the document; verified by direct reading of the diff against the ACs.

Code Review Checklist

Functionality Review

• Requirements Met — AC1–AC4 all present (3-layer §1, 3 pillars §2, classification+tiers §3–4, taxonomy §7, resolution cascade §6).
• Business Logic — Tier=max, D10 SLA table (1 reviewer even at 🔴), chromatic-only tags (no eligibility tag), coupling contributes to risk:* not a new tag family — all match the story's Business Rules verbatim.
• User Experience — docs-site page renders and is reachable; verified via pnpm --filter @pair/website e2e (35/35 passing, incl. "no broken .md links" and page-200 smoke specs).
• Integration — no runtime consumers yet (expected — dependent skill stories not yet built).
• Error Handling — §6 documents malformed-file, unknown-service, and absent-file resolution explicitly.
• Performance — N/A, no runtime code.

Code Quality Assessment

• Readability — tables over prose throughout, consistent with D22 reading-budget constraint; doc is ~128 lines.
• Maintainability — single document, no duplicated content (coupling model and cost-signal catalog are pointed to, not restated).
• Reusability — N/A (content, not code).
• Naming — section numbering matches cross-references (§3.1, §3.2, §6 etc.) consistently across the KB doc and the docs-site mirror.
• Comments — N/A.
• Complexity — reasonable; the doc balances completeness against the reading-budget constraint.

Technical Standards Compliance

• Style Guide — markdownlint green (verified via pnpm quality-gate, which runs mdlint:fix + the repo's markdownlint-fix script).
• Architecture — no architectural decision introduced by this diff (Q1/Q2/Q2b decisions predate this PR, made during story refinement); no ADR/ADL required, none added — confirmed via git diff main...HEAD --stat -- .pair/adoption/tech/ (zero changes).
• Design Patterns — N/A.
• Dependencies — zero new dependencies; confirmed via git diff main...HEAD --stat -- '*package.json' 'pnpm-lock.yaml' (empty).
• API Design — N/A, no API.
• Database — N/A.

Security Review

Security Checklist

• Input Validation — N/A, no runtime input.
• Output Encoding — N/A.
• Authentication — N/A.
• Authorization — N/A.
• Data Protection — N/A, no data handled.
• Dependency Security — no new dependencies.
• Secrets Management — no secrets in diff (checked all 7 changed files).
• HTTPS/TLS — N/A.

Security Concerns

None identified. Pure content/test addition.

Testing Review

Test Coverage Assessment

• Unit Tests — quality-model.test.ts, 13 it blocks covering document structure, D10 SLA regex, tag-projection literals, resolution-order string, 4-scenario cascade wording, and §7 link existence.
• Integration Tests — none; no resolver exists yet to integration-test against (explicitly deferred to dependent skill stories per the story's own Technical Strategy: "pure KB content... no runtime code").
• End-to-End Tests — pnpm --filter @pair/website e2e, 35/35 passing, covers the new docs page's reachability and link integrity.
• Edge Cases — malformed/unknown-service/absent-file/conflicting-override all documented in §6 and asserted textually.
• Error Scenarios — N/A, no runtime error paths.
• Performance Tests — N/A.

Test Quality Review

• Test Clarity — test names are descriptive and specific (e.g., "resolves every §7 nested-taxonomy pointer link to a file on disk").
• Test Independence — all tests read static file contents, no shared mutable state.
• Test Data — realistic example data (payments, checkout, etc. in risk-matrix-example.md).
• Mocking — none needed (no external dependencies).
• Assertions — specific: regex on exact SLA wording ("1 reviewer (not 2)"), not just presence of an emoji.
• Test Organization — grouped in 3 describe blocks (doc structure / example file / README index).

Testing Feedback

Quality Gate (pnpm quality-gate — ts:check + test + lint + prettier + mdlint + hygiene:check + docs:staleness): ✅ PASS (ran as pre-push hook)
Smoke Tests (pnpm smoke-tests): ✅ PASS (all scenarios)
E2E — website (pnpm --filter @pair/website e2e): ✅ PASS (35/35)
Test Results: ✅ All Passing

Performance Review

N/A for all sub-sections — pure documentation/test content, no runtime code path, no database, no caching.

Documentation Review

Documentation Checklist

• Code Comments — N/A.
• API Documentation — N/A.
• README Updates — QA README.md updated with the new index bullet.
• User Documentation — new docs-site page live at /docs/reference/quality-model, cross-linked from the guidelines catalog.
• Technical Documentation — this PR's payload is itself the technical documentation.
• Change Log — no changeset present; the branch's last commit reads "chore: remove changeset (deferred to release batch)" — consistent with an apparent practice of batching changesets at release time, though not verified against a written policy in this pass.

Documentation Quality

• Accuracy — doc content verified against issue Quality model document (3 layers + 3 pillars + default classification rules + taxonomy) #221's ACs and Business Rules line-by-line.
• Completeness — all 4 ACs covered.
• Clarity — tables over prose per D22.
• Examples — risk-matrix-example.md provided.
• Up-to-date — see Major/Minor findings below re: .pair/llms.txt and taxonomy pointers.

Detailed Review Comments

Positive Feedback

What's Done Well:

• Reading-budget discipline is genuinely respected — ~128 lines covering 3-layer + 3 pillars + 5 dimensions + tier table + delta schema + tag projection + 10-item taxonomy, almost entirely in tables.
• The two forward-referenced guidelines (coupling-balance.md, cost-assessment) are disclosed with code spans, not []() links — actively avoiding dead hyperlinks, with a dedicated regression test (does not create dead hyperlinks for guidelines that do not exist yet) locking this in.
• The docs-site page's risk-matrix delta link was fixed mid-branch (commit 5df03c7) to stop pointing at a self-referential catalog anchor and instead point at the real KB source files — a real, caught, and fixed circular-link bug.
• §7's link-existence test (existsSync against real files, not just regex-on-text) is a genuinely useful regression guard that most doc-only PRs skip.

Issues to Address

Critical Issues ⚠️

None.

Major Issues 🔍

Should fix before merge (or explicitly tracked if deferred):

• .pair/llms.txt (repo root) — T4's own description and the story's DoD checklist ("llms.txt / KB index updated") explicitly name the repo-root static .pair/llms.txt as a target. git diff main...HEAD -- .pair/llms.txt shows zero changes on this branch, confirmed on the current (rebased-onto-latest-main) branch tip. This file is the one this repo's own CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md calls the "AI-friendly index." The website's own dynamic /llms.txt route is unaffected (generated from the added .mdx page at request time), so only the static, checked-in file is in question. If batch-regeneration-at-release is confirmed practice (suggested by this branch's own "defer changeset to release batch" commit), this may be a non-issue — but nothing in the branch or issue states that explicitly, so it's flagged as a real, unresolved gap against the literal DoD wording rather than assumed closed.

Minor Issues 💡

Consider addressing:

• quality-model.md §7, 2 of 10 taxonomy pointers — "Architecture / modularity" (architecture/design-patterns/coupling-balance.md) and "Cost signals" (cost-assessment guideline) point at guidelines that do not exist on disk yet — confirmed via direct filesystem check on the branch. AC1 asks for "the nested taxonomy with pointers to existing guidelines," so this is ~80% true today rather than 100%. Honestly disclosed in-line ("not yet published") and structurally protected against becoming dead hyperlinks (code span, not markdown link, plus a dedicated test). Low severity because the gap is disclosed and tested, but it is a real, confirmed gap against AC1's literal wording, not a nitpick.
• Resolution-cascade "testing" is textual, not behavioral — the story's "Testing Methods" line says "resolution test with/without delta," and AC2/AC3 are phrased behaviorally ("when classification or review resolve the model... then..."). What's actually tested (quality-model.test.ts) is that the document's own walkthrough table contains the expected wording per scenario — i.e., internal consistency of the doc, not execution of a resolution algorithm against a real tech/risk-matrix.md. Given this story ships zero runtime code (explicit in its own Technical Strategy), this is arguably the most that could be tested here; real behavioral verification is deferred to the dependent skill stories (assess-cost, assess-security, review, classify). Flagging so it's tracked, not silently assumed closed, when those stories land.

Questions ❓

None — the 3 issues above are already self-disclosed in the story's own task notes; no clarification needed, just confirmation (which this review provides) that they still hold on the rebased branch tip.

Suggestions and Improvements

Architecture Suggestions

None — no architectural decision introduced by this diff.

Best Practices

• When the dependent stories (assess-cost/assess-security/classify) land, consider adding an actual resolver-level test that reads a real tech/risk-matrix.md fixture and asserts the resolved tier/tags, closing the "textual-only" gap noted above.
• When .pair/llms.txt regeneration timing is confirmed (batch-at-release vs. per-story), it would be worth a one-line ADL documenting that decision so future doc-only PRs aren't repeatedly flagged for the same non-issue (if it is confirmed to be one).

Risk Assessment

Technical Risks

Risk	Impact	Probability	Mitigation
Model too verbose for skills to consume reliably	Low	Low	Reading-budget structure already applied; ~128 lines, tables over prose
2/10 taxonomy pointers forward-reference unwritten guidelines	Low	High (confirmed present)	Disclosed, non-dead-link, tracked against dependent backlog items
Resolution-cascade tests are textual only	Medium	High (confirmed present)	Acceptable given zero runtime code shipped; real verification deferred to dependent stories — must not be silently assumed closed later

Business Risks

Risk	Impact	Probability	Mitigation
Dependent stories build against 2 forward-referenced guidelines not yet written	Low	Medium	Both disclosed in-doc; epic #208 already tracks the dependent stories
.pair/llms.txt staleness reduces AI-agent discoverability of the new doc	Low	Medium (confirmed static index unchanged)	Low impact short-term since the website's dynamic llms.txt route already reflects the new page; static repo-root index gap should be closed before/at next release batch

Tech Debt Assessment

No NEW tech debt introduced by the code/test in this diff beyond the 3 items above, all of which are pre-existing gaps in the story's own scope (already surfaced by the story's own task-level review notes) rather than debt newly created by this PR's implementation choices:

1. Repo-root .pair/llms.txt not updated (Major) — recommend a follow-up task or an explicit ADL if batch-regeneration is the accepted pattern.
2. 2/10 taxonomy pointers forward-reference unwritten guidelines (Minor) — self-resolving once coupling-balance.md and the cost-assessment guideline land in their own stories; no action needed here beyond tracking.
3. Resolution-cascade coverage is textual, not behavioral (Minor) — expected to be closed by dependent skill stories' own test suites; flag in this PR is to prevent it being silently assumed already covered.

None of the three block merge; none require immediate code changes to this PR's content per the review's remit (report-only, no fixes applied here).

Adoption Compliance

Area	Status	Notes
Tech stack / new dependencies	CONFORMANT	Zero new dependencies (git diff --stat -- '*package.json' 'pnpm-lock.yaml' empty)
Architectural decisions (ADR)	CONFORMANT	No new architectural decision introduced by this diff; .pair/adoption/tech/adr/ untouched; Q1/Q2/Q2b decisions predate this PR (made during story refinement)
Non-architectural decisions (ADL)	CONFORMANT	.pair/adoption/decision-log/ untouched; none needed for a pure-content addition
Security	CONFORMANT	No secrets, no new attack surface, no dependency changes
Coding standards	CONFORMANT	markdownlint green via quality-gate; test file follows existing Vitest conventions in packages/knowledge-hub/src
Infrastructure	CONFORMANT	No infra changes
Bounded context / architecture files	CONFORMANT	.pair/adoption/tech/architecture.md, boundedcontext/ untouched — not applicable to a docs-only change

Decision

TECH-DEBT — Approve with tracking. No critical issues, no missing ADR, no security holes, all quality gates (quality-gate, smoke-tests, website e2e) passing. The 3 findings (1 Major: .pair/llms.txt staleness; 2 Minor: forward-referenced taxonomy pointers, textual-only resolution-cascade coverage) are all pre-existing, self-disclosed gaps confirmed still present on the rebased branch tip — recommend tracking them (e.g., a follow-up task against epic #208, or an ADL if .pair/llms.txt batch-regeneration is confirmed as accepted practice) rather than blocking this PR.

---

Per this review's constraints: no fixes have been applied to the branch, and this PR has not been merged.