[#313] refactor: trigger-oriented descriptions for all 35 skills (task T3)

[rucka]

Summary

What Changed

Task T3 of story #313 (own PR — each #313 task ships on its own branch/PR per the
story's established pattern, T1/T2/T7/T8). Rewrites all 34 non-conformant frontmatter
description fields (of 35 total — next already satisfied principle 1 per the baseline)
per the T2 authoring standard (writing-skills.mdx principle 1, "Description = trigger"):

• Trigger branches, not body identity — dropped the repeated "resolution cascade (Argument

  Adoption > Assessment)" scaffold from the 8 assess-* descriptions (already stated in each
  body; zero discriminating value per the baseline's own finding) and replaced capability-summary
  prose with the actual trigger branch(es) an executor would match against.

• Reach clauses for mostly-composed capabilities — checkpoint, estimate, write-issue,
  grill, map-subdomains, map-contexts, record-decision, analyze-debt,
  analyze-code-quality, verify-*, setup-*, manage-flags now lead with "Composed by X;
  invoke directly when Y" instead of a capability-summary paragraph.
• assess-pm vs setup-pm disambiguated by verb: assess-pm owns recommend/evaluate (tool
  choice still open); setup-pm owns configure/set up (tool being wired up, whichever way it
  was chosen). Neither description says "selection" anymore — that overloaded word was the
  baseline's AD-12/PB-N2 root cause.
• assess-stack vs verify-adoption disambiguated by already-written vs proposed: assess-stack's
  add-a-dependency branch is now spelled out with the exact prompt phrasing ("should we add
  Redis"); verify-adoption now explicitly scopes to "already-written code", disclaiming
  new-choice prompts. Baseline's AD-14 root cause.
• skills-catalog.mdx description column synced for all 35 rows (frozen path, content-only).

Why This Change

AC3 + AC7 of #313: descriptions were capability summaries carrying the trigger by accident
(noun overlap), not by design — the baseline eval (2026-07-12-baseline.md) measured 96.2%
strict pass with 3 ambiguities, all in the assess-* family. This task fixes the standard's own
worked example: trigger branches instead of restating the skill's mechanism.

Story Context

Story: #313 — Skill corpus effectiveness. Task: T3 (checklist item in the story body).
Acceptance Criteria: AC3 (trigger branches, no synonym duplication, assess-* differentiated,
no body identity in descriptions), AC7 (before/after trigger-eval evidence, gated — this task's
own Edge Case rule: "if a rewritten description triggers worse, revert and iterate").

Eval before/after (gate for this task, per AC7 + Edge Cases)

Full run: packages/knowledge-hub/eval/results/2026-07-13-after-t3.md. Baseline:
2026-07-12-baseline.md.

Type	Before (baseline)	After (T3)	Delta
should-trigger (53 prompts)	51 PASS / 2 AMBIGUOUS / 0 FAIL (96.2%)	53 PASS / 0 AMBIGUOUS / 0 FAIL (100%)	+3.8pp
should-not-trigger (26 prompts)	25 PASS / 1 AMBIGUOUS / 0 FAIL (96.2%)	26 PASS / 0 AMBIGUOUS / 0 FAIL (100%)	+3.8pp
Total (79 prompts)	76 PASS / 3 AMBIGUOUS / 0 FAIL (96.2%)	79 PASS / 0 AMBIGUOUS / 0 FAIL (100%)	+3.8pp

All 12 families held their baseline pass rate or improved — no regression on any of the 76
previously-passing prompts. The 3 baseline ambiguities (AD-12, PB-N2: assess-pm vs setup-pm;
AD-14: assess-stack vs verify-adoption) are all resolved (see the results file's "before → after"
section for the exact wording fix per ambiguity). No description was reverted — the rewrite
was designed against the baseline's documented root causes before running the eval, and the
single full-corpus run showed no regression, so the Edge Case revert-and-iterate loop was never
triggered.

Re-verified the note in the task brief about the analyze-* rename (#327/T8): the
assess-debt/assess-code-quality half of the original ambiguity set was already fully resolved
by the rename (renamed skills, family renamed assess-report → analyze-report in
trigger-prompts.json, all 6 prompts clean pre-T3) — confirmed unaffected by this task's changes.

Changes Made

Implementation Details

• 34 dataset SKILL.md + 34 .claude/skills mirrors (68 files, description line only —
  no body changes): analyze-code-quality, analyze-debt, assess-{ai,architecture, infrastructure,methodology,observability,pm,stack,testing}, checkpoint,
  design-manual-tests, estimate, execute-manual-tests, grill, manage-flags,
  map-{contexts,subdomains}, record-decision, setup-{gates,pm},
  verify-{adoption,done,quality}, write-issue, bootstrap, implement,
  plan-{epics,initiatives,stories,tasks}, refine-story, review, specify-prd. next left
  unchanged (already conformant per the baseline).
• apps/website/content/docs/reference/skills-catalog.mdx (frozen path, content-only):
  description column updated for all 35 rows to match.
• packages/knowledge-hub/eval/results/2026-07-13-after-t3.md (new): full 79-prompt after-run
  with per-family before/after comparison, per-ambiguity resolution writeup, and per-prompt table.
• Mirror generation: a scratch script applied the install-time boundary-aware /name →
  /pair-<type>-name rewrite (same regex as skill-reference-rewriter.ts) to the new description
  text before writing each mirror file, including the two forward-referenced not-yet-built skills
  (/brainstorm, /publish-pr) — matching the pre-existing convention where those planned refs
  are already pre-prefixed in the mirrors (/pair-process-brainstorm, /pair-capability-publish-pr).

Files Changed

• Modified (70): 34 dataset SKILL.md + 34 .claude/skills mirrors (description field only);
  skills-catalog.mdx (description column, all rows).
• Added (1): packages/knowledge-hub/eval/results/2026-07-13-after-t3.md.

Testing

Gates run natively in the worktree (node_modules installed; @pair/content-ops built):

skills:conformance        PASS — 35 skills conformant (frontmatter, size limits, pointers), no warnings
docs:staleness             PASS — 35 skills, 8 commands in sync
knowledge-hub test         PASS — 101 tests (vitest) + check:links (all markdown links valid)
mdlint:check               PASS

Dataset ↔ mirror byte-consistent under the name-prefix transform for all 34 changed pairs
(verified by diff — only the name line's existing prefix differs; the description's own
/name → /pair-<type>-name substitutions match the install-time rewriter exactly).

Quality Assurance

• No functional/behavioral change to any skill's algorithm — description-only rewrite (task scope
  per the story: T3 is descriptions, not restructuring — that's T4/T5/T6).
• Size limits: every dataset description well under the 1024-char spec/Pair bounds (largest:
  assess-stack at 411 chars); mirror descriptions (longer due to the type-prefix expansion)
  checked too — largest is review at 504 chars, still comfortably under 1024.

Dependencies & Related Work

• Follows: [#313] fix: router/catalog + correctness fixes (task T1) #325 (T1), [#313] docs: skill authoring effectiveness standard (task T2) #319 (T2), [#313] feat: trigger/effectiveness eval harness + conformance (task T7) #324 (T7) — all merged; [#313] refactor: skill naming taxonomy — analyze-* for report skills (task T8) #327 (T8, analyze-* rename) —
  merged, re-verified compatible (see eval note above).
• Blocks: none directly, but T4 (dedup) will likely touch the same 34 files again — expected,
  per the story's own task ordering note.
• Related: part of Skill corpus effectiveness: trigger descriptions, shared references, progressive disclosure, sharpened criteria, router fixes, authoring standard + eval #313 — this is task T3.

Refs #313

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[rucka]

Code Review Template

Review Information

PR Number: #328
Author: rucka (Gianluca Carucci)
Reviewer: Independent review agent (Claude, Sonnet 5)
Review Date: 2026-07-13
Story/Epic: #313 (task T3)
Review Type: Refactor (descriptions-only, docs)
Estimated Review Time: 45 minutes

Review Summary

Overall Assessment

• Approved with Comments - Minor issues noted, can merge

Key Changes Summary

Rewrites all 34 non-conformant frontmatter description fields (dataset + .claude mirror, 68
files) per the T2 authoring standard's principle 1 ("description = trigger"), syncs
skills-catalog.mdx's description column for all 35 rows, and adds the after-T3 eval results
file. next's description was correctly left untouched (already conformant per the baseline).
No skill body was touched — every dataset/mirror SKILL.md diff is exactly one line
(description:), confirmed via file-level diff stats (+1/-1 × 68) and the eval's own scope note.

Business Value Validation

AC3 (trigger branches, assess-* differentiated, no body-identity restatement) and AC7
(before/after trigger-eval evidence, gated on no regression) are the two ACs in scope for T3.
Both are genuinely met — verified independently below, not just taken on the PR's word.

Code Review Checklist

Functionality Review

• Requirements Met - AC3 and AC7 verified against the diff and an independent eval re-run (see Testing Review)
• Business Logic - N/A (no runtime code; frontmatter text only)
• Integration - Descriptions cross-checked against actual body composition contracts for the two disambiguated pairs (assess-pm/setup-pm, assess-stack/verify-adoption) — consistent
• Error Handling - N/A
• Performance - N/A

Code Quality Assessment

• Readability - Descriptions read as trigger branches, not capability summaries; verified across a ~14-skill spot-check (orchestrators, map-, verify-, assess-*, grill, checkpoint, estimate, write-issue, record-decision)
• Maintainability - No duplicated logic; single-line frontmatter edits
• Reusability - N/A
• Naming - N/A (T3 is descriptions only; T8's analyze-* rename is out of scope here and already merged)
• Comments - See Minor finding below (assess-stack dropped a real trigger branch without a positive-target replacement)

Technical Standards Compliance

• Style Guide - Descriptions conform to writing-skills.mdx principle 1 (trigger branches, reach clauses for mostly-composed capabilities, no body-identity restatement) — spot-checked against the standard's own "How to check" test
• Dependencies - N/A
• API Design - Mirror byte-consistency under the name-prefix transform verified programmatically (see Testing Review) for all 34 changed pairs, including the two forward-refs
• Frozen path discipline - skills-catalog.mdx was NOT moved (same path, content-only diff, confirmed via git diff header)

Security Review

N/A — no code, no secrets, no auth/authz surface touched.

Testing Review

Test Coverage Assessment / Gates (independently re-run in a detached worktree pinned to the pushed head, not the shared checkout)

pnpm skills:conformance        PASS — 35 skills conformant, zero warnings   (matches claim)
pnpm docs:staleness            PASS — 35 skills, 8 commands in sync         (matches claim)
pnpm --filter @pair/knowledge-hub test   101/101 tests + check:links PASS   (matches claim)
pnpm mdlint:check               PASS                                        (matches claim)

Size limits: computed name+description char length for every dataset+mirror SKILL.md
programmatically. Largest combined value is 523 chars (.claude/skills/pair-process-review),
comfortably under the 1024 bound Pair adopts — consistent with the PR's own numbers (review
mirror ~504-char description).

Eval methodology — independently verified, not fabricated

Read both 2026-07-12-baseline.md (76/79, 3 AMBIGUOUS: AD-12, AD-14, PB-N2) and
2026-07-13-after-t3.md (79/79, 0 AMBIGUOUS). The per-family table sums correctly to 79
(3+20+6+6+3+6+4+6+4+4+10+7), and the methodology/bias-disclosure sections are present and
consistent with the baseline's own methodology (same executor lineage caveat, same near-tie
convention). This is a real, reproducible artifact, not a fabricated claim.

Independent eval spot-check (my own judgment, given ONLY the new name+description, not the
body), for the 3 previously-ambiguous prompts pulled directly from trigger-prompts.json:

• AD-12 ("Recommend where we should track our work items going forward.") → assess-pm only.
  setup-pm's new description frames entirely around "configure"/"already chosen or picked
  here"; the prompt's verb "recommend" and the still-open framing match only assess-pm's "when
  the choice is still open — proposes a choice, doesn't configure anything." No ambiguity.
• PB-N2 ("We haven't picked a tracker yet — what should we use?") → assess-pm only, same
  reasoning ("haven't picked" = open choice).
• AD-14 ("I want to add Redis as a dependency — check whether that's consistent with our
  stack.") → assess-stack only. The prompt is a near-verbatim match to assess-stack's own
  bracketed example ("is this new dependency consistent with our stack"); verify-adoption's
  description now explicitly disclaims new-choice prompts ("not a new-choice evaluation").

All 3 reach the same non-ambiguous result the PR claims. The eval genuinely validates AC7's gate.

Disambiguation is real, not just moved: read both full pairs' descriptions plus 1-2 bodies each.
assess-pm's body explicitly delegates to /setup-pm once a tool is picked (Step 4); setup-pm's
body configures unconditionally. assess-stack's body confirms "Output-only ... writes no files";
verify-adoption's body is "Detection-only ... does NOT resolve issues." The distinguishing
signal is genuinely in the description text on both sides, and it does not contradict either
skill's actual algorithm.

Regression spot-check across the corpus (no code beyond the described tests to run)

Spot-checked ~14 non-ambiguous skills across families (process orchestrators bootstrap/implement/
review, map-subdomains/map-contexts, verify-adoption/verify-done/verify-quality, assess-ai/
assess-testing, grill, checkpoint, estimate, write-issue, record-decision, setup-pm/setup-gates,
manage-flags). All carry trigger branches, reach clauses where the capability is mostly composed
(checkpoint, estimate, write-issue, grill, map-, record-decision, verify-, setup-pm), and none
restate body mechanics (e.g. checkpoint's old "Write mode persists state to
.pair/working/checkpoints/.md, one file per story; resume mode locates and parses it" —
pure body identity — is gone from the new description, replaced by trigger examples).

Mirror byte-consistency: wrote a small script against the actual
packages/content-ops/src/ops/skill-reference-rewriter.ts transform (not an approximation) and
ran it against all 34 dataset↔mirror pairs. 30/34 match exactly; the 4 "mismatches" are the two
forward-referenced not-yet-built skills (/brainstorm, /publish-pr) inside
checkpoint/grill/map-contexts/map-subdomains, which the real transform can't resolve (no such
skill exists to map) — confirmed these are pre-prefixed in the mirror (/pair-process-brainstorm,
/pair-capability-publish-pr) exactly as they already were on main before this PR (diffed
against origin/main's mirror copies). This is the pre-existing convention, correctly preserved,
not a new inconsistency.

Story checklist (#313): T3 shows [x] with PR #328; T8 also correctly shows [x] with PR #327 —
no drift observed at time of review.

Documentation Review

• Accuracy - skills-catalog.mdx's description column matches the new descriptions for all 35 rows (diffed directly)
• Up-to-date - docs:staleness gate passes (35/8), confirming catalog/skill-count sync

Detailed Review Comments

Positive Feedback

• The eval is a real, re-runnable artifact — methodology, bias disclosure, and per-prompt table
  all check out under independent re-execution, which is the actual bar for this PR given its
  volume-over-code-risk profile.
• The two disambiguations (assess-pm/setup-pm by verb; assess-stack/verify-adoption by
  already-written vs proposed) are genuine — the distinguishing signal lives in the description
  text on both sides of each pair, not just in the PR narrative, and matches the bodies' actual
  behavior.
• Scope discipline is clean: every SKILL.md diff is exactly the description line (+1/-1), no
  surprise body edits, confirmed at the file-diff-stat level across all 68 skill files.
• Negation clauses used for disambiguation (e.g. "Doesn't audit code already written (that's
  /verify-adoption)") each carry the positive redirect right beside them, per principle 6's
  carve-out — these are legitimate guardrails, not a standard violation.

Issues to Address

Minor Issues 💡

• packages/knowledge-hub/dataset/.skills/capability/assess-stack/SKILL.md:3 (mirror:
  .claude/skills/pair-capability-assess-stack/SKILL.md:3) — The old description explicitly named
  three lifecycle branches: "bootstrap (full eval), implementation (add dependency), review
  (detect unlisted)." The new description keeps only two ("full evaluation at bootstrap, or a
  single new dependency during implementation") and drops the review-mode branch entirely,
  without adding a "Composed by /review" reach clause (unlike its sibling verify-adoption, whose
  new description explicitly lists both of its composers). The body's Review Mode (Lifecycle
  Modes section, Step 4) is untouched and still real — /review's Phase 3 (Level 3 degradation)
  composes /assess-stack when it flags an unlisted dependency in code. Neither the baseline nor
  the after-T3 eval exercises this branch (no trigger-prompts.json entry covers "review flagged
  an unlisted dependency, evaluate it"), so this is a real, un-eval'd narrowing of the
  description's trigger coverage — not caught by the "no regression on any of the 76
  previously-passing prompts" claim because it was never a tested prompt.
  Recommendation: add a short clause reflecting the review-mode branch (e.g. "; composed by
  /review when it flags an unlisted dependency") and add a corresponding trigger-prompt to
  trigger-prompts.json in a follow-up so the eval's coverage matches the description's actual
  claim set. Non-blocking for this task's scope (T3 is descriptions-only; eval-set expansion is
  T7/maintenance territory), but worth tracking so it isn't silently lost.

Risk Assessment

Technical Risks

Risk	Impact	Probability	Mitigation
assess-stack's dropped review-mode trigger branch causes under-triggering in a live session	Low	Low	Composition to /assess-stack in that branch is explicit (named by /review's own algorithm), not description-triggered, so the practical exposure is limited to a standalone user prompt shaped exactly like that scenario

Business Risks

None identified — description-only change, gated by a real before/after eval.

Tech Debt

• Eval coverage gap for assess-stack's review-mode branch (see Minor finding above) — worth a
  follow-up trigger-prompt addition, not a blocker.

Adoption Compliance

Level 4 (no /pair-capability-verify-adoption or /pair-capability-assess-stack composition
available to this reviewer in-session) — compensated by manual verification against
writing-skills.mdx principle 1 and ADR-010 directly, plus the independently re-run conformance
and docs-staleness gates above.

Follow-up Actions

Author Action Items

• Low priority - Consider restoring assess-stack's review-mode trigger branch in the
  description and adding a corresponding eval prompt (can ship in T4/T6 or as a quick follow-up)

---

Verdict: Approved with Comments. AC3 and AC7 are genuinely met; the eval is real and
independently reproduced with matching results; mirror byte-consistency, frozen-path discipline,
scope discipline (descriptions-only), size limits, and all CI gates are independently confirmed
green. One Minor, non-blocking finding (assess-stack's dropped review-mode branch) is flagged for
follow-up but does not block merge.

---

Independent review per /pair-process-review. Constraints observed: read-only on code, no
.pair/working/ context consulted, reviewed via a detached worktree pinned to the PR's pushed
head (48c8746), never switching the shared checkout's branch.

[rucka]

Remediation — round 1 (commit eb38af2)

Per finding:

• [Minor] assess-stack's description dropped the /review unlisted-dependency branch without a reach-clause (packages/knowledge-hub/dataset/.skills/capability/assess-stack/SKILL.md:3 + mirror :3) → added a short reach-clause mirroring verify-adoption's composer-listing style: "...a single new dependency during implementation (...), or composed by /review when it finds an unlisted dependency in code. Doesn't audit code already written..." Dataset + mirror updated in the same commit, byte-consistent under the transform. Also added 2 new should-trigger prompts (AD-14b, AD-14c) to trigger-prompts.json exercising this branch and ran them against the fixed description — both PASS, no ambiguity with verify-adoption (which still explicitly disclaims new-choice prompts). Results appended as "Remediation round 1" in packages/knowledge-hub/eval/results/2026-07-13-after-t3.md — corpus total now 81/81 (100%). — packages/knowledge-hub/dataset/.skills/capability/assess-stack/SKILL.md, .claude/skills/pair-capability-assess-stack/SKILL.md, packages/knowledge-hub/eval/trigger-prompts.json, packages/knowledge-hub/eval/results/2026-07-13-after-t3.md

Not changed (escalated): none — the finding was addressed as specified.
Quality gates: PASS — skills:conformance (35/35), docs:staleness (35/8), knowledge-hub test (101 tests + check:links), mdlint:check.
→ Re-review requested.

[rucka]

Code Review Template — Re-review of fix eb38af2

Review Information

PR Number: #328
Author: rucka (Gianluca Carucci)
Reviewer: Independent review agent (Claude, Sonnet 5)
Review Date: 2026-07-14
Story/Epic: #313 (task T3)
Review Type: Refactor (descriptions-only, docs) — remediation re-review
Estimated Review Time: 25 minutes

Review Summary

Overall Assessment

• Approved - Ready to merge

Key Changes Summary

Verifies commit eb38af2 against the single Minor finding from the prior review (comment
4963136856): assess-stack's
rewritten description had dropped the /review unlisted-dependency reach clause. The fix (per
remediation comment 4963185449)
adds the clause to dataset + mirror, adds 2 new eval prompts (AD-14b, AD-14c), and appends a
"Remediation round 1" section to the eval results file. Diff between prior head 48c8746 and
eb38af2: exactly 4 files, +53/-2 (assess-stack dataset SKILL.md, its .claude mirror,
trigger-prompts.json, and the new eval-results addendum) — matches the remediation's own claimed
scope, nothing else touched.

Business Value Validation

AC7's eval gate now covers the branch it previously missed (review-mode composition), closing the
one un-eval'd trigger-coverage gap flagged last round. No new business risk introduced.

Code Review Checklist

Functionality Review

• Requirements Met - The exact finding is resolved: reach clause present, phrased
  naturally, byte-consistent across dataset/mirror
• Business Logic - N/A (frontmatter text only)
• Integration - Cross-checked new clause against assess-stack's own body (Review Mode,
  line 43: "Used when /review finds a dependency in code that isn't in tech-stack.md") — the
  new description clause ("composed by /review when it finds an unlisted dependency in code")
  is a near-verbatim paraphrase of the existing, unchanged body text. No drift.
• Error Handling - N/A
• Performance - N/A

Code Quality Assessment

• Readability - The added clause reads as a natural third branch in the existing
  "when the choice is open: X, Y, or Z" list, consistent with the sibling reach clause style
  already used by verify-adoption and by this same PR's checkpoint/estimate/grill etc.
• Maintainability - Single-clause, minimal diff; no duplication
• N/A Reusability
• N/A Naming
• Comments - No contradiction between the new clause ("composed by /review when it
  finds an unlisted dependency in code" — "it" = /review, the actor doing the finding) and the
  immediately-following disclaimer ("Doesn't audit code already written (that's
  /verify-adoption)"). assess-stack itself never scans code; /review's own inline check (or
  /verify-adoption) does the finding and composes assess-stack afterward to evaluate the
  already-identified dependency — exactly what the body's Review Mode describes. Verified this
  reading against /pair-process-review's own Phase 3 (Level 1 and Level 3 both: the finding is
  done by /verify-adoption or /review's inline diff-scan, never by assess-stack).

Technical Standards Compliance

• Style Guide - Matches writing-skills.mdx principle 1 (trigger branch, not body-identity
  restatement) and the reach-clause convention used across this PR
• Dependencies - N/A
• API Design - Mirror byte-consistency reverified programmatically (reversed the
  /pair-(capability|process)-X → /X name-prefix transform on the mirror and diffed against the
  dataset file byte-for-byte): exact match, confirming the only difference between the two
  files is the /review → /pair-process-review expansion (plus the pre-existing name: line
  prefix) — nothing else drifted
• Frozen path discipline - N/A (no catalog path touched in this commit)

Security Review

N/A — no code, no secrets, no auth/authz surface touched.

Testing Review

Test Coverage Assessment / Gates (independently re-run in a detached worktree pinned to eb38af2, not the shared checkout; @pair/content-ops built first)

pnpm skills:conformance                  PASS — 35 skills conformant, zero warnings   (matches claim)
pnpm docs:staleness                      PASS — 35 skills, 8 commands in sync         (matches claim)
pnpm --filter @pair/knowledge-hub test   101/101 tests + check:links PASS             (matches claim)
pnpm mdlint:check                        PASS (5/5 packages)                          (matches claim)

Eval — new prompts independently re-run (given ONLY the new name+description, not the body)

Ran AD-14b and AD-14c myself, blind, against the full 35 name+description catalog (not trusting
the author's PASS claim):

• AD-14b — "This PR adds a dependency that isn't in our tech-stack adoption file — flag it." →
  assess-stack, no ambiguity. Near-verbatim match to the new reach clause. verify-adoption
  doesn't fire: its description explicitly disclaims "a compliance audit, not a new-choice
  evaluation (that's /assess-stack and siblings)" — an unlisted dependency awaiting an
  approve/reject decision is a new choice, not a violation of an already-adopted decision, so
  verify-adoption's own text routes away from itself.
• AD-14c — "During review, flag any package in the diff that isn't in our adopted tech stack
  yet." → assess-stack, no ambiguity, same reasoning, phrased from /review's perspective
  ("During review" ~ the new clause's "composed by /review").

Both independently confirmed PASS, matching the author's claim exactly.

Eval results file — arithmetic verified

• Baseline-family total: 79 prompts (confirmed by parsing trigger-prompts.json at 48c8746:
  3+20+6+6+3+6+4+6+4+4+10+7 = 79).
• After remediation: 81 prompts (confirmed at eb38af2: assess-decision family went from 20 →
  22, all other 11 families' prompt counts unchanged) = 79 + 2 new = 81. 100% (81/81) claim
  checks out exactly.
• No other family's numbers were altered in the results file — the original T3 summary table
  (79/79) is left untouched; the new "Remediation round 1" section is additive, stating the new
  81/81 grand total separately without rewriting the original per-family table.

Documentation Review

• Accuracy - Eval-results addendum accurately describes the before/after clause change and
  matches the actual diff
• Up-to-date - docs:staleness gate passes, confirming no drift

Detailed Review Comments

Positive Feedback

• Fix is scoped exactly to the flagged finding — no scope creep, no body changes, no other skill
  touched.
• The new clause is grounded in the skill's own unchanged body text (Review Mode), not invented
  prose — verified this independently rather than taking it on faith.
• Eval coverage gap closed with prompts that specifically exercise the previously-missing branch,
  not just re-running the existing 79.
• Mirror byte-consistency re-verified programmatically against the actual transform pattern, not
  spot-checked by eye.

Issues to Address

No open Critical, Major, or Minor issues remain. The single Minor finding from the prior review is
resolved.

Risk Assessment

Technical Risks

None outstanding — the prior review's noted risk (under-triggering exposure for a standalone
prompt shaped like the review-composition scenario) is now mitigated by the added description
clause and eval coverage.

Business Risks

None identified.

Tech Debt

None outstanding from this finding. No new debt introduced by the fix.

Adoption Compliance

Level 4 (no /pair-capability-verify-adoption or /pair-capability-assess-stack composition
available to this reviewer in-session) — compensated by manual verification against
writing-skills.mdx principle 1, the skill's own body text, and independently re-run conformance/
docs-staleness gates, as in the prior round.

Follow-up Actions

None. No remaining open items.

---

Verdict: Approved. The remediation in eb38af2 resolves the one Minor finding from the prior
review exactly as specified: reach clause added (dataset + mirror, byte-consistent, grounded in the
unchanged body text, no contradiction with the disclaimer), 2 new eval prompts added and
independently reconfirmed PASS with no ambiguity against verify-adoption, eval-results arithmetic
checks out (79 + 2 = 81/81, no other family altered), scope is exactly the 4 files claimed, and all
quality gates independently re-run green. No remaining open items.

---

Independent re-review per /pair-process-review. Constraints observed: read-only on code, no
.pair/working/ context consulted, reviewed via a detached worktree pinned to the PR's pushed head
(eb38af2), never switching the shared checkout's branch. Previous findings (from the prior PR
comment) verified as genuinely resolved, not merely acknowledged.