Name deferral as a register class

[alanhc]

references/prose-register.md names the classes that mark machine-written
prose, and binds PR bodies and review replies alongside source comments and
docs/. One class was missing: text about the writer rather than about the
work.

#350 carried an instance. A reply closed a decision that had already been
measured by offering to reverse it on request, and the answer was "Let's
concentrate on real discussions!". The same shape reaches review text as an
apology for a correction, and as an announcement of candor in front of a
caveat that stands on its own.

Two commits, one per surface, following the split the register states in its
own opening: the register defines a class, and a SKILL.md section names
that class's instance on one surface.

• The register gains the class, next to "Effort and flattery", which is the
  neighbouring case of writing about the writer.
• The Pull requests section gains the reply form, quoting the rejected
  sentence and citing Reject a PI waiter from any plain requeue #350 the way the rules around it cite PR#21, PR#41 and
  PR#209.

Why it costs a reviewer something: an offer to redo the work another way asks
them to choose between two shapes the writer has already measured, when the
decision and the reason that settles it were what they needed. A reviewer who
disagrees says so without being invited.

Verification

scripts/check-skill-refs.py resolves every path, target, section and
cross-reference across the 12 files under .claude/, and
scripts/check-commit-log.sh accepts both commits. Documentation only: no
build or test target reads these files.

---

Summary by cubic

Names deferral and self-report as a prose-register class so guidance can flag text about the writer instead of the work. Pull request replies should state a measured decision and its reason rather than hand the choice back to the reviewer.

• Covers offers to redo work, apologies for corrections, and candor announcements before independent caveats.
• Adds PR#350 as a concrete review-reply example.
• Documentation-only; no runtime behavior changes.

^{Written for commit b1349a0. Summary will update on new commits.}

[cubic-dev-ai]

1 issue found across 2 files

Prompt for AI agents (unresolved issues)

Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.


<file name=".claude/skills/elfuse-conventions/SKILL.md">

<violation number="1" location=".claude/skills/elfuse-conventions/SKILL.md:383">
P3: This guidance describes the rule with a metaphor and an uncheckable politeness comparison instead of naming the deferral directly. Replace it with a factual description such as “A reply that asks the reviewer to choose between measured alternatives is a deferral.”</violation>
</file>

<sub>Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix.

Re-trigger cubic</sub>

[cubic-dev-ai]

P3: This guidance describes the rule with a metaphor and an uncheckable politeness comparison instead of naming the deferral directly. Replace it with a factual description such as “A reply that asks the reviewer to choose between measured alternatives is a deferral.”

Prompt for AI agents

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At .claude/skills/elfuse-conventions/SKILL.md, line 383:

<comment>This guidance describes the rule with a metaphor and an uncheckable politeness comparison instead of naming the deferral directly. Replace it with a factual description such as “A reply that asks the reviewer to choose between measured alternatives is a deferral.”</comment>

<file context>
@@ -380,6 +380,14 @@ addressed threads with "Resolve conversation"; a reply carries the
 correction, the measurement, or nothing. A concise what and why belongs in
 the commit body, not the thread.
 
+A reply that hands the choice back is the same artifact in a politer form:
+"If you would rather the source read uniformly one way or the other, say so
+and I will move the remaining three" asks the reviewer for an instruction
</file context>

Suggested change

	A reply that hands the choice back is the same artifact in a politer form:
	A reply that asks the reviewer to choose between measured alternatives is a deferral: