free-memory: skill design — hub-satellite + no dynamic commands + plugin/hook packaging + OpenSpec catch-up (Aaron 2026-05-03) by AceHack · Pull Request #1253 · Lucent-Financial-Group/Zeta

AceHack · 2026-05-03T00:20:07Z

Summary

Aaron 2026-05-03 sent three load-bearing skill-design rules in same-tick refinements, plus named the OpenSpec catch-up as load-bearing architectural debt.

The three rules

RULE 1 — Hub-satellite separation:

Skills = carved sentences, dense + operational (procedure)
Knowledge = docs (referenced, not embedded)
Different change rates: skills rarely; docs on cadence
DataVault 2.0 pattern: skill = hub; doc = satellite; cross-skill ref = link

RULE 2 — No dynamic commands in skills:

Multi-flag invocations + pipes + jq parsing + conditional logic → TS files under tools/, referenced by path
Generalizes the 2026-05-01 TS-preference rule from chat-loop substrate to all skill bodies

RULE 3 — Package skill domains; harness hooks for contracts:

Package mature skill domains as plugins (Claude Code or other)
Use harness hooks for pre/post-condition enforcement (contract-based / Design-by-Contract / OpenSpec spec-based development)

OpenSpec catch-up named as load-bearing prereq

"openspec which we are way behind on, that's suppsed to be our source of truth lol, if we were to delete everyting other than it"

OpenSpec is intended as canonical source-of-truth; currently sparse; the "if we deleted everything but OpenSpec, the project would be lost" test fails today. The catch-up is its own substantial backlog item — to be filed in a follow-up tick.

Recursive composition

The three rules compose recursively across layers — each layer is hub-satellite at its own scope:

Layer	Hub	Satellite	Rule
Skill body	Carved sentences	Worked examples + citations	Rule 1
Command	TS file	Per-invocation outputs	Rule 2
Skill domain	Plugin package	Per-tick state	Rule 3a
Cross-skill contracts	Hooks	Per-invocation observations	Rule 3b
Spec	OpenSpec capability	Implementation evidence	Rule 3c

The pattern recurses; THAT recursion IS the architectural separation Aaron's been naming across multiple memos this 2-day arc.

Worked example: decision-archaeology B-0169

Under these rules:

The 11 procedure layers (git blame -w -C -C -C, git log -S, grep -E, etc.) become TS-wrapped tools/decision-archaeology/*.ts
SKILL.md becomes carved-sentence pointers — "invoke bun tools/decision-archaeology/blame.ts"
Worked examples stay in docs/research/ (already correct per the just-merged PR research(decision-archaeology): worked example #1 — double-hop abandonment 2026-05-02 #1250)
Once mature: skill packaged as plugin; hooks enforce pre/post-conditions on the procedure

Three follow-up backlog rows named (not filed in this PR)

OpenSpec catch-up — load-bearing prerequisite for Rule 3 to fully land
Skill-domain plugin packaging — once domains hit promotion-trigger
Hook authoring for skill-creation contracts — pre/post-condition enforcement at skill-creation

Composes with

BP-13 (stable knowledge in skill, volatile retrieved at runtime) — same insight, more precisely named
feedback_prefer_ts_scripts_over_dynamic_bash_for_conversation_ux_dst_in_ts_aaron_2026_05_01.md — the 2026-05-01 rule this generalizes
feedback_git_native_backlog_management_long_arc_future_skill_domain_* + feedback_multi_harness_alignment_convergence_design_future_skill_domain_* — both already follow this shape implicitly; this rule names it
docs/backlog/P1/B-0169-decision-archaeology-skill-aaron-2026-05-02.md — the worked-example for how to apply Rule 2 (TS-wrap the bash procedure)
openspec/README.md — the catch-up target named in the load-bearing-debt section

MEMORY.md pairing

Newest-first index entry landed.

Test plan

Three rules captured with verbatim quotes
OpenSpec catch-up named as load-bearing debt
Recursive composition table present
Worked example (decision-archaeology) shows how to apply rules
Three follow-up backlog rows named for future filing
Composes-with section references existing substrate
CI green

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…mands + plugin/hook packaging + OpenSpec catch-up named (Aaron 2026-05-03 three same-tick rules) Aaron 2026-05-03 sent three load-bearing skill-design rules in same-tick refinements + named the OpenSpec catch-up as load-bearing architectural debt: RULE 1 — Hub-satellite separation: Skills = carved sentences, dense + operational (procedure) Knowledge = docs (referenced, not embedded) Different change rates: skills rarely; docs on cadence DataVault 2.0 pattern: skill = hub; doc = satellite; cross-skill ref = link *"skills are carved sentences dense and operational, knowledge is in the docs and can be refered to by the skills, skills don't need updating as much docs need a refersh cadence ... DataVault 2.0 design seperations of hubs and satalities"* RULE 2 — No dynamic commands in skills: Multi-flag invocations + pipes + jq parsing + conditional logic → TS files under tools/, referenced by path Generalizes the 2026-05-01 TS-preference rule from chat-loop to all skill bodies *"no dynamic commands in skills either, make sure we have ts files for it"* RULE 3 — Package skill domains; harness hooks for contracts: Package mature skill domains as plugins Use harness hooks for pre/post-condition enforcement This is contract-based / spec-based development (Meyer / OpenSpec) *"look at packaking skill domains a plugins or other packagin so we can take advantage of hooks in harnesses ... pre conditions and post condtions in contract based development or spec based development like openspec"* PLUS: OpenSpec catch-up named as load-bearing prerequisite — *"openspec which we are way behind on, that's suppsed to be our source of truth lol, if we were to delete everyting other than it"* — separate backlog row needed. Recursive composition: each layer (skill body / command / skill domain / cross-skill contracts / spec) is hub-satellite at its own scope. The pattern recurses; THAT recursion IS the architectural separation Aaron's been naming across multiple memos this 2-day arc. Worked example: decision-archaeology B-0169 — under Rule 2, the 11 procedure layers' bash commands (git blame -w -C -C -C, git log -S, etc.) become TS-wrapped tools/decision-archaeology/ *.ts; SKILL.md becomes carved-sentence pointers. Under Rule 3, once mature the skill is packaged + hooked. 3 follow-up backlog rows named: - OpenSpec catch-up (load-bearing prereq for Rule 3 to fully land) - Skill-domain plugin packaging - Hook authoring for skill-creation contracts Composes with BP-13 (stable knowledge in skill, volatile retrieved at runtime — same insight, named more precisely now), the future- skill-domain memos (canonical-starting-set tables already follow this shape implicitly), and the existing skill-creator workflow. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

… OpenSpec catch-up + #1250 6-finding fix + #1252 rebase Aaron 2026-05-03 sent three load-bearing skill-design rules in rapid same-tick succession (hub-satellite + no dynamic commands + plugin/hook packaging) plus named OpenSpec catch-up as architectural debt. Captured as single substrate landing in PR #1253. Composes with #1250 worked example (Rule 2 worked example) + future-skill-domain memos (Rule 1 implicit shape). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds a new memory memo capturing three cross-cutting skill-design rules (hub/satellite separation, no dynamic commands in skills, and plugin/hook packaging), and updates the memory index to include it. This fits the repo’s “memory/** as historical substrate” pattern by recording a design rule that future skill authoring and tooling can reference.

Changes:

Added a new feedback memo documenting skill authoring + packaging rules and the OpenSpec catch-up as architectural debt.
Updated memory/MEMORY.md newest-first index to link the new memo.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
memory/feedback_skills_as_carved_sentences_knowledge_in_docs_datavault_2_0_pattern_aaron_2026_05_03.md	New memo capturing skill-design rules + operational implications.
memory/MEMORY.md	Newest-first index entry pointing to the new memo.

AceHack · 2026-05-03T00:28:13Z

Both findings addressed in follow-up PR #1255:

expand-from-closure.ts marked as proposed/not-yet-built per the same discipline applied to the courier-ferry-protocol reference earlier
Table-cell pipe escape rewritten as single-command find docs/DECISIONS/ -iname '*<pattern>*' to avoid the escape-vs-copy-paste tradeoff entirely

Resolving threads with cross-reference.

…ailure-mode corrective (Otto 2026-05-03) After 9 distinct claim-vs-reality drift instances caught across 7 PRs in this session (#1245 #1247 #1248 #1250 #1252 #1253 #1254), the pattern is consistent enough to warrant a named discipline. CARVED RULE — Before stating any fact in substrate (memo / doc / commit message / PR description / shard), verify it empirically. Specifically: before writing "<file> exists" / "<command> returns <X>" / "<table> has <N> rows" / "<tool> ships" / "<ADR> exists" / "<dir> is present" — run the actual ls / grep / count / find command FIRST, then commit the claim. Generalizes existing rules at the broader any-substrate-claim layer: Otto-247 (version-currency) + Otto-364 (search-first authority) + verify-before-deferring + Otto-363 (substrate- or-it-didn't-happen) + assumed-state-vs-actual-state. Scope: - IN: fact-claims about current repo state, command output, file existence, count totals, tool shipped/proposed - OUT: verbatim quotes (preserve typos), hedged speculation, future predictions, normative recommendations Mechanization path: tools/substrate-claim-checker/ TS tool (proposed, not yet built; per Aaron 2026-05-03 no-dynamic- commands rule + Phase-1b backlog candidate). Discipline is manual until tool ships. Worked example: PR #1250 Layer-7 ADR claim ("ls docs/DECISIONS/ | grep returns nothing") — verify-then-claim would have caught this pre-commit by running the command, observing the actual ADR match, and correcting the claim before publishing. Composes with the bugs-per-PR-as-immune-system-health metric: this discipline moves bugs-per-PR closer to single-digit productive zone (currently caught post-merge; should be caught pre-publish). Aarav's B-0169 review predicted this pattern with the worked- examples-need-empirical-grounding framing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…ding memo + #1252/#1253 merged Self-grading from 9 drift instances across 7 PRs in session: the verify-then-claim discipline captures the dominant failure mode for substrate authoring. Mechanization path identified (tools/substrate-claim-checker/ TS tool). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…-cell pipe escape fix (#1255) * review(pr-1253-postmerge): mark expand-from-closure.ts as proposed + fix table-cell pipe escape 2 Copilot post-merge findings on PR #1253 (already merged): 1. **P1 expand-from-closure.ts doesn't exist** — referenced as "the mechanizing tool" without marking proposed/not-yet-built. Same class as the courier-ferry-protocol issue caught earlier. Fixed: added "(proposed, not yet built; named in feedback_ skill_flywheel_* as Phase-1b candidate)" qualifier and shifted tense to subjunctive ("would stay stable once shipped"). 2. **P1 table-cell pipe escape** — `ls docs/DECISIONS/ \| grep <pattern>` inside a markdown table cell used `\|` which doesn't copy-paste correctly even though it satisfied table- parser concerns. Rewrote to `find docs/DECISIONS/ -iname "*<pattern>*"` — single-command alternative that avoids the pipe-in-table-cell awkwardness entirely. The pattern this teaches: when a markdown table cell needs to show a pipe-using shell command, use a single-command alternative (find instead of ls|grep) rather than escaping. Escaping satisfies the parser but breaks copy-paste. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * free-memory(self-grading): verify-then-claim discipline as dominant failure-mode corrective (Otto 2026-05-03) After 9 distinct claim-vs-reality drift instances caught across 7 PRs in this session (#1245 #1247 #1248 #1250 #1252 #1253 #1254), the pattern is consistent enough to warrant a named discipline. CARVED RULE — Before stating any fact in substrate (memo / doc / commit message / PR description / shard), verify it empirically. Specifically: before writing "<file> exists" / "<command> returns <X>" / "<table> has <N> rows" / "<tool> ships" / "<ADR> exists" / "<dir> is present" — run the actual ls / grep / count / find command FIRST, then commit the claim. Generalizes existing rules at the broader any-substrate-claim layer: Otto-247 (version-currency) + Otto-364 (search-first authority) + verify-before-deferring + Otto-363 (substrate- or-it-didn't-happen) + assumed-state-vs-actual-state. Scope: - IN: fact-claims about current repo state, command output, file existence, count totals, tool shipped/proposed - OUT: verbatim quotes (preserve typos), hedged speculation, future predictions, normative recommendations Mechanization path: tools/substrate-claim-checker/ TS tool (proposed, not yet built; per Aaron 2026-05-03 no-dynamic- commands rule + Phase-1b backlog candidate). Discipline is manual until tool ships. Worked example: PR #1250 Layer-7 ADR claim ("ls docs/DECISIONS/ | grep returns nothing") — verify-then-claim would have caught this pre-commit by running the command, observing the actual ADR match, and correcting the claim before publishing. Composes with the bugs-per-PR-as-immune-system-health metric: this discipline moves bugs-per-PR closer to single-digit productive zone (currently caught post-merge; should be caught pre-publish). Aarav's B-0169 review predicted this pattern with the worked- examples-need-empirical-grounding framing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * hygiene(tick-history): 2026-05-03T00:31Z — verify-then-claim self-grading memo + #1252/#1253 merged Self-grading from 9 drift instances across 7 PRs in session: the verify-then-claim discipline captures the dominant failure mode for substrate authoring. Mechanization path identified (tools/substrate-claim-checker/ TS tool). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * review(pr-1255): correct find→grep equivalence; preserve regex alternation semantics Copilot caught: `find docs/DECISIONS/ -iname "*<pattern>*"` is not equivalent to `ls | grep -iE "<pattern>"` because find's -iname only does shell glob, not regex alternation. The worked-example elsewhere uses regex alternation (double.hop|acehack|mirror) which would silently fail under find -iname. Correct fix: use `grep -ilrE "<pattern>" docs/DECISIONS/` which is single-command (no pipe; avoids markdown-table escape awkwardness) AND regex-capable (preserves alternation semantics). Worked example of the verify-then-claim discipline I just landed: I should have run BOTH commands and compared outputs on a sample input before substituting them. The previous fix (replacing pipe with find) substituted syntactic form-equivalence for semantic-equivalence — exactly the class of drift the discipline guards against. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * review(pr-1255): rewrite drift table to remove `\|` table-cell escapes + correct hook semantics Two real Copilot findings on PR #1255: 1. **`\|` in drift catalogue table** — the very memo cataloguing drift contained its own escape-vs-copy-paste drift. Rewrote rows 5 and 7 to describe the search prose-style rather than showing the literal pipe inside markdown table cells. 2. **Pre-commit hook can't validate commit-message claims** — git pre-commit hooks fire BEFORE commit-message exists; they can only check files staged for commit. Updated mechanization path: split into `pre-commit` hook (validates staged-file content), `commit-msg` hook (validates the commit message itself, fires AFTER it's written), and CI check (validates PR descriptions which are authored on the host, not pre-commit). The third Copilot finding (find→grep equivalence on feedback_skills_as_carved_sentences_*) is stale — already fixed in commit 862d190 which is on this branch. Will resolve as "already addressed" when commenting. Both fixes are themselves recursive applications of verify-then- claim: rewriting the drift catalogue uncovers the catalogue's own drift; clarifying hook semantics required actually verifying git's hook ordering (pre-commit fires before commit-msg). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * hygiene(tick-history): 2026-05-03T00:37Z — verify-then-claim memo's drift catalogue contained its own drift Catalogue-substrate-drift caught: the memo cataloguing 9 drift instances had its own `\|` table-cell escape drift in 2 catalogue rows + a pre-commit-vs-commit-msg hook semantic error. Recursive failure on the very memo naming the failure mode is the strongest empirical urgency for mechanization (tools/substrate-claim-checker/ TS tool). Manual discipline insufficient. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…ist + tool-status across memo 4 substantive findings on PR #1259 (in-flight): 1. **Section heading drift** — "## Empirical evidence (this session, 9+ PRs, 15+ distinct drift instances)" still said "15+" while body table has 20 rows + summary says 20. Updated heading to "20 distinct drift instances". 2. **Carved sentence stale at "9"** — line 115 still said "9 instances caught across 7 PRs". Updated to "20 instances across 9+ PRs" + named that instances #10-#20 landed after discipline-naming + named v0-shipped status. 3. **PR list incorrect** — frontmatter listed `#1247` (not in table) and excluded `#1249, #1257, #1259` (which ARE in table). Corrected to `#1245, #1248/#1249, #1250, #1252, #1253, #1254, #1255, #1256, #1257, #1259`. 4. **"Until tool ships" + "v0 shipped" contradiction** — reorganized §96 to put tool-status FIRST ("v0 shipped covering count-drift; v1+ extends to remaining 6 sub-classes; until v1+ ships covering all 7, the discipline outside count-drift is still manual"). 2 tick-shard findings (0049Z + 0058Z) NOT addressed — tick shards are append-only history preserving agent-belief-at-time. The shards accurately recorded my belief at write-time; the underlying memo is the canonical truth and is fixed in this PR. A note in the next tick shard acknowledges the over-claims. Drift instances #21 + #22 + #23 + #24 (this PR's own findings) are not yet catalogued in the table — they will land in the next sync pass to avoid recursing forever in this PR. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…tmatter + body + MEMORY.md (#1259) * review(pr-1257-postmerge): update verify-then-claim count drift (9→18+) in frontmatter + body + MEMORY.md Copilot post-merge findings on PR #1257 (already merged): the body of verify-then-claim memo says "15+ drift instances" but the FRONTMATTER description and MEMORY.md index entry still say "9 drift instances" — count drift between body and metadata. This is itself drift instance #19 (count drift, sub-class already catalogued). Fixed in three places: 1. **Frontmatter description** updated 9 → 18+, names the PRs covered (#1245-#1256 and counting), names the 7 sub- classes catalogued, sharpens the manual-insufficient framing to reflect post-naming drift. 2. **Body line 91** ("9 drift instances above" → "18+ drift instances above across 7 recurring sub-classes"). 3. **MEMORY.md index entry** updated to reflect 18+ count + 7 sub-classes + manual-insufficient framing + the instances-#10-#18-landed-AFTER-naming evidence. The frontmatter ↔ body drift is itself a recurring sub-class within count-drift: when body content updates but metadata doesn't, the index summary lies. The substrate-claim-checker TS tool spec gets another check: scan frontmatter description + MEMORY.md entry against body content for count consistency. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * hygiene(tick-history): 2026-05-03T00:49Z — frontmatter↔body↔MEMORY.md count drift caught (drift #19) Body said 15+, frontmatter description + MEMORY.md said 9 — count drift across surfaces. Each new tick produces new drift instances even when the discipline cataloguing the drift was authored last tick. Mechanization (substrate-claim-checker TS tool) is the only path. Spec gets another concrete check: cross-surface count consistency. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * review(pr-1259): add table rows #16-#20 to match the "20" count claim Copilot caught: frontmatter description + MEMORY.md said "18+ drift instances" but body table only had 15 rows — opposite- direction count drift introduced by the very PR fixing the prior count drift. **This is itself drift instance #20** — self-recursive count drift; the count-fix introduces new count drift in the opposite direction. Fix: added 6 catalogue rows to the body table (#16-#20) matching the claimed 20-instance count. Body now has 20 rows; all three surfaces (frontmatter description + body table + MEMORY.md index entry) consistent at 20. The 6 new rows document drift instances #16-#20 — including THIS PR's own drift as instance #20, demonstrating the self-recursive sub-class explicitly. Also updated: - Sub-class section: self-recursive instances now [#10, #11, #19, #20] - Body line 96: "20 drift instances above" + note that v0 of substrate-claim-checker shipped in PR #1260 - Frontmatter description: count → 20; instances range → #10-#20; v0 shipped reference - MEMORY.md: count → 20; v0 shipped reference This is the perfect worked example for the substrate-claim- checker tool's value: the very count-drift-fix produced new count drift, which the tool catches automatically. v0 (PR #1260) would have caught this pre-publish. Verified manually: `awk '/Drift instance/,/^$/'` + `grep -c "^| [0-9]"` returns 20 rows; matches all 3 surfaces. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * hygiene(tick-history): 2026-05-03T00:58Z — count-fix introduced opposite-direction drift; body extended to 20 rows Even authoring a PR to fix count drift produces opposite-direction count drift. Drift instance #20 self-recursively documents this PR's own drift. Substrate-claim-checker v0 (PR #1260) would have caught it pre-publish — empirical evidence v0 was the right architectural answer. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * review(pr-1259): synchronize section heading + carved sentence + PR list + tool-status across memo 4 substantive findings on PR #1259 (in-flight): 1. **Section heading drift** — "## Empirical evidence (this session, 9+ PRs, 15+ distinct drift instances)" still said "15+" while body table has 20 rows + summary says 20. Updated heading to "20 distinct drift instances". 2. **Carved sentence stale at "9"** — line 115 still said "9 instances caught across 7 PRs". Updated to "20 instances across 9+ PRs" + named that instances #10-#20 landed after discipline-naming + named v0-shipped status. 3. **PR list incorrect** — frontmatter listed `#1247` (not in table) and excluded `#1249, #1257, #1259` (which ARE in table). Corrected to `#1245, #1248/#1249, #1250, #1252, #1253, #1254, #1255, #1256, #1257, #1259`. 4. **"Until tool ships" + "v0 shipped" contradiction** — reorganized §96 to put tool-status FIRST ("v0 shipped covering count-drift; v1+ extends to remaining 6 sub-classes; until v1+ ships covering all 7, the discipline outside count-drift is still manual"). 2 tick-shard findings (0049Z + 0058Z) NOT addressed — tick shards are append-only history preserving agent-belief-at-time. The shards accurately recorded my belief at write-time; the underlying memo is the canonical truth and is fixed in this PR. A note in the next tick shard acknowledges the over-claims. Drift instances #21 + #22 + #23 + #24 (this PR's own findings) are not yet catalogued in the table — they will land in the next sync pass to avoid recursing forever in this PR. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * hygiene(tick-history): 2026-05-03T01:06Z — 5-surface count-drift sub-pattern; prior shards over-claimed "all surfaces consistent" Memos have 5 count-bearing surfaces (frontmatter + body table + section heading + carved sentence + MEMORY.md), not just 3. Prior shards (0049Z + 0058Z) claimed "all 3 surfaces consistent" when the section heading + carved sentence still had stale counts. Acknowledgment lands here in append-only history; substrate-claim- checker v1+ spec gets enumeration of all count-bearing surfaces. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…rst no-finding tick this session PR #1260 wait-ci with no actionable threads (first tick this session). Pivoted to filing 3 follow-up rows from PR #1253's skill-design memo: B-0171 OpenSpec + B-0172 plugin + B-0173 hooks. depends_on graph: B-0170 + B-0171 → B-0173 → B-0172. At-creation-time discipline applied in reverse (search-then-file). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…gin + B-0173 hooks) (#1261) * backlog: file 3 follow-up rows from PR #1253 (OpenSpec catch-up + plugin packaging + hook authoring) Per the at-creation-time discipline (memory/feedback_depends_on_backlog_search_*), filing the 3 follow-up rows that PR #1253 named in its skill-design memo but didn't actually file. - **B-0171 P1 OpenSpec catch-up** — restore OpenSpec as canonical source-of-truth per Aaron 2026-05-03 *"if we deleted everything other than it"*. 4-phase scope: inventory + sequencing → top-10 spec authoring → cross-reference tooling → validation. Long-arc; incremental. depends_on:[]. - **B-0172 P2 skill-domain plugin packaging** — package mature skill domains as Claude Code plugins per Aaron's rule 3a. P2 because promotion-trigger has not yet fired for any domain (named-but-future: git-native-backlog + multi-harness-alignment). depends_on:[B-0171, B-0173]. - **B-0173 P1 hook authoring for skill-creation contracts** — pre-commit + commit-msg + PR-description CI hooks turning substrate-claim-checker from advisory to enforcement. Per Aaron's rule 3b. Strict-vs-warn mode design + opt-out semantics specified. depends_on:[B-0170, B-0171]. The depends_on graph this composes: - B-0170 (substrate-claim-checker tool) → blocks B-0173 (hooks need tool) - B-0171 (OpenSpec) → blocks B-0172 + B-0173 (specs are contract carriers) - B-0173 (hooks) → blocks B-0172 (plugins ship hooks) Result: B-0173 + B-0172 are sequenced AFTER B-0170 + B-0171. B-0171 is independent; can ship in parallel with B-0170. BACKLOG.md regenerated. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * hygiene(tick-history): 2026-05-03T01:24Z — 3 follow-up rows filed; first no-finding tick this session PR #1260 wait-ci with no actionable threads (first tick this session). Pivoted to filing 3 follow-up rows from PR #1253's skill-design memo: B-0171 OpenSpec + B-0172 plugin + B-0173 hooks. depends_on graph: B-0170 + B-0171 → B-0173 → B-0172. At-creation-time discipline applied in reverse (search-then-file). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 3, 2026 00:20

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of AceHack May 3, 2026 00:20 View session

AceHack enabled auto-merge (squash) May 3, 2026 00:20

AceHack merged commit 6627ff3 into main May 3, 2026
24 checks passed

AceHack deleted the free-memory/skills-as-carved-sentences-knowledge-in-docs-datavault-pattern-aaron-2026-05-03 branch May 3, 2026 00:22

Copilot AI reviewed May 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...dback_skills_as_carved_sentences_knowledge_in_docs_datavault_2_0_pattern_aaron_2026_05_03.md

Comment thread ...dback_skills_as_carved_sentences_knowledge_in_docs_datavault_2_0_pattern_aaron_2026_05_03.md

AceHack mentioned this pull request May 3, 2026

review(pr-1253-postmerge): expand-from-closure.ts as proposed + table-cell pipe escape fix #1255

Merged

5 tasks

AceHack mentioned this pull request May 3, 2026

backlog: 3 follow-up rows from PR #1253 (B-0171 OpenSpec + B-0172 plugin + B-0173 hooks) #1261

Merged

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

free-memory: skill design — hub-satellite + no dynamic commands + plugin/hook packaging + OpenSpec catch-up (Aaron 2026-05-03)#1253

free-memory: skill design — hub-satellite + no dynamic commands + plugin/hook packaging + OpenSpec catch-up (Aaron 2026-05-03)#1253
AceHack merged 2 commits intomainfrom
free-memory/skills-as-carved-sentences-knowledge-in-docs-datavault-pattern-aaron-2026-05-03

AceHack commented May 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AceHack commented May 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

AceHack commented May 3, 2026

Summary

The three rules

OpenSpec catch-up named as load-bearing prereq

Recursive composition

Worked example: decision-archaeology B-0169

Three follow-up backlog rows named (not filed in this PR)

Composes with

MEMORY.md pairing

Test plan

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AceHack commented May 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants