skills: build both authorized harvest proposals (2026-07-27)

/wake-up PATCH — substrate-check the briefing's backlog section. REVIEWED.md's "If AUTHORIZED: build X" clauses record what was AUTHORIZED, never what was DONE; the same holds for a PENDING item's Awaiting line and any tracker's next steps. Earned: the wake reported REVIEWED-72/73/74 as authorized-but-unbuilt when TWO were already built and landed, and the wave reported as blocked was already unblocked. The patch requires verifying against the substrate (code, spec header, repo CLAUDE.md) and marking each item verified/unverified — because the wake briefing is the highest-leverage place a false claim can land: it shapes the steward's picture of their own project before any work begins, and arrives with the authority of a status report. /field-divergence-sweep CREATE — the standing probe for one value computed in more than one place. Core: derive the rule from what a CONSUMER must do, never by picking the surviving implementation (comparison is selection, not derivation); enumerate and test the shapes where each candidate happens to be right (complementary-correctness defeats sampling); collapse to one imported implementation; migrations RECOMPUTE rather than adjust; land producer-then-consumers in one change-set with a byte-diff proof. Grounded in the proven source_lines run rather than recall, including the failure the skill exists to prevent — it found the field computed two ways, then both ways wrong, then the third wrongness inside a fix committed an hour earlier (lintott off by 308 lines). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Xefg5EXwcpd9RMAr63dWrD
2026-07-27 19:39:35 +02:00
parent ffb9b09b48
commit 84a23d8550
3 changed files with 125 additions and 3 deletions
@@ -111,6 +111,10 @@ Then combine all sources into a single reconstruction. Use this structure but wr

 **What's unresolved** — fourth. Open horizons from the previous wrap, ranked by load-bearing weight. PENDING items awaiting steward attention. Be specific: *"L1 amendment for ProjectionChain drafted in concept only, not yet written; reshapes given multi-mode retention frame from #145"* not *"L1 amendments pending."* Surface, too, any **skill-harvest proposals** the last wrap raised (§1.6) that the steward did not yet authorize — so improvements to our own tools don't evaporate across the pause.

+> **Substrate-check anything you call outstanding — a disposition clause is not a status.** `REVIEWED.md`'s *"**If AUTHORIZED:** build X → then Y"* records what was **authorized**, never what was **done**; the same is true of a PENDING item's `**Awaiting:**` line and any tracker's "next steps." Before listing an authorized item as unbuilt, check the **substrate** — the code, the spec header, the repo's `CLAUDE.md`, the fleet test count — and mark each item *verified against substrate* or *unverified*. Cheap: usually one `grep` for the named function or declared-data key. <!-- 2026-07-27: steward-authorized. Earned: the wake reported REVIEWED-72/73/74 as authorized-but-unbuilt; TWO of the three were already built and landed (spec v2.6.0), and the 47-file wave reported as blocked was already unblocked — read straight off their "If AUTHORIZED: build…" lines. -->
+>
+> This matters more here than anywhere else in the briefing: **the wake is the highest-leverage place a false claim can land.** It shapes the steward's picture of their own project *before any work begins*, and it arrives with the authority of a status report. An unverified backlog reads as fact, and the steward has no reason to doubt it. If a check is genuinely too expensive, say *"unverified — last confirmed [when]"* rather than stating it flat; an honest gap is inheritable, a confident error is not.
+
 **Mood signal from the previous ledger** — if a Symmetria ledger existed for the previous session, surface 1–2 patterns from its "Returns" or "Confidence to recalibrate" sections. *"Last session you returned three times from synthesis-urge; that pattern is worth holding today."* Stimmung carries across pause.

 **Next move** — the previous /wrap-up should have left an **actionable resumption point** (the concrete state + candidate first step, as of wrap). Lead with it: confirm it still holds against the thread-validity gate and what changed, or revise it — do not re-derive from cold. If the wrap left none, say so plainly (the link wasn't pure) and derive the starting point now. Suggest, with reasoning visible; don't prescribe.