fix(kyberforge): restore the authoring rules the ADR-0020 trim dropped

Diffing each retrofitted SKILL.md against its replacement references/ files found
rules that existed on main and now existed nowhere — relocated in intent, deleted in
fact. A trim that loses a rule is not progressive disclosure, it is data loss with a
smaller word count.

Three had no survivor. The least-privilege guidance for `tools` kept its mechanics
and lost the "restrict to what the agent needs" half, so the remaining text read as
encouragement to omit the field. The improve flow lost its regression check, so
nothing compared the closing audit against the pre-edit state and a PASS quietly
becoming a SUGGESTION went unnoticed — restored on both halves of the author pair,
since agent-author had dropped its equivalent too. And agent bodies lost "would the
agent get this wrong without it?", which mattered more than it looks: ADR-0020
deliberately sets no body word gate for agents, three of the four already sit
between 933 and 1,199 words, and the delegation check only fires on procedure a
skill already owns. That heuristic was the only brake left.

Two more were reachable only from the wrong scope. agent-author tells the reader to
load only the file for the resolved scope, but the mcp__ glob syntax for
disallowedTools and the five tools no subagent ever receives had both landed in
project-user-scope.md. disallowedTools is the ONLY permitted fence at plugin/APM
scope, so the scope that needs the syntax most could not reach it, and a plugin-scope
run could write a body telling the agent to ask the user a question.

Two documents were actively wrong rather than merely thin. agent-audit told auditors
that validate.sh resolves boundary targets for skills only; it runs at both scopes,
so the auditor was hand-resolving what the script had already decided and could
contradict it. And skill-audit routed to its script-troubleshooting reference
whenever validate.sh "fails" — but it exits 1 on ordinary content FAILs, the normal
outcome for the whole #99 population, so 1,302 words loaded on nearly every audit.
A context-budget regression inside the skill that enforces the context budget.

Finally, two illustrations taught the shape the gate ERRORs on, unfenced, while an
adjacent rubric called it a hard ERROR.

LESSONS.md records the reference-chain depth rule flipping from "one level deep" to
"two hops, never three". ADR-0020 is silent on it and the reversal rode entirely on
the diff; the looser rule is what mandatory dispatch requires.

Refs: #99
ADR: 0020

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015W3iwF9ncfRZddGBxsMCYi

LESSONS.md

@@ -245,3 +245,19 @@ noticed — and before describing any defect as pre-existing, run `git log -S` o
 plugin-content and vale-style drift deterministically and has no equivalent gate asserting tool-owned
 paths stay out of formatter scope — `.claude/settings.json` was the sixteenth exclude and nothing
 prevents a seventeenth.
+
+## 2026-08-16 — A rule reversed inside a retrofit leaves no trace unless someone writes it down
+
+`skill-author/SKILL.md:204` on `main` said "Keep reference chains one level deep — a reference file
+that references another reference file is rarely loaded correctly." The ADR-0020 retrofit replaced it
+with "Two hops from `SKILL.md`, never three" in `references/create.md` and `references/retrofit.md`,
+which permits exactly the chain the old rule banned. The looser rule is the right one and the
+retrofit could not have shipped without it: dispatch pushes each flow into its own file, so the
+shipped structure is `SKILL.md` → `improve.md` → `retrofit.md`, and a one-level ceiling would have
+made the mandatory dispatch pattern illegal. But ADR-0020 says nothing about chain depth, so the
+reversal was carried entirely by the diff — the new text asserts the new rule with no sign that a
+contradicting rule ever existed, and a reader who remembers the old one has no way to tell whether it
+was overturned or overlooked. Fix: when a change inverts a standing authoring rule rather than
+tightening or restating it, record the inversion where the rule's rationale lives — the ADR if the
+ADR is the reason, here otherwise. A rule that quietly flips is indistinguishable from a rule that
+was forgotten, and the second reading is the one that gets it re-added later.