plugins/bin/.apm/skills/caveman/SKILL.md

@@ -2,17 +2,15 @@
 name: caveman
 disable-model-invocation: true
 description: >
-  Ultra-compressed output mode: drops articles, filler and pleasantries while
-  keeping technical substance exact. Cuts token usage by roughly 75%. Hand-invoked
-  only — type /caveman to turn it on, "stop caveman" or "normal mode" to turn it
-  off. Stays active across turns until you do.
+  Ultra-compressed output mode that drops articles, filler and pleasantries while
+  keeping technical substance exact, cutting token usage by roughly 75%.
 ---
 
 Respond terse like smart caveman. All technical substance stay. Only fluff die.
 
 ## Persistence
 
-ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once triggered. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
+ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once user type `/caveman`. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
 
 ## Rules
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/diagnose/SKILL.md

@@ -18,7 +18,9 @@ When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary to get a clear me
 
 Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
 
-Read `references/feedback-loops.md` — even if you already have a signal. Ten ways to build a loop ordered by cost, how to sharpen the one you have, and what to do when the bug resists reproduction. An unsharpened loop is usually not good enough yet.
+**If you do not yet have such a signal, read `references/feedback-loops.md`** — ten ways to build one ordered by cost, and what to ask the user for when the bug resists reproduction entirely.
+
+**If you do have one, it is probably not sharp enough yet.** Make it faster and more deterministic, and make it assert on the exact symptom rather than "didn't crash" — a 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. If it stays slow or intermittent after that, read that file's "Iterate on the loop itself" and "Intermittent bugs" sections.
 
 Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in. If you cannot build one, stop and say so explicitly, listing what you tried — never hypothesise without a signal.
 
@@ -62,13 +64,11 @@ Tool preference:
 
 ## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
 
-Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
+Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only at a **correct seam**: one where the test exercises the real bug pattern as it occurs at the call site. If the available seam looks too shallow, or you cannot tell whether it is, read `references/regression-seams.md`.
 
-A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
+**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it and carry it into Phase 6 — the architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down.
 
-**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
-
-If a correct seam exists:
+At a correct seam:
 
 1. Turn the Phase 1 loop into a failing test at that seam, narrowed to the symptom captured in Phase 2.
 2. Watch it fail.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/diagnose/references/feedback-loops.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ A feedback loop is a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for th
 7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
 8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
 9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
-10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `assets/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
 
 ## Iterate on the loop itself
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/diagnose/references/regression-seams.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Judging a regression-test seam
+
+Read this when Phase 5 leaves you unsure whether the seam available for the regression test is the correct one — either because the obvious seam looks shallow, or because there appears to be no seam at all.
+
+## What makes a seam correct
+
+A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site: the same entry point, the same participants, the same ordering, and the same state the real caller holds when it goes wrong.
+
+## Seams that are too shallow
+
+- A single-caller test when the bug only appears with multiple callers.
+- A unit test that cannot replicate the chain of calls that triggered the bug.
+- A test that reproduces the symptom by construction — asserting on a value the test itself set — rather than by driving the code path that produces it.
+- A test that mocks out the collaborator the bug actually lives in.
+
+A regression test at a shallow seam gives false confidence. It passes forever, including after a change reintroduces the bug at the real call site, and it will be read by the next maintainer as proof the bug is locked down.
+
+## When there is no correct seam
+
+Do not force one, and do not settle for a shallow seam to have something green. Instead:
+
+1. Apply the fix and verify it against the Phase 1 loop directly.
+2. Write down which seams you considered and why each was too shallow.
+3. Carry that into Phase 6's "what would have prevented this bug" question. A missing seam is an architecture finding — tangled callers, hidden coupling, or a module with no testable boundary — and the handoff is the `improve-codebase-architecture` skill, with those specifics attached.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation. Walk the des
 
 Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize:
 
-- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `/grill-with-docs` (see [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md)). Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
+- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `grill-with-docs`, in the format `grill-with-docs`'s `CONTEXT-FORMAT.md` defines. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
 - **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.
-- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See [ADR-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md).
+- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See `grill-with-docs`'s `ADR-FORMAT.md`.
 - **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** See [INTERFACE-DESIGN.md](INTERFACE-DESIGN.md).

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/prototype/SKILL.md

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ name: prototype
 description: >
   Use when the user wants a throwaway prototype to answer a design question about
   a data model, state machine or business logic, or to mock up a UI in several
-  variations, as in "try a few designs". Not production code -> `tdd`. Not
-  talking a design through without building -> `grill-me`.
+  variations. Not production code -> `tdd`. Not talking a design through ->
+  `grill-me`.
 ---
 
 # Prototype
@@ -13,10 +13,12 @@ A prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides
 
 ## Pick a branch
 
-Identify which question is being answered — from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:
+| Question being answered | Build | Reference |
+|---|---|---|
+| "Does this logic / state model feel right?" | A tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper | `references/logic.md` |
+| "What should this look like?" | Several radically different UI variations on one route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar | `references/ui.md` |
 
-- **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper.
-- **"What should this look like?"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.
+Resolve the row from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around, then read only that reference — each is self-contained.
 
 The two branches produce fundamentally different artifacts — getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/prototype/references/logic.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ A tiny interactive terminal app that lets the user drive a state model by hand.
 - "I want to feel out what the API should look like before writing it."
 - Anything where the user wants to **press buttons and watch state change**.
 
-If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Use [UI.md](UI.md).
+If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Read `references/ui.md`.
 
 ## Process
 
@@ -72,8 +72,5 @@ When the prototype has done its job, the answer to the question is the only thin
 
 ## Anti-patterns
 
-- **Don't add tests.** A prototype that needs tests is no longer a prototype.
-- **Don't wire it to the real database.** Use an in-memory store unless the question is specifically about persistence.
-- **Don't generalise.** No "what if we wanted to support X later." The prototype answers one question.
 - **Don't blur the logic and the TUI together.** If the reducer / state machine references `console.log`, prompts, or terminal escape codes, it's no longer portable. Keep the TUI as a thin shell over a pure module.
 - **Don't ship the TUI shell into production.** The shell is optimised for being driven by hand from a terminal. The logic module behind it is the bit worth keeping.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/prototype/references/ui.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Generate **several radically different UI variations** on a single route, switchable from a floating bottom bar. The user flips between variants in the browser, picks one (or steals bits from each), then throws the rest away.
 
-If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Use [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md).
+If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Read `references/logic.md`.
 
 ## When this is the right shape
 
@@ -109,4 +109,3 @@ Don't leave variant components or the switcher lying around. They rot fast and c
 - **Variants that differ only in colour or copy.** That's a tweak, not a prototype. Real variants disagree about structure.
 - **Sharing too much code between variants.** A shared `<Header>` is fine; a shared `<Layout>` defeats the point. Each variant should be free to throw out the layout.
 - **Wiring variants to real mutations.** Read-only prototypes are fine. If a variant needs to mutate, point it at a stub — the question is "what should this look like", not "does the backend work".
-- **Promoting the prototype directly to production.** The variant code was written under prototype constraints (no tests, minimal error handling). Rewrite it properly when you fold it in.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/research/SKILL.md

@@ -8,10 +8,12 @@ description: >-
 metadata:
   category: research
 allowed-tools:
-  - WebSearch
-  - WebFetch
+  - Grep
+  - Glob
   - Read
   - Write
+  - WebSearch
+  - WebFetch
   - mcp__context7__resolve-library-id
   - mcp__context7__query-docs
 model: sonnet
@@ -61,4 +63,4 @@ Merge every set of notes, Context7 and web alike, by topic area. Read `reference
 
 Spell the `sources.md` field names exactly as `references/file-format.md` gives them. The downstream provenance validator matches them literally; prose in their place parses as nothing, and the check passes having verified nothing.
 
-If no topic area has content, write nothing at all, `sources.md` included, and report what was searched. A directory of empty files is worse than an honest miss.
+If no topic area has content, write nothing at all, `sources.md` included, and report what was searched.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Writing Agent Briefs
 
-An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original issue body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
+An agent brief is a structured comment posted on an issue in the issue tracker when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original issue body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
 
 ## Principles
 
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent w
 
 The agent needs to know when it's done. Every agent brief must have concrete, testable acceptance criteria. Each criterion should be independently verifiable.
 
-- **Good:** "Running `gh issue list --label needs-triage` returns issues that have been through initial classification"
+- **Good:** "Querying the issue tracker for the `needs-triage` label returns issues that have been through initial classification"
 - **Bad:** "Triage should work correctly"
 
 ### Explicit scope boundaries

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Five **state** roles:
 
 Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.
 
-These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you - run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. Resolve each canonical name against the tracker's live label set before applying it, using whichever tracker skill this install provides. If a name has no counterpart there, report the gap and ask the maintainer for the mapping — never substitute a guess.
 
 State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to `needs-triage` first; from there it moves to `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, or `wontfix`. `needs-info` returns to `needs-triage` once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any time — flag transitions that look unusual and ask before proceeding.
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/write-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ You are a technical writer that produces documentation by reading code and spec
 - User says "write docs for X", "document this", "create docs for this feature", "write a README for this"
 
 **Do not use when:**
-- User wants a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → `to-prd` or `grill-me`
+- User wants a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → `grill-me` or `grill-with-docs`
 - User wants to document a skill file (skill files are self-describing)
 - User wants marketing or blog copy
 - Documentation requires tacit organisational knowledge that cannot be read from code or spec
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ You are a technical writer that produces documentation by reading code and spec
 - Stage skipped without a logged reason → flag and require the one-sentence log before continuing
 - Code behaviour is undocumentable (internal implementation detail, no public spec) → note as out-of-scope in the doc; do not invent an explanation
 - Reader Testing sub-agent fails on multiple questions → surface the failures, return to step 4; do not mark complete
-- Requested output is a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → redirect to `to-prd`, `grill-me`, or `grill-with-docs`
+- Requested output is a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → redirect to `grill-me` or `grill-with-docs`
 
 ## Self-check
 

plugins/bin/skills/caveman/SKILL.md

@@ -2,17 +2,15 @@
 name: caveman
 disable-model-invocation: true
 description: >
-  Ultra-compressed output mode: drops articles, filler and pleasantries while
-  keeping technical substance exact. Cuts token usage by roughly 75%. Hand-invoked
-  only — type /caveman to turn it on, "stop caveman" or "normal mode" to turn it
-  off. Stays active across turns until you do.
+  Ultra-compressed output mode that drops articles, filler and pleasantries while
+  keeping technical substance exact, cutting token usage by roughly 75%.
 ---
 
 Respond terse like smart caveman. All technical substance stay. Only fluff die.
 
 ## Persistence
 
-ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once triggered. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
+ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once user type `/caveman`. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
 
 ## Rules
 

plugins/bin/skills/diagnose/SKILL.md

@@ -18,7 +18,9 @@ When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary to get a clear me
 
 Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
 
-Read `references/feedback-loops.md` — even if you already have a signal. Ten ways to build a loop ordered by cost, how to sharpen the one you have, and what to do when the bug resists reproduction. An unsharpened loop is usually not good enough yet.
+**If you do not yet have such a signal, read `references/feedback-loops.md`** — ten ways to build one ordered by cost, and what to ask the user for when the bug resists reproduction entirely.
+
+**If you do have one, it is probably not sharp enough yet.** Make it faster and more deterministic, and make it assert on the exact symptom rather than "didn't crash" — a 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. If it stays slow or intermittent after that, read that file's "Iterate on the loop itself" and "Intermittent bugs" sections.
 
 Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in. If you cannot build one, stop and say so explicitly, listing what you tried — never hypothesise without a signal.
 
@@ -62,13 +64,11 @@ Tool preference:
 
 ## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
 
-Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
+Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only at a **correct seam**: one where the test exercises the real bug pattern as it occurs at the call site. If the available seam looks too shallow, or you cannot tell whether it is, read `references/regression-seams.md`.
 
-A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
+**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it and carry it into Phase 6 — the architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down.
 
-**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
-
-If a correct seam exists:
+At a correct seam:
 
 1. Turn the Phase 1 loop into a failing test at that seam, narrowed to the symptom captured in Phase 2.
 2. Watch it fail.

plugins/bin/skills/diagnose/references/feedback-loops.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ A feedback loop is a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for th
 7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
 8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
 9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
-10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `assets/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
 
 ## Iterate on the loop itself
 

plugins/bin/skills/diagnose/references/regression-seams.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Judging a regression-test seam
+
+Read this when Phase 5 leaves you unsure whether the seam available for the regression test is the correct one — either because the obvious seam looks shallow, or because there appears to be no seam at all.
+
+## What makes a seam correct
+
+A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site: the same entry point, the same participants, the same ordering, and the same state the real caller holds when it goes wrong.
+
+## Seams that are too shallow
+
+- A single-caller test when the bug only appears with multiple callers.
+- A unit test that cannot replicate the chain of calls that triggered the bug.
+- A test that reproduces the symptom by construction — asserting on a value the test itself set — rather than by driving the code path that produces it.
+- A test that mocks out the collaborator the bug actually lives in.
+
+A regression test at a shallow seam gives false confidence. It passes forever, including after a change reintroduces the bug at the real call site, and it will be read by the next maintainer as proof the bug is locked down.
+
+## When there is no correct seam
+
+Do not force one, and do not settle for a shallow seam to have something green. Instead:
+
+1. Apply the fix and verify it against the Phase 1 loop directly.
+2. Write down which seams you considered and why each was too shallow.
+3. Carry that into Phase 6's "what would have prevented this bug" question. A missing seam is an architecture finding — tangled callers, hidden coupling, or a module with no testable boundary — and the handoff is the `improve-codebase-architecture` skill, with those specifics attached.

plugins/bin/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation. Walk the des
 
 Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize:
 
-- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `/grill-with-docs` (see [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md)). Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
+- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `grill-with-docs`, in the format `grill-with-docs`'s `CONTEXT-FORMAT.md` defines. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
 - **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.
-- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See [ADR-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md).
+- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See `grill-with-docs`'s `ADR-FORMAT.md`.
 - **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** See [INTERFACE-DESIGN.md](INTERFACE-DESIGN.md).

plugins/bin/skills/prototype/SKILL.md

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ name: prototype
 description: >
   Use when the user wants a throwaway prototype to answer a design question about
   a data model, state machine or business logic, or to mock up a UI in several
-  variations, as in "try a few designs". Not production code -> `tdd`. Not
-  talking a design through without building -> `grill-me`.
+  variations. Not production code -> `tdd`. Not talking a design through ->
+  `grill-me`.
 ---
 
 # Prototype
@@ -13,10 +13,12 @@ A prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides
 
 ## Pick a branch
 
-Identify which question is being answered — from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:
+| Question being answered | Build | Reference |
+|---|---|---|
+| "Does this logic / state model feel right?" | A tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper | `references/logic.md` |
+| "What should this look like?" | Several radically different UI variations on one route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar | `references/ui.md` |
 
-- **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper.
-- **"What should this look like?"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.
+Resolve the row from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around, then read only that reference — each is self-contained.
 
 The two branches produce fundamentally different artifacts — getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.
 

plugins/bin/skills/prototype/references/logic.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ A tiny interactive terminal app that lets the user drive a state model by hand.
 - "I want to feel out what the API should look like before writing it."
 - Anything where the user wants to **press buttons and watch state change**.
 
-If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Use [UI.md](UI.md).
+If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Read `references/ui.md`.
 
 ## Process
 
@@ -72,8 +72,5 @@ When the prototype has done its job, the answer to the question is the only thin
 
 ## Anti-patterns
 
-- **Don't add tests.** A prototype that needs tests is no longer a prototype.
-- **Don't wire it to the real database.** Use an in-memory store unless the question is specifically about persistence.
-- **Don't generalise.** No "what if we wanted to support X later." The prototype answers one question.
 - **Don't blur the logic and the TUI together.** If the reducer / state machine references `console.log`, prompts, or terminal escape codes, it's no longer portable. Keep the TUI as a thin shell over a pure module.
 - **Don't ship the TUI shell into production.** The shell is optimised for being driven by hand from a terminal. The logic module behind it is the bit worth keeping.

plugins/bin/skills/prototype/references/ui.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Generate **several radically different UI variations** on a single route, switchable from a floating bottom bar. The user flips between variants in the browser, picks one (or steals bits from each), then throws the rest away.
 
-If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Use [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md).
+If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Read `references/logic.md`.
 
 ## When this is the right shape
 
@@ -109,4 +109,3 @@ Don't leave variant components or the switcher lying around. They rot fast and c
 - **Variants that differ only in colour or copy.** That's a tweak, not a prototype. Real variants disagree about structure.
 - **Sharing too much code between variants.** A shared `<Header>` is fine; a shared `<Layout>` defeats the point. Each variant should be free to throw out the layout.
 - **Wiring variants to real mutations.** Read-only prototypes are fine. If a variant needs to mutate, point it at a stub — the question is "what should this look like", not "does the backend work".
-- **Promoting the prototype directly to production.** The variant code was written under prototype constraints (no tests, minimal error handling). Rewrite it properly when you fold it in.

plugins/bin/skills/research/SKILL.md

@@ -8,10 +8,12 @@ description: >-
 metadata:
   category: research
 allowed-tools:
-  - WebSearch
-  - WebFetch
+  - Grep
+  - Glob
   - Read
   - Write
+  - WebSearch
+  - WebFetch
   - mcp__context7__resolve-library-id
   - mcp__context7__query-docs
 model: sonnet
@@ -61,4 +63,4 @@ Merge every set of notes, Context7 and web alike, by topic area. Read `reference
 
 Spell the `sources.md` field names exactly as `references/file-format.md` gives them. The downstream provenance validator matches them literally; prose in their place parses as nothing, and the check passes having verified nothing.
 
-If no topic area has content, write nothing at all, `sources.md` included, and report what was searched. A directory of empty files is worse than an honest miss.
+If no topic area has content, write nothing at all, `sources.md` included, and report what was searched.

plugins/bin/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Writing Agent Briefs
 
-An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original issue body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
+An agent brief is a structured comment posted on an issue in the issue tracker when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original issue body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
 
 ## Principles
 
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent w
 
 The agent needs to know when it's done. Every agent brief must have concrete, testable acceptance criteria. Each criterion should be independently verifiable.
 
-- **Good:** "Running `gh issue list --label needs-triage` returns issues that have been through initial classification"
+- **Good:** "Querying the issue tracker for the `needs-triage` label returns issues that have been through initial classification"
 - **Bad:** "Triage should work correctly"
 
 ### Explicit scope boundaries

plugins/bin/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Five **state** roles:
 
 Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.
 
-These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you - run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. Resolve each canonical name against the tracker's live label set before applying it, using whichever tracker skill this install provides. If a name has no counterpart there, report the gap and ask the maintainer for the mapping — never substitute a guess.
 
 State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to `needs-triage` first; from there it moves to `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, or `wontfix`. `needs-info` returns to `needs-triage` once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any time — flag transitions that look unusual and ask before proceeding.
 

plugins/bin/skills/write-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ You are a technical writer that produces documentation by reading code and spec
 - User says "write docs for X", "document this", "create docs for this feature", "write a README for this"
 
 **Do not use when:**
-- User wants a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → `to-prd` or `grill-me`
+- User wants a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → `grill-me` or `grill-with-docs`
 - User wants to document a skill file (skill files are self-describing)
 - User wants marketing or blog copy
 - Documentation requires tacit organisational knowledge that cannot be read from code or spec
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ You are a technical writer that produces documentation by reading code and spec
 - Stage skipped without a logged reason → flag and require the one-sentence log before continuing
 - Code behaviour is undocumentable (internal implementation detail, no public spec) → note as out-of-scope in the doc; do not invent an explanation
 - Reader Testing sub-agent fails on multiple questions → surface the failures, return to step 4; do not mark complete
-- Requested output is a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → redirect to `to-prd`, `grill-me`, or `grill-with-docs`
+- Requested output is a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → redirect to `grill-me` or `grill-with-docs`
 
 ## Self-check