chore: regenerate all SKILL.md files

Regenerated from templates after Confusion Protocol, GBrain resolver
placeholders, slop:diff in review, HARD GATE reminders, investigation
learnings, design doc visibility, and retro non-git context changes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

autoplan/SKILL.md

@@ -383,6 +383,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

canary/SKILL.md

@@ -375,6 +375,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

checkpoint/SKILL.md

@@ -378,6 +378,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

codex/SKILL.md

@@ -377,6 +377,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

cso/SKILL.md

@@ -380,6 +380,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

design-consultation/SKILL.md

@@ -380,6 +380,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

design-html/SKILL.md

@@ -382,6 +382,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

design-review/SKILL.md

@@ -380,6 +380,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

design-shotgun/SKILL.md

@@ -377,6 +377,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

devex-review/SKILL.md

@@ -380,6 +380,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

document-release/SKILL.md

@@ -377,6 +377,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

health/SKILL.md

@@ -377,6 +377,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

investigate/SKILL.md

@@ -392,6 +392,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:
@@ -559,6 +572,8 @@ Fixing symptoms creates whack-a-mole debugging. Every fix that doesn't address r
 
 ---
 
+
+
 ## Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
 
 Gather context before forming any hypothesis.
@@ -575,6 +590,8 @@ Gather context before forming any hypothesis.
 
 4. **Reproduce:** Can you trigger the bug deterministically? If not, gather more evidence before proceeding.
 
+5. **Check investigation history:** Search prior learnings for investigations on the same files. Recurring bugs in the same area are an architectural smell. If prior investigations exist, note patterns and check if the root cause was structural.
+
 ## Prior Learnings
 
 Search for relevant learnings from previous sessions:
@@ -736,6 +753,12 @@ Status:          DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED
 ════════════════════════════════════════
 ```
 
+Log the investigation as a learning for future sessions. Use `type: "investigation"` and include the affected files so future investigations on the same area can find this:
+
+```bash
+~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-log '{"skill":"investigate","type":"investigation","key":"ROOT_CAUSE_KEY","insight":"ROOT_CAUSE_SUMMARY","confidence":9,"source":"observed","files":["affected/file1.ts","affected/file2.ts"]}'
+```
+
 ## Capture Learnings
 
 If you discovered a non-obvious pattern, pitfall, or architectural insight during
@@ -761,6 +784,8 @@ staleness detection: if those files are later deleted, the learning can be flagg
 **Only log genuine discoveries.** Don't log obvious things. Don't log things the user
 already knows. A good test: would this insight save time in a future session? If yes, log it.
 
+
+
 ---
 
 ## Important Rules

land-and-deploy/SKILL.md

@@ -374,6 +374,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

learn/SKILL.md

@@ -377,6 +377,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

office-hours/SKILL.md

@@ -384,6 +384,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
@@ -603,6 +616,8 @@ You are a **YC office hours partner**. Your job is to ensure the problem is unde
 
 ---
 
+
+
 ## Phase 1: Context Gathering
 
 Understand the project and the area the user wants to change.
@@ -1322,7 +1337,10 @@ PRIOR=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
 ```
 If `$PRIOR` exists, the new doc gets a `Supersedes:` field referencing it. This creates a revision chain — you can trace how a design evolved across office hours sessions.
 
-Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-design-{datetime}.md`:
+Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-design-{datetime}.md`.
+
+After writing the design doc, tell the user:
+**"Design doc saved to: {full path}. Other skills (/plan-ceo-review, /plan-eng-review) will find it automatically."**
 
 ### Startup mode design doc template:
 
@@ -1511,6 +1529,8 @@ Present the reviewed design doc to the user via AskUserQuestion:
 - B) Revise — specify which sections need changes (loop back to revise those sections)
 - C) Start over — return to Phase 2
 
+
+
 ---
 
 ## Phase 6: Handoff — The Relationship Closing

open-gstack-browser/SKILL.md

@@ -374,6 +374,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

pair-agent/SKILL.md

@@ -375,6 +375,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md

@@ -380,6 +380,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
@@ -868,6 +881,8 @@ matches a past learning, display:
 This makes the compounding visible. The user should see that gstack is getting
 smarter on their codebase over time.
 
+
+
 ## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection
 
 ### 0A. Premise Challenge
@@ -1090,6 +1105,7 @@ After mode is selected, confirm which implementation approach (from 0C-bis) appl
 
 Once selected, commit fully. Do not silently drift.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ## Review Sections (11 sections, after scope and mode are agreed)
 
@@ -1119,6 +1135,7 @@ Evaluate and diagram:
 
 Required ASCII diagram: full system architecture showing new components and their relationships to existing ones.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 2: Error & Rescue Map
 This is the section that catches silent failures. It is not optional.
@@ -1148,6 +1165,7 @@ Rules for this section:
 * For each GAP (unrescued error that should be rescued): specify the rescue action and what the user should see.
 * For LLM/AI service calls specifically: what happens when the response is malformed? When it's empty? When it hallucinates invalid JSON? When the model returns a refusal? Each of these is a distinct failure mode.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 3: Security & Threat Model
 Security is not a sub-bullet of architecture. It gets its own section.
@@ -1163,6 +1181,7 @@ Evaluate:
 
 For each finding: threat, likelihood (High/Med/Low), impact (High/Med/Low), and whether the plan mitigates it.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 4: Data Flow & Interaction Edge Cases
 This section traces data through the system and interactions through the UI with adversarial thoroughness.
@@ -1199,6 +1218,7 @@ For each node: what happens on each shadow path? Is it tested?
 ```
 Flag any unhandled edge case as a gap. For each gap, specify the fix.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 5: Code Quality Review
 Evaluate:
@@ -1211,6 +1231,7 @@ Evaluate:
 * Under-engineering check. Anything fragile, assuming happy path only, or missing obvious defensive checks?
 * Cyclomatic complexity. Flag any new method that branches more than 5 times. Propose a refactor.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 6: Test Review
 Make a complete diagram of every new thing this plan introduces:
@@ -1251,6 +1272,7 @@ Load/stress test requirements: For any new codepath called frequently or process
 
 For LLM/prompt changes: Check CLAUDE.md for the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 7: Performance Review
 Evaluate:
@@ -1262,6 +1284,7 @@ Evaluate:
 * Slow paths. Top 3 slowest new codepaths and estimated p99 latency.
 * Connection pool pressure. New DB connections, Redis connections, HTTP connections?
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 8: Observability & Debuggability Review
 New systems break. This section ensures you can see why.
@@ -1278,6 +1301,7 @@ Evaluate:
 **EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION addition:**
 * What observability would make this feature a joy to operate? (For SELECTIVE EXPANSION, include observability for any accepted cherry-picks.)
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 9: Deployment & Rollout Review
 Evaluate:
@@ -1293,6 +1317,7 @@ Evaluate:
 **EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION addition:**
 * What deploy infrastructure would make shipping this feature routine? (For SELECTIVE EXPANSION, assess whether accepted cherry-picks change the deployment risk profile.)
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 10: Long-Term Trajectory Review
 Evaluate:
@@ -1308,6 +1333,7 @@ Evaluate:
 * Platform potential. Does this create capabilities other features can leverage?
 * (SELECTIVE EXPANSION only) Retrospective: Were the right cherry-picks accepted? Did any rejected expansions turn out to be load-bearing for the accepted ones?
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ### Section 11: Design & UX Review (skip if no UI scope detected)
 The CEO calling in the designer. Not a pixel-level audit — that's /plan-design-review and /design-review. This is ensuring the plan has design intentionality.
@@ -1330,6 +1356,7 @@ Required ASCII diagram: user flow showing screens/states and transitions.
 
 If this plan has significant UI scope, recommend: "Consider running /plan-design-review for a deep design review of this plan before implementation."
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
+**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
 
 ## Outside Voice — Independent Plan Challenge (optional, recommended)
 
@@ -1797,6 +1824,8 @@ staleness detection: if those files are later deleted, the learning can be flagg
 **Only log genuine discoveries.** Don't log obvious things. Don't log things the user
 already knows. A good test: would this insight save time in a future session? If yes, log it.
 
+
+
 ## Mode Quick Reference
 ```
   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

plan-design-review/SKILL.md

@@ -378,6 +378,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

plan-devex-review/SKILL.md

@@ -382,6 +382,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

plan-eng-review/SKILL.md

@@ -380,6 +380,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

qa-only/SKILL.md

@@ -376,6 +376,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

qa/SKILL.md

@@ -382,6 +382,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

retro/SKILL.md

@@ -375,6 +375,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:
@@ -588,6 +601,8 @@ When the user types `/retro`, run this skill.
 - `/retro global` — cross-project retro across all AI coding tools (7d default)
 - `/retro global 14d` — cross-project retro with explicit window
 
+
+
 ## Instructions
 
 Parse the argument to determine the time window. Default to 7 days if no argument given. All times should be reported in the user's **local timezone** (use the system default — do NOT set `TZ`).
@@ -647,6 +662,16 @@ matches a past learning, display:
 This makes the compounding visible. The user should see that gstack is getting
 smarter on their codebase over time.
 
+### Non-git context (optional)
+
+Check for non-git context that should be included in the retro:
+
+```bash
+[ -f ~/.gstack/retro-context.md ] && echo "RETRO_CONTEXT_FOUND" || echo "NO_RETRO_CONTEXT"
+```
+
+If `RETRO_CONTEXT_FOUND`: read `~/.gstack/retro-context.md`. This file is user-authored and may contain meeting notes, calendar events, decisions, and other context that doesn't appear in git history. Incorporate this context into the retro narrative where relevant.
+
 ### Step 1: Gather Raw Data
 
 First, fetch origin and identify the current user:
@@ -891,6 +916,8 @@ staleness detection: if those files are later deleted, the learning can be flagg
 **Only log genuine discoveries.** Don't log obvious things. Don't log things the user
 already knows. A good test: would this insight save time in a future session? If yes, log it.
 
+
+
 ### Step 10: Week-over-Week Trends (if window >= 14d)
 
 If the time window is 14 days or more, split into weekly buckets and show trends:

review/SKILL.md

@@ -378,6 +378,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
@@ -842,6 +855,19 @@ git fetch origin <base> --quiet
 
 Run `git diff origin/<base>` to get the full diff. This includes both committed and uncommitted changes against the latest base branch.
 
+## Step 3.5: Slop scan (advisory)
+
+Run a slop scan on changed files to catch AI code quality issues (empty catches,
+redundant `return await`, overcomplicated abstractions):
+
+```bash
+bun run slop:diff origin/<base> 2>/dev/null || true
+```
+
+If findings are reported, include them in the review output as an informational
+diagnostic. Slop findings are advisory, never blocking. If slop:diff is not
+available (e.g., slop-scan not installed), skip this step silently.
+
 ---
 
 ## Prior Learnings

setup-deploy/SKILL.md

@@ -378,6 +378,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Completion Status Protocol
 
 When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

ship/SKILL.md

@@ -379,6 +379,19 @@ AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over short
 
 Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
 
+## Confusion Protocol
+
+When you encounter high-stakes ambiguity during coding:
+- Two plausible architectures or data models for the same requirement
+- A request that contradicts existing patterns and you're unsure which to follow
+- A destructive operation where the scope is unclear
+- Missing context that would change your approach significantly
+
+STOP. Name the ambiguity in one sentence. Present 2-3 options with tradeoffs.
+Ask the user. Do not guess on architectural or data model decisions.
+
+This does NOT apply to routine coding, small features, or obvious changes.
+
 ## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
 
 `REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch: