Sync generated provider output

.agents/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .agents/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .agents/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.agents/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.agents/skills/impeccable/agents/impeccable_asset_producer.toml

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ Ask blockers once, globally. Missing source path/crops or output directory block
 Codex: the imagegen skill's built-in `image_gen` path is the native tool here; prefer it for generation, editing, and the chroma-key workflow.
 7. Remove baked-in UI text, navigation, buttons, body copy, and mock chrome unless the text is part of the asset.
 8. Think through the final DOM/CSS representation before generating. If CSS will own radius, clipping, shadows, borders, perspective, responsive cropping, captions, or card frames, do not bake those into the bitmap.
-9. Save outputs non-destructively in the requested project directory, and leave the intent with the file: after every generation, run `node {{scripts_path}}/embed-prompt.mjs <asset> --prompt "<the prompt used>"` so the prompt is embedded in the image itself, because the build thread composes what you made and needs to know what it is looking at, and the embedding survives copies where sidecars get lost.
+9. Save outputs non-destructively in the requested project directory, and leave the intent with the file: after every generation, run `node .agents/skills/impeccable/scripts/embed-prompt.mjs <asset> --prompt "<the prompt used>"` so the prompt is embedded in the image itself, because the build thread composes what you made and needs to know what it is looking at, and the embedding survives copies where sidecars get lost.
 10. Compare each output against its source crop, opening every image by its workspace-relative path; sandboxed viewers reject absolute paths. If a review/QA tool is available, run it before the final manifest, then retry each major/fatal finding once before finalizing.
 
 Use `texture/pattern extraction` only when the source region is already clean enough to sample as texture. If UI, cards, labels, headings, body copy, or footer chrome must be removed to make a reusable texture or background, classify it as crop-derived cleanup or clean-plate work.

.agents/skills/impeccable/agents/impeccable_finish_reviewer.toml

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -36,5 +36,5 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
 '''

.agents/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.agents/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .agents/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .agents/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.claude/agents/impeccable-finish-reviewer.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -39,4 +39,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.claude/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .claude/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .claude/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.claude/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.claude/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.claude/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -107,6 +107,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .claude/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .claude/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.cursor/agents/impeccable-finish-reviewer.md

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -38,4 +38,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.cursor/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .cursor/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .cursor/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.cursor/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.cursor/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.cursor/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .cursor/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .cursor/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.gemini/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .gemini/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .gemini/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.gemini/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.gemini/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.gemini/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .gemini/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .gemini/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.github/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .github/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .github/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.github/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.github/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.github/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .github/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .github/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.grok/agents/impeccable-finish-reviewer.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -39,4 +39,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.grok/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .grok/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .grok/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.grok/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.grok/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.grok/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .grok/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .grok/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.kiro/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .kiro/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .kiro/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.kiro/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.kiro/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.kiro/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .kiro/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .kiro/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.opencode/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .opencode/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .opencode/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.opencode/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.opencode/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.opencode/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .opencode/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .opencode/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.pi/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .pi/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .pi/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.pi/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.pi/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.pi/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .pi/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .pi/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.qoder/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .qoder/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .qoder/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.qoder/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.qoder/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.qoder/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .qoder/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .qoder/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.rovodev/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .rovodev/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .rovodev/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.rovodev/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.rovodev/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.rovodev/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .rovodev/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .rovodev/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.trae-cn/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .trae-cn/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .trae-cn/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.trae-cn/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.trae-cn/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.trae-cn/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .trae-cn/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .trae-cn/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.trae/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .trae/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .trae/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.trae/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.trae/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.trae/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .trae/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .trae/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

.vibe/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .vibe/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .vibe/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.vibe/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

.vibe/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

.vibe/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -105,6 +105,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .vibe/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .vibe/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.

plugin/agents/impeccable-finish-reviewer.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -39,4 +39,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

plugin/skills/impeccable/SKILL.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Core principles:
 
 ## Setup
 
-1. Run `node .claude/skills/impeccable/scripts/context.mjs` once per session (if the runtime shows this skill's loaded base directory, run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs`; keep cwd at the user's project). Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
+1. Run `node <skill-base-dir>/scripts/context.mjs` once per session, where `<skill-base-dir>` is the loaded base directory the runtime reports for this skill; keep cwd at the user's project. That base directory resolves every `node .claude/skills/impeccable/scripts/...` command in this skill and its references, and `.claude/skills/impeccable/scripts` is the fallback only when the runtime reports no base directory. Pass a named source file or route as `--target <path>`. It loads PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, the matching surface brief, and native-platform guidance when applicable; follow its directives and do not rerun it.
 2. Before acting, load the one playbook that owns the request: the Commands table's reference for an explicit or clearly implied sub-command, or [reference/new-work.md](reference/new-work.md) for a new surface or replacement visual world. Then inspect the target and at least one representative source of incumbent visual truth (tokens, theme, CSS, component, or asset) before editing.
 3. After analysis and direction are resolved, load [reference/craft-floor.md](reference/craft-floor.md) immediately before editing UI. It carries the quality floor, the absolute bans, and the reflexes no detector catches. Do not load it for planning-only work.
 

plugin/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/finish-reviewer.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ A hard turn ceiling ends the run without warning; a run that ends before the fiv
 
 ## Input Contract
 
-Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); desktop and mobile screenshot paths captured by the parent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
+Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s); the screenshots the parent captured, which live in `.impeccable/review/` (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`); a screenshot path the calling brief names is authoritative when the file exists, and `.impeccable/review/` is where to look when the brief names none or a named path is missing, never a filename you invent; the direction contract (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; existing hook or detector findings; the chosen world's QUALITY BAR card paths and, on a comp-led build, the approved comp path (a code-led build has no approved comp; it passes the chosen decision comp as a separate critique-reference input, labeled as such, and nothing in this file that binds “the approved comp” binds it); and the skill's `reference/craft-floor.md` path. When the harness can view images, open the screenshots, the comp, and the card first, and inventory the comp's salient elements in your own words before reading the direction contract or any builder-authored summary: a review anchored on the contract inherits whatever the builder's abstraction dropped.
 
 ## Checks, in order
 
@@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ Return the disposition line first, then exactly five sections: `persistence` (pa
 
 ## Verdict Pass
 
-When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.
+When the parent returns with post-fix recaptures, you are scoring, not re-hunting. The parent recaptures over the same screenshot files you read in the review round, so re-read those exact paths for this round; a round-stamped filename you invent points at nothing. The parent's narration of what was fixed is not evidence; a claimed fix you cannot see in the recaptures is unresolved. For each material fix from your review, one line: resolved, partial, or unresolved, tied to what the new screenshots visibly show; a fix answered mechanically, positions moved but the quality the finding named still absent, is partial at best. Then name at most three regressions the fix batch itself introduced, judged by the same matrix rules, and nothing else; no new hunt, no new checks. Return exactly two sections: `verdict` (the scored list) and `remaining` (what stays open, or "clear"), and end with the disposition line recomputed against what remains open; unresolved or partial material findings can never recompute to ship.

plugin/skills/impeccable/reference/new-work.md

@@ -107,6 +107,6 @@ Preserve semantics, accessibility, performance, responsiveness, project conventi
 
 Inspect desktop and mobile in one batched screenshot round, critique the render against the user's request and the direction contract, fix material gaps, and confirm with one final round; two rounds is the ceiling, and fixes batch between them rather than earning per-tweak screenshots. When an approved comp exists, the critique is a side-by-side: view the comp region and the build region together, the hero and each section as its own crop at legible scale, never one full-page thumbnail, which hides exactly the failures that matter, crude controls, wrong lettering character, flattened material, behind a superficially similar section order. On a Persuade surface, verify the mode did its job: a first-time visitor should know what this is, why it matters, and what to do within seconds, in the form's own vocabulary.
 
-After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .claude/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture desktop and mobile screenshots to files, then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
+After the second inspection round the build thread's polishing is over: no further defect hunts, micro-edit scripts, or rebuilds here; whatever remains ships through the handoffs, where a fresh context does the finding better and cheaper. Where this harness runs no design hook, run `node .claude/skills/impeccable/scripts/detect.mjs --json` on the changed targets once here, fix what is mechanical, and pass the remaining findings to the reviewer; a hookless build that skips this ships every tell the hook exists to catch. Capture the screenshots into `.impeccable/review/`, one file per captured viewport (on the web, `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`), creating that directory when the harness does not; the paths you pass the reviewer are its spec, and that directory is where it looks when a passed path is missing. Then spawn the shipped finish reviewer, `impeccable-finish-reviewer` (`impeccable_finish_reviewer` in codex; `/impeccable-finish-reviewer` in Cursor; on GitHub Copilot say "Use the impeccable-finish-reviewer agent"), with the original request, confirmed answers, the artifact path, the screenshot paths, its direction contract, existing hook findings, the QUALITY BAR card and approved comp paths (on a code-led build there is no approved comp; the chosen decision comp rides in that slot as the critique reference, named as such), and the craft-floor reference path. The reviewer has no browser; screenshots you fail to pass are checks it cannot run. Never read the shipped agents' definition files before spawning; the harness loads them at spawn, and you owe only the input packet. Wait on any agent with one long timeout rather than a loop of short polls, and spend the wait on the next independent step. Verify its return carries the five contract sections; on an empty or thrashed return, respawn once with the same inputs before doing anything else. This review never runs inside the build thread and never inherits it: spawn the reviewer fresh, with no forked conversation history (`fork_turns: 0` in codex); a reviewer that inherits your transcript inherits your framing, your optimism, and your abstractions, and everything it needs travels in the inputs above. Only a harness whose tool surface has no subagent capability at all substitutes a fresh in-thread pass after stepping fully out of the build context, run from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md), and a substituted or failed-and-replaced review is disclosed in one line at finish, never silently. When the reviewer's first material fix is a rebuild directive, fidelity failed wholesale rather than in patches, so skip the fix batch and execute the rebuild immediately: re-derive the named regions, produce the named assets, and send the result back for a verdict, telling the user what is happening rather than asking permission to fix a failure. The user is consulted only when a second rebuild directive arrives, both verdicts on the table, or when rebuilding would discard content the user approved. Otherwise apply the material fixes in one batch, rebuild once, and recapture the same viewports over the same files. A recapture measures positions, loading, and overflow; it cannot measure whether a fix reached the quality the finding named, so send the recaptured screenshots back to the same reviewer for a verdict scoring every material fix resolved, partial, or unresolved (through the harness's agent continuation; without one, run the scoring fresh from [degraded/finish-reviewer.md](degraded/finish-reviewer.md)'s Verdict Pass). Fixes scored partial or unresolved get another batch, recapture, and verdict. Two rounds is the budget an unattended run ends at; an attended session's ceiling belongs to the user, so when the second verdict still lists open items, put the table in front of them and let them choose between shipping as it stands and funding another round. Whoever is deciding, stop the moment a round resolves nothing, and the reviewer's findings are the only list you work from, never your own re-opened hunt. Report the final verdict table to the user as it stands, open items included, under the reviewer's own disposition word: a table with open material findings is never announced as a pass, and never under a softer label than the reviewer wrote. Do not run a second detector.
 
 Then spawn the shipped documenter, `impeccable-documenter` (`impeccable_documenter` in codex), with the project root, the artifact path, the direction contract, PRODUCT.md, the [document.md](document.md) reference path, and the boundary to write at; it records DESIGN.md and the sidecar from the built world, ground truth over intention; without subagents the pass runs from [degraded/documenter.md](degraded/documenter.md). A clean detector pass is not finished; finished is the contract kept, the comp honored, the review closed, and the system recorded.