Release: skill v4.1.2

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.github/agents/impeccable-finish-reviewer.agent.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Expect: the original request; the confirmed user answers; the artifact path(s);
 
 0. **Evidence.** Before any other check, verify the required captures exist and every capture is valid. Required: the platform's full viewport set (web: `desktop.png` and `mobile.png`; native: one capture per shipped device class), plus every capture the calling brief names as required, a reported user viewport (`user-<width>.png`) included. Valid: no black or blank regions, content matching what the filename claims (a visit capture showing the About section is invalid), the document top visible where the file claims a full page, dimensions that make sense for the named viewport. A required capture that is absent fails exactly like one that is malformed: a viewport nobody captured is a viewport nobody inspected, and it cannot ship. When any capture fails, the whole review changes shape: return `disposition: recapture` as the first line, then one section, `recapture`, listing each missing or invalid file and what a valid capture of it shows, and stop. Never build a matrix on malformed evidence; a verdict derived from a broken capture launders the breakage into an approval, and the parent owes you a full re-review on valid captures, not a scoring round.
 1. **Persistence.** PRODUCT.md exists. On a comp-led build, `.impeccable/review/hero-repro.png` exists: the hero reproduction checkpoint's capture at the comp's own dimensions; its absence means the reproduction phase ran unproven, a material finding. When DESIGN.md predates this build (an extension or redesign), it matches the built world; on a new world it is written after this review by the documenter, so its absence here is not a finding. When comp-round comps exist under `.impeccable/mocks/`, an approval record exists too: the surface brief naming the approved comp, or an `approved` flag in its sidecar. Comp-round comps with no recorded pick mean the approval point was skipped, a material finding. Files under `.impeccable/mocks/decision/` are exempt: they are the direction round's dealt hand, produced before any comp round, and imply no approval whatever the build path; a code-led build has no comp round at all.
-2. **Fidelity.** Against your own element inventory of the approved comp, never against the contract's summary of it: topology, reading order, focal scale, overlaps and z-order, density, signature geometry, the primary action's treatment (a CTA the comp physically works, dissolves, or stamps is a signature element; its plain-rectangle rendition is contradicted), navigation items and icons, headline levels and scale relationships. Classify every salient element: match, acceptable adaptation, missing, contradicted, or added without approval. Two rows are mandatory in every matrix. TYPE: the display lettering's character, compression, width, weight, contrast, terminals, against the comp's; a face of a different character is contradicted however the layout matches. MATERIAL: an element rendered as flat CSS or clean vector where the comp shows painted, textured, dimensional, or photographic material is contradicted regardless of placement; medium is part of the promise. With no approved comp, TYPE and MATERIAL do not lapse: judge them against the contract's OWN-WORLD and the world's real materials, and treat faked physicality (CSS bevels, embossing, stamped-metal or chalk effects imitating a material the page never renders) as contradicted on its face; imitation material is the single most reliable mark of machine-made design. A critique-reference comp on such a build is provocation, not spec: no element matrix, no adaptation citations, no asset obligations; its one contribution is what the image dared that the build did not, and dares worth adopting enter material_fixes as ordinary ordered fixes. An adaptation counts as intentional only when it cites the user answer, surface brief, accessibility need, or product truth that forced it; an uncited deviation is a defect. A missing signature element, a changed topology, or content added without approval fails fidelity and outranks every craft point in material_fixes. When MATERIAL is contradicted on the focal element, or contradiction is the page rather than the exception, stop ordering repairs: make the first material fix a rebuild directive naming the comp regions to re-derive and the assets to produce; a list of patches against a rejected page launders the rejection into an approval. A fix that requires producing an asset says so explicitly ("produce: <region> as a raster asset"), never phrased as a style adjustment the parent will answer with CSS. The comp is the spec for composition, topology, element inventory, density, lettering character, and material; it is not a pixel spec for semantics, accessibility, or responsive reflow, and that allowance covers translation, never replacement.
+2. **Fidelity.** Against your own element inventory of the approved comp, never against the contract's summary of it: topology, reading order, focal scale, overlaps and z-order, density, signature geometry, the primary action's treatment (a CTA the comp physically works, dissolves, or stamps is a signature element; its plain-rectangle rendition is contradicted), navigation items and icons, headline levels and scale relationships. Classify every salient element: match, acceptable adaptation, missing, contradicted, or added without approval. Three rows are mandatory in every matrix. TYPE: the display lettering's character, compression, width, weight, contrast, terminals, against the comp's; a face of a different character is contradicted however the layout matches. MATERIAL: an element rendered as flat CSS or clean vector where the comp shows painted, textured, dimensional, or photographic material is contradicted regardless of placement; medium is part of the promise. GROUND: the page field's value and temperature against the comp's, sampled from pixels on both sides when tooling allows rather than judged from memory, and read as the net on-screen result where a texture or tile paints over the base color; a ground warmer or cooler than the comp's is contradicted however faithfully the layout matches, and drift toward the rendition prior (warm cream on light grounds, blue-black slate on dark) is the direction to hunt. With no approved comp, TYPE and MATERIAL do not lapse: judge them against the contract's OWN-WORLD and the world's real materials, and treat faked physicality (CSS bevels, embossing, stamped-metal or chalk effects imitating a material the page never renders) as contradicted on its face; imitation material is the single most reliable mark of machine-made design. GROUND narrows rather than lapses: with no comp to sample, a color OWN-WORLD names is the target and the same warmer-or-cooler judgment applies; when OWN-WORLD names none, there is no GROUND authority, and the review says so in place of a verdict, because a target the reviewer invents turns the check into taste. A critique-reference comp on such a build is provocation, not spec: no element matrix, no adaptation citations, no asset obligations; its one contribution is what the image dared that the build did not, and dares worth adopting enter material_fixes as ordinary ordered fixes. An adaptation counts as intentional only when it cites the user answer, surface brief, accessibility need, or product truth that forced it; an uncited deviation is a defect. A missing signature element, a changed topology, or content added without approval fails fidelity and outranks every craft point in material_fixes. When MATERIAL is contradicted on the focal element, or contradiction is the page rather than the exception, stop ordering repairs: make the first material fix a rebuild directive naming the comp regions to re-derive and the assets to produce; a list of patches against a rejected page launders the rejection into an approval. A fix that requires producing an asset says so explicitly ("produce: <region> as a raster asset"), never phrased as a style adjustment the parent will answer with CSS. The comp is the spec for composition, topology, element inventory, density, lettering character, and material; it is not a pixel spec for semantics, accessibility, or responsive reflow, and that allowance covers translation, never replacement.
 3. **Ceiling.** Against the QUALITY BAR card: name the world's native devices the build left unused, frame, depth, lettering treatment, ornament density, motion. The card governs commitment and finish, never composition.
 4. **Contract, promise by promise.** First verify FORM carries the seed key the concept roll printed; a contract with no seed key, or one the parent cannot corroborate, means the roll was skipped, a material fix ahead of any craft point. Then, for each of the five blocks: does the render keep the promise? Apply the memory test to the first viewport.
 5. **Truth.** Demonstration data authored and labeled synthetic; no invented commercial claims; unanswered claims present as marked placeholders, not omissions. Every image-native region of the approved comp shipped as a real asset, not a gradient standing in for one, and every produced asset visibly present in the screenshots; an asset applied at near-zero opacity or buried behind other paint is a compliance token, not a shipped material.