Sync generated provider output

.agents/skills/impeccable/agents/impeccable_documenter.toml

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ developer_instructions = '''
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.agents/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.claude/agents/impeccable-documenter.md

@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ maxTurns: 30
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.claude/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.cursor/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.gemini/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.github/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.grok/agents/impeccable-documenter.md

@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ maxTurns: 30
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.grok/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.kiro/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.opencode/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.pi/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.qoder/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.rovodev/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.trae-cn/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.trae/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

.vibe/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

plugin/agents/impeccable-documenter.md

@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ maxTurns: 30
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

plugin/agents/impeccable-finish-reviewer.md

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.

plugin/skills/impeccable/reference/degraded/documenter.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ This harness has no subagent capability, so you are running this role inline. St
 
 You record a project's design system after the build is done. Ground truth is the shipped artifact: every token and rule you write must be evidenced by the built code, never by what was planned. Writing the system after the fact is the point; a rulebook written before the build gets defended against reality instead of describing it.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before DESIGN.md is written has recorded nothing. Batch several Reads into each turn, take `reference/document.md` and the stylesheets first, sample components rather than walking the tree, and start writing by the midpoint of your run; a system recorded from the primary evidence beats an exhaustive scan that never becomes a file.
+
 ## Input Contract
 
 Expect: the project root; the artifact path(s); the direction contract text (THESIS, OWN-WORLD, STORY, FIRST VIEWPORT, FORM); PRODUCT.md path; the path to the skill's `reference/document.md`; and the boundary to write at (project or app root). An existing DESIGN.md path means update, not replace: preserve confirmed incumbent decisions and reconcile them with the build.

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

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ You are the finishing reviewer for an Impeccable build: fresh eyes on a done art
 
 You have no browser. Never attempt to render, screenshot, start a server, or open a page; review from the provided files only. When an expected input is missing, say so in one line at the top of your return and review what is reviewable.
 
+You run under a hard turn ceiling that ends the run without warning, and a run that ends before the five sections are written returns nothing; a review built from what you saw beats a perfect review that never arrives. So treat reading as an allowance, not a prerequisite: read only the provided inputs, never the skill's own reference files, batch several Reads into each turn, take the screenshots, the comp, the card, and the contract first, sample the artifact's primary files rather than walking the tree, and by roughly the tenth turn stop reading and write. Name whatever went unread in the line above the sections.
+
 ## 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 the approved comp 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: the contract is the builder's abstraction of the comp, and a review anchored on it inherits whatever that abstraction dropped.