skills(pm-dispatch): a reading another agent acts on owes its UNIT and a counterfactual — the discipline guarded a ZERO only

[os-justin]

Fixes #18798

Clause-②: no

Governed rules layer, one file, line-neutral: .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/core-rules.md 151 → 151. This PR stays draft — no ready flip, no reviewer request, no arming; the skills seat hangs the four-piece and the maintainer lands it. skip-changeset: .claude/** publishes nothing (fast-track class).

The gap

The reading discipline makes exactly one mechanical demand of an instrument — core-rules :45 「零命中须配同主体必中词,否则该零作废;同仪器的控制词双零是仪器坏,⛔ 不读作缺席。」 — and it guards a ZERO. Nothing in the protocol made a seat prove that a non-zero reading counted the thing it claimed to count, and the card's measured cost is eight instances in one shift (six on the card, two the triage seat measured on itself), five of them non-zero and every one of them already written into a card, a handover brief or a dispatch where another agent acted on it. The card's own boundary — ⛔ not a blanket "every number needs a control", because that tax falls hardest on the cheap probes that make the loop affordable — is what decides the scope: the demand binds a reading another agent will act on, and a seat's own use-and-discard probe owes nothing.

The row, verbatim

Added at core-rules.md :46, directly under the zero rule it generalises (119 bytes; the file's cap is 120):

- 他人据以行动的读数须带单位并答什么本来会让它不是这个值;递 dev 的恒标线索非答案。

Three clauses: ① the reading states its unit (files? occurrences? lines? bytes?); ② it answers 「什么本来会让它不是这个值」 — the triage's second question, verbatim in substance; ③ a reading handed to a dev as a lead is always marked a lead, not an answer. The scope word 「他人据以行动的」 is the boundary in positive form and is the card's own criterion (「另一个 agent 会据此行动的地方」); a probe a seat uses and discards is not a reading this row binds.

The eight instances, against the row's clauses

#	instrument	what it actually answered	caught by
1	startswith("Blocked-by:") over issue bodies	bodies only, line-initial, undecorated — the comment channel and **Blocked-by:** lines are invisible to it	② — the honest answer names the corpus, and a Blocked-by: in a comment moves the number not at all (cost: two non-defects entered a handover brief as work items)
2	grep -E '^[-+][^-+]' over a charter diff	the document's lines start with - , so its changed diff lines read -- and the pattern excluded them	② — answering it requires a known-changed line as a positive control (cost: "almost nothing changed", really 46 + 14 lines including a reversed rule)
3	a starred control reading "this package's routes do i18n lookups"	every hit was a comment or a metadata key name	② — if the routes did not do lookups the grep still reads non-zero, which disproves the reading; ① alone does not catch it (cost: an option costed an order of magnitude low)
4	a package_version_id grep handed to a dev as a lead	the zero was true; the mechanism was elsewhere	③ — neither ① nor ② catches this one: the reading is correct and still points the wrong way. This is the instance the lead clause exists for, and the R39 dispatch that said "this is a lead, not an answer" is what saved it
5	git grep -c … | wc -l to count call sites	it counts FILES	① directly (unit: files, not call sites) and ② as well (a second call site in the same file moves nothing); reported 5, there are 9
6	a paraphrased calibration case (cloud#2020, the card's origin)	it passed for the wrong reason — the paraphrase dropped the sentence carrying the cue, so the case exercised a path the real corpus never takes	② — "what would have made this case NOT pass" is answerable only against the verbatim excerpt it is not; the dev named the class itself: the same class as an ablation that passes because nothing was mutated
7	the triage seat's own three-set endpoint diff, residual 0	structurally blind to same-round in-and-out: a card that entered and left in the same round appears in neither column	② — "what would have made the residual non-zero" forces enumerating the transitions the three sets can represent; ① does not catch it (the unit, cards, is right)
8	the triage seat's own #18791 grep — unit right, control lit, count true	it answered the wrong question: who has already written the bad value, not who is TEACHING it (the gate's own fix string, in the same output)	NOT caught — see below

Instance 8 is the boundary and it is stated as a measured disagreement with the triage's expectation, not smoothed over. The triage proposed ② as the question that catches the zero, the non-zero and the unit-correct-but-wrong-question shape. Measured against this row as written, it does not: ① is satisfied, ② is answerable ("an authored block carrying the bad value would have made it non-zero"), and the reading was true. What fails there is the QUESTION, which is exactly the shape of sibling card #18755 (「a lit control certifies the INSTRUMENT, not the QUESTION」) — a card the triage's own dedupe ruling keeps separate and this PR does not fold. One wording would reach it — binding ② to the CONCLUSION the reading is carried for ("what reading would have overturned the call this number is used to make") rather than to the instrument — and it was refused on the axes below: it costs a re-derivation of the decision per reading, and it would silently absorb #18755 while that card is open and graded on its own.

① + ② or ② alone — the four axes

Written: ① + ②, both, in one row. The card's original candidate (① alone) is refused outright by instance 8, and was already refused by the triage.

• 实际业务需求 — measured on the eight instances, not on which question reads better. ① alone catches 1 of 8 ([WIP] Fix error in step four of the action run #5). ② alone catches 6 of 8 and misses [WIP] Fix error in step four of the action run #5's cheapest catch only in the sense that it takes a constructed counterfactual to get there. Neither covers the set; ① costs one word per reading and buys the one instance whose defect is purely a unit error, so dropping it saves no budget and loses the cheapest catch in the corpus.
• 项目长远合理性 — they are different kinds of obligation and collapsing them hides the cheap one behind the expensive one: ① is a FORMAT demand that makes a number self-describing when the next seat re-reads the card weeks later; ② is an EVIDENCE demand about the instrument. A unit-less number in a landed card cannot be re-checked by anyone at all.
• 防 AI 写代码犯错 — the deciding axis here. ② can be discharged with a plausible sentence, and an AI seat is very good at plausible sentences; ① is mechanically refusable by a reader (is there a unit word beside the number, or not?). Keeping the loud, checkable half is the contract-first choice, exactly as a strict schema beats a tolerant consumer.
• 创业阶段不扩散需求 — the tax is bounded by the scope clause, not by dropping a question: readings that go into a card, a brief or a dispatch are a small fraction of the probes a round fires, and the card and the triage both drew that boundary. ⛔ No blanket demand on every number is written or implied.

What the one-row budget cut, and where it should land: the explicit negative form of the boundary (「⛔ 自用即弃的探针不欠此税」) and the discharge form of ② (「答案取逐字工件或具名反例」 — the cloud#2020 rule, an instrument either measures the real artefact or carries a control that establishes what it is counting). Both are named here so the seat can queue them; the natural carrier is the SKILL.md twin this PR owes (below), where the reading discipline already spends two lines on the zero rule.

The row paid, in this file

core-rules.md :51 is retired. It carried three clauses:

clause	disposition
「分诊查重零命中须控制词」	the payment — a near-duplicate: :45 already states the zero rule generally and unconditionally, so the dedupe instance adds no mechanical demand. This is the duplication the card itself names
「子代理自死不等于维护者中止,需显式信号」	merged into :111, the claim-reclamation rule it governs: 「- dev 自死不等于维护者中止,需显式信号;回收前先救工作树,有提交的活分支 ⛔ 永不回收。」 (119 B). dev is SKILL.md :174's own word for the subject
「立卡者只附查重词」	merged into :80, the execution-versus-triage division of labour it belongs to: 「- 执行席 ⛔ 跳过分诊动作,读到标签当既成事实;立卡者不查重、只附查重词。」 (102 B). The added 「不查重」 is SKILL.md :176's own spelling, not new content

So the diff is three insertions and three deletions in one file: one row retired, two rows extended, one row added. No live rule was deleted. ⛔ Re-wrapping was not used as currency — the only content dropped is the duplicated clause.

Two payment shapes were weighed and refused. An adjacent-pair merge: the ratchet's own comment on this file measures ZERO of its adjacent bullet pairs merging under the 120-byte cap (smallest 156 B), and re-measuring by hand reproduced it. A merge of the two preamble lines :2–:3: it frees a line, but every spelling that keeps 「本文不新增规则」 verbatim lands at 133 bytes or more, so it can only be bought by deleting the file's own self-description — worse content to spend than a duplicated clause.

Mirror reading — must SKILL.md :163 move in lockstep?

By gate: no. By the protocol's own binding text: YES, and this PR does not carry that half.

• No gate compares the two documents. Instrument: git grep -l 'core-rules' over scripts/ .github/ package.json reads 2 files — scripts/pm/check-skill-line-ratchet.mjs (counts lines only) and scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs (derives gate families). Lit controls on the same instrument and corpus: platform-readings reads 7 files, SKILL.md reads 40 files; absent control (a nonsense token) reads 0, exit 1. A second instrument agrees: git grep -n '核心条款' over scripts/ .github/ reads exactly one line — a COMMENT at check-skill-line-ratchet.mjs:1126 quoting the rule — with 受管面 lit as control in the same corpus.
• The binding text is unambiguous. SKILL.md :43 「核心条款住 references/core-rules.md,是本文的子集」, SKILL.md :44 「一条规则在本文与核心条款一处改动,另一处同 PR 同改」, and core-rules.md :3 「本文不新增规则」. A rule that exists in core-rules and not in SKILL.md breaks the declared subset relation.
• Both reference PRs named in the dispatch carried the twin in the same PR: PR skills(pm-dispatch): off-tier seat discharges clause-② review by spawning an at-tier subagent (ruling C) #18511 re-keyed SKILL.md :522 / :640 and core-rules :112; PR docs(pm-skill): flip the gate asymmetry — adding a required gate/hook/ratchet joins the human floor; census-marked retirement becomes class-1 (ruling F) #18481 re-keyed SKILL.md :390 / :391 / :403 / :404 / :712 and core-rules :95 / :96 / :137, and declared in its own body the one item that has no core-rules twin. Two of two.
• ⇒ The owed half, for the seat to queue: SKILL.md's reading-discipline block (:163–:164) gains the same rule. That half is not in this diff because SKILL.md is serial behind PR docs(pm-dispatch): name the repository each cited instrument answers for #18666 / PR skills(pm-dispatch): a ruling's file/symbol/line/call-shape clause carries its reading or is marked 未验证 — the 派发令 evidentiary duty extended to 裁决 #18679, which is the seat's ruling, not a reading this PR takes. Until it lands, core-rules.md states one rule SKILL.md does not, and no gate will say so — which is itself a rule with no paired mechanical action, in a file about rules with no paired mechanical action. It is in the report's out-of-scope findings as a class (b) card for the seat to file.

check:skill-frame-sync was run and is green, but it judges the four-axis DECISION FRAME's coherence and scans for undeclared copies of that frame — it is not a rules-row mirror and its green says nothing about the twin obligation above.

Sibling cards, read and not folded

• finding(skills): a lit control certifies the INSTRUMENT, not the QUESTION — a live grep, its lit control and its absent control all fired while answering something the tool structurally cannot see #18755 (p2, 「a lit control certifies the INSTRUMENT, not the QUESTION」) — read in full. This row narrows its gap but does not close it, and that is the honest reading of instance 8 above: the row binds readings that reach a card, a brief or a dispatch, so a near-miss heading into a finding (its check-validity-recogniser case) would be inside the demand, while a seat's own discard probe stays outside it by design. The uncovered half is the shape finding(skills): a lit control certifies the INSTRUMENT, not the QUESTION — a live grep, its lit control and its absent control all fired while answering something the tool structurally cannot see #18755 names — a live instrument, every control satisfied, pointed at a question the instrument's DOMAIN cannot answer. That card is not addressed here.
• [finding] three 配额 rows in platform-readings.md rest on the rationale #18601 falsified (「ccr 路是 REST ⇒ 不吃 GraphQL 池」) — what they assert about a /rate_limit-red window was never measured in that direction #18744 (p2, HELD) — read. It is three fact rows in platform-readings.md resting on a falsified rationale; different file, different instrument, nothing to fold. Not addressed here.
• platform-readings.md :226–:227 are untouched ([finding] a dev container can create a remote branch but cannot delete one (both channels 403), so a "probe before you write" instruction manufactures a permanent stray branch — one is on origin now and defeats the AGENTS.md claim pre-check #18774 is on that file); SKILL.md :163 is untouched (serial, above).

Verification, head 46b7bd6a46

• Ratchet before / after. At main (331462d11f, the branch base): 「✓ check-skill-line-ratchet: .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/core-rules.md is 151 lines (ceiling 151; headroom 0).」 At this head: byte-identical line. Widest introduced row 119 B (:46 and :111); :80 is 102 B; no line in the file exceeds 120 B (measured over all 151 lines).
• Diff. git diff --stat 331462d11f HEAD → 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-).
• Derived gates. node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --commands --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack from the worktree with no hand-fed path list → 16 families. All 16 run in the foreground, each exit code captured by redirect then $?:

node scripts/check-closing-keyword-parity.mjs :: exit 0
node scripts/check-closing-keyword-parity.mjs --self-test :: exit 0
node scripts/check-comment-mask-corpus.mjs :: exit 0
node scripts/pm/check-governed-queue-guard.mjs --self-test :: exit 0
node scripts/pm/check-harness-current.mjs --self-test :: exit 0
pnpm --filter @objectstack/lint run check:doc-formula-expressions :: exit 0
pnpm check:agent-test-spelling :: exit 0
pnpm check:doc-authoring :: exit 0
pnpm check:driver-memory-census :: exit 0
pnpm check:nul-bytes :: exit 0
pnpm check:pm-governed-merges :: exit 0
pnpm check:pm-skill-id-lint :: exit 0
pnpm check:pm-skill-ratchet :: exit 0
pnpm check:refd-timer-probe :: exit 0
pnpm check:skill-frame-sync :: exit 0
pnpm check:watch-hint-literal :: exit 0

Reconciliation with --ran: 「✓ dispatch-gates --ran: 16 derived famil(ies) accounted for — 16 run, 0 NOT-MEASURED (a DERIVED zero — all 16 recorded an exit code and none of them is 3)」. check:doc-formula-expressions first answered exit 3, PREREQUISITE NOT MET (@objectstack/formula and @objectstack/lint unbuilt) — not a finding and not a measurement; both packages were built under scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh (「VERDICT command-exit 0 · held the lock 1s · waited 0s」) and the gate then answered exit 0.

• Two more, run because the derivation named their rosters rather than cleared them: pnpm check:pm-settings-deny-roster (its roster sits under .claude, where this path is) exit 0, and node scripts/check-skills-token-ratchet.mjs exit 0 (「34 authored bundle file(s) within their ceilings」 — the published catalog is untouched).
• Repo-wide pnpm lint (eslint . --no-inline-config): exit 0, no output.
• Control characters: pnpm check:nul-bytes exit 0 (「scanned 8850 text file(s) … no raw ASCII control bytes」), plus a direct sweep of the edited file for the C0 range and DEL: no match, exit 1.
• No ablation or reverse-verification leg: a prose rule with no runtime and no dist. The before/after measurement is the diff plus the ratchet pair above.

Acceptance notes

• To file (class b), handed to the seat, not filed here: the twin obligation SKILL.md :44 declares (「一条规则在本文与核心条款一处改动,另一处同 PR 同改」) and the subset relation SKILL.md :43 / core-rules :3 declare are enforced by no gate — the only occurrence of 核心条款 under scripts/ is a comment quoting the rule. Declared coverage, measured false; this PR is itself the instance. Dedupe words: 「核心条款 同 PR 同改」 · 「core-rules SKILL.md 无镜像门禁」 · 「本文不新增规则」 · 「twin line SKILL.md:44」 · 「digest subset drift」.
• noted, not filed: core-rules.md :5 「PM 不写任何文件」 and :23 「PM ⛔ 不写文件也不写代码」 state the same prohibition twice, one in 红线 and one in 全体座位的不变量; a future row needing payment in this file can merge :23 with :24 (whose 「⛔ 不得自审自合」 is already carried by :5) for one line, at 115 B. Handler: the next card that has to pay a row in this file.
• noted, not filed: core-rules.md :43 「不取本地工作树」 and :44 「⛔ 不用共享检出树」 overlap; folding them frees bytes but not a line. Handler: none.

维护者速读(草稿)

改了什么:读数纪律原来只有一条机械要求,而且只管「零命中」。这个 PR 在它正下方加一行,把要求延伸到别人会据此行动的非零读数:写下单位(是文件数?命中数?行数?),并回答「什么本来会让它不是这个值」;另外,递给 dev 当线索的读数一律标明「这是线索不是答案」。自己用完就丢的探针不欠这笔税 —— 卡面和分诊席都明确拒绝「每个数字都要配控制」,这一行也拒绝。付账在本文件内:第 51 行退休(它第三句只是把 :45 的零命中规则在查重场景重说一遍),它另外两句分别并进 :80 和 :111,行数 151 → 151。

为什么改:一个班次里量到八个实例,五个是非零读数,其中六个已经写进了卡、交接简报或派工单 —— 两条非缺陷被当工作项交接、一次「几乎没变」实际是 46+14 行含一条方向反转的规则、一张卡的方案被低估一个数量级、一条方向错的线索递给了 dev(只因为派工单写了「这是线索」才没造成损失)、git grep -c | wc -l 数的是文件报了 5 实际 9。这些不是「可能会出错」,是已经发生的事故链。

风险与代价(含回滚):零代码、零脚本、零发布物,16 个派生门禁加仓级 lint 全绿。真实代价是每条进卡/进简报/进派工单的读数多写一句话;拒绝扩大到每个数字,就是为了不把便宜探针压死。回滚 = revert 本 PR 的一个 commit,文本回到今天的样子。⚠️ 一个已知缺口请你知情:按 SKILL.md :44 的规定,一条规则改一处、另一处必须同 PR 同改,而 SKILL.md 眼下排在 PR #18666 / #18679 后面串行,所以这一趟只落了核心条款这一半;另一半由席位排队补上。没有任何门禁会告诉你这件事 —— 这本身也写进了待立卡清单。

席位意见:(留空,席位定稿)

你要做的:按四件套流程批准本 PR(规则层,等你的字)。合并后席位负责把 SKILL.md 那一半排进队列。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-justin]

维护者速读(终稿)

改了什么:读数纪律原先只有一条机械要求,而且只管「零命中」。这个 PR 在它正下方各加一行、两处同改:references/core-rules.md :46 与 SKILL.md :165 逐字相同 ——「他人据以行动的读数须带单位并答什么本来会让它不是这个值;递 dev 的恒标线索非答案。」;SKILL.md :166 再补细则两句:自己用完就丢的探针不欠这笔税;「不是这个值」的答案取逐字工件或具名反例。付账都在文件内:核心条款退休 :51(它的查重句只是把 :45 的零命中规则重说一遍,另两句并进 :80 与 :111),151 → 151;SKILL.md 退休旧 :480 与旧 :583(两行的每一句都在文件别处原样存在,席位逐句核过),812 → 812。四轴框架块 :733–:754 一个字节没动(md5 同前)。

为什么改:一个班次里量到八个实例,五个是非零读数,六个已经写进卡、交接简报或派工单并被人据以行动 —— 两条非缺陷被当工作项交接、一次「几乎没变」实际是 46+14 行含一条方向反转的规则、一张卡的方案被低估一个数量级、git grep -c | wc -l 数的是文件报了 5 实际 9。卡里引的那句「非零不证明尺子对」在树上任何拼法都不存在,所以非零这一侧连一句格言都没有。按这一行回测八个实例:单位子句只抓 1 个,反问子句抓 6 个,线索子句抓第 4 个;第 8 个(单位对、控制亮、数也对,只是问错了问题)这一行抓不到 —— 那是 #18755 的洞,本 PR 收窄它、不宣称补上它。

风险与代价(含回滚):零代码、零脚本、零发布物;两轮派生门禁 16 + 19 个全绿,仓级 lint 全绿。真实代价是每条进卡、进简报、进派工单的读数多写一句话;明确拒绝扩大到每个数字,以免压死便宜探针。与在飞的 PR #18666 / #18679 在 SKILL.md 上无一行重叠,任意先后都能落。回滚 = revert 本 PR 的两个 commit。⚠️ 一件席位自己的错要你知情:第一轮派工把 SKILL.md 排除在外(为了热文件串行),违反 SKILL.md :44「一处改动,另一处同 PR 同改」;dev 把这条规定读回来后,席位在同一分支加了第二轮补齐孪生行。没有任何门禁会拦这件事 —— 已另立卡(见 ACCEPT)。PR 正文里的速读草稿写的还是「另一半由席位排队补上」,以本终稿为准:两半都在这个 PR 里。

席位意见:通过。规则本身是卡面与分诊都认的边界(只约束「他人据以行动的读数」),两处同改把 :43 的子集关系维持住了,付账是真删重复内容而不是改换行。

你要做的:批准本 PR(规则层,等你的字)。合并后无后续动作;核心条款上排在后面的是 #18489(孪生行清单)。

---

Generated by Claude Code