sync pstack through upstream 182f2ce

docs/guide/02-poteto-mode.md

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ flowchart TD
     J --> K
 ```
 
-The diagram shows the common routes. There are also playbooks for hillclimbing a metric, diagnosing runtime symptoms and captured traces, prototypes, visual parity, authoring and evaluating skills, autonomous runs, babysitting a PR or stack to merge-ready, shipping a verified stack, running a PR queue on autopilot, orchestrating project-scale programs, session pickup, pausing safely, multi-phase plans, and worktree cleanup. The [playbook directory](../../skills/poteto-mode/playbooks/) has the full set.
+The diagram shows the common routes. There are also playbooks for hillclimbing a metric, diagnosing runtime symptoms and captured traces, prototypes, visual parity, authoring and evaluating skills, autonomous runs, babysitting a PR or stack to merge-ready, shipping a verified stack, running a PR queue or a stack on autopilot, orchestrating project-scale programs, session pickup, pausing safely, multi-phase plans, and worktree cleanup. The [playbook directory](../../skills/poteto-mode/playbooks/) has the full set.
 
 ## Say the goal, not the ceremony
 

docs/guide/03-understand.md

@@ -30,17 +30,17 @@ Ask the question you actually have. [`/pstack:how`](../../skills/how/SKILL.md) r
 /pstack:why was the retry limit set to five? does the reason still hold?
 ```
 
-[`/pstack:why`](../../skills/why/SKILL.md) works like a detective on a cold case. It starts from source control, then queries whatever evidence categories your MCPs expose, such as the issue tracker, long-form docs, team chat, observability, error tracking, and analytics, all in parallel. The report cites everything, separates direct evidence from inference, and says "appears to" when the record is thin. A null result gets reported too, because "nobody wrote down why" is itself an answer.
+[`/pstack:why`](../../skills/why/SKILL.md) starts from source control, then queries whatever evidence categories your MCPs expose, such as the issue tracker, long-form docs, team chat, observability, error tracking, and analytics, all in parallel. The report cites everything, separates direct evidence from inference, and says "appears to" when the record is thin. A null result gets reported too, because "nobody wrote down why" is itself an answer.
 
-The two compose naturally. `do why first then how` is a perfectly good prompt when you suspect the history explains the mess.
+The two compose naturally. `do why first then how` is a good prompt when you suspect the history explains the mess.
 
 ## Actually understand it with `/pstack:teach`
 
 ```text
 /pstack:teach me how this PR changes retries. convince me it fixes the cause and not the symptom.
 ```
 
-[`/pstack:teach`](../../skills/teach/SKILL.md) is for when a summary isn't enough. It runs `/pstack:how` and `/pstack:why`, for a small change maybe just one of them, and weaves the findings into a plain explanation that builds up diagram by diagram. The "convince me" framing is worth stealing. It turns the explanation into an argument you can poke at instead of a tour.
+[`/pstack:teach`](../../skills/teach/SKILL.md) is for when a summary isn't enough. It runs `/pstack:how` and `/pstack:why`, for a small change maybe just one of them, and weaves the findings into a plain explanation that builds up diagram by diagram. The "convince me" framing is worth reusing. It turns the explanation into an argument you can test instead of a tour.
 
 It works on the agent's own choices too:
 

docs/guide/04-design.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 One attempt at a hard design locks in the first shape the model thought of. `/pstack:architect` settles types and boundaries before implementation. `/pstack:arena` runs several attempts at the same brief and merges the best parts. `/pstack:interrogate` has other models try to break the result. When the job is coverage rather than design synthesis, `/pstack:swarm` fans out slices or races and aggregates their results.
 
-The two most common design mistakes are taking the agent's first design and polishing a plan that no code has tested. This page fixes both. You plan through code: prototypes answer the open questions, a README or tutorial sets the target, and the written plan comes last.
+The two most common design mistakes are taking the agent's first design and polishing a plan that no code has tested. This page fixes both. You plan through code. Prototypes answer the open questions, a README or tutorial sets the target, and the written plan comes last.
 
 ![Three robots draft competing bridge models at their own tables under /pstack:architect, /pstack:arena, and /pstack:interrogate panels, while a judge robot with a clipboard inspects skeptically.](./images/design.jpg)
 

docs/guide/05-build-and-clean.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Build the change and clean the diff
 
-The build playbooks share one discipline. Say what you observed, let the playbook demand the evidence. This page shows what to put in the prompt for each common build task, then the cleanup habit that keeps diffs reviewable.
+The build playbooks share one discipline. Say what you observed, and let the playbook demand the evidence. This page shows what to put in the prompt for each common build task, then the cleanup habit that keeps diffs reviewable.
 
 ## Prompt each build playbook with what you know
 
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ A refactoring prompt pins behavior before structure moves:
 /pstack:poteto-mode move parsing into one module, zero behavior change. record the current output first and prove it's unchanged after.
 ```
 
-A perf prompt states the measurement, not a vibe:
+A perf prompt states the measurement, not an impression:
 
 ```text
 /pstack:poteto-mode startup takes 1.8s on this fixture. trace it, fix the measured cause, show me before and after.

docs/guide/06-verify-and-ship.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Put what done means in the first prompt, in whatever words fit:
 /pstack:poteto-mode add json output to this command. text output stays byte-identical, the json parses, both run against the sample project. show me the evidence.
 ```
 
-Now the agent has three checks it can run, not a mood to satisfy. When the reply comes back, it should carry the exact commands and outputs. If a check couldn't run, a good reply says "inconclusive", and you should treat a confident reply without evidence as a red flag.
+Now the agent has three checks it can run, not a mood to satisfy. When the reply comes back, it should carry the exact commands and outputs. If a check couldn't run, a good reply says "inconclusive". A confident reply without evidence is a warning sign.
 
 Match the check to the change:
 
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Match the check to the change:
 
 Ask for the proof as an artifact you can inspect yourself: the failing test and then the passing one, a before-and-after video, the trace, the screenshot. If the fix already merged, ask for the same check again on main. An artifact beats a plausible explanation, because you can challenge it without replaying the whole run.
 
-For a small diff you don't fully trust, [`/pstack:blast-radius`](../../skills/blast-radius/SKILL.md) finds what it could break elsewhere. It picks the one fact the change is safe because of and proves it by running code instead of writing an essay about it.
+For a small diff you don't fully trust, [`/pstack:blast-radius`](../../skills/blast-radius/SKILL.md) finds what it could break elsewhere. It finds the one fact that makes the change safe and proves that fact by running code, not by arguing for it.
 
 ## Vet a measured number with `/pstack:benchmark-checklist`
 
@@ -85,13 +85,13 @@ While you're there, make the dev setup repeatable too: seeded data, test users,
 
 ## Keep the verification skill honest
 
-Apps change and feature maps rot. Run this at least once a day, ideally from a scheduled automation so nobody has to remember:
+Apps change, and feature maps go out of date. Run this at least once a day, ideally from a scheduled automation so nobody has to remember:
 
 ```text
 /pstack:maintain-verification-skill
 ```
 
-[`/pstack:maintain-verification-skill`](../../skills/maintain-verification-skill/SKILL.md) audits the generated skill: one read-only source reader per feature in parallel, then one live pass that drives every mapped feature. It ends in exactly one of three outcomes. `clean` means full coverage and nothing to ship. `changed` means one PR of proven corrections, confined to the verification skill's own directory. `blocked` names the blocker. It never edits product code. If the live pass catches a product regression, it reports the regression instead of papering over it in docs.
+[`/pstack:maintain-verification-skill`](../../skills/maintain-verification-skill/SKILL.md) audits the generated skill: one read-only source reader per feature in parallel, then one live pass that drives every mapped feature. It ends in exactly one of three outcomes. `clean` means full coverage and nothing to ship. `changed` means one PR of proven corrections, confined to the verification skill's own directory. `blocked` names the blocker. It never edits product code. If the live pass catches a product regression, it reports the regression instead of hiding it with a doc edit.
 
 ## Open the PR
 

docs/guide/07-overnight.md

@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Before the skill hands back its summary, it spawns a reviewer on a different mod
 
 The contract above drives one task to one finish condition. Some nights hold more, a queue of independent changes or a whole program. Three playbooks scale the same trust up.
 
-[Autopilot-full](../../skills/poteto-mode/playbooks/autopilot-full.md) runs a queue of independent PRs to merged. Each PR gets one owner agent that carries it from build through merge, and no owner merges on its own verdict. A swarm of fresh verifiers starts a round at the owner's code-ready head and again at every later push that changes the patch. Only a clean verdict on the patch that merges authorizes the merge:
+[Autopilot-full](../../skills/poteto-mode/playbooks/autopilot-full.md) runs a queue of independent PRs to merged. Each PR gets one owner agent that carries it from build through merge, and no owner merges on its own verdict. A swarm of fresh verifiers checks the owner's code-ready head. A later rebase or minor fix gets one fresh verifier, and only new behavior or a large new diff calls the full swarm again. Only a clean verdict on the patch that merges authorizes the merge:
 
 ```text
 /pstack:poteto-mode full autopilot on this queue. each item is independent. i want them merged by morning.

docs/guide/08-principles.md

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Say two parallel attempts are about to write to the same branch:
 separate before serializing shared state. give each attempt its own worktree, no locks.
 ```
 
-Each phrase lands because the rule behind it is specific. The agent still has to say, in its reply, which decision the rule changed. A principle citation with no decision behind it is the tell that it name-dropped instead of applying.
+Each phrase lands because the rule behind it is specific. The agent still has to say, in its reply, which decision the rule changed. A principle citation with no decision behind it means the agent named the rule without applying it.
 
 ## The 24, briefly
 

docs/guide/09-make-it-yours.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Make it yours
 
-poteto-mode is one person's style. The machinery underneath, playbooks, routing, model roles, works just as well wearing yours. This page covers generating a personal mode, capturing lessons from a session, fixing the repo so agents stop repeating mistakes, authoring a focused skill, and testing a skill change before you trust it.
+poteto-mode is one person's style. The playbooks, routing, and model roles underneath it work just as well with yours. This page covers generating a personal mode, capturing lessons from a session, fixing the repo so agents stop repeating mistakes, authoring a focused skill, and testing a skill change before you trust it.
 
 Start smaller than you think. You don't need many skills on day one, or even this whole plugin. Prompt plainly, watch where agents fail, and add a skill or a check when the same failure shows up twice.
 
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Run it again whenever your habits drift:
 /pstack:automate-me update my mode skill with everything since its last edit
 ```
 
-Update mode mines only the history since the skill last changed. It keeps rules you haven't contradicted, revises the ones with new evidence, and adds sections only for genuinely new patterns.
+Update mode mines only the history since the skill last changed. It keeps rules you haven't contradicted, revises the ones with new evidence, and adds sections only for new patterns.
 
 ## Capture a session's lessons with `/pstack:reflect`
 
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ Skills aren't the only prose you ship. For docs, RFCs, readmes, PR descriptions,
 /pstack:technical-writing review the readme changes
 ```
 
-[`/pstack:technical-writing`](../../skills/technical-writing/SKILL.md) applies a layered standard with one goal, prose a tired engineer understands on the first read. It picks the document's mode first (tutorial, how-to, reference, or explanation), then works sentence by sentence: who does what, one thought per sentence, nothing readable two ways. Use it to review what you or an agent just wrote, or name it up front when you ask for a doc.
+[`/pstack:technical-writing`](../../skills/technical-writing/SKILL.md) applies a layered standard. Its goal is prose that a tired engineer understands on the first read. It picks the document's mode first (tutorial, how-to, reference, or explanation), then works sentence by sentence: who does what, one thought per sentence, nothing readable two ways. Use it to review what you or an agent just wrote, or name it up front when you ask for a doc.
 
 ## Test a skill change blind
 

docs/guide/10-recipes-and-pitfalls.md

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Ask only after the design settles. The plan is the deliverable, and it names the
 ask /pstack:arena for a second opinion on this thread and our approach
 ```
 
-Your current design becomes one candidate among several, and the synthesis tells you whether the panel found something better or confirmed what you had. Cheap insurance before a costly commitment.
+Your current design becomes one candidate among several, and the synthesis tells you whether the panel found something better or confirmed what you had. It costs little next to a design that is expensive to reverse.
 
 ## Check independent slices in parallel
 
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ That's the whole prompt. [`/pstack:bro`](../../skills/bro/SKILL.md) restates the
 - **Leading with your theory of the cause.** The agent searches wherever you pointed. Ask it to restate the problem first, then share your hunch.
 - **Taking the first design.** One attempt locks in the first shape the model thought of. Ask for prototypes or `/pstack:architect` and pick from evidence.
 - **Polishing an abstract plan.** Adversarial review of a plan with no code behind it invents risks that will never happen. Settle the open questions with prototypes, then review what got built.
-- **Parallel agents in one worktree.** They overwrite each other and the diff becomes archaeology. Run them as cloud sessions, or say "own worktree per attempt".
+- **Parallel agents in one worktree.** They overwrite each other, and nobody can tell which agent changed what. Run them as cloud sessions, or say "own worktree per attempt".
 - **Looping before you trust the loop.** A loop that can't verify its own work only makes unchecked work faster. Get the verification skill working first.
 - **Trusting an unvetted number.** A warm cache or a skipped code path can fake a speedup. Run `/pstack:benchmark-checklist` before the number goes anywhere.
 - **Correcting the same mistake by hand.** A correction in chat helps one run. `/pstack:correct` fixes the repo so no later run repeats it.

skills/interrogate/references/lead-judgment.md

@@ -1,18 +1,5 @@
 # Lead Judgment Framework
 
-You are the lead reviewer. The configured reviewers have produced their findings. Apply pragmatic engineering judgment. Don't aggregate. Filter, contextualize, and decide.
-
-## Why This Step Matters
-
-Adversarial reviewers are useful because they're aggressive. But aggression without context produces noise. The reviewers only saw a slice of the codebase and a one-paragraph intent statement. They don't know:
-
-- What was already tried and rejected
-- What constraints exist outside the code (timeline, dependencies, migration plans)
-- Which parts of the code are temporary scaffolding vs. permanent architecture
-- What the next PR in the stack will address
-
-You have the full conversation context. Use it.
-
 ## Filtering Principles
 
 ### Nitpick Gravity
@@ -50,9 +37,3 @@ Don't dismiss findings just because they're uncomfortable. The whole point of ad
 - You read the finding and think "...yeah, actually"
 
 Be especially careful about dismissing security findings and correctness bugs. These deserve more scrutiny even when they come from a single model.
-
-## Verdict Calibration
-
-A good verdict is useful, not comprehensive. The user should be able to read the "Act On" section, fix those issues, and ship with confidence. If your "Act On" list has more than 5 items, you're probably not filtering hard enough.
-
-The "Dismissed" section is not busywork. It's a trust mechanism. Showing the user what you rejected and why lets them override your judgment where they disagree. This is more valuable than hiding the rejected findings.

skills/poteto-mode/SKILL.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-name: Poteto Mode
+name: poteto-mode
 description: poteto's agent style for concise, detailed responses, deliberate subagents, unslopped prose, simple code, and verified work. Use for poteto, /pstack:poteto-mode, or requests to work in this style.
 triggers: [user]
 ---

skills/principle-migrate-callers-then-delete-legacy-apis/SKILL.md

@@ -6,17 +6,9 @@ triggers: [user]
 
 # Migrate Callers Then Delete Legacy APIs
 
-When we decide a new API is the right design, migrate callers and remove the old API in the same refactor wave instead of preserving compatibility layers.
-
-**Rule:**
-- Do not keep legacy API paths only because internal callers still exist
-- Inventory callers, migrate them, and delete the old API immediately
-- Treat temporary adapters as exceptional and time-boxed, not default architecture
 - Update tests to assert the new contract, and delete tests that only protect pre-refactor implementation details
 
 **When this applies:**
 - No external users depend on backward compatibility
 - The project can absorb coordinated breaking changes
 - The new API is part of a simplification or refactor initiative
-
-Keeping both old and new APIs creates dual-path complexity, slows cleanup, and makes the codebase feel append-only.