aced-architect-impl

name	aced-architect-impl
description	Partial Skill: invoke by name only — the ACED Architect bar at the impl gate — whether an agent-configuration artifact is well-formed as configuration. Loaded by the ACED impl-producer to self-align and by the impl-judge to grade. Not triggered by users directly.
user-invocable	false
metadata	{"actor":"architect","gate":"impl","compose":"union"}

ACED Architect-Impl Governance — the agent-config shape bar

The Architect bar at the impl gate, specialized for agent-configuration artifact-types (skill, subagent, command, agents-section). It unions onto sdd:architect-impl-governance — the generic structural-fit bar still applies; this adds what makes an artifact well-formed as configuration a model loads and executes.

The sibling aced:aced-builder-impl asks whether the artifact passes its frozen .feature. This bar asks a question the eval suite cannot: whether the artifact is shaped so a model can act on it. An artifact can pass every scenario and still be unusable configuration.

The bar (per artifact)

• Agent-first body. Dense normative rules the agent executes without opening a linked file first. A body that defers its own content to a repo path is not self-contained: the model has to stop and fetch before it can act. Optional depth belongs in a closing ## References — a governance show command, an external HTTPS URL, or a sibling file in the same skill folder. Fail: a mid-workflow link to another repository file.
• No rationale prose. No ## Why, ## Rationale, ## Background, or ## Context section, and no causal "because…" explanation in the body. A one-line scope at the top ("Apply when…") is allowed. Rationale lives in an ADR, which outlives the artifact and is read by people rather than loaded into every invocation. Fail: a body that argues for its rules instead of stating them.
• Decisions over documentation. The artifact encodes what to decide and how. It does not restate generic best practice, API documentation, or anything the model derives without it. Fail: a section that would be equally true in any repository.
• One workflow, one artifact. A single workflow per artifact, with the selection mechanism declared in the description — matched against a situation, named by a caller, or fired by an event. A name-only artifact carries the description "By name only" and nothing else, because the description is the only surface the model matches on and every added word is another handle for a spurious match. Fail: a second workflow smuggled in under a heading; identity prose in a name-only description.
• Selection is not visibility. user-invocable controls whether the artifact appears in the user's command list, never how it is selected. Fail: a bar, judge, or body that reads user-invocable: false as "not situationally triggered".
• No baked-in opinions. The artifact detects the user's setup — package manager, monorepo shape, editor, OS paths — at runtime rather than assuming one stack. A genuinely stack-specific artifact says so in its description. Fail: a hardcoded assumption presented as universal.
• An orthogonal axis. This bar judges a property the eval suite was not optimizing. A finding here is not answerable by adding a scenario.

Scope across the artifact-types

The criteria above hold for all four types. Where a type has its own additional shape rules, they are not restated here:

Artifact-type	Additional contract
skill	cyberplace governance show skill-design — frontmatter fields, activation, progressive disclosure, skill.json, placement and patterns
skill (repo layout)	cyberplace governance show skill-repo-structure
subagent, command, agents-section	no separate shipped contract; this bar is the whole agent-config shape bar for them

Gaps are CONTENT_GAP, never guesses

An artifact whose intended selection mechanism cannot be determined from its description returns a CONTENT_GAP. Do not infer the mechanism from user-invocable, from the folder it sits in, or from whether it happens to be reachable — inferring is the exact error the selection-is-not-visibility criterion exists to catch.

References

• cyberplace governance show skill-design — the full skill authoring contract this bar's criteria are drawn from; read stdout as authoritative.
• cyberplace governance show skill-repo-structure — repository layout for shipped skills.