use-lore

name	use-lore
description	Use when the user mentions "lore", asks how this kit or its skills work, installs or updates the plugin, is unsure which Lore skill to invoke, starts a new work area, project or bot, wants to migrate an old project to the Lore standard, or keeps loose notes in the same folder tree as their Lore.

Using Lore

Yesterday you and an agent solved something hard. You argued about the edges, you threw away two approaches, and the thing finally worked. Today, new session, you are explaining it again from the beginning — and the agent is not worse. It simply never received what the two of you worked out. The facts may have survived in a file somewhere. The reason you changed your mind did not.

Lore is a spec-driven development kit built for that gap: it turns scattered, tacit project knowledge into distilled, invariant criteria that constrain every future decision. Where other SDD kits speak in pure engineering terms, this one borrows a linguistic and epistemic vocabulary — lore, identity, principles, transmutation, distillation — to name the same discipline.

This skill is the map. It teaches the model and points at the operating skills. Read it before invoking any other Lore skill.

This skill governs session openings too. A session that opens — including one resumed from a continuity summary, or handed an unfinished task — resolves what Lore governs its tree before continuing, and loads it silently. In a bot, load its canon and routing table first. Do not preload every federated body: load only the bodies selected by the task, leaving the rest reachable through the routing table. A change of territory mid-session (new task type, new tree) re-resolves the same way. "Finishing what was started" is not an exemption: continuing is deciding. Criterion that waits to be remembered is criterion that does not run.

Every session opening checks that those bodies can load. In a tree with lore/, run the bundled lore-plugin mycelium bodies --tree <root> check against the governed root just resolved above before relying on its criterion. When a territory change resolves another root, repeat the check. If the bundled command is unavailable, inspect the same two links directly: contract → core pieces (identidad, principios, index) and index → thematic modules. A clean check says nothing and work continues. A missing link stops reliance on that body and names only the concrete decision: connect it, or declare it explicitly outside the universe. Never edit either side automatically. This is the cheap body-load check, not a full MYCELIUM pass and not a fourth trigger for that mode.

Ordinary communication has only three shapes: the result when work finished; the decision or approval needed when something blocks it; silence when automatic work is clean. Loading, routing, skill selection, mode selection and file classification stay below the conversation. If the user names a specific skill or mode, or asks for technical detail, use that exact name and explain it. Mentioning Lore in general or editing a path under lore/ does not activate this exception. Completing the installed lifecycle check after a user-authorized Lore edit is normal closure, not an expansion of scope. It authorizes no unrelated edit. If the host still needs tool or filesystem permission, ask only for that permission in plain language.

0. Very first use of the kit — a brainstorm, not a menu (threshold)

If this machine has no Lore yet — no area with a lore/, no project carrying the six pieces — this runs before anything else, and before offering any skill by name. The kit brainstorms to build every artifact it makes; it would be incoherent for the kit itself to greet its first user with a list of seven skills.

Invoke Lore Plugin's own brainstorming-lore skill (lore:brainstorming-lore where skills are namespaced) and run this through it. If the runtime failed to expose an installed Lore skill, run the minimal version below yourself. A kit that cannot start without a third-party skill is a kit that does not start.

Move 1 — look before asking

Scan the working tree and put on screen what is actually there: folders that look like work areas, projects with scattered criteria (a bloated CLAUDE.md, a kilometric README, an empty or stale lore/), and any free-note inbox. Short lines, no prose.

This is the presentation and the pre-flight at once. Close it with the coverage, never with a clean bill of health: what you verified is that these folders exist and what shape they are in, not that any of it is good.

Move 2 — brainstorm, one question at a time

Follow the thread of the answers instead of walking a list. Ask only what changes which skill runs first:

• What do you work on, in your own words? (stored verbatim — it is the yardstick every later arbitration needs)
• Is this one kind of work or several? Ask by the condition, never with a closed list: «does your work fall into more than one of these?» If the answer names more than one, that is an area per kind, and the border question comes before executing anything.
• Does criteria for this already exist somewhere — in your head, in a doc, in an old repo? That is the difference between create-area and transmute-lore, and the user is the only one who knows.
• Is there anything explicitly out of bounds?

A request for a bot is routed through this gate, never answered by it. Someone arriving with «I want to build my bots» has already named the deliverable, and the questions above will then read their answers as kinds of work — which is exactly how «three bots» becomes three areas, each one looking like a correct artifact. What is actually true is narrower: the Lore a bot routes to does not exist yet. So the areas are steps, the bot is the deliverable, and create-bot runs last. Explain the whole chain in the user's task language with its honest cost — one area plus one pass per source before the bot can route to anything — and never report an area as the finished answer to a request for a bot.

Move 3 — close by naming the route, and run it

State the first operation and why, in one line, then invoke its owning skill silently. Do not name the skill unless the user named it or asked for technical detail. Do not list the other seven. The map below exists for you, so you can pick; it is not a menu to hand over.

When the first operation does not deliver what was asked for, state the final operation in the same line, without its internal name. The route is the answer, not its opening step — and the step that gets forgotten is always the one that was still pending when the first artifact came out looking finished.

What this move must never do is end in a recommendation. The first use of the kit produces a first artifact, or it produced nothing.

Apply the register here, silently, and do not spend a turn on it. By now the person has written several answers, which is the evidence: technical vocabulary used comfortably and without explanation → tecnico; the work described in its own domain's words → llano; anything else → equilibrado. Mention it only if the person asks about tone or a correction is needed. Then write it into identidad.md as registro: when the first artifact is created.

Never ask it as a question. Tone is inferred and corrected in one sentence; a brainstorm turn spent on register buys nothing, and this move exists to produce an artifact.

And offer a short orientation in the same breath, inferred like the register — one shape, never a menu — 2.3.0. Somebody meeting this kit for the first time has no picture of what it is, and a list of seven skills is not that picture. Pick one shape from what the person already wrote: they asked what it does or how it works → a short text; they described their work as a structure or a set of relations → a concept map; they write in fragments and want to be shown rather than told → a worked example over the artifact they are about to get; they answered tersely and moved fast → skip it, and say once that it exists.

It costs one line and never a turn: «Want the two-minute picture of how this fits together? I'd draw it as a map.» Yes → produce it about their own tree, never a generic diagram. No, or silence → continue, and do not offer it again.

Never expand it into a list of options. «Concept map, short text, plain explanation or a mini test?» is exactly the menu this section refuses, wearing a friendlier face. One inferred shape, corrected in one sentence, for the same reason the register is.

And it never replaces the artifact. Move 3 produces something or it produced nothing; a tutorial handed over instead of a first artifact is the kit explaining itself to somebody who still has nothing to show for the conversation. Offer it, then run the route.

Boundary: this gate is for the first Lore on the machine. Once one area exists, entry is by the routing table below and this section is skipped.

The standard: the skill runs, and it is the current one

Three rules that hold for every new Lore configuration the user builds, forever, not only the first:

Before applying the version gate, read LEAVE state in FASES.md. A leave:partial marker means the exit never finished: resume LEAVE from its checklist and do not start another structural operation. A final leave: marker means governance is intentionally dormant; offer UPGRADE once if the person wants to re-enter, because UPGRADE owns restoration from the retained checklist. Otherwise leave the tree dormant and continue without treating its version as an upgrade debt.

1. The skill that governs an artifact is always invoked to write it. Not consulted afterwards, not imitated from memory. See The failure these skills cannot see, below.
2. The version that runs is the installed, up-to-date one. These skills accumulate scars: a version behind is a version that does not carry the last defeat somebody already paid for. If the installed copy is stale, updating it comes before the work, not after — and the plugin cache is indexed by version, so what was published without a version bump was never received.
3. A project's own Lore is checked against the kit too, not only which skill runs. Before non-trivial work on a project that already has lore/, read its FASES.md for the most recent ## UPGRADE a X.Y.Z line and compare that version to the installed kit's. If the kit is ahead, determine whether the delta between the local version and the installed version actually affects this tree: collect the RELEASE notes between those two versions first, then intersect module names with what this tree uses — the module list in its lore/index.md + lore/enrutamiento.md, its shape (area/project/bot), and any open concern in its FASES.md that explicitly names an affected module. Uses Lore in general is not an intersection; a module name must appear on both sides. Do not infer affect from the version number alone. If there is no intersection — e.g. a BlockVoz/redaccion-noticias project on 2.3.0 with kit 2.3.1–2.3.2 where the delta (save-to-lore provenance and note archive, use-lore session guard, 2.3.2 gate itself) touches none of anatomia-nota/estilo-y-legibilidad/fuentes-y-transcripcion — say nothing and do not block; continue with the work. Kit is ahead so I must offer without checking the delta is the rationalization this gate exists to stop. Silence when unaffected is the correct outcome, not a missed check. If there is an intersection, say so plainly and offer to update the local Lore once, before the work starts; invoke the matching operation internally — a healthy Lore behind the kit looks correct in every reading, which is exactly why nobody notices on its own. If the person defers, proceed; do not repeat the offer on every later message in the same session. If release notes for any version in the interval are missing, do not claim that the tree is affected or unaffected: report the evidence gap, offer one optional manual UPGRADE review, and do not block the work if the person defers.

Right after installing or updating the kit, run transmute-lore in MYCELIUM mode over the Lore already on this machine. An update changes what the skills demand; the criteria written against the previous one does not move by itself. On a machine with no Lore yet the answer is 0 of 0 — report it as such and say plainly that it proves nothing yet, because there is nothing that could be disconnected.

Rule 3 is not MYCELIUM, and must not fold into it. Rule 3 asks one cheap, deterministic question — is the kit ahead of what this Lore was written against? MYCELIUM asks whether a specific clue, already in the standard, can fire. A stale version and a disconnected clue can both be true, or only one, and the repair for each is different — merging the two would put back, inside a mode that just paid to remove exactly this, the layer MYCELIUM was pruned of.

Why this is a standard and not advice: the value of the kit is cumulative and lives in the skills. An agent who writes criteria by hand, or who runs a version from three fixes ago, produces something that looks identical and silently lacks the gates. Nothing in the output announces it.

Complex deliverables — fix the yardstick before the batch

When the requested result combines a structure with many pieces — a researched CRM, a document assembled from several sources, a campaign, or delivery into an external system — Lore still routes the criteria; it does not become a ninth production skill.

Before producing:

0. Run transmute-lore in MYCELIUM mode over that project's Lore — before a complex task, not after it. And again after anything that wrote Lore, before the work leans on the result: a clue that was just written is joined to nothing yet. It is read-only and it answers one question the loading cannot: of the criteria I am about to lean on, how much of it can actually fire? A clue nothing runs will not announce itself while you work; it announces itself as a deliverable that quietly broke a written rule. When the writing happened inside save-to-lore or a transmute-lore writing mode, that exit scan is their closing gate, not a courtesy: the pass they ran is not done, and this work does not start, until the scan has run and every finding is a two-sided junction or a written decline. A finding deferred "to a later pass" leaves the bracket open.
1. Name the owning project and load its routed Lore.
2. Fix the quality yardstick from an approved precedent for that class of deliverable. If none exists, the human must approve a representative piece or explicit criteria before the batch.
3. Verify the available tools, connectors or MCPs against the real source and destination. Never promise scraping, document generation or external delivery from a capability that was not tested.
4. When the batch splits into mechanical bulk and arbitration, and a lighter model plausibly covers the bulk at the same quality, name that split and suggest /model to run it on a cheaper tier for that part, then switch back for arbitration and review. Never spend a subagent on it — a fresh subagent re-reads the project's whole Lore before it can start, which burns exactly the tokens this move exists to save; /model keeps the same session and its already-loaded context.
5. Make the structure and fixed facts visible, then produce in reviewable batches. A batch inherits the same yardstick; it does not renegotiate quality piece by piece.
6. Keep human review between each consequential batch and the word definitive. Delivery is complete only when the target contains the reviewed result and that state was checked.

Invoke the domain skill that owns each medium or tool. This route coordinates criteria, precedent, work and review; it does not duplicate document, scraping, connector or publishing instructions.

What Lore is (and is not)

Lore is criteria that persists — the rules, the standard, the hard-won scars — kept separate from state that advances (the current phase, the todo). A "Pista Invariante" (invariant clue) is the atom of Lore: Context → Root cause → Clue → Confidence. If a sentence does not constrain a future decision, it is not Lore; it is description, and it stays out.

Lore is not a README, not a changelog, not a design doc. Those describe. Lore constrains.

The relational shape is autonomy with return. Human and agent may advance independently; Lore does not demand constant contact or fuse them into one author. At a contextual milestone, distillation resynchronizes the shared criterion: each side can return to the same constraints and continue without pretending that no drift occurred.

An enjoyable Entre is not one that always pleases. It is one where shared effort is perceived as fertile because disagreement, correction and review leave recognizable movement in the artifact or criterion. Ease, agreement and usage volume are not proxies for that fertility; when effort leaves no usable change, the process must be repaired rather than celebrated.

Most of what happens does not survive, and that is the design. A Lore is not an archive of the work; it is the narrow part of the work that still gets a say. Its worth is counted in future decisions changed, never in experience held — and a body that grew by preserving fails without any visible symptom, because a full folder looks exactly like a healthy one.

Which means the filter above is not a quality bar an entry has to clear. It is what is left over after accepting that the rest is gone. Read the other way round — keep what might matter someday — the same sentence licenses everything, and the Lore stops constraining the moment it stops losing.

The six-piece standard

These are six structural responsibilities, not necessarily six files. The thematic-module piece may contain many focused files; the other five usually map to one file each.

Every project's criteria lives in exactly these artifacts:

Artifact	Holds	Location
identidad.md	What the project is, its purpose, its quality floor (the north star).	lore/
principios.md	Invariant laws (technical + business): prohibitions and imperatives.	lore/
Thematic modules	Technical scars by topic (animation, layout, scroll…) as invariant clues.	lore/
index.md	Navigation map of the lore: one line per pattern.	lore/
FASES.md	The project's state and plan (current phase, focus). Outside lore/.	root
CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md	The one host-selected contract, slimmed to pointers (never duplicated criteria).	root

Lore is criteria (it persists); FASES.md is state (it advances). Never mix them.

The always-on block inside the contract

The contract is the only artifact both hosts load without being asked. That makes it the kit's always-on channel, and the pointer section that lives there is delimited so it can be found and re-stamped without touching anything else:

<!-- lore:always-on -->
…what Lore governs here · where it lives · where the state lives · when to invoke instead of writing by hand…
<!-- /lore:always-on -->

Markers are literal: no spacing variants, no attributes, no version number. They are located by full-line match after trimming whitespace.

Contents — exactly four things, in this order. What Lore governs here; where it lives (relative paths that resolve from the root); where the state lives (FASES.md, one line, path only); and the signal that writing criteria by hand feels like competence and is the moment to invoke the skill. Nothing else. Reproducing a clue, listing the seven skills or explaining what Lore is belongs elsewhere and already has an owner.

Why state earns a line in a block that is otherwise about criteria. Criteria and state are two files with two rules, and that separation is not negotiable — FASES.md never lives inside lore/. But separate storage was never an argument for separate delivery, and the session receiving them cannot read twice. An agent that loads the criteria and not the phase knows how the work must be done and not which work is next, so it proposes correctly and out of order — and nothing in its output announces the gap.

Today the phase reaches the session through the contract's hand-written prose, which is precisely the half this skill documents as the one that goes stale: the skills re-stamp the block and never touch the rest. So the durable half carries criteria forever and the rotting half carries state.

It is a pointer, not content. The path is stable; only its target churns. Nothing about the phase, the roadmap or the current task enters the block — one line saying where to look. That is what keeps this from being the fusion the law forbids.

Ceiling: 25 lines, markers included. Hard limit, not guidance. If a variant's content does not fit, the answer is never to raise the ceiling — it is to move content into lore/, where it lives. The first exception to a ceiling is how the ceiling dies.

Three variants, same ceiling: an area points at its own lore/; a project points at its own layer and its mother area's; a bot points at canon/ and at its routing table, never at the federated Lores one by one — a bot that federates many sources fits precisely because it delegates to the table. All three point at their own FASES.md, which is one line and does not scale with the number of sources.

Stamping is idempotent, and it is done by the skills that already write the contract (create-area, create-project, create-bot), inside the threshold they already have — transmute-lore in UPGRADE mode adds it to contracts that predate it. No new gate, no operation to remember:

What is on disk	What happens
No markers	Insert the block after the contract's first H1 (or at the top if there is none)
One well-formed pair, content identical	NO-OP — write nothing. Rewriting identical content dirties the diff and makes git status lie
One well-formed pair, content differs	Report the divergence and wait for a decision. A human edit inside the block is a decision, not a sync error
Duplicated or broken markers	Stop and report. Never guess

Apart from the block, the file does not change — not one blank line, not a different line ending.

The table covers the markers; it does not cover the prose around them. A contract written before the block usually already has a load section naming the same paths, and stamping leaves the project with two copies of its own pointers. Of the two, the one that goes stale is not the block — the skills re-stamp that one — so the drift lands in the hand-written section, which is also the one a human is more likely to read first.

The fix is never to skip the block. It is to leave the pointers only inside it and reduce the pre-existing section to what the block does not carry: routing, procedure, gates. Report the collision and the proposed reduction inside the same threshold, and never do it silently — deleting a line somebody wrote by hand is a decision, not a cleanup.

The area ↔ project model

Lore scales through work areas:

• An area is a mother folder (e.g. desarrollo-web/) with its own lore/ — the source of criteria its projects inherit. Generic modules live once, in the area.
• A project lives in {area}/proyectos/{name}/ and gets its lore by inheriting from the area. It keeps only what is its own: identidad.md + principios.md (area base + a project layer) and an index.md that points to the area's modules via relative path (e.g. ../../../lore/animation.md).

This keeps criteria DRY: fix a generic clue once in the area, every project sees it.

The third shape: a bot

A bot is a project (it lives at {area}/proyectos/{slug}/) with one extra property: it routes outward into Lore owned by other projects and areas. It is a folder you open, not a plugin you install. To hand it to someone who does not have your folders, crystallize it.

	Area	Project	Bot
Holds	projects	one piece of work	a work session
Its Lore governs	the domain's method	that work	how the agent behaves
Installable	no	no	no

Areas and projects are places; a bot is a lens you carry into them. A bot owns none of the criteria it routes to — which is exactly why it is not an area: an area that accumulates criteria it never paid for will start receiving promotions that belong somewhere else.

The skills — when to invoke which

You want to…	Invoke
Start a new work area (a mother folder for a family of projects)	create-area
Start a new project inside an existing area	create-project
Build a bot — a canon-driven work session that operates across real repositories, either from zero or by federating Lore already dissolved across several areas	create-bot
Open Lore-governed bots/projects through a small local provider and model launcher	create-bot (optional extra: a minimum local registry and script)
Save a lesson ("save to lore") — capture a clue from lived friction, or from a rule/vara the user just defined and asked to reuse ("guarda esta vara/definición")	save-to-lore (CAPTURE, default)
Distill from an external body of criteria — a skill, a style guide, a third-party playbook ("destila esta skill")	save-to-lore (GRAFT): imported criteria is judged against this Entre's purpose; only what survives enters, and the module must state where the source loses
Bring an old project with scattered criteria up to the six-piece standard	transmute-lore (ADD): extracts what is trapped in READMEs, contracts and comments and lifts it to the six pieces — without losing it and without inventing what never existed
Clean a project's redundant modules back down to what the area already owns	transmute-lore (CLEAN): removes only thematic modules whose criteria already lives in the area, never identidad.md / principios.md / index.md, and rewrites the index to point up
Standardize the language of an existing Lore	transmute-lore (TRANSLATE): content and localizable filenames together, meaning-preserving, never a rewrite and never a broken link
Raise a healthy Lore to a newer version of these skills — it is in the standard and in use, but predates gates the kit learned later. Nothing looks broken, which is why nobody upgrades it

Gate before adding a mode: If your task touches an artifact that is not a clue — the governance block, the host contract, FASES.md, enrutamiento.md, the shape of the tree — it is transmute-lore class; check this table first. Writing a clue and its index.md line is one capture, not two artifacts. No row matches → run brainstorming-lore before choosing a skill. Proximity batching without this check put Exit in save-to-lore (H14, 837eb73).

The names in the right-hand column select the operation; they do not announce it. Report the result, ask for the decision that blocks progress, or say nothing when the automatic work is clean. Use the verb in the user's language — "we could trim this", "that guide is worth adding", "this one should be saved". Exact skill and mode names stay in documentation and diagnostics, unless the user names one or asks for technical detail. | Understand the system / decide which skill applies | use-lore (this one) |

Order of a fresh setup: create-area → create-project → (work, saving clues with save-to-lore) → transmute-lore as needed. A bot is the last step when that is the deliverable, not a precondition: if the sources have no Lore yet, create-area and transmute-lore add run first and create-bot runs last. create-bot orchestrates that chain; it does not require Lore to already exist, and it never substitutes for building it in the Area that owns it.

Source-side precedence: when a request points at notas/, notes/, apuntes/ or another loose-note folder and asks to integrate, extract, distill or save its contents anywhere, invoke save-to-lore and read its conditional notas.md function first. A domain skill understanding the notes does not replace the source-side sweep, debt report, classification, frontmatter or archive.

The failure these skills cannot see: not being invoked at all

Every skill above describes what to do once you are inside it. None of them fires if you never enter, and the moment you decide not to enter has a specific shape — it feels like competence:

The thought	What it actually means
"I already know what to write"	Invoke. This is the signal, not the exemption.
"This is faster to write by hand"	It is. That is why the skipped step is the one with the gate.
"It's one clue, not a migration"	One clue is exactly save-to-lore's unit of work.
"I'll invoke it after I draft the file"	The skill decides the mode, and the mode decides what the draft must contain.
"The lore is small / this project is simple"	Size is not the classifier. Source of the criteria is.
"The research/domain skill already read the notes"	Reading is not mining. If the source is an inbox, load save-to-lore/notas.md and leave a trace in every note.

There is no error signal for this. Criteria written by hand comes out well-worded, lands in the right file, and passes human review. What is missing does not look missing, because it never got written: the provenance header, the confidence markers, the defeats section — and, above all, the mode. An agent who assumes CAPTURE when the source was imported produces a module with no defeats, which is precisely what GRAFT's exit gate rejects. Redacting well does not compensate for skipping the gate; the gate was never about prose.

Writing into any lore/, canon/ or principios.md without invoking the skill that governs it is applying the model's knowledge where the institutional one belonged — the exact inversion the whole kit exists to prevent.

Boundary: this governs writing criteria while the skill is installed. Reading a Lore needs no skill, and with the plugin absent you write by hand — and say that you did.

project ↔ area routing (the key decision)

When you "save to lore", save-to-lore decides the level: project-specific criteria stays in the project (identidad.md / principios.md project layer, or a project-only module); generic + confirmed criteria is promoted up to the area lore, so every project inherits it. Capture is always local first; promotion to the area is always gated. This is how the shared corpus grows without polluting it with client-only quirks.

Where experience comes from — notes are the entrance, not the destination

Most people arrive already holding a pile of free notes (Obsidian, a folder of Markdown, meeting minutes). That pile is a legitimate source and it is not Lore: a note answers «what happened», Lore answers «what changed in the relationship because of what happened». The path between them has three steps and the middle one is an act, not a folder:

experience piled up (notes)  →  distillation (an explicit pass + threshold)  →  criteria (lore/)

The conditional save-to-lore/notas.md function governs the first arrow when loose notes live in the same tree as the Lore. It captures notes outside any lore/, mines the inbox and hands what survives to CAPTURE or GRAFT. Obsidian is one possible editor, never a prerequisite.

Why an explicit mining pass and not simply "save when you feel like it". A note satisfies the urge to preserve without producing criteria — the record exists, so the distillation never happens, and the criterion stays inert inside it. Separating notes from Lore does not fix that; only sweeping the inbox does.

Language of the Lore

Lore speaks the user's language. These skills are written in English, but the Lore they generate is not English by default: every artifact — content AND filename — is written in the language the user works in. The artifact names used across these skills (identidad.md, principios.md, FASES.md, proyectos/, fuente/) are the Spanish canonical forms; in another language they localize (e.g. English: identity.md, principles.md, PHASES.md, projects/, source/).

What stays fixed in every language: the selected contract name (CLAUDE.md for Claude Code or AGENTS.md for Codex), lore/ (the kit's own name), index.md, golden-paths.md, _starter/, the <!-- lore:always-on --> marker pair (literal, never localized — localizing it breaks idempotent stamping silently), structure and relative-path depth, confidence markers, and English terms of general technical use (workflow, commit, stack, scaffold…).

Consistency wins: inside an existing area or project, the filenames already in use are the law — never mix naming schemes. A Lore that ended up in the wrong language — or mixed — is standardized with transmute-lore (TRANSLATE mode), which translates content and renames artifacts together.

Invariants of the whole kit

• Lore speaks the user's language. Content and artifact filenames in the user's language; the fixed names (the selected contract name, lore/, index.md) and general technical English terms unchanged. Inside an existing corpus, its established names win.

  And this covers what the kit says out loud, not only what it writes to disk. Skill and mode names are internal identifiers, not conversational milestones. In ordinary conversation, report the result or required action in the user's language. Keep exact identifiers in documentation and diagnostics; use them with the user only when they name one or ask for technical detail.

  Why this is not cosmetic. Every mode ends at a threshold, and a threshold only works if the human can agree or refuse with the content in view. Naming the machine's identifier asks them to translate before they can judge, and a word standing between the user and the decision is a cost the threshold pays. The kit already refuses to make people learn a CLI; making them learn its internal vocabulary is the same mistake wearing prose.

• The register is calibrated by the person reading, in three positions. tecnico — the scene drops to a minimum, the specification stays. equilibrado (default) — half and half. llano — the scene grows, and a technical term is explained the first time it appears.

  What the calibrator never moves: the rules. A threshold is still a threshold, a MUST is still a MUST, a validity boundary is never omitted. What changes is how much ground surrounds a rule, never whether the rule is there. A calibrator that could switch off a gate would be a way of skipping the kit by asking it nicely.

  It is never asked as a question. The kit's own law is that tone is inferred from how the person writes and corrected in one sentence, because spending a brainstorm turn on it buys nothing. So: infer and apply it silently. Mention it only if the user asks about tone or a correction is needed. The decision still belongs to the reader and costs no question.

  Where it lives: one line in identidad.md, under a registro: key. It is a declared preference, not criteria — it constrains no decision about the work, so it is never promoted to the area and never carries a confidence marker. Absent the line, assume equilibrado.

Adapting Lore to other AI tools

The portable substrate is the SKILL.md file itself: YAML frontmatter (name, description) plus a Markdown body. Native packaging is host-specific — Lore ships manifests for Claude Code and Codex — but the skills are plain Markdown. Copy a skill's folder into another tool that reads instruction files, or paste its body as a system/persona prompt. The six-piece standard and the area↔project model are tool-agnostic conventions, not code.