shepherd

name	shepherd
description	Use when the human asks for a coding task to run through shepherd's human-gated pipeline with durable run files under .shepherd/ instead of direct editing — features, bug fixes, refactors. Invoked on demand: /shepherd <task> starts a run, bare /shepherd resumes the run recorded in .shepherd/_state.json — never auto-invoked for a task that merely looks suitable.

shepherd

You are the orchestrator. Keep run data in .shepherd/; .claude/skills/ is tooling.

The orchestrator routes; subagents judge; files are the only handoff. The orchestrator never authors a judgment file (_request_fact_check.md, 2-design.md, 3-success-criteria.md, review, question-verification, or fulfillment files; persisting one verbatim as a relay is not authorship). Everything else in .shepherd/ — triage, routing state, markers, captures — is orchestrator plumbing.

Two human gates, never self-granted: the design gate before any source edit and the create-PR confirm before opening the PR. Triage has no gate. The loop:

_user_request → 1-triage → verify → [explore] → architect → success-criteria → iterate with human → [_design.approved] → implement ↔ oracle ↔ review → final review → fulfillment → [create-PR confirm] → commit/PR.

Files

Numbered files are human-facing; underscore-prefixed files are internal routing state. Chat is ephemeral; the files are the record.

• Human-facing: 1-triage.md, 2-design.md, 3-success-criteria.md.
• Internal: _user_request.md, _request_fact_check.md, _codebase_map.md (optional), _design_feedback.md, _panel.json, _state.json, _progress.md, _design.approved, _create_pr.approved.
• Per iteration in iter-N/: claim.md, review-<use>.md, final-review-<use>.md, question-verification.md, fulfillment.md, followups.md, and the regenerable (gitignored) diff.patch, test-results.txt (plus baseline.txt in iter-1/ only — the pre-change oracle metrics).

Why one file per stage: each stage writes one file and each role reads ONLY what it needs, so stage context stays scoped and judgments stay independent. Reviewers judge the diff against 2-design.md + 3-success-criteria.md, never claim.md or peer reviews — design and criteria are pasted into the prompt; .shepherd/ itself is never granted. Blindness applies to judgments, never to ground truth: every reviewer reads the repository and its git history (a reviewer who can't run git show can't verify equivalence claims). The architect never sees the success criteria; the criteria author never sees the proposed solution.

Keep the human in the loop (non-terminal sessions)

A web/mobile/remote human sees only the chat stream — they cannot open .shepherd/ files or reliably type a slash-command. Surface everything they need into the conversation:

• Show the FULL 2-design.md and 3-success-criteria.md whenever you present or update them — paste complete content, render as an Artifact, or send as a file; never a summary, never just a path.
• Keep a visible progress view. Emit a one-line chat status at every phase transition; on a remote/mobile session, maintain a live progress Artifact instead.
• Gates are chat-first; slash-commands are a fallback, not the only door. Channel order: plan-mode dialog for the design gate (when plan_mode_gate=true), plain chat for everything else. Question widgets (e.g. AskUserQuestion) fit only genuinely multiple-choice design questions — never a gate's approve/revise decision. After one stream failure of a widget or plan-mode tool, drop that channel for the rest of the run: plain chat for every later gate and question.

Setup / resume

1. Resolve the absolute path of the target repo's .shepherd/ once at setup and use it for every read/write — relative paths drift with the working directory in long sessions. mkdir -p it. If .shepherd/.gitignore is missing, write it: a single * line, so git ignores everything in .shepherd/, the .gitignore itself included. Humans who want config.json / registry.json committed add the exceptions there themselves.
2. Fresh run: require a non-empty <task>. Write it verbatim to .shepherd/_user_request.md. Initialize _state.json: {"phase":"triage","iteration":0}.
3. If .shepherd/_state.json exists, resume. If a new non-empty <task> differs from _user_request.md, ask continue vs fresh; on fresh — or when the previous run is phase=done — move the old run's files (all numbered/underscore files and iter-*/, keeping config.json, config.local.json, registry.json, .gitignore) into .shepherd/archive/<timestamp>-<short-slug>/ first. Sequential runs are normal; for batch tasks off one base, note sibling PRs touching the same files in each PR body.
4. Load config before dispatching any stage:
   • Copy this skill's config.default.json to .shepherd/config.json if absent.
   • Shallow-merge .shepherd/config.local.json over it if present.
   • Resolve registry.base.json plus optional .shepherd/registry.json uses.
   • Validate every configured use against registry.stage_roles and registry.uses; no duplicate use inside reviewers or final_reviewers. Single stages (verify, architect, implementer, success_criteria, fulfillment, followups) may be absent from config.
   • Record oracle.commands, limits, plan-mode setting, and the fully-resolved registry in .

Valid state.phase values: triage, verify, design, design-gate, inner-loop, final-review, create-pr, done.

Resume by phase:

• phase=triage, verify, or design → continue that phase from its files.
• phase=design-gate + _design.approved → if HEAD differs from the marker's base_commit, stop and re-confirm the design with the human first. Otherwise load _panel.json into state.panel, set state.iteration=1, and set state.phase="inner-loop".
• phase=design-gate without the marker → re-present the design + panel (step 4, Design gate) and wait.
• phase=inner-loop or final-review → continue that phase.
• phase=create-pr + _create_pr.approved → go to step 8 (Finish).
• phase=create-pr without the marker → per step 7 (Fulfillment), finish each missing artifact — question verification first, then fulfillment or followups — and re-present the gate.
• phase=done → the run is complete; report and stop.
• Otherwise, re-announce the stop being waited on and stop.

Stage dispatch

Stages come from the validated config; there is no separate wrapper skill per engine. Only triage and the iterate conversation run in the orchestrator itself. A single stage may be configured model-only ({"model": ...} with no use): it runs the built-in role with the Method line omitted. For stage key K with assignment S:

1. If S.use is set, resolve role = registry.stage_roles[K], engine = registry.uses[S.use].engine, and scope = registry.uses[S.use].scope. With no use, use the built-in role = registry.stage_roles[K] and omit the Method line.
2. Resolve the model M: prefer the concrete pick recorded in _panel.json for this stage; else if S.model is "auto" or absent, pick from Model tiering below by role and triage tier; else use S.model verbatim.
3. Dispatch a subagent on model M with this whole instruction:

You are filling shepherd's {role} stage. You run non-interactively: you cannot ask the human anything — record open questions in your output file instead. Communicate only through .shepherd/ files. Read: {role.reads}. Do NOT read: {role.blind} — and keep recursive searches out of .shepherd/ entirely (rg --glob '!.shepherd/**', grep -r --exclude-dir=.shepherd); matching its content by accident is a blindness leak you must disclose. Method: follow {engine} — scoped as: {scope}. Standing checks: {role.standing} (reviewer and final-reviewer roles only; omit the line otherwise). Write: {role.writes} in this format: {role.format}.

4. Completion signal: dispatch prefers blocking; when backgrounded, or fanning reviewers out in parallel, {role.writes} on disk is the completion signal everywhere it's dispatched. File presence is the floor; a terminal-marker format (a ledger verdict line, VERDICT:) isn't done until the file carries it too — a parallel round completes only once every reviewer's file is present and verdicted. An overwrite-in-place re-dispatch (architect revision, a success_criteria re-run) starts with the file already present: record its content hash in _progress.md at dispatch time and treat it done once a fresh hash differs — never mtime/size. Record every dispatch's start time in _progress.md; a status unknown report states the time since dispatch — file presence cannot distinguish still-working from dead, so elapsed time is what lets the human judge. Check output files on disk before any status claim, every turn, not only at resume; no idle-polling loop.

If the dispatched agent has no write access, it returns the artifact verbatim as its final message and the orchestrator persists it to {role.writes} unchanged — a mechanical relay, not authorship; the no-judgment-files rule is not violated. Note the relay in _progress.md.

{role.standing} for reviewer and final-reviewer roles always carries these checks, regardless of what the design emphasizes: committed code must not reference run-internal artifacts (.shepherd/, plan files, session paths); cruft preserved by a faithful migration is still a finding — "byte-identical" instructions cover assertions/behavior, not carried-over dead code; a comment the diff adds, edits, or moves must still be true of the code it now describes — stale references, wrong claims, comments restating the obvious, and comments longer than the code they describe are findings; also flag AI-slop — abnormal defensive try/catch (defensive code at trust boundaries is fine), type-escape casts (any or equivalent), deep nesting that should be early returns, and other patterns inconsistent with the surrounding file. Also require these three checks: a conditional branch or guard the diff adds must be test-exercised on both sides, and a rewritten path must be exercised against the input classes the old path handled — an untested new arm is a finding; a behavior delta versus design or base that the design leaves unstated is a finding, including a changed helper whose default/no-arg semantics silently invert; and whatever the diff names, places, or exports must follow the repo's stated conventions doc, with a new module importing no heavier layer than its role needs. Every finding carries evidence checked against the repository, and every identifier it relies on must exist; a suspicion you cannot ground is a question, not a finding — it belongs in your Questions: section, never as a finding and never dropped.

role	reads	do NOT read	writes	format
verify	_user_request.md, 1-triage.md, codebase, referenced issue, current upstream sources for any claim resting on facts outside the repo	2-design.md, 3-success-criteria.md	_request_fact_check.md	claim ledger: every request claim tagged VALID | STALE | LIKELY-FIXED | UNVERIFIABLE with evidence (claims resting on facts outside the repo: check current upstream sources, not model memory), plus a one-line verdict — never empty
explorer	codebase	.shepherd/ internals	_codebase_map.md	≤1 page: key files · patterns · data flow · risks
architect	_user_request.md, 1-triage.md, _request_fact_check.md, _codebase_map.md if present, _design_feedback.md if present (settled human decisions — constraints, not suggestions), codebase; on a revision pass also its previous 2-design.md	3-success-criteria.md	2-design.md	the design template in step 3 (Design)
success_criteria	pasted content of the "What we're solving" and "How it will work" sections of 2-design.md, plus _user_request.md, 1-triage.md, and _request_fact_check.md (verified facts — real paths, real coverage gaps — so criteria reference reality instead of guessing; it contains no solution) — nothing else	the rest of 2-design.md (the solution), claim.md	3-success-criteria.md	numbered, testable criteria — each verifiable by a command or an observable behavior; no solution details
implementer	2-design.md, 3-success-criteria.md, _request_fact_check.md, _codebase_map.md if present, all prior iter-*/review-*.md + +

Model tiering

"auto" (the shipped default) lets the orchestrator pick a model per role and triage tier; an explicit name (opus, sonnet, haiku) is used verbatim. Resolve "auto" as: implementer → haiku (sonnet for medium/large — a subtle change is not transcription); verify, explorer, success_criteria, fulfillment, followups, reviewer → sonnet; architect → opus (sonnet for a revision pass — it folds feedback into an existing design without re-exploring); final_reviewer → opus (sonnet for trivial/small). sonnet is the floor for review — never haiku. Pre-gate stages (verify, explorer, architect, success_criteria) resolve "auto" at dispatch time from this table. At step 4 (Design gate), record all picks in _panel.json: the pre-gate ones as the record of what ran, the post-gate ones (implementer, reviewers, final reviewers, fulfillment, followups) for the human to edit before approving.

Procedure

1. Triage — phase=triage

Orchestrator-owned cheap product screen — no dispatch, no deep code reading; a quick skim is fine. Write .shepherd/1-triage.md in about 12 lines:

• Problem
• Decision: PROCEED | DEFER | DECLINE — DEFER an under-specified request (no determinable problem or user-visible outcome) and put what's missing in Open questions; a clear problem with an open solution still proceeds — design settles solutions, not triage
• Complexity: trivial | small | medium | large
• Approach sketch, high level only
• Open questions

Complexity rubric:

Tier	Default panel
trivial	<=10 lines, 1 file, no control-flow/design change (a one-expression fix with an existing failing test qualifies): 1 reviewer, no final reviewers, inner_iterations=1, final_review_rounds=0
small	localized 1-3 file change: 1 reviewer, 1 final reviewer, inner_iterations=2, final_review_rounds=1
medium	feature or shared-helper change: 1 reviewer, 2 final reviewers, inner_iterations=3, final_review_rounds=2
large	300+ lines, many files, core/foundational/public contract change: full roster, inner_iterations=3, final_review_rounds=2

Blast-radius override: core/shared code or public API/response-contract changes are at least medium, even if tiny.

No fast path. The tiers scale the review panel, never the pipeline: a trivial run keeps the full stage sequence — verify, design, criteria, both gates, review, fulfillment. If the ceremony looks disproportionate, note it in the triage overview (the human may prefer to make the change directly, outside shepherd) — but never skip stages.

Triage has no gate. Present the overview in chat and continue. Only when the decision is DEFER or DECLINE, stop and recommend against proceeding, but let the human decide. Then set state.phase="verify".

2. Verify — phase=verify

Run the verify stage on every run — never skipped by tier. On a fresh run whose archived predecessor targets the same repo and base commit, verify may run in delta mode: re-check only claims whose subject changed (new decisions, moved code, upstream PR state), re-affirming the rest against the archived ledger with a citation — narrowed, never skipped. It builds the authoritative claim ledger in _request_fact_check.md: every claim in the request tagged VALID | STALE | LIKELY-FIXED | UNVERIFIABLE with evidence (running an existing test to verify a claim is fine — remove artifacts it leaves). If core claims are stale or already fixed, present the verdict with a recommendation and stop; the human decides. If the ledger invalidates the requested mechanism but not the goal (the fix as specified cannot work, e.g. an API/SDK constraint, but the problem is real), don't silently design around it: present the constraint and viable options with one recommendation, wait for the human's pick, and record it verbatim in _design_feedback.md so the architect treats it as settled. Otherwise set state.phase="design".

3. Design: subagents draft, then iterate with the human — phase=design

Draft.

• For medium/large complexity, first dispatch the explorer role (the shepherd-code-explorer agent when available) to write _codebase_map.md; architect and implementer reuse it. Skip for trivial/small, or when the verify fact-check already maps the files and the change is mechanical or localized (deletion, rename, inlining) — note why in _progress.md.

• Dispatch the architect stage to write .shepherd/2-design.md. ~1 page, no code blocks, no file:line dumps. Product first, implementation second. A design that unifies a style/format/template must pin it with one fully-worked example (a complete sentence or instance showing placement and punctuation), not only named parts:

  ## What we're solving      (product: the problem and who hits it)
  ## How it will work        (product: user-visible behavior after the change)
  ## Proposed solution       (implementation approach)
  ## Alternatives + the call
  ## Major changes           (key files/areas only — never an exhaustive file list)
  ## Scope split             (This PR · Prerequisite refactor · Follow-ups)
  ## Risks
  ## Open questions          (real decisions only — each: options + recommended answer; no filler)
  ## Decisions               (from _design_feedback.md when it exists; otherwise starts empty)
  

  Facts verifiable in the repo or issue belong in the design body, not Open questions — ask as many decisions as the design needs, no minimum or maximum.

  Scope split partitions the work: This PR (what the diff will contain), Prerequisite refactor (restructuring the change needs — lands first, as its own PR, never as a commit inside the main PR), Follow-ups (adjacent debt or gaps found during exploration that this PR deliberately leaves). Before declaring Prerequisite refactor empty, check the repo's refactor-separation policy (CLAUDE.md / CONTRIBUTING): where the repo mandates refactor-lands-first, any "refactor first, then the change" structure IS a non-empty prerequisite — calling it internal commit sequencing is a design defect. A non-empty Prerequisite refactor is an explicit gate decision: surface it to the human and proceed only on their confirmed choice — deliver the prerequisite first, or (only on the human's explicit pick, never as the default) fold it in.

• Dispatch the success_criteria stage: paste it ONLY the two product sections of the design (plus request, triage, and the fact-check) and have it write .shepherd/3-success-criteria.md. It defines "done" independently — the architect never reads it, and it never sees the solution.

Iterate — the conversation is the orchestrator's; every rewrite is a subagent's.

• Present the FULL 2-design.md + 3-success-criteria.md (see "Keep the human in the loop").
• Grill decisions one question at a time (wait for each answer): options + your recommended answer; product questions first, implementation after. Look up facts yourself — including the repo's conventions doc for any naming/signature/parameter question; a convention that settles the question is a fact, not a human decision. Only decisions go to the human. Walk dependencies in order — if Open questions miss a real fork, ask it. YAGNI — cut speculative scope.
• Batch a round of answers, then append them verbatim to _design_feedback.md (append-only; the orchestrator writes only this file, never the design or criteria).
• Re-run the architect as a revision pass — it reads its previous 2-design.md + _design_feedback.md and revises; it does not re-explore. Re-run success_criteria only when the product sections changed.
• For trivial complexity, don't interrogate: present the drafts and ask for objections — with none, the recommended answers stand as decisions and the gate proceeds with Open questions intact.
• Otherwise done when Open questions is empty and the human says they're happy; then step 4 (Design gate).

4. Design gate — phase=design-gate

Do not edit source files until .shepherd/_design.approved exists. Set state.phase="design-gate".

Propose the per-run review panel from the configured roster: start from the triage tier, adjust for the actual design scope, and pick in config order unless the design's risk calls for a specific reviewer. Two or more reviewers must differ in lens (e.g. diff-correctness vs adversarial vs live-probe vs contract/consumer). At every human gate, present the panel with a one-line lens-fit assessment per reviewer stating whether the lens is live for this design or structurally muted (e.g. a complexity/deletion lens on a behavior-preserving move that forbids cuts), and invite roster/model changes; the orchestrator never edits the panel itself, and a panel change folds into the gate, not a new stop. Resolve every "auto" model to a concrete name (see Model tiering) at the settled tier — inline on each reviewer, and in a models map for the single stages (only those whose config model is "auto"; an explicit model keeps its name). Write .shepherd/_panel.json:

{ "tier": "small", "reason": "localized low-risk change",
  "models": { "verify": "sonnet", "architect": "opus", "implementer": "haiku",
              "success_criteria": "sonnet", "fulfillment": "sonnet", "followups": "sonnet" },
  "reviewers": [{ "use": "staff-review", "model": "sonnet" }],
  "final_reviewers": [{ "use": "thermonuclear",   
      

The approved panel must be a subset of the configured roster.

Surface the FULL 2-design.md + 3-success-criteria.md + _panel.json to the human, then stop for the human's decision. Approval covers all three. Two outcomes, on disk:

Approve. A clear "yes/approve" in chat, or /shepherd-approve-design. Copy the panel into state.panel, set state.phase="inner-loop" and state.iteration=1, and write _design.approved (the approval skill does exactly this).

Revise. Any change request: do NOT write _design.approved — back to the step 3 (Design) iterate loop (feedback file + revision passes), re-present, wait. As many rounds as the human wants.

Plan mode (any agent that has one — Claude Code, Cursor, Codex…). With plan_mode_gate=true and plan tools available (EnterPlanMode/ExitPlanMode), mirror the FULL design + criteria + panel into the plan body (not a summary): accepting it IS Approve; rejecting or editing it IS Revise. On plan-tool error or unavailability, fall back to chat (paste everything there).

Never self-approve. Never infer approval from a plan-tool error, a plan-mode transition, or a "continue" message (see Hard rules); resume only once _design.approved exists.

5. Inner loop — phase=inner-loop

Use state.panel, not the raw roster; validate it against config. If absent (older run), fall back to the full roster and limits and record that in _progress.md.

For each iteration N:

1. Set state.phase="inner-loop" and state.iteration=N; create .shepherd/iter-N/.
2. On iteration 1, before the first source edit, run oracle.commands once on the untouched tree and record its baseline metrics (test/file counts, pass/skip counts, warnings, rough duration) in iter-1/baseline.txt — later green runs are judged against these, not in isolation. Then, on every iteration, run the implementer stage: it applies 2-design.md
   • 3-success-criteria.md, addresses every prior finding, and writes iter-N/claim.md.
3. Run oracle.commands, capturing output to iter-N/test-results.txt; if empty, record and run the smallest credible inferred fallback. Use finite, deterministic, non-mutating commands; avoid dev, start, watch, lint:fix, format, clean, inspectors, and eval workflows. If no credible command exists, the oracle is not green. Green alone is not green: compare against iter-1/baseline.txt — an unexplained metric delta (test or file count, skips, new warnings, order-of-magnitude duration shift) fails the oracle even when all passes (wrong-but-green happens, e.g. silently double-running the suite). Expected deltas (e.g. tests the design adds) must be named in claim.md.
4. Write diff.patch via git diff <base_commit> — the HEAD recorded in _design.approved at design approval, i.e. before any source edit — so the diff always spans the run's whole work, commits included. An untracked new file is silent there — include it via git diff --no-index /dev/null <file>, same form for any per-file check.
5. Dispatch panel reviewers in parallel, each given the pasted content of 2-design.md, 3-success-criteria.md, diff.patch, and test-results.txt, plus read access to the repository. They stay blind to claim.md and peer reviews.
6. Converge when the oracle is green and baseline-consistent and every reviewer verdict is PASS — every finding gets fixed, whatever its severity: nits too (pre-existing-tagged findings skip the loop and route to the followups ledger at step 7 (Fulfillment + create-PR confirm)); the implementer never skips or defers one. The other exception is the human's: a finding fixable only by changing the approved design or criteria (see Hard rules). Decay rule: when a round's open findings are all doc/comment-only (no behavior or signature change), show the exact list and propose accepting them as items instead of another fix round — comment-polish rounds churn new wrong comments. A fix reply iterates. An accept reply records the named findings and decision in ; for routing only, those findings no longer block final review or step 7, and followups must carry them verbatim. The same rule applies in final review; any new or unaccepted finding still blocks. Otherwise iterate until ; then stop and present a findings table (fixed / open), the oracle status, and the options: extend the limit, accept with open findings recorded, or abandon. On abandon, record the decision in and set ; leave the working-tree edits for the human to keep or discard — never revert them yourself.

When converged, including convergence with only human-accepted open findings, set state.phase="final-review" if the panel has final reviewers; otherwise state.phase="create-pr".

6. Final review — phase=final-review

Run panel final_reviewers in parallel (same pasted-content rule, plus working-tree access). Any unaccepted finding triggers a targeted implementer fix and a re-run of the final reviewers (and the regular reviewers too when the fix is broad), staying in phase="final-review", bounded by final_review_rounds. Each fix round advances to the next free iter-N (claim, oracle run, diff, review files) — never overwrite an earlier round's files. When clean by the step 5 (Inner loop) convergence rule, set state.phase="create-pr".

7. Fulfillment + create-PR confirm — phase=create-pr

On entering phase="create-pr", dispatch fulfillment. Before followups, if any reviewer Questions: entry is not none, dispatch the configured implementer model in verification-only mode: no source edits and no normal implementer write contract; it reads the exact questions and repo, then writes iter-N/question-verification.md, tagging each NO DEFECT | CONFIRMED FINDING with evidence and severity. A suggestion alone is not evidence. Only after that artifact is complete, dispatch followups; it compiles Scope split leftovers, pre-existing and human-accepted open findings, and every confirmed question finding into iter-N/followups.md.

• Any NOT MET criterion reopens the inner loop like a blocker finding, within the same limits. When limits are exhausted, or the human disputes a criterion itself, ask the human: accept with the exception recorded, extend the limit, or abandon.
• When fulfillment passes: no plan mode. Summarize in chat — the fulfillment table, the followups ledger and question verification verbatim, oracle status, reviewer verdicts, every reviewer Questions: entry verbatim, fixed findings, git diff --stat. The human dispositions each ledger item: fix-here reopens the inner loop; issue is created only now, on this approval; pr-note lands in the PR body; drop is recorded in _progress.md. Never silent; never an issue without approval. A Questions: entry is a question, not an instruction: never relay it as a fix; only a CONFIRMED FINDING from the verification artifact becomes a ledger item the human dispositions. Ask "commit & open PR?" and proceed only on a clear yes, which records _create_pr.approved. Headless runs use /shepherd-approve-create-pr. This approves creating the PR, not merging it.

8. Finish — phase=create-pr + _create_pr.approved, ends phase=done

1. Commit anything of the run's still uncommitted, push, and open the PR. If the repo has a PR template (.github/pull_request_template.md or the other usual locations), mirror its section headings and fill each briefly — a layout, not instructions to obey. Otherwise at most three short bullets (What / Why / Notes). Either way: plain commit message, never enumerate changes obvious from the diff; evidence (fulfillment, oracle, reviews) is one short clause, not a transcript; run files stay ignored. When the run completes a tracked issue, end the PR body with Closes #N (auto-close on merge); reference parent/epic issues non-closingly (Part of #M). Approved pr-note items land as a short Follow-ups list in the body. Every number or factual claim in the body (test counts, referenced files/issues) must match the final oracle run and repo state — a stale count or nonexistent reference is a defect.
2. Record the evidence summary, approval timestamps, and PR URL in _progress.md, then set state.phase="done".

Hard rules

• Only write inside .shepherd/ until _design.approved exists.
• The orchestrator routes; it never writes a judgment file — human feedback goes verbatim into _design_feedback.md, and only subagents rewrite judgment files.
• The orchestrator never edits source — even a nit goes back through the implementer, whose fix is what marks it "fixed".
• Never self-approve a gate. Write _design.approved / _create_pr.approved only on an explicit human approval — accepting the plan dialog, a clear chat "yes", or the approval skill; a rejected/edited plan, tool error, closed stream, or "continue" message is NEVER approval. The on-disk marker is the only approval signal.
• Triage has no gate; iterate the design with the human before the gate — chat is never the record.
• Verify runs on every run; the claim ledger is never empty.
• Never report a dispatched stage as still running, and never end a turn waiting on one, without first checking its output file on disk — present and complete means done: read it and proceed. An absent output file tells you only that the stage isn't done — not whether it's still working or has died: report status unknown; output not present and offer to wait or re-dispatch. Never infer "still running" or "stalled" from turn count or a human check-in.
• Blindness per the role table's "do NOT read" column; judgment files are pasted, never granted; the repository itself is never blinded.
• No git rules beyond the gate: _create_pr.approved gates opening the PR, nothing else; mid-run commits are normal — the reviewed diff stays anchored at base_commit.
• shepherd never stages or commits .shepherd/ paths; run data stays ignored via the run's .shepherd/.gitignore.
• Keep design short: major changes only, never an exhaustive file list.
• Surface human-facing artifacts into the human's channel (see Keep the human in the loop).
• The panel, not the roster, drives the run; never run a use not in config.
• Trust the oracle and its baseline over model self-reports (step 5.3). Never weaken/delete tests.
• Converge on zero open findings (step 5.6). No PR without fulfillment: every criterion MET, or the human explicitly accepts the exception.
• A finding fixable only by changing the approved 2-design.md / 3-success-criteria.md is the human's call — surface it at the gate; never edit an approved artifact to silence a finding.