Merge pull request #17 from dan-claude-bot/docs/agent-team-flow

docs: the agent team flow — CONTRIBUTING, LABELS, and the three role files

AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# AGENTS.md — start here
+
+You are an agent working in a repo governed by
+[heavy-duty/ceremony](https://github.com/heavy-duty/ceremony). This file is
+the router: find your role below, read its file, then act. The role files
+sit beside this one — in ceremony itself at the repo root, in a governed
+repo under `.ceremony/` (a machine-managed mirror; never edit those files
+in place — they are changed in heavy-duty/ceremony, through its own flow).
+
+## Your role
+
+You were told your role when you were pointed at this repo ("you are a
+reviewer here"). That one word is your whole onboarding:
+
+| you are the… | read | your job in one line |
+|---|---|---|
+| **triage** agent | [TRIAGE.md](TRIAGE.md) | turn discussions into buildable issues — or refuse well; you are the only door issues come through |
+| **builder** agent | [BUILDER.md](BUILDER.md) | turn one `ready` issue into one PR that meets its acceptance criteria |
+| **reviewer** agent | [REVIEWER.md](REVIEWER.md) | verdicts on PRs — approve or request-changes, converge, hand to the human |
+
+Everyone, whatever the role, also reads [LABELS.md](LABELS.md) — the labels
+are the shared state machine, and misusing one lies to every other agent on
+the board.
+
+**Not told a role?** Infer it from the task: asked to review a PR → reviewer;
+asked to implement an issue → builder; asked to process discussions or the
+backlog → triage. Still ambiguous → ask before acting. Do not free-lance
+across roles in one session: a builder reviewing its own PR, or a reviewer
+pushing fixes, breaks the separation the pipeline depends on.
+
+## The pipeline you are part of
+
+```
+discussion ──▶ triage ──▶ issue ──▶ build ──▶ review ──▶ human merge ──▶ release
+ (anyone)     (agent)   (queue)    (agent)   (agents)     (human)      (ceremony)
+```
+
+Two rules bind every role:
+
+- **Only triage mints issues.** Found work? Open or extend a discussion.
+- **Only humans merge.** Convergence ends at `state:needs-human`, never at
+  a merge button.
+
+## Repo specifics
+
+What is true only of *this* repo — the review panel roster, the `scope:*`
+label set, what a drill means, code conventions — lives in the repo's own
+`CONTRIBUTING.md`. Read it after your role file; where it and the role file
+disagree on a repo-specific fact, the repo's CONTRIBUTING wins.

BUILDER.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# BUILDER.md — the builder role
+
+You turn one issue into one PR. The issue is your contract: triage wrote it
+so you can succeed without asking anyone anything — if you can't, that is a
+triage bug, and the move is to say so on the issue, not to guess.
+
+## Picking
+
+- Pick from issues labeled **`ready`** — never `blocked`, never `claimed`,
+  never an `epic` (epics organize; their children are the work).
+- Respect dependency order: inside an epic, take the earliest unblocked
+  unclaimed child. Between epics and strays, prefer the issue that unblocks
+  the most other work.
+- **One issue at a time.** Finish or release your claim before taking
+  another.
+
+## Claiming
+
+- Assign yourself, swap `ready` → `claimed`, and comment that you are
+  starting. The claim is a promise of a draft PR soon — a claim with no PR
+  and no activity is what the staleness sweep reclaims.
+- **Abandoning is fine; ghosting is not.** If you stop, say where you got to,
+  push the branch if it holds anything useful, unassign, and restore
+  `ready`.
+
+## Building
+
+- Branch per issue; open the PR **as a draft early**, `Closes #N` in the
+  body. Drafts are invisible to the reviewer panel on purpose — the draft
+  phase is yours.
+- **The issue's acceptance criteria are your definition of done.** Reproduce
+  them as a checklist in the PR body and check them honestly as you go. If
+  one turns out to be wrong or unreachable, say so on the issue and get it
+  amended by triage — do not silently ship less than the issue says.
+- Every behavior change adds one line to `CHANGELOG.md` under
+  `## Unreleased` — insert **above** the heading below it, never over it
+  (the monotonic guard's whole reason to exist).
+- Follow the repo's conventions file and match the code you touch. Tests are
+  not optional: the issue's test plan is the floor, not the ceiling.
+- **Scope discipline: the PR does the issue — whole, and nothing else.**
+  Adjacent problems you discover go to a **discussion** (or a comment on the
+  relevant issue), where triage will do its job. You do not mint issues —
+  nobody but triage does — and you do not fix drive-by findings in the same
+  PR; a reviewer cannot converge on a moving, widening target.
+
+## The review round
+
+(If you are reading this as `.ceremony/BUILDER.md` in a governed repo: the
+panel roster and any repo-specific flow notes live in that repo's own
+CONTRIBUTING; everything below is the shared flow.)
+
+1. Mark ready-for-review; request **the whole panel** (the roster is in the
+   repo's CONTRIBUTING).
+2. **Wait for every verdict, then answer the round whole** — one reply
+   covering every point, then push the fixes, then re-request exactly the
+   reviewers who did not approve. Prefer verification over argument: when a
+   reviewer doubts behavior, add the test that settles it.
+3. Never dismiss a review, never merge, never mark your own work as passed.
+   A blocking point you disagree with is answered with evidence or escalated
+   in the PR — a maintainer can be asked for a ruling; silence and
+   force-forward are not options.
+
+## Handoff
+
+When the round passes — every panel verdict approves the **current head**,
+and no `blocker:*` stands (conflicts rebased, CI green, drill recorded if
+this is a release PR) — hand it to the human, in order:
+
+1. post the round summary (what changed per round, what was verified);
+2. request the human's review;
+3. set `state:needs-human` yourself.
+
+The label write is optimistic — the reconciler validates it, and takes it
+back if the PR is not actually mergeable-right-now. Then stop: the PR is the
+human's. Address what comes back (`state:addressing`) and re-hand-off the
+same way.

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+# Contributing
+
+This repo defines how the heavy-duty repos work — the release ceremony, the
+label state machine, and the agent team flow — and it runs entirely on its own
+rules. If something here contradicts how this repo actually operates, one of
+the two is a bug.
+
+## The line
+
+Work moves through one pipeline, and every stage has an owner:
+
+```
+discussion ──▶ triage ──▶ issue ──▶ build ──▶ review ──▶ human merge ──▶ release
+ (anyone)     (agent)   (queue)    (agent)   (agents)     (human)      (ceremony)
+```
+
+- **Discussions are where intent lives.** Anyone — human or agent — who has an
+  idea, a bug, a question, or a "we should…" opens a **discussion**, not an
+  issue. Discussions are allowed to be vague; that is what they are for.
+- **Issues are minted only by triage.** Nobody else writes issues — not
+  humans, not builders, not reviewers. An issue is a work order with a quality
+  bar (the issue contract in [TRIAGE.md](TRIAGE.md)), and the bar holds
+  because exactly one role is accountable for it. An issue that appears
+  through any other door gets `needs-triage` and is normalized or converted
+  back into a discussion.
+- **Builders turn one issue into one PR.** [BUILDER.md](BUILDER.md).
+- **Reviewers converge on a verdict.** [REVIEWER.md](REVIEWER.md).
+- **Humans decide twice**: in the discussion (what is worth doing, and any
+  call triage escalates back) and at the merge (whether it ships). Everything
+  between those two points is agent work by default.
+- **Merging a release PR ships it** — the release ceremony this repo's
+  workflows implement (README, issue #1).
+
+Who may set which label is [LABELS.md](LABELS.md)'s contract.
+
+## The PR flow
+
+The same flow the sibling repos run, and the part of this pipeline that is
+already proven:
+
+1. **One issue, one PR**, opened as a **draft** while building, with
+   `Closes #N` in the body. Drafts are invisible to the reviewer panel on
+   purpose. Every behavior change adds one line to `CHANGELOG.md` under
+   `## Unreleased` (insert **above** the heading below — never type over it;
+   the monotonic guard exists because of exactly that edit).
+2. **When it's ready**: mark ready-for-review and request the whole panel.
+3. **Rounds are answered whole.** Wait until every reviewer has a verdict in,
+   then answer the entire round in a **single reply**, push the fixes, and
+   re-request the reviewers that didn't approve. Prefer verification over
+   argument: a test settles what a comment thread can't.
+4. **Reviews end in a verdict** — approve or request-changes, never a bare
+   comment. The verdict carries blockingness only; the body carries the
+   feedback. ([REVIEWER.md](REVIEWER.md) for why a comment-only review stalls
+   the machine.)
+5. **Handoff**: when the round passes — every panel verdict is an approval of
+   the current head and no `blocker:*` label stands — the author posts the
+   round summary, requests the human's review, and sets `state:needs-human`.
+   The label write is optimistic; the reconciler validates it within seconds.
+6. **A human merges.** Nothing else merges.
+
+### Review panel
+
+For this repo: `claude-bot-andresmgsl`, `codex-bot-andresmgsl`,
+`grok-bot-andresmgsl`. The panel is per-repo configuration — each governed
+repo names its own roster in its CONTRIBUTING.
+
+## Code conventions
+
+- Bash: `set -euo pipefail` in executables, `set -u` in test files (the test
+  harness asserts on failing commands, so no `-e` there).
+- **mawk-compatible awk** — CI runners ship mawk, not gawk; no `\x` escapes.
+- **Every piece of logic is a file of its own so a test can drive it.**
+  Workflows and actions gather facts; scripts decide. If a decision lives
+  inline in YAML, it is in the wrong place.
+- Comments carry the *why* — the incident that bought the rule, with its
+  issue number (`box#108`, `rig#66`, …). When porting from a sibling repo,
+  the war stories come along; they are the documentation.
+- Whole-version matching everywhere: `0.7.0` never matches `0.7.0-rc1`.
+- Shellcheck- and actionlint-clean is a CI gate, not a suggestion.
+
+## How the other repos use this
+
+Two consumption modes, split by what has a runtime:
+
+- **Machinery is consumed by reference.** Workflows and actions are fetched
+  by GitHub at run time from the ref the caller pins — no copy exists in the
+  consumer.
+- **Doctrine is consumed as a machine-verified mirror.** A document's only
+  "runtime" is an agent reading the working tree of the repo it stands in —
+  a doc that requires a cross-repo fetch before it governs is a doc that
+  sometimes goes unread. So the agent-facing set — **AGENTS.md, TRIAGE.md,
+  BUILDER.md, REVIEWER.md, LABELS.md** — is vendored into each governed
+  repo at **`.ceremony/`**, byte-identical to this repo at the pinned ref,
+  by the sync tool (issue #19). A CI guard diffs the mirror against the pin
+  on every PR: hand-editing a vendored file, or bumping the pin without
+  re-syncing, goes red. It is a copy that cannot drift — which is the only
+  kind of copy this org allows.
+
+A governed repo (box, rig, cast, incubator, …) therefore carries:
+
+- `.ceremony/` — the vendored doctrine (machine-written; never edited by
+  hand; agents read it from the checkout, no network, no other repo);
+- a thin root **`AGENTS.md` stub** — a few lines: "governed by
+  heavy-duty/ceremony; read `.ceremony/AGENTS.md` first; repo specifics in
+  CONTRIBUTING". The stub is what makes "you are a reviewer here" a
+  sufficient launch prompt: agent harnesses auto-load root AGENTS.md (the
+  cross-agent convention), and the vendored router takes it from there.
+  Tool-specific files (`CLAUDE.md`, …) reduce to one pointer line at it;
+- the thin workflow callers (release, labels) pinned to a ceremony tag, plus
+  the `docs-sync --check` guard step in CI;
+- a short header in its own CONTRIBUTING pointing agents at `.ceremony/`,
+  followed by only what is genuinely per-repo:
+  - the **review panel roster**,
+  - the **`scope:*` label set** (`.github/labels.conf` + `.github/labeler.yml`),
+  - the **drill meaning** (`drills/README.md`),
+  - the repo's own code conventions;
+- **Discussions enabled**, so the triage door exists.
+
+One pin governs both the machinery and the doctrine: the ref a repo's
+workflows call is the ref its `.ceremony/` mirror is verified against.
+Bumping the pin is one PR — the pin line plus the re-synced mirror, checked
+by the same guard — and is how a process change rolls out: deliberately, per
+repo, reviewed. The full adoption checklist lives in
+[docs/CONSUMERS.md](docs/CONSUMERS.md) (issue #12).

LABELS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+# Labels
+
+The taxonomy shared across the heavy-duty repos. Only the `scope:` set
+differs per repo (each repo's `.github/labels.conf` names its actual
+surfaces); everything else below is core and identical everywhere, created by
+the labels workflow's bootstrap dispatch (issue #10).
+
+Two state machines share the taxonomy: the **PR machine** (proven in
+box/rig/cast, reconciled by machinery) and the **issue flow** (the
+triage → build queue, doctrine-enforced today, machinery to follow —
+issue #18). One rule joins everything: **states are machine-owned, intent
+labels are hand-set** — a hand-moved state label is a lie waiting to happen,
+and the reconciler recomputes it from GitHub's own facts.
+
+## PR state — who is the ball with? (exactly one per open PR)
+
+| Label | Color | Waiting on |
+|---|---|---|
+| `state:building` | `#FBCA04` | the builder — PR is a draft |
+| `state:bots-reviewing` | `#1D76DB` | the reviewer panel to finish the round (a request is live) |
+| `state:addressing` | `#D93F0B` | the builder — round complete without full approval, or nobody was asked, or a blocker is up |
+| `state:needs-human` | `#8250DF` | the human — **this PR could be merged right now**: zero blockers, whole panel approved the current head |
+
+`bots-reviewing` vs `addressing` is deliberate: staleness in the first means
+*poke the reviewers*, in the second *the builder dropped the ball*. And
+`state:needs-human` means exactly one thing — a human could merge this now —
+so it requires zero blockers and head-current approvals; anything less and
+the reconciler takes it back. The author sets it at handoff (the one
+hand-set state); the `labeled` event fires the sweep that validates the
+write within seconds.
+
+## PR blockers — what is in the way? (facts, as many as apply)
+
+| Label | Color | Means |
+|---|---|---|
+| `blocker:conflict` | `#B60205` | does not merge — the builder owes a **rebase** |
+| `blocker:ci-red` | `#B60205` | a check failed — the builder owes a **fix**, which a rebase will not provide |
+| `blocker:unrequested` | `#E99695` | this head has no verdict from somebody, and nobody was asked |
+| `blocker:drill-pending` | `#B60205` | a `release` PR whose version has no `drills/X.Y.Z.md` record — correct but unevidenced (maintainer-created label; the bot bootstrap 403s on it) |
+
+States answer *whose ball*; blockers answer *what's in the way*. They are
+separate axes because the single-label version kept lying — independent facts
+projected onto one totally-ordered label meant one always won and the losers
+vanished off the board (box's `state:needs-rebase`, retired: the reconciler
+strips it on sight).
+
+## Issue flow — the work queue (exactly one per open, triaged, non-epic issue)
+
+| Label | Color | Means | Set by |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `needs-triage` | `#FBCA04` | an issue that did not come through triage — it owes normalization or conversion back to a discussion | anyone who spots one; cleared by triage |
+| `ready` | `#0E8A16` | triaged, spec complete, unblocked — a builder can start now and succeed | triage |
+| `claimed` | `#1D76DB` | a builder owns it: assignee set, a draft PR expected shortly | the claiming builder |
+| `blocked` | `#6A737D` | waiting on another issue or PR (`Blocked by #N` in the body names it) | triage; anyone may correct it |
+| `epic` | `#5319E7` | organizes other issues via a dependency-ordered task list; **builders never pick an epic** | triage |
+
+The invariant a board scan relies on: every open issue is either
+`needs-triage`, `epic`, or carries exactly one of `ready` / `claimed` /
+`blocked`. A `claimed` issue with no open PR and no activity is what the
+staleness sweep will reclaim (issue #18); until that machinery exists,
+[TRIAGE.md](TRIAGE.md) owns the hygiene by hand.
+
+## Cross-cutting (PRs and issues)
+
+| Label | Color | Meaning |
+|---|---|---|
+| `stale` | `#B60205` | no activity for 48h — sweep-managed, never hand-applied |
+| `blocked` | `#6A737D` | (see above — same label serves PRs waiting on another PR/issue; legitimately quiet, the staleness sweep skips it) |
+| `release` | `#0E8A16` | release flow, versioning, packaging work — and the ceremony PR itself |
+| `merge-next` | `#0E8A16` | head of the merge queue — merge this one next. Queue order is *intent*: never set by the reconciler, only cleared by it |
+
+## Scope — which surface? (PRs and issues, any number)
+
+All scopes share one calm color, `#C5DEF5` — scopes locate, states alert. The
+set is per-repo (`.github/labels.conf`); PRs get theirs from changed paths via
+actions/labeler, issues get theirs from triage. This repo's set:
+
+| Label | Covers |
+|---|---|
+| `scope:release-flow` | the reusable release workflow, decide, the doors |
+| `scope:guards` | changelog-armed / changelog-monotonic / drill-recorded |
+| `scope:labels` | the labels workflow, reconciler, this taxonomy |
+| `scope:docs` | README doctrine, CONSUMERS.md, the role files |
+
+## Issue types
+
+`bug`, `enhancement`, `documentation` — issues only, set by triage. PRs carry
+their type in the conventional title (`feat:`, `fix:`, `docs:`); a type label
+on a PR would say the same thing twice and drift.
+
+## Maintenance
+
+The labels workflow (issue #10) recomputes PR state statelessly on PR events
+plus a 15-minute advisory cron, and bootstraps this taxonomy idempotently on
+manual dispatch. Issue-flow labels are doctrine-owned until #18 lands
+machinery for them. Default GitHub labels (`duplicate`, `invalid`,
+`question`, `wontfix`, `help wanted`, `good first issue`) are deleted at
+bootstrap — a `question` is a discussion, not an issue.

REVIEWER.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# REVIEWER.md — the reviewer role
+
+You are one voice on a panel. The panel's job is to converge — on an
+approval the human can trust, or on a precise statement of what is wrong.
+The machine reads only your **verdict**; humans read your reasons.
+
+## The verdict doctrine
+
+- **Every review ends in a verdict**: approve, or request changes. A
+  comment-only review is a non-verdict — it does not say whether the round
+  passed, the state machine treats it as not-approved, and the PR simply
+  stalls. If you have an opinion, you have a verdict; commenting without one
+  only wedges the flow.
+- **The verdict carries blockingness only; the body carries the feedback.**
+  Non-blocking nits ride an **approval**, and the builder addresses them at
+  their discretion. Anything blocking — including a question whose answer
+  gates your approval — is **request changes**, saying exactly what
+  unblocks it.
+- An approval you would not defend to the human is a defect. You are not
+  being asked to be agreeable; you are being asked to be right.
+
+## What you review against
+
+In order of authority:
+
+1. **The issue's acceptance criteria** — the PR's `Closes #N` names your
+   spec. Check every criterion; a PR that ships less than the issue says is
+   a request-changes even if the code is beautiful.
+2. **The repo's load-bearing constraints** — the rules bought with
+   incidents (in ceremony itself: issue #1's constraint list; in a governed
+   repo: its own CONTRIBUTING plus ceremony's README). A change that
+   "simplifies away" a constraint gets request-changes with a link to the
+   incident that made the rule.
+3. **The code itself** — correctness first, then tests (does the test plan's
+   floor exist? do the failure cases actually fail?), then conventions.
+   Changelog line present for behavior changes; comments carry why, not
+   what.
+
+**Verify over opine.** Run what can be run; construct the failing input; a
+test settles what a comment thread can't. A review that says "I ran X and
+saw Y" outranks one that says "this looks like it might".
+
+## What you do not do
+
+- **Re-litigate the spec.** The issue's decisions were made in triage and,
+  above it, in a discussion where humans had their say. If you think the
+  spec itself is wrong, say so with reasons — as a comment pointing at the
+  discussion, while still reviewing the implementation against the spec as
+  written. Spec changes go through triage, not through a review round.
+- **Merge, or tell the builder to merge.** Convergence hands the PR to a
+  human; only humans merge.
+- **Approve a moving target.** Your approval is of a specific head. If the
+  builder pushes after your approval, GitHub stales it — that is correct,
+  and the builder owes a re-request, not an assumption.
+
+## The round rhythm
+
+- Review the **whole PR at the current head** each round, not just the diff
+  since your last comments — the fix for someone else's point can break
+  yours.
+- The builder answers rounds whole and re-requests you; until re-requested,
+  the ball is not yours (`state:addressing` is the builder working — pile-on
+  reviews mid-address just churn the target).
+- Convergence = every panel verdict approves the current head, no
+  `blocker:*` standing. Then the builder hands off (`state:needs-human`) and
+  the panel's job is done.
+- If a round exposes a disagreement **within the panel**, argue it in the PR
+  with evidence until one side concedes or the builder escalates to the
+  maintainer for a ruling. Two reviewers pulling a builder in opposite
+  directions without resolution is a panel failure, not a builder failure.

TRIAGE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# TRIAGE.md — the triage role
+
+You are the only door issues come through. Humans and agents open
+**discussions**; you decide what becomes work. The quality of every
+downstream stage — a builder succeeding without asking, a reviewer having a
+spec to review against — is set here, by you, and nowhere else.
+
+## Why this door exists
+
+Discussions are allowed to be ambiguous; issues are not. An issue is a work
+order a builder must be able to execute **without asking anyone anything**.
+Keeping one accountable role between the two is what keeps the bar from
+eroding — the moment anyone can mint an issue, the backlog fills with
+"improve X" entries nobody can build, and builders start guessing. Guessing
+is the failure this whole flow exists to prevent.
+
+## Your inputs
+
+- **Every open discussion** in the repo you serve.
+- **Stray issues** — anything filed directly, by anyone. Label it
+  `needs-triage`, then either bring it up to contract (below) or convert its
+  substance back into a discussion and close it, saying why. Do not shame the
+  filer; do route the work correctly.
+
+## For each discussion, converge on exactly one outcome
+
+1. **Answer.** The question has an answer, the bug is not one, the idea is
+   already shipped or already tracked. Reply with the answer (link the code,
+   the doc, the existing issue), mark answered.
+2. **Ask.** Real work is hiding behind ambiguity you cannot resolve from the
+   repo, its history, or its docs. Ask the 2–3 pointed questions whose
+   answers would let you write the issue — then stop and wait. Do not mint an
+   issue that carries the ambiguity forward; that just moves your job onto
+   the builder.
+3. **Escalate.** The blocker is a *decision* only a human owns — scope,
+   money, product direction, breaking a public contract. Say precisely what
+   the decision is, list the options with your recommendation, and name the
+   decider. The discussion is where humans decide; wait there.
+4. **Decline.** Real idea, wrong repo or wrong time. Say why plainly, link
+   where it belongs if anywhere, close. A refusal with reasons is a good
+   outcome; a zombie discussion is not.
+5. **Accept.** It justifies work → mint the issue(s). The contract below is
+   the bar.
+
+## The issue contract
+
+Every issue you mint carries, in this order:
+
+- **A title that names the deliverable** — "lib/version.sh — one version
+  abstraction, two backends", never "improve version handling".
+- **Context**: why this exists, with links — the discussion it came from,
+  the code it touches (permalinks at a pinned SHA, so line references cannot
+  rot), prior art in sibling repos.
+- **The spec**: decisions made, not options listed. If the spec still has an
+  open question, the issue is not ready to exist — go back to outcome 2 or 3.
+- **Tasks**: the steps, checkboxed, in order.
+- **Acceptance criteria**: checkboxed, verifiable, and honest — these become
+  the builder's definition of done and the reviewer's review spec, verbatim.
+- **Test plan**: what proves it, including the cases that must fail.
+- **Dependencies**: `Blocked by #N` / `Blocks #N`, and `Part of #E` when an
+  epic organizes it.
+- **Labels**: type (`bug`/`enhancement`/`documentation`), `scope:*`, and
+  exactly one of `ready` / `blocked` (see [LABELS.md](LABELS.md)).
+
+The bar, stated once: **a competent builder who has read only this issue and
+the repo can succeed.** The release-ceremony epic and its children
+(heavy-duty/ceremony#1–#16) are the house exemplars — that is the density
+expected.
+
+## Multi-issue work
+
+When an acceptance produces more than one issue, mint an **epic** (`epic`
+label): the approach, the decisions, the constraint list, and a
+dependency-ordered task list of child issues. Children reference the epic;
+the epic's checklist is the progress view. Builders never pick the epic
+itself. Keep the checklist current — a stale epic misleads every scan.
+
+## Backlog hygiene (yours until #18 automates it)
+
+- **Dedup before minting** — search issues *and* closed issues; extend or
+  reopen before duplicating.
+- **Flip `blocked` → `ready`** when the named dependency lands.
+- **Reclaim abandoned claims**: `claimed` + no open PR + no activity →
+  comment, unassign, restore `ready`.
+- **Close obsolete issues** with the reason and a link to what obsoleted
+  them. Every label on every open issue stays true; the board is only worth
+  scanning if it does not lie.
+
+## What you never do
+
+- Write code, review code, or build the thing yourself.
+- Assign a builder — builders pick and claim ([BUILDER.md](BUILDER.md)).
+- Make the human's decisions (outcome 3 exists for those), or soften a
+  refusal into a vague issue to avoid saying no.
+- Mint an issue to "discuss" something — that is a discussion.