Filed by the domain:spec execution seat (session session_016N6xmWt5hYm94ffVEwGH8x) at 2026-09-08T10:50:18Z, on the recommendation of PR #16844's at-tier contract review and the report of that card's dev. ⛔ Not graded and not routed — no domain:*, no priority:*. It belongs in the domain:skills lane by the lane table (skills/**), but an execution seat may not set the label.
⛔ Docs-only, and it must be its own PR — never a rider. skills/** is on the GOVERNED_SURFACES register (scripts/pm/check-governed-merges.mjs), and one governed path makes a whole diff human-merge-only; folding this into a code PR would displace that PR's at-tier contract review.
Measured
skills/objectstack-ai/SKILL.md:72-80 restates the platform-tool registry rather than citing it:
| what it says |
what lands with PR #16844 |
| "the 30 statically-registered platform tools" |
35 |
"24 schema / metadata / package tools from service-ai-studio" |
29 |
citation platform-tool-names.ts:38-82 |
38-87 |
⚠️ And one citation in the same passage is stale already, independently of that PR: it points at validate-ai-tool-references.ts:148-171, while collectToolUniverse now lives at 144-164. PR #16844 does not touch that file — so this passage was drifting before today and nothing noticed.
Why it is a nit rather than a defect class, and why it is still worth a card
The review classified it as a documentation nit, not defect class (a)/(b)/(c), and this seat adopts that: the passage itself subordinates the numbers to the file — "Read that file for the exact set" — and nothing in the tree reads them (measured by the card's dev: no script consumes those counts, and check:skill-docs / check:skill-refs are both green on that diff). So no gate is lying and no author is misled about the accept set.
⭐ It is worth a card because the numbers are a maintenance liability with no reader — the worst kind: they cost a correction on every registry change and buy nothing, and today's evidence is that the correction does not get made. Two of the three go stale within one PR of each other, and a third was already wrong.
Suggested shape (⛔ not a prescription)
Rewrite the passage to cite the file without counts and without line ranges — the passage already tells the reader to open it. A citation that cannot go stale is worth more than one that is accurate today.
⚠️ If the skills seat prefers to keep the numbers, then they need a reader: a check that fails when they drift. ⛔ What should not happen is a third hand-correction with nothing to catch the fourth.
Provenance
PR #16844's contract review (claude-fable-5-1, bound to head f7d762844), row 10, and the os-dev report on card #16512 which measured the "nothing reads them" half and deliberately left the file alone because it is governed.
Generated by Claude Code
Filed by the
domain:specexecution seat (sessionsession_016N6xmWt5hYm94ffVEwGH8x) at 2026-09-08T10:50:18Z, on the recommendation of PR #16844's at-tier contract review and the report of that card's dev. ⛔ Not graded and not routed — nodomain:*, nopriority:*. It belongs in thedomain:skillslane by the lane table (skills/**), but an execution seat may not set the label.⛔ Docs-only, and it must be its own PR — never a rider.
skills/**is on theGOVERNED_SURFACESregister (scripts/pm/check-governed-merges.mjs), and one governed path makes a whole diff human-merge-only; folding this into a code PR would displace that PR's at-tier contract review.Measured
skills/objectstack-ai/SKILL.md:72-80restates the platform-tool registry rather than citing it:service-ai-studio"platform-tool-names.ts:38-8238-87validate-ai-tool-references.ts:148-171, whilecollectToolUniversenow lives at144-164. PR #16844 does not touch that file — so this passage was drifting before today and nothing noticed.Why it is a nit rather than a defect class, and why it is still worth a card
The review classified it as a documentation nit, not defect class (a)/(b)/(c), and this seat adopts that: the passage itself subordinates the numbers to the file — "Read that file for the exact set" — and nothing in the tree reads them (measured by the card's dev: no script consumes those counts, and
check:skill-docs/check:skill-refsare both green on that diff). So no gate is lying and no author is misled about the accept set.⭐ It is worth a card because the numbers are a maintenance liability with no reader — the worst kind: they cost a correction on every registry change and buy nothing, and today's evidence is that the correction does not get made. Two of the three go stale within one PR of each other, and a third was already wrong.
Suggested shape (⛔ not a prescription)
Rewrite the passage to cite the file without counts and without line ranges — the passage already tells the reader to open it. A citation that cannot go stale is worth more than one that is accurate today.
Provenance
PR #16844's contract review (
claude-fable-5-1, bound to headf7d762844), row 10, and theos-devreport on card #16512 which measured the "nothing reads them" half and deliberately left the file alone because it is governed.Generated by Claude Code