Bound provider log retention by age and size

.agents/references/skill-delivery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Skill delivery boundaries
+
+Use these terms consistently in implementation, PR, and delegation workflows. Resolve the requested delivery before taking side effects; explicit restrictions override defaults.
+
+| Delivery                              | Authorized actions                                                                             | Stop before                                                                                                 |
+| ------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Investigation-only / description-only | Inspect relevant context and report findings or compose text                                   | Editing, staging, committing, pushing, or creating/updating a PR                                            |
+| Implementation                        | Edit task-owned files and run required validation                                              | Committing or publication unless separately authorized by the request or applicable repository instructions |
+| Commit                                | Stage and commit only task-owned changes after validation                                      | Pushing or creating/updating a PR unless publication is authorized                                          |
+| Publication                           | Commit task-owned changes as needed, normal push, and create the requested ready-for-review PR | Merging, force-pushing, or changing unrelated PRs                                                           |
+
+"Draft a PR description" requests text, not a GitHub draft PR. "Create a PR" authorizes publication and defaults to ready-for-review; use draft status only when explicitly requested.
+
+Thread association is a persistent side effect, not read-only inspection. Investigation-only, description-only, implementation, and commit delivery do not authorize associating a PR to a thread. Publication includes association of the created or existing PR; an explicit request to associate an existing PR authorizes only that association, not publication or other mutations.
+
+"Prepare for review" alone does not authorize publication. Follow explicit implementation or commit instructions, otherwise inspect and report readiness without mutations. Ask only when a consequential ambiguity prevents safe progress.
+
+Honor "leave uncommitted", "do not push", and investigation-only limits in every invoked skill and child prompt. Do not pass permission blocks beyond the authorized delivery. If requested publication conflicts with an explicit restriction, stop at the permitted boundary and report the conflict.
+
+Report the actual delivery reached and any blocker. A successful commit is not a successful push or PR creation; a created PR with failed thread association still exists and must not be recreated.

.agents/skills/architect/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+name: architect
+description: Sketches types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stays in the loop while implementation fills in. Use when the user says architect, design this, or for non-trivial work where jumping to code would lock in the wrong shape.
+---
+
+# Architect
+
+Adapted from [backnotprop/pstack](https://github.com/backnotprop/pstack) `architect` (MIT).
+
+Design before implementing. Sketch types, function signatures, class shapes, and module boundaries with `not implemented` bodies and pseudocode. Synthesize across multiple model perspectives, then fill in code against the chosen sketch. If implementation proves the sketch wrong, throw it out and redesign.
+
+## Start
+
+Open a todolist with one entry per phase before starting.
+
+1. Ground
+2. Sketch
+3. Agree
+4. Implement
+5. Scrap
+
+## Phase A: Ground the problem
+
+Build a real mental model of every system the new code touches. Run the **how** skill over the relevant subsystems.
+
+Naming a file isn't grounding. Produce the traced model `how` prescribes. If the design redefines ownership or layering, also run the **why** skill on the existing shape so the rationale becomes a constraint, not a guess.
+
+Skip Phase A only when the work is genuinely greenfield with no surrounding system to integrate.
+
+## Phase B: Sketch
+
+Produce at least two structurally distinct design candidates, then synthesize them into one. Use parallel subagents when available (each candidate gets the task, the Phase A grounding artifacts, its own worktree or output path, `references/runner-prompt.md` as its prompt, and `references/rationale-template.md` as its output shape). Without a subagent tool, produce the candidates sequentially yourself. If the `arena` skill is installed, you may route this phase through it.
+
+Design it twice. Require at least two structurally distinct candidates before synthesis, even when the first looks sufficient. Whole-shape alternatives, not point fixes inside one shape.
+
+Screen every candidate against [`references/design-red-flags.md`](references/design-red-flags.md) before synthesis. Reject or revise shallow modules, information leakage, temporal decomposition, and pass-through methods.
+
+Compare viable candidates on interface depth. Prefer the design that hides more complexity behind a smaller, simpler public surface. A rich interface can keep call chains short by concentrating capability instead of scattering it across layers.
+
+Arena returns one synthesized design package. The synthesis decision populates the rationale's "Synthesis decision" section.
+
+## Phase C: Agree (opt-in)
+
+Default: proceed directly to implementation with the synthesized design. No human checkpoint.
+
+Opt in to a checkpoint when the invoker explicitly asks: "/architect with checkpoint," "stop and show me before implementing," or similar. Then surface the synthesized design and pause for sign-off.
+
+The synthesis can ship as its own commit either way, as the "scaffold first" mode of the **foundational-thinking** principle skill. Planned and scoped breakage during fill-in is fine, per the **outcome-oriented-execution** principle skill. For adversarial pressure on the design before implementing, run the **interrogate** skill on the synthesized sketch.
+
+If the human pushes back on the shape (in a checkpoint or after the fact), treat that as Phase A evidence. Re-ground and re-run Phase B before writing more code.
+
+## Phase D: Implement against the sketch
+
+Replace `not implemented` bodies with code, pseudocode with logic. The synthesized sketch is the contract.
+
+Deviations from the sketch are signal worth surfacing, not friction to absorb silently. If a function needs a parameter the sketch didn't anticipate, ask whether the sketch was wrong, the requirement was missed, or the implementation is overreaching.
+
+## Phase E: Scrap when the architecture is wrong
+
+If implementation keeps producing friction the sketch can't absorb, throw the sketch out. Don't bolt fixes onto a wrong design, per the **redesign-from-first-principles** and **fix-root-causes** principle skills.
+
+The signal is a _pattern_, not single instances. Tells:
+
+- The same shape of workaround appearing repeatedly across unrelated code.
+- Multiple unrelated edge cases that all need special-case branches.
+- Types that need escape hatches (`any`, casts, optional fields always set in practice) to compile.
+- The "we need a lock" reflex when the sketch said the state wasn't shared.
+- Callers having to know the abstraction's internal rules to use it.
+- Two or more independent Phase D deviations of the same shape across the implementation.
+
+Use judgment. A few edge cases don't condemn an architecture. Some problems are legitimately complex. Complexity in the data is not complexity in the design.
+
+When you scrap:
+
+1. Re-run the **how** skill over what's been built (or trace the built code directly when that skill is unavailable).
+2. Redesign as if the new constraints had been day-one assumptions.
+3. Subtract before adding. The new sketch should be smaller than the old one before it grows.
+4. Return to Phase B and sketch again.
+
+## Outputs
+
+The caller's usage is written first and the type sketch derived from it. One file with new types and signatures for small changes. Module map plus type definitions for larger work. The rationale ships alongside, shaped per `references/rationale-template.md`, including the usage sketch and the synthesis decision.

.agents/skills/architect/references/design-red-flags.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Design red flags
+
+Screen every candidate before synthesis. A red flag is a reason to revise or reject the shape.
+
+## Shallow module
+
+A shallow module exposes a large interface while hiding little complexity. Judge depth by the capability and policy hidden behind the public surface relative to the size of that surface. Prefer a simple interface backed by substantial behavior.
+
+Do not confuse a deep module with a deep call chain. A deep call chain scatters understanding across layers. A deep module concentrates capability behind one interface.
+
+Look for these signs:
+
+- Callers coordinate several methods to complete one operation.
+- Public options expose internal stages or implementation choices.
+- Learning the interface does not save the caller from learning the implementation.
+
+## Information leakage
+
+Information leakage makes multiple modules depend on the same internal decision. A representation, policy, or protocol detail appears in more than one place, so changing it requires coordinated edits.
+
+Public re-exports of transport or wire types are leakage. Parse external data into domain types behind the interface. Keep storage schemas, framework objects, and protocol details private.
+
+## Temporal decomposition
+
+Temporal decomposition organizes modules by execution order instead of the knowledge they own. Separate load, validate, transform, and save stages often repeat one representation and its invariants across several boundaries.
+
+Group code around domain knowledge and ownership. Methods that run at different times can still belong to one module when they protect the same decisions.
+
+## Pass-through method
+
+A pass-through method forwards the same arguments to another method with the same shape. It adds a layer without hiding complexity.
+
+Remove it or move responsibility to the module that can complete the operation. Keep a forwarding boundary only when it adds policy, adaptation, or a distinct abstraction.

.agents/skills/architect/references/rationale-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Rationale template
+
+The prose that ships alongside the type sketch. One page. Sentence-case headings, no boilerplate. Replace the italic notes with actual content.
+
+## Problem
+
+_One paragraph. What we're trying to do, and what about the existing system or constraints makes the shape non-obvious. If [Phase A](../SKILL.md#phase-a-ground-the-problem) surfaced constraints the design must honor (existing types to interop with, callers we can't break, invariants that crossed our boundary), name them here so the reader sees the same constraints you saw._
+
+## Usage (caller's view)
+
+_Write this first, before the type sketch. Show the README or quickstart the consumer reads, plus two or three realistic call sites in their own code. What they import, what they call, what comes back. The type sketch in [Shape](#shape) is derived from this. The two must agree. When they diverge, reconcile the sketch to the usage, not the reverse. The caller's experience is the spec. The types serve it._
+
+## Shape
+
+_The recommended architecture. Data structures first. Then how data flows through the signatures. Name the load-bearing decisions. State which invariants are encoded in types, where validation lives, and what the system deliberately does not do. Judge interface depth explicitly. State what complexity the public surface hides, what remains exposed to callers, and why the interface is no larger than needed. Cite the principle behind each decision (e.g., `per boundary-discipline`). Don't restate it._
+
+## Synthesis decision
+
+_Filled in by [arena](../../arena/SKILL.md). Records which candidate became the base and why, what was adapted from each of the others, and what was rejected and why._
+
+## Tradeoffs accepted
+
+_One bullet per tradeoff the chosen shape makes. Form: "we accept X in exchange for Y." Name anything a future reader might mistake for an oversight, including things that look like premature optimization or premature simplification._
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+_Required. Name at least one concrete alternative shape, with one line on why it lost. Judge each alternative on interface depth, not implementation simplicity alone. Name the complexity it exposes to callers and the complexity it hides. Two or three alternatives belong here when the design space had real contenders. One is fine when the constraints forced the answer, with the conclusion phrased as "this was the only viable shape because..." Avoid listing flavors of the same shape. This section covers design alternatives the chosen shape considered and rejected, not other runner candidates._
+
+## Open questions and risks
+
+_Things you noticed during the sketch that the human needs to weigh in on, and risks worth flagging before implementation starts. Phrase as questions, not assertions, so the human's answer is the resolution rather than a comment._
+
+## Next implementation step
+
+_The first thing to build against the sketch. One sentence. What you'd start writing immediately after synthesis (or after Phase D sign-off, if a checkpoint was opted into)._

.agents/skills/architect/references/runner-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Architect runner prompt
+
+The orchestrator passes this file through to every parallel candidate runner during Phase B and fills in the variable inputs around it: the task, the Phase A grounding artifacts, the isolated working directory, and the path to write outputs. The working directory is a git worktree when available, otherwise a per-runner subdirectory under the sketch dir. What matters is independence between candidates.
+
+You are producing one candidate design in architect's parallel exploration. Read the **architect** skill in full first. That's the workflow you're inside. Output a candidate design package: type sketch, function signatures, module map, and prose rationale shaped per [`rationale-template.md`](rationale-template.md).
+
+Apply the following discipline. The orchestrator compares candidates on these axes to pick a base.
+
+- Caller's usage first. Write the README-style usage and two or three real call sites before the types, then derive the type sketch from them. The usage is the spec. The two must agree, so reconcile the sketch to the usage, not the reverse.
+- Data structures first. Get the core types right and the code becomes obvious. Trace each dominant access pattern through the proposed structure. If the answer is "we'll add a map / index / cache later," the structure is wrong.
+- Interface depth. Compare the capability hidden behind the public surface relative to the size of that surface. Prefer a simple interface that pulls complexity into the callee, even when the implementation becomes less simple. Do not put transport or wire types on the public API. Parse into domain types behind the interface.
+- Shared state: if two actors might both write, ask "what happens?" If the answer isn't "nothing," default to per-actor state with a merge at the read boundary, per the **separate-before-serializing-shared-state** principle skill.
+- Make boundaries visible. `not implemented` errors for bodies, `// TODO` pseudocode for tricky logic, doc comments stating intent and invariants. A reader should trace data from input to output by reading types and signatures alone.
+- Encode invariants in types: hard-to-misuse types > runtime checks > prose comments, per the **encode-lessons-in-structure** principle skill.
+- Validate at boundaries, trust types inside, per the **boundary-discipline** principle skill. Business logic as pure functions. The shell stays thin.
+- Single source of truth per invariant. Derive instead of sync.
+- Idempotent state transitions where applicable, per the **make-operations-idempotent** principle skill. Ask what happens if the operation runs twice or crashes halfway.
+- Short call chains. If tracing the flow needs more than three files, flatten the hierarchy, per the **laziness-protocol** and **minimize-reader-load** principle skills.
+
+You are one of several runners, each on a different model. Produce the best design your model can make. Don't hedge against the others. Differences between candidates are the signal used to pick a base and graft. Converging on a safe-looking middle defeats the exploration.