diff --git a/docs/specs/living-docs-regen-automation/decisions.md b/docs/specs/living-docs-regen-automation/decisions.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..06f4308
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/specs/living-docs-regen-automation/decisions.md
@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+# Decisions — Living-docs regen automation
+
+**Status:** draft — awaiting decision on Approach.
+**Owner:** Patrick
+
+## Problem
+
+Almost every code-touching PR in attune-gui needs a follow-up
+"regenerate sidecar templates" commit added by hand. The
+sidecar generates living-docs templates (`.help/templates/`)
+and a Vite editor bundle (`editor-frontend/dist/`) that are
+**both committed** to the repo. When source changes, the
+generated artifacts drift, and a contributor (or assistant)
+has to remember to regenerate and commit them in a second
+step.
+
+Recent examples — every one of these triggered a manual
+follow-up regen commit:
+
+- `30cc722` fix(specs) → `ac6b552` regenerate
+- `d282f21` test(mcp) → `7e01b1a` regenerate
+- `1657c2f` feat(mcp) → `db4c562` regenerate
+- `05489c1` feat(mcp/tools) → regenerate
+
+Across ~10 PRs over recent weeks, that's ~10 extra commits of
+mechanical work. The risk is not "we forget once" — the risk
+is *we forget often enough that stale generated files become
+the norm* and the living-docs system silently drifts from the
+source of truth.
+
+## Current state (verified 2026-05-23)
+
+- No git hooks installed (`.pre-commit-config.yaml`,
+  `.husky/`, `lefthook.yml` all absent).
+- A post-commit *webhook* exists (`scripts/install-living-docs-hook.sh`)
+  but it only **notifies the sidecar to scan** — it does
+  not regenerate.
+- CI (`.github/workflows/tests.yml`) runs ruff + pytest +
+  vitest typecheck. **It does not check for stale generated
+  artifacts.**
+- Generated artifacts are deterministic:
+  - Editor bundle uses Vite content-hashed filenames, no
+    timestamps in output.
+  - Living-docs templates have `generated_at` (timestamp)
+    and `source_hash` (content hash) frontmatter — `generated_at`
+    is the only intrinsic source of churn, and it's not
+    semantic.
+
+## Decision
+
+**Approach: CI-fail-if-stale + a single `make regen-all` target.**
+
+CI runs `make regen-all` then `git diff --exit-code`. If any
+generated file changed, CI fails with a clear message pointing
+the contributor at `make regen-all` to fix locally. No
+auto-commit, no bot, no pre-commit hook blocking local work.
+
+The contributor's loop becomes:
+
+```bash
+# After making source changes that touch templates or editor:
+make regen-all
+git add -u
+git commit -m "regenerate sidecar templates"
+```
+
+If they forget, CI tells them in the same PR run.
+
+### Why this and not the alternatives
+
+| Option | Pro | Con |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Pre-commit hook** (chosen against) | Catches drift at commit time. | Blocks local commits; slow (editor build is ~7s + author maintain on top); requires Node + uv on every contributor's machine; regen is partly async — hard to wait for completion in a hook; many contributors disable hooks. |
+| **Post-merge bot commit** (chosen against) | Zero friction; always-correct main. | Needs bot write access to main; conflicts with stacked-PR rebases; adds noise (one bot commit per PR); audit trail becomes "Claude regenerated these" rather than "Patrick approved these"; opaque. |
+| **CI fail-if-stale** (chosen) | Visible; deterministic; no bot access; one command for contributors; aligns incentives — the PR author owns the regen. | Adds friction of one extra command + commit per affected PR. (Net win: it's the friction we already pay manually, but now it's enforced, so we stop forgetting.) |
+| **Auto-regen commit in CI** (chosen against) | No contributor friction. | Same bot-access concerns as post-merge; harder to attribute changes; stacked-PR conflict surface. |
+
+## Scope
+
+**In scope:**
+
+1. New `make regen-all` target that runs:
+   - `make build-editor` (already exists at `Makefile:6-18`)
+   - `attune-author maintain` for the sidecar living-docs corpus
+   - Any other regen step we discover during implementation
+2. New CI job `regen-up-to-date` in `.github/workflows/tests.yml`:
+   - Installs node + uv
+   - Runs `make regen-all`
+   - Runs `git diff --exit-code -- .help/ editor-frontend/dist/` (paths refined during impl)
+   - On failure: prints a clear message with the fix command
+3. README update under `## Development` documenting the contract.
+
+**Out of scope:**
+
+- Pre-commit hooks (deliberately).
+- Any bot or automation that writes to main.
+- Migrating the post-commit-webhook scan trigger (separate concern).
+- Reducing the regen time itself (separate perf spec if it becomes painful).
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- `make regen-all` is a single command that produces a clean
+  working tree on a fresh checkout with no source changes.
+- CI fails a PR that modifies source-of-truth files without
+  regenerating, and the failure message names the fix command.
+- README documents `make regen-all` in the existing
+  `## Development` section.
+- No new commits land on `main` from any bot account.
+
+## Open questions
+
+1. What's the exact `attune-author maintain` invocation for
+   this repo's federated config? (Phase 1 task.)
+2. Should we gate the CI check behind a label (e.g. only run
+   `regen-up-to-date` when paths matching `sidecar/**` or
+   `editor-frontend/src/**` change) to keep PR feedback fast
+   for docs-only or test-only changes? Default: yes, conditional.
+3. CI runtime budget — `make build-editor` is ~7s; `attune-author maintain`
+   time unknown. If the combined regen-check exceeds 60s, revisit
+   whether to split it.
+
+## Phase outline (when this spec is approved)
+
+- **Phase 1** — Inventory the exact regen commands and write `make regen-all`.
+- **Phase 2** — Add the CI job, gated on relevant paths; verify it fails
+  intentionally on a stale-artifact PR before flipping it to required.
+- **Phase 3** — README update; make the contract official.