Round 83: composable prompt Primary workflow surface parity

Panel EU–EX: strict Primary workflow surface(s) ↔ *_SKILL_LINKS for
02-engineering–06-repo, engineering prompt trim, supporting-lens guard
for runtime-trust-boundary; defer holdout expansion; reject router/benchmark CI.

- Trim engineering prompts; add Escalate/Adjacent scope bullets
- Extend test_prompt_cross_links with ENGINEERING_SKILL_LINKS and parity tests
- Sync governance docs to Round 83; pytest anti-drift floor 500+

Author: johnteee

README.md

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Full library docs: [reflective-prompt-library/README.md](reflective-prompt-libra
 ## Governance
 
 - **Contributing:** [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md) — quality gates, routing maintenance (R8–R12), `make all`
-- **Panel record:** [multi-agent-panel-consensus](reflective-prompt-library/plans/multi-agent-panel-consensus-2026-06-25.md) — six-lens Socratic consensus (Rounds 1–82)
+- **Panel record:** [multi-agent-panel-consensus](reflective-prompt-library/plans/multi-agent-panel-consensus-2026-06-25.md) — six-lens Socratic consensus (Rounds 1–83)
 - **Operator playbook:** [GLOSSARY.md](reflective-prompt-library/GLOSSARY.md) — Governance Maintenance Playbook
 
 The repository contains:

reflective-prompt-library/02-engineering/code-reviewer.md

@@ -4,11 +4,12 @@ Use this to review a PR, diff, code sample, or AI-generated code against spec, a
 
 ## Purpose
 
-Review diffs against spec, tests, and risks. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-review`; pair with `reflective-minimality` for complexity-only findings and `01-thinking/critical-thinking-check.md` for claim audits.
+Review diffs against spec, tests, and risks. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-review`. Pairs with `01-thinking/critical-thinking-check.md` for claim audits.
 
 ## Scope
 
 - In scope: correctness, test integrity, architecture fit, spec traceability, required fixes.
+- Escalate: pair with `reflective-minimality` for complexity-only findings.
 - Out of scope: writing the spec (`reflective-spec-plan`), implementing fixes (`reflective-implement`).
 
 ## Acceptance Criteria

reflective-prompt-library/02-engineering/implementation-agent.md

@@ -4,11 +4,12 @@ Suitable for Codex, Cursor, OpenCode, Claude Code, and other repo-aware coding a
 
 ## Purpose
 
-Repo-aware implementation with traceability. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-implement`; escalate to `reflective-risk` before trust-boundary or high-blast-radius changes. Pairs with `01-thinking/counterargument.md` for simpler alternatives before adding code.
+Repo-aware implementation with traceability. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-implement`. Pairs with `01-thinking/counterargument.md` for simpler alternatives before adding code.
 
 ## Scope
 
 - In scope: minimal safe edits, tests per acceptance criterion, spec-to-code traceability, residual risk report.
+- Escalate: route to `reflective-risk` before trust-boundary or high-blast-radius changes.
 - Out of scope: spec authoring (`reflective-spec-plan`), complexity-only review (`reflective-minimality`).
 
 ## Acceptance Criteria

reflective-prompt-library/02-engineering/local-feedback.md

@@ -4,11 +4,12 @@ Use this when something fails.
 
 ## Purpose
 
-Structured LOCAL_FEEDBACK loop for failures during implementation. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-implement`; escalate to `reflective-review` when the failure implicates spec or test adequacy. Pairs with `01-thinking/critical-thinking-check.md` for evidence and assumption audits.
+Structured LOCAL_FEEDBACK loop for failures during implementation. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-implement`. Pairs with `01-thinking/critical-thinking-check.md` for evidence and assumption audits.
 
 ## Scope
 
 - In scope: step, evidence, root cause, correction, verification, anti-regression rule.
+- Escalate: route to `reflective-review` when the failure implicates spec or test adequacy.
 - Out of scope: spec rewriting (`reflective-spec-plan`), formal blast-radius gating (`reflective-risk`).
 
 ## Acceptance Criteria

reflective-prompt-library/02-engineering/task-start.md

@@ -4,11 +4,12 @@ Use this at the start of a new task before implementation.
 
 ## Purpose
 
-Establish a task brief before implementation. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-brief`; escalate to `reflective-spec-plan` when the brief is ready for ticket slicing. Pairs with `01-thinking/why-what-how-done.md` and `01-thinking/falsifiability.md`.
+Establish a task brief before implementation. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-brief`. Pairs with `01-thinking/why-what-how-done.md` and `01-thinking/falsifiability.md`.
 
 ## Scope
 
 - In scope: goal, assumptions, scope boundaries, acceptance criteria, falsifiability, minimal plan before coding.
+- Escalate: route to `reflective-spec-plan` when the brief is ready for ticket slicing.
 - Out of scope: repository edits (`reflective-implement`), formal blast-radius gating (`reflective-risk`).
 
 ## Acceptance Criteria

reflective-prompt-library/02-engineering/usage-first.md

@@ -4,11 +4,12 @@ Use this to avoid specs that look good but are awkward in practice.
 
 ## Purpose
 
-Derive usage-driven spec fixes before implementation. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-spec-plan`; pair with `reflective-brief` when goals are still fuzzy. Pairs with `01-thinking/socratic-reviewer.md` to clarify the real user problem.
+Derive usage-driven spec fixes before implementation. Primary workflow surface: `reflective-spec-plan`. Pairs with `01-thinking/socratic-reviewer.md` to clarify the real user problem.
 
 ## Scope
 
 - In scope: personas, scenarios, I/O examples, confusion points, spec revisions from usage narrative.
+- Adjacent: pair with `reflective-brief` when goals are still fuzzy.
 - Out of scope: code changes (`reflective-implement`).
 
 ## Acceptance Criteria

reflective-prompt-library/GLOSSARY.md

@@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ Curated top-of-cheatsheet summary of high-confusion routing traps (ROUTE-002 hol
 
 ## Governance Maintenance Playbook / 治理維護手冊
 
-Ongoing upkeep after panel close (Rounds 1–82). Not agent instructions — operator checklist.
+Ongoing upkeep after panel close (Rounds 1–83). Not agent instructions — operator checklist.
 
 **Operational test:** Before router tuning, add fresh ROUTE-002/003 holdout phrases; run `make all`; record decisions in `PROJECT_KNOWLEDGE.md` Decision Index when governance surface changes.
 
@@ -355,3 +355,4 @@ Ongoing upkeep after panel close (Rounds 1–82). Not agent instructions — ope
 12. When adding or editing `01-thinking/` lenses, keep `## Human Review` in the preamble (routes to `reflective-risk`) and run `test_thinking_prompts_eval_harness.py`.
 13. When editing workflow skill Escalation bullets, cite only frozen `reflective-*` skills; run `test_skill_module_contract.py` escalation route guard.
 14. When editing `01-thinking/` Purpose preambles, keep `Primary workflow surfaces` aligned exactly with `SKILL_THINKING_SOURCES` via `test_thinking_lens_primary_surfaces_match_consumer_graph`; put escalations and adjacent workflow notes in Scope or Human Review, not on the primary line.
+15. When editing composable prompts (`02-engineering`–`06-repo`), keep `Primary workflow surface(s)` aligned with `*_SKILL_LINKS` in `test_prompt_cross_links.py`; use Supporting lens for cross-cutting lenses like `runtime-trust-boundary.md`; put escalate/pair notes in Scope.

reflective-prompt-library/PROJECT_KNOWLEDGE.md

@@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ deferred promotions are recurrence-gated — see [panel backlog](plans/multi-age
 
 ## Decision Index
 
+- 2026-06-25 Round 83 panel — composable prompt Primary workflow surface parity (`02-engineering`–`06-repo`) + supporting-lens exemption → [record](plans/multi-agent-panel-consensus-2026-06-25.md)
 > Pointers to the causal trail — plans, reflections, tests, commits. Detail is
 > not duplicated here; this is a map, not an archive.
 

reflective-prompt-library/README.md

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Pick **Strictness L1–L6** first (`skills/reflective-dispatch/SKILL.md`, [GLOSS
 
 ## Governance Panel Record
 
-Multi-agent Socratic consensus on project goals and the nine skills (Rounds 1–82, options A–ET) is recorded in [plans/multi-agent-panel-consensus-2026-06-25.md](plans/multi-agent-panel-consensus-2026-06-25.md). Run `make all` before claiming routing or governance changes are verified.
+Multi-agent Socratic consensus on project goals and the nine skills (Rounds 1–83, options A–EU) is recorded in [plans/multi-agent-panel-consensus-2026-06-25.md](plans/multi-agent-panel-consensus-2026-06-25.md). Run `make all` before claiming routing or governance changes are verified.
 
 ## Directory Map
 

reflective-prompt-library/plans/QUALITY_GATES_SUMMARY.md

@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ ROUTE-002 measures unseen phrasing separately from ROUTE-001. Round 7 (2026-06-2
 2. **ROUTE-001/002/003 in CI** — 128 + 102 + 53 paraphrases at 100% consistency (seeded fixtures); `validate_route_fixture.py` gates minimum coverage
 3. **Governance validators** — links, lint, governance metadata, PROJECT_KNOWLEDGE, benchmark fixture, skill examples
 4. **Harness policy docs** — CONTRIBUTING, AGENTS, SKILL_INSTALLATION, maintenance playbook
-5. **Doc anti-drift** — `test_routing_contract.py`, cheatsheet parity tests, `test_readme_governance.py`, `test_thinking_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_engineering_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_prompt_cross_links.py`, `test_core_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_agent_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_context_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_domain_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_repo_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_validate_governance.py`, `test_validate_links.py`, `test_lint_skills.py`, `test_skill_module_contract.py` (Escalation subsection + Trigger/Methods/Output/Never; 450+ pytest anti-drift suite in CI); reciprocal thinking-lens ↔ skill checks in `test_prompt_cross_links.py` (including strict Primary workflow surfaces parity via `test_thinking_lens_primary_surfaces_match_consumer_graph`); Human Review + Escalation route-target guards in thinking/skill contract tests
+5. **Doc anti-drift** — `test_routing_contract.py`, cheatsheet parity tests, `test_readme_governance.py`, `test_thinking_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_engineering_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_prompt_cross_links.py`, `test_core_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_agent_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_context_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_domain_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_repo_prompts_eval_harness.py`, `test_validate_governance.py`, `test_validate_links.py`, `test_lint_skills.py`, `test_skill_module_contract.py` (Escalation subsection + Trigger/Methods/Output/Never; 500+ pytest anti-drift suite in CI); reciprocal thinking-lens ↔ skill checks and composable `Primary workflow surface(s)` ↔ `*_SKILL_LINKS` parity in `test_prompt_cross_links.py` (including strict Primary workflow surfaces parity via `test_thinking_lens_primary_surfaces_match_consumer_graph`); Human Review + Escalation route-target guards in thinking/skill contract tests
 
 ### Ongoing maintenance (not blockers)
 
@@ -384,4 +384,4 @@ Phase 1 quality-gate tooling and documentation are **complete**. Routing consist
 - ✅ Benchmark fixture gate plus optional manual benchmark runs
 - ✅ Research-backed design decisions
 
-The project is positioned to grow sustainably with quality discipline built in from the start. **No open implementation blockers** remain from panel Rounds 1–82; work is recurrence-gated maintenance per playbook. The next measurable quality target is **holdout expansion before router tuning** and optional manual baseline-vs-skill benchmark runs — not shipping new core skills without promotion evidence.
+The project is positioned to grow sustainably with quality discipline built in from the start. **No open implementation blockers** remain from panel Rounds 1–83; work is recurrence-gated maintenance per playbook. The next measurable quality target is **holdout expansion before router tuning** and optional manual baseline-vs-skill benchmark runs — not shipping new core skills without promotion evidence.