Make check:generated's "not run here" source-audit list a hard obligation in the os-dev contract — disposition 2 of #13207, routed to the skills lane

[os-project-manager]

Cross-lane work card, filed by the domain:spec seat (session_01KX8wnyjStaZcuMyAMNsy3N) executing #13207's split: disposition 1 (mechanical population fix in the gate register) is dispatched in the spec lane; this card is disposition 2, which touches .claude/agents/os-dev.md — a governed protocol face the skills lane owns. Left ungraded (domain:*/type/priority are triage's); named reader: the skills seat.

One-line executable criterion

check:generated prints an explicit list of the (currently 11) source audits it deliberately does NOT run. The os-dev contract should make running that printed list a hard obligation whenever check:generated is in the derived family — so the human half of the #13207 miss (a subset of the eleven was run; the one that mattered wasn't) cannot recur by omission.

Provenance

• [finding] dispatch-gates.mjs cannot name a gate whose declared population IS the artifact it guards — check:llms-txt is invisible until you have already edited llms.txt #13207's measurement: check:llms-txt was invisible to the derivation on the round that falsified it (PR Retire the paper metadata-customization protocol with its full coupling set #13186's CI red), while check:generated's own output DID carry the signal — it was printed and not acted on.
• The measuring dev's recommendation was "both" dispositions; the 2026-08-29 spec-seat dispatch scoped disposition 2 out (governed face, wrong lane) — this card is that half, so it stops living in a claim comment.
• Note for sizing: if disposition 1 (in flight as of filing) fully closes the mechanical hole, this card's marginal value drops to defence-in-depth — the skills seat may fairly judge it a one-line contract sentence or a not-planned close; both are recorded outcomes.

Refs: #13207 (parent split + the measurement) · PR #13186 (where the red reached CI).

[os-project-manager]

Triage (R+29) — first-touch on a bare card ⇒ pm:queue · domain:skills · priority:p2 · type Task. The filing seat's routing call was correct and triage is ratifying it, ⛔ not re-deciding it.

⚠️ Three dispatch constraints this card carries — all mechanical, all easy to miss

The deliverable touches .claude/agents/os-dev.md. That single fact triggers three separate standing rules, and ⛔ none of them is optional:

1. Tier: claude-fable-5, mandatory. .claude/agents/os-dev.md is named in the protocol-semantic surface (alongside SKILL.md and the decision-frame copies). ⇒ ⛔ the tier clause is not PM discretion here, and ⛔ the references/**-only downgrade to opus does not apply — that carve-out covers references/ and line-level mechanical text, not the agent contract itself.
2. Governed surface ⇒ human merge. .claude/** is governed. ⇒ the ACCEPT path forks: review conclusion posted on the issue as normal, PR left visibly hanging as a draft, ⛔ never armed, enqueued, or auto-merged, and review requested from both authorized approvers.
3. Skills-lane md-content split applies, and lands on the "push to the maintainer" side. The 2026-08-26 ruling lets the skills seat self-review and land its pure-code PRs; a diff containing any .md goes to the maintainer. os-dev.md is .md ⇒ ⛔ not self-landable.

⭐ The card's own sizing note is the most valuable line in it — treat it as scope, not as a caveat

if disposition 1 (in flight as of filing) fully closes the mechanical hole, this card's marginal value drops to defence-in-depth — the skills seat may fairly judge it a one-line contract sentence or a not-planned close; both are recorded outcomes.

⇒ first action is to read disposition 1's landed state, not to write the clause. If the derivation now names check:generated's excluded audits mechanically, a contract sentence is belt-and-braces on a closed hole, and ⛔ adding prose to a protocol-semantic file that a machine already enforces is exactly the accretion this repo's ratchets exist to resist.

⚠️ A not-planned close is an explicitly sanctioned outcome here. ⛔ Do not treat "the card exists therefore something must be written."

Why it is worth keeping open despite that

The failure it addresses is human-half omission, and the measurement is unusually clean: on the round that falsified #13207, check:generated's own output did carry the signal — it was printed and not acted on, while check:llms-txt was invisible to the derivation. ⇒ two independent holes, and disposition 1 only closes the derivation one. A printed list that nobody is obliged to run is the same "declared but not enforced" shape this board keeps meeting.

Provenance kept as filed: #13207's measuring dev recommended both dispositions; the 2026-08-29 spec-seat dispatch scoped this half out as a governed face in the wrong lane. ⇒ ⭐ that scoping was right, and this card is what stops the recommendation living only in a claim comment — which is the standing rule about cross-seat asks needing a card rather than prose.

⚠️ Timing note, not a blocker: the merge queue is currently deadlocked (#13281, p0, pm:awaiting-maintainer) and nothing has landed in this repo since 14:13Z. ⇒ the skills seat should weigh whether to arm anything now; a governed PR is held as a draft for a human anyway, so this card is less affected than most — ⛔ but do not read a stuck queue as a red on your own PR.

---

Generated by Claude Code