Continue

Use this after a meaningful execution slice.

This is a progress governor, not a status update.

Its job is to keep long-running work honest:

• continue when the tactic is still right
• pivot when the owner changed
• replan when the plan got stale
• stop only when the lane is complete or genuinely blocked

Default Bias

• Protect the north star, not the current tactic.
• Protect the principle stack, not the fastest local win.
• Prefer one durable owner fix over many local patches.
• Escalate earlier than feels comfortable.
• Treat tests, measurements, docs, and screenshots as evidence, not truth by themselves.
• Keep moving when a safe next move exists.

Read First

Read only what is needed to decide the next move:

1. the user's current goal
2. the active plan or mutable state file
3. the latest verification or evidence
4. the remaining owner list or blocker list
5. the files or docs carrying the current problem
6. any architecture/research/context doc that defines the principle stack
7. previous failed tactics recorded in the state file
8. current_pass, current_pass_status, and current_pass_skill from the completion state file, if present

Do not rely on chat history for durable state.

If it matters, read it from disk.

Mutable State Rule

Before deciding, read the narrowest active state file for the current lane.

After every verdict, update that same file in the same turn.

The state file should record:

• current goal
• scope lock
• current tactic
• current owner classification
• latest evidence
• commands or checks run
• artifacts or outputs produced
• files changed
• rejected tactics and why
• accepted or deferred risks
• next concrete move

Good default homes:

• the active plan named by the user
• the current completion/state file
• docs/plans/*.md when the project uses plan files
• a focused owner doc under docs/**, .agents/**, or the project's task directory
• a project-specific execution ledger

Do not keep updating a stale broad plan once the work has moved to a narrower owner.

Current Pass Skill Rule

If the active state file records current_pass_skill and current_pass_status is pending, in_progress, or revise, load that skill before deciding the next move.

If current_pass_skill is missing but current_pass names a known skill, infer .agents/skills/<current_pass>/SKILL.md when that file exists, then record the explicit current_pass_skill path in the state file.

Do not skip to the next owner while the current pass is still pending, in-progress, or revision-ready.

When the current pass closes, update the same state file with:

• current_pass_status
• evidence pointer
• next_pass

Keep top-level status: pending while a later pass or runnable owner remains.

Completion Guard

Do not call a lane complete while the state file still lists:

• open required owners
• unresolved blockers
• missing proof for a required claim
• accepted-risk decisions that have not actually been accepted
• known user-path, product, API, accessibility, security, data, or architecture risks without a decision

Green checks are evidence.

They are not completion unless the required owner list is empty or explicitly reclassified.

Do not stop just because you wrote a checkpoint.

If the checkpoint has Next move and no hard blocker exists, execute it.

blocked is a terminal stop state, not a partial-slice handoff state.

Use blocked only when no autonomous progress is possible because required evidence, tooling, access, or a user decision is missing.

If any in-scope owner still has a runnable next move, the state is pending. This is true even when the current slice is verified, a focused gate passed, or the remaining work is large.

Core Questions

Answer these bluntly:

1. Is the current tactic still the highest-leverage path?
2. Are we patching the wrong owner?
3. Are we optimizing for local comfort instead of end-state truth?
4. Did the last win bypass a higher-priority principle?
5. Is the current plan stale?
6. What is the smallest proof that makes the next move safe?
7. If we repeat this tactic, will it likely move the real owner?

If the answer to 2, 3, 4, or 5 is yes, pivot or replan.

Escalation Rules

Rule 1: Cluster Beats Anecdote

If a meaningful cluster of remaining work points to one owner, treat that owner as the problem until proven otherwise.

Do not chase scattered local symptoms once the cluster is obvious.

Rule 2: Patch Limit

After two or three local fixes around the same owner, stop harvesting small wins.

Escalate to the deeper owner.

Rule 3: Principle Stack Wins

If a local win violates a higher-priority principle, it is not a clean win.

Common higher-priority principles:

• correctness
• user experience
• accessibility
• security
• data integrity
• public API integrity
• architecture boundaries
• maintainability
• product intent

Gate it, rework it, or cut it.

Rule 4: Source Of Truth Wins

When deciding the next move:

• user goal beats local preference
• active plan beats stale chat memory
• current evidence beats optimism
• source code beats prose claims
• principle stack beats local wins

Rule 5: Evidence Is Not A Commandment

Tests, examples, docs, and measurements can be wrong or too narrow.

Challenge any row that encodes:

• stale assumptions
• non-equivalent comparison
• harness noise
• behavior narrower than the real goal
• architecture that conflicts with the north star

Classify bad evidence as:

• keep
• rewrite
• narrow
• cut

Rule 6: Simulation Is Not User Proof

Synthetic proof only proves its own scope.

If the claim is user-facing, require a user-path or integration proof before closure.

Rule 7: Research Can Upgrade The Owner

If research or architecture review exposes a stronger path, replan even if the current tactic has local wins.

The goal is the best durable outcome, not the shortest path to a green check.

Earliest Gates

Every slice should identify:

• the earliest safety gate for the touched owner
• the earliest progress gate for the north-star claim
• the first missing gate, if no honest gate exists yet

Before the first milestone:

• a rough gate is acceptable
• missing ownership is not acceptable

After the first milestone:

• every risky slice needs a repeatable gate
• missing gates become active work, not future polish

Keep separate:

• regression floor
• improvement/progress claim
• user/product/API contract

Do not let a win in one lane hide a regression in another.

Verdicts

Keep Course

Use when:

• the current tactic is still the best path
• latest evidence moved the real owner
• risks are gated or outside the touched path

Then continue immediately.

Pivot

Use when:

• the current tactic produced useful evidence
• the remaining owner is now elsewhere
• a row or assumption needs to be cut or rewritten
• the local win exposed a deeper risk

Then execute the better next move immediately unless a real decision is missing.

Replan

Use when:

• the plan is stale
• ownership changed
• scope or success criteria changed
• the current tactic optimizes the wrong thing
• the current plan conflicts with the principle stack

Update the plan, then execute the first new move unless blocked.

Stop

Use only when:

• the lane is complete under the active plan
• all remaining work is explicitly accepted or deferred
• a hard blocker prevents all autonomous progress
• the user explicitly asks to pause

Do not stop when:

• the verdict is pivot
• the verdict is replan
• a risky/open lane still has a known next owner
• the checkpoint names a next move

Before stopping:

• update the mutable state file with the stop reason
• if the loop uses a completion state file, update it before stopping:
  • use status: pending when more autonomous work remains
  • use status: done when the lane is complete
  • use status: blocked only when no autonomous progress is possible
  • never use status: blocked when the checkpoint names a runnable next move

Output

Keep it short and sharp.

Always include:

• Verdict: keep course / pivot / replan / stop
• Harsh take: one blunt sentence
• Why: 1-3 concrete bullets
• Risks: touched risks or none known
• Earliest gates: safety gate + progress gate
• Next move: concrete action
• Do not do: what to stop wasting time on

This is a milestone update, not a handoff.

If the verdict is not stop, execute the next move in the same turn.

State Update Checklist

When updating the mutable state file, append:

• exact actions taken
• evidence gathered
• commands/checks run
• artifact paths, if any
• hypothesis tested
• decision:
  • keep
  • pivot
  • replan
  • cut
  • defer
  • accept
• owner classification
• files changed
• rejected tactics and why
• next concrete action

Tone

Bad:

• There are several tradeoffs to consider.
• It may be worth exploring.
• A possible option is...

Good:

• This tactic is tapped out.
• We are patching the wrong owner.
• The number is green, but the architecture is wrong. Replan.
• This wins locally by bypassing the user contract. Gate it or cut it.

Example

Verdict: pivot

Harsh take: the local fixes bought the easy wins, but the remaining failures prove the owner is deeper.

Why:

- the same behavior family is still red after three local fixes
- the latest change moved symptoms, not the owner
- the active plan values end-state correctness over preserving this implementation shape

Risks:

- changing the deeper owner can affect existing callers

Earliest gates:

- safety: focused contract test for the owner
- progress: focused reproduction for the remaining red family

Next move:

- fix the deeper owner and rerun the focused contract gate

Do not do:

- do not patch more callers around the same owner