[refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12)

[loning]

SKILL↔REFERENCE split 缺 anchor/contract 守卫,#12 落地后移出段会漂移(skill-improvement-3 WU-9)

producer-3 发现 WU-9。完整 evidence 见 .refactor-loop/runs/skill-improvement-3.md 第 9 条。

#12 把 SKILL.md 大量内容移入 REFERENCE.md 后,SKILL 的 anchor 链接与 REFERENCE 段落无自动一致性守卫,后续编辑易漂移。设计一个 anchor/contract 守卫测试(衔接 #12,可能在 #12 merge 后落地)。走 Phase 9。📢 cc @loning

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

[loning]

📊 状态卡片 — solver 派出

维度	值
阶段	派出 codex(role=solver)
codex log	phase9-issue28-r1.log
工作目录	/Users/auric/consensus-rnd
no-output stall window	5400s(~90 min 无输出窗口)
上下文	Phase 9 r1 启动:SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫 (skill-improvement #9, 衔接 #12)。三 solver 评估 anchor 链接完整性自动校验。
下一步自动会做	1. 三 solver SOLVER_DONE:... 2. controller 派 meta-judge r 3. consensus → implement / converge → fresh round
是否需要人介入	❌ 否(自动推进)

🤖 controller status banner

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

[loning]

🤖 Phase 9 Solver — minimal: issue #28 evidence stale

TL;DR

• 这是什么: minimal solver 对 issue [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28(SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫)的独立结论。
• 结论:当前源码已存在 anchor guard 测试,且被 CI discover,所以我判定为 false-positive/stale evidence。
• 下一步:controller/meta-judge 可把 [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 当作已由现有实现覆盖,不需要再派 implement。

---

详细说明

我核对了 #28 body、CLAUDE.md/README.md、当前 SKILL.md/REFERENCE.md、.github/workflows/consensus-rnd-ci.yml 和现有测试。原 evidence 要求的是:给 #12 的 SKILL/REFERENCE 拆分补稳定 anchor 与 source-regression 守卫。当前 skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py 已检查 SKILL.md 中所有 REFERENCE.md#... 链接可解析、必需 split section 存在、入口不含绝对 reference 链接,并保持 heavy manual 在 REFERENCE.md。

我本地运行该测试,结果为 Ran 8 tests ... OK。CI 的 contract-tests job 也通过 python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_*.py' discover 该测试。因此最小变更边界是“不新增实现”,避免为了已解决的 anchor 漂移问题再引入额外 manifest / back-reference abstraction。

---

📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)

---

solver: minimal
issue: 28
cluster: skill-anchor-guard
verdict: abstain

Recommended framing

The original WU-9 violation is already fixed in the current source, so the minimal-change answer is no new plan. Issue #28 asked for a lightweight SKILL.md to REFERENCE.md anchor/contract guard after the #12 split. Current skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py already verifies that every SKILL.md REFERENCE.md#... link resolves, required split sections exist, absolute reference links are absent, and the split keeps heavy details in REFERENCE.md; .github/workflows/consensus-rnd-ci.yml runs python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_*.py', so the guard is enforced by CI.

Concrete plan (English)

• Files: no source changes.
• LOC delta: ~+0 / -0.
• Tests to add/modify: none; existing skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py covers the cited anchor drift class and passes locally (Ran 8 tests ... OK).
• Philosophy/PROJECT_RULES/SPEC/Tier change: none. The fix does not need new CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md language, Tier changes, or controller abstractions.
• Migration path: no migration needed; controller/meta-judge should treat this solver result as stale evidence for issue [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28, not as a new implementation plan.

Concrete plan (中文)

• 文件:不改源码。
• LOC delta:约 +0 / -0。
• 测试新增/修改:无;现有 skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py 已覆盖本 issue 指出的 anchor 漂移类型,并且本地通过(Ran 8 tests ... OK)。
• Philosophy/PROJECT_RULES/SPEC/Tier 变更:无。不需要改 CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md,不需要 Tier 变更,也不需要新增 controller 抽象。
• 迁移路径:无需迁移;controller/meta-judge 应把本 solver 结果视为 issue [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 的 stale evidence,而不是新的落地计划。

Risks

• If maintainers want stronger semantic equivalence checks between SKILL contract rows and REFERENCE prose, that is a new scope beyond WU-9's cited missing-anchor guard.
• The current guard is structural, not semantic: it proves links and required anchors exist, not that the detailed prose remains logically identical to the entrypoint summary.
• Leaving issue [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 open may keep Phase 9 workers re-evaluating an already-landed fix unless the controller closes or supersedes it.

Escalation triggers (if any)

• none

Reasoning trace (internal — short, for meta-judge)

• Why this is the minimum: the exact violation was "no stable anchors / no source test"; current source has stable REFERENCE.md#... links from SKILL.md, required anchor assertions, and a CI-discovered unittest.
• What I considered but rejected: adding a new manifest of contract rows or bidirectional back-reference table; that would add structure after the concrete audit gap is already covered.
• What I cannot decide alone: whether to close issue [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 as already fixed by refactor(skill): SKILL.md 拆分 controller 契约 + REFERENCE.md(#12 共识) #30/refactor(skill): Wake source 3 lane(daemon-event Monitor)(#35 共识) #43/feat(skill): phase9_router_daemon.py narrow Phase 9 direct-dispatch(#37 共识) #44 lineage or leave it to controller lifecycle policy.

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧
SOLVER_DONE:minimal:false-positive:SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor guard already exists and passes in CI-discovered tests

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

[loning]

🤖 delete solver: #28 已有 anchor 守卫,不建议新增实现

TL;DR

• 这是什么:delete 视角复核 [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 的 SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫需求。
• 结论:现有 test_skill_reference_anchors.py 已覆盖并进入 CI,本地 8 个测试通过。
• 下一步:建议 meta-judge 将 [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 判为 already satisfied/false positive,不要新增第二套 checker。

---

详细说明

#28 的权威 issue body 指向 #12 拆分后的 anchor 漂移风险。我反查当前树后发现守卫已经存在:skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py 会验证 SKILL.md 中全部 REFERENCE.md#... 链接可解析、必需拆分段落仍在、入口与 reference 的体量关系仍成立,并限制绝对路径链接回归。

这不是死代码: .github/workflows/consensus-rnd-ci.yml 的 contract-tests job 运行 python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_*.py',会自动包含该测试。本地定向运行结果为 8 tests OK。因此 delete 视角不建议删现有测试,而是删除“继续新增实现”的需求,避免重复 checker / manifest / daemon / 文档层。

---

📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)

---

solver: delete
issue: 28
cluster: skill-anchor-guard
verdict: abstain

Classification

e) Genuinely needed and right-sized, with current issue scope already satisfied in-tree.

Recommended action (English)

Treat issue #28 as a false positive for new work: the SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor guard already exists as skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py, is wired into the contract-tests CI job through unittest discovery, and currently passes 8 tests. Do not add another checker, manifest, daemon, or documentation layer. Keep the existing test because it is the only narrow automated guard that turns lazy REFERENCE.md#... drift into a CI failure after the #12 split.

Recommended action (中文)

将 #28 判为“无需新增实现”的误报:SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫已经存在于 skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py,并且通过 contract-tests CI 的 unittest discovery 自动执行,当前 8 个测试全部通过。不要再增加第二套 checker、manifest、daemon 或文档层。保留现有测试,因为它是 #12 拆分后唯一把 REFERENCE.md#... 漂移转成 CI 失败的窄守卫。

Concrete plan (if propose)

• Files to delete: none
• Caller migrations: none
• Tests to delete: none
• LOC delta: -0
• Philosophy/CLAUDE.md/SPEC/Tier changes (if any): none
• Tracking issue (if defer): none; do not defer. Close/resolve [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 as already satisfied if meta-judge confirms this evidence.

Reverse-evidence (why this is safe to delete)

• No new public API is needed: SKILL.md already links heavy material through REFERENCE.md#... anchors, and test_skill_reference_anchors.py validates every such link resolves.
• No external repo dependency is touched: this recommendation deletes no source and changes no runtime behavior.
• Tests covering the path are load-bearing, so they should not be deleted: test_all_skill_reference_links_resolve catches broken lazy links; test_reference_contains_required_split_sections catches removal of required split sections; size and absolute-path checks protect the SKILL/REFERENCE split shape.
• CI already runs the guard: .github/workflows/consensus-rnd-ci.yml executes python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_*.py', which includes test_skill_reference_anchors.py.
• Local verification passed: python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_skill_reference_anchors.py' ran 8 tests successfully.
• Provenance matches the cluster: git blame shows the guard was introduced by 7933e5e refactor(skill): SKILL.md 拆分 controller 契约 + REFERENCE.md(#12 共识) (#30), the same split named in [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28.

Risks

• If the maintainer expected a different class of “contract guard” beyond link existence, required anchors, split size, and source-regression sentinels, then issue [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28’s body is underspecified relative to the existing implementation.
• If CI discovery is later narrowed away from test_*.py, this guard would silently stop running; that would be a [refactor-design] 建立项目 CI harness:Actions + lint + 版本同步 + 分支保护(维护者要求) #31 CI enforcement regression, not a reason to duplicate this checker now.
• The current test is intentionally source-regression oriented, not a Markdown parser. That is acceptable for this repository because the lazy links are simple REFERENCE.md#anchor links and explicit <a id="..."></a> anchors.

Escalation triggers (if any)

• none

Reasoning trace (internal — for meta-judge)

• Why I claim this can be deleted: I do not claim the existing guard can be deleted. I claim the remaining requested work can be deleted because the requested anchor/contract guard already exists and is CI-enforced; adding another implementation would duplicate a narrow, passing contract test.
• What I checked to verify safety: gh issue view 28 --json number,title,body,comments,labels,state,author,url; CLAUDE.md; AGENTS.md via symlinked content; README.md; .github/workflows/consensus-rnd-ci.yml; git log --oneline -n 25; git log --oneline -- skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md skills/codex-refactor-loop/REFERENCE.md; git blame --line-porcelain skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py; rg -n "REFERENCE.md#|test_skill_reference_anchors|anchor|contract" skills/codex-refactor-loop .github README.md CLAUDE.md; and the targeted unittest command.
• What I cannot decide alone: whether meta-judge should close [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 as already satisfied or ask minimal/structural solvers to rename/clarify the existing test. I see no deletion-safe improvement beyond not adding duplicate machinery.

SOLVER_DONE:delete:false-positive:issue28 anchor guard already exists as CI-run test_skill_reference_anchors.py; keep it and add no duplicate checker

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

[loning]

🤖 structural solver: anchor 守卫建议

TL;DR

• 这是什么:issue [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 的 structural solver 方案,按 issue 正文聚焦 SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫。
• 结论:建议用现有 source-regression 测试层做确定性守卫,不新增 controller/runtime 抽象。
• 下一步:controller 可等待另外两个 solver 后交给 meta-judge 收敛。

---

详细说明

我按 gh issue view 28 的权威正文处理:这是 SKILL.md 拆出 REFERENCE.md 后缺少 anchor/contract 自动校验的问题。结构上最干净的方案是把它纳入现有 Python unittest source-regression 套件:解析 SKILL.md 中所有 REFERENCE.md#... 链接,从 REFERENCE.md 的显式 <a id> 和 Markdown heading slug 建立 anchor 集合,并校验重型内容仍留在 REFERENCE 而不是回流入口文件。

这个方案没有运行时成本,也不改变 Phase 9/controller 权限边界。它把 #12 已经接受的拆分变成可测试契约,后续改段名、删 anchor、写绝对路径、或把模板/schema 搬回 SKILL.md 都会在合并前失败。

---

📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)

---
solver: structural
issue: 28
cluster: skill-anchor-guard
verdict: propose
---

## PROJECT_RULES clause violated (quoted verbatim)
> 重型参考拆 `REFERENCE.md`;脚本放 `scripts/`;prompt 模板放 `prompts/`。

> `skills/codex-refactor-loop/` 为 host 项目移植,**verbatim**,仍带"重构"外壳与少量 host 主张。泛化路线见 `README.md` 的「泛化路线」。脱壳 / 重命名前不要改它的正文逻辑；例外：经 Phase 9 deep consensus 明确授权的 host-agnostic bootstrap / policy 注入修正可先落地，但不得引入具体 host 事实，且必须配套行为测试。

## Recommended framing (English)
The violation is not missing runtime machinery; it is that the SKILL.md to REFERENCE.md split created a human-maintained contract with no deterministic conformance check. Add a bounded source-regression test module for the split: every `REFERENCE.md#anchor` link in SKILL.md must resolve, every required lazy section must exist, SKILL.md must keep only local controller invariants plus lazy links, and REFERENCE.md must remain the heavy manual. This eliminates drift by construction because any future edit that renames or removes a referenced section, reintroduces absolute links, or moves heavy content back into the entrypoint fails the normal dogfood test command before merge.

## Recommended framing (中文)
这个问题不需要新的运行时机制；问题是 SKILL.md 和 REFERENCE.md 拆分后形成了人工维护契约,但没有确定性一致性检查。应新增一个有边界的 source-regression 测试模块来守住拆分:SKILL.md 里的每个 `REFERENCE.md#anchor` 必须能解析,所有必须懒加载的 REFERENCE 段落必须存在,SKILL.md 只保留 controller 本地硬不变量与懒链接,REFERENCE.md 继续承载重型手册。这样后续任何改名、删段、绝对路径链接、或把重型内容搬回入口文件的编辑都会在常规 dogfood 测试命令里失败,漂移不能静默进入合并。

## Concrete plan
- New abstractions (if any): none. Use the existing `unittest` source-regression pattern under the skill script layer. A named abstraction such as `SkillReferenceContract` is not justified: there is one caller, and the extension point is the existing TEST_CMD/source-regression suite.
- Files:
  - `skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py`: add or keep as the dedicated split-guard test module. It should parse SKILL.md links, derive REFERENCE explicit `<a id="..."></a>` plus Markdown heading slugs, and assert contract invariants.
  - `skills/codex-refactor-loop/SKILL.md`: no functional rewrite. Only add a short named note if consensus wants the guard mentioned near `Anchor Read Policy`; otherwise leave text unchanged.
  - `skills/codex-refactor-loop/REFERENCE.md`: no functional rewrite. Only add missing explicit anchors if tests reveal unresolved required sections.
  - No `.github/`, release, merge-gate, label, daemon, or host policy files.
- LOC delta: ~+105 / -0 if the test module does not exist; ~+20 / -0 if strengthening the current module only. Expected final module size: 110-140 LOC.
- Tests to add:
  - `test_all_skill_reference_links_resolve`: every `REFERENCE.md#...` link in SKILL.md resolves to either an explicit id or Markdown heading slug in REFERENCE.md.
  - `test_reference_contains_required_split_sections`: required lazy anchors exist for controller contract details, host runtime details, status templates, WorkUnitV1, state schema, batching heuristics, recovery playbook, daemon command bodies, label bootstrap loops, and historical bilingual notes.
  - `test_reference_is_the_heavy_manual_after_split`: REFERENCE.md line count remains greater than SKILL.md by at least 2x, and SKILL.md remains within its controller-entrypoint budget.
  - `test_no_absolute_reference_links_in_entrypoint`: SKILL.md does not link to `/Users/...` or absolute REFERENCE anchors.
  - `test_heavy_reference_material_is_not_in_entrypoint`: representative heavy schemas/templates/command bodies remain in REFERENCE.md, not SKILL.md.
  - Optional current-regression tests for newly merged #35/#37 anchor material may remain in the same file if they assert the split boundary rather than daemon behavior.
- proto changes (if any): none.
- Philosophy/PROJECT_RULES/SPEC/Tier changes (if any): none. This is a host-agnostic test-only guard inside the existing skill script/test layer. It does not change CLAUDE.md, L0/L1/L2 boundaries, SPEC, conformance, trusted_base wording, actor vocabulary, or controller runtime authority. Deep consensus should hold because the plan enforces an already accepted #12 split instead of expanding policy.
- Runtime cost: 0 production/runtime latency hops and 0 controller allocations. Test-time cost is one read of SKILL.md plus one read of REFERENCE.md, about 3,200 lines total; expected wall time <100 ms on local Python. Memory allocation is the two file strings plus anchor/link sets, roughly <300 KiB.

## Risks
- This framing is stricter than a prose reminder: harmless anchor renames will require synchronized SKILL.md and REFERENCE.md edits in the same PR.
- The line-ratio check can become brittle if SKILL.md legitimately grows. Keep thresholds broad, and prefer semantic assertions for concrete heavy markers over exact line budgets.
- Over-engineering risk is adding a reusable parser or controller daemon. Keep the solution bounded to one deterministic test file because there is only one caller and no runtime event source involved.

## Escalation triggers (if any)
- none

## Reasoning trace (internal — for meta-judge)
- Why this structure beats a documented exception: a documented exception still depends on every future editor remembering the split; a source-regression test makes drift fail mechanically under the normal test gate.
- Why I picked this abstraction over alternatives: the existing repo already uses Python `unittest` source-regression tests for skill contracts. A new runtime abstraction, actor inbox hop, event envelope, or controller pipeline would violate the narrow controller contract and has no second caller.
- What I cannot decide alone: exact anchor list can be tuned by implementer/reviewer, but the structural boundary should stay fixed: SKILL links and local invariants are checked, REFERENCE owns heavy details, no runtime authority is added.

SOLVER_DONE:structural:propose:source-regression anchor guard for SKILL-to-REFERENCE split, no new runtime abstraction
⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

[loning]

📊 状态卡片 — judge 派出

维度	值
阶段	派出 codex(role=judge)
codex log	phase9-issue28-r1-judge.log
工作目录	/Users/auric/consensus-rnd
no-output stall window	5400s(~90 min 无输出窗口)
上下文	r1 三 solver: minimal+delete 都 false-positive(anchor guard 已存在于 test_skill_reference_anchors.py),structural propose。派 r1 judge → 极可能 close as wontfix:false-positive。
下一步自动会做	1. judge META_JUDGE_DONE:... 2. consensus → implement / converge → fresh round / escalate → reflector or 人介入
是否需要人介入	❌ 否(自动推进)

🤖 controller status banner

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

[loning]

🤖 Meta-judge: #28 判定为已满足,无需新增实现

TL;DR

• 这是什么:Phase 9 r1 meta-judge 对 [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 skill-anchor-guard 的仲裁结果。
• 结论:已核验现有 test_skill_reference_anchors.py 覆盖该需求,并由 CI 的 contract-tests discover;本地 8 个测试通过。
• 下一步:controller 应按 wontfix:false-positive / already satisfied 处理 [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28,不再派 implement codex。

---

详细说明

三份 solver 输出中,minimal 与 delete 都判定 #28 的新增实现需求是 stale evidence;structural 虽然给出 propose,但其方案边界正是当前已存在的 source-regression 测试。source-regression 测试指用确定性测试防止源码契约回退,这里具体是检查 SKILL.md 中的 REFERENCE.md#... 链接、必需拆分段落、入口文件体量边界、绝对链接回归和代表性重型内容位置。

我按 false-positive 规则重新读取了当前源码与 CI 配置:skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py 已存在;.github/workflows/consensus-rnd-ci.yml 运行 python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_*.py',会包含该测试。本地命令 python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_skill_reference_anchors.py' 结果为 8 tests OK。因此本轮不是 convergence,也不是 stalled escalation;结论是无需新增代码。

方案	结论	trade-off
新增 checker	不选	会重复现有 CI 守卫
收敛再问一轮	不选	分歧已被源码核验消解
no-new-work/delete	选中	0 LOC,保留现有守卫,按 false-positive 关闭新增需求

---

📎 完整 codex 原始输出(存档备查)

---

issue: 28
cluster: skill-anchor-guard
convergence_round: 1
solver_verdicts:
minimal: false-positive
structural: propose
delete: false-positive
decision: consensus

Decision (English)

Consensus is reached on the no-new-work/delete framing after verification. Minimal and delete both classify issue #28 as already satisfied by the existing SKILL-to-REFERENCE source-regression guard, and structural's proposed boundary is the same guard shape: a bounded unittest module under skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/ with no runtime/controller abstraction and no CLAUDE.md/SPEC/Tier changes. I re-read the current source and CI wiring: skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py exists, validates REFERENCE.md#... links, required split sections, split size, absolute-link regressions, and representative heavy-material placement, while .github/workflows/consensus-rnd-ci.yml runs python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_*.py'. Targeted verification passed locally with 8 tests in 0.004s. Therefore #28 should be resolved as wontfix:false-positive / already satisfied, not sent through another implementation round.

Decision (中文)

本轮已在“无需新增实现 / delete” framing 上达成共识。minimal 和 delete 都把 #28 判定为现有源码已满足;structural 提出的边界也是同一个守卫形态:在 skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/ 下用有边界的 unittest source-regression 测试守住 SKILL 到 REFERENCE 的 anchor 契约,不新增 runtime/controller 抽象,也不改 CLAUDE.md/SPEC/Tier。我已重新核对当前源码和 CI:skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py 已存在,会检查 REFERENCE.md#... 链接解析、必需拆分段落、SKILL/REFERENCE 体量边界、绝对链接回归和代表性重型内容位置;.github/workflows/consensus-rnd-ci.yml 通过 python3 -m unittest discover -s skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts -p 'test_*.py' 运行它。本地定向验证 8 个测试全部通过,耗时 0.004s。因此 #28 应按 wontfix:false-positive / already satisfied 处理,不应再进入 implement round。

If consensus

• Chosen framing: delete
• Implement plan (verbatim copy from the winning solver's "Concrete plan" section)

- Files to delete: none
- Caller migrations: none
- Tests to delete: none
- LOC delta: -0
- Philosophy/CLAUDE.md/SPEC/Tier changes (if any): none
- Tracking issue (if defer): none; do not defer. Close/resolve #28 as already satisfied if meta-judge confirms this evidence.

• Philosophy/CLAUDE.md/SPEC/Tier changes included: none
• Implementation owner: no code implement codex is needed; controller should resolve issue [refactor-design] SKILL↔REFERENCE anchor 守卫(skill-improvement #9,衔接 #12) #28 as wontfix:false-positive / already satisfied, because the verified guard is already in-tree and CI-discovered.
• Add auto-loop-resume label to issue 28

If converge

• Convergence question (specific): n/a
• What each solver should address explicitly: n/a
• Round number this fires: n/a

If escalate

• Trigger category: n/a
• Why consensus failed to progress: n/a
• Suggested next step: n/a

Round audit trail (links to local artifacts)

• solver-minimal: /Users/auric/consensus-rnd/.refactor-loop/runs/phase9-issue28-r1-minimal.md
• solver-structural: /Users/auric/consensus-rnd/.refactor-loop/runs/phase9-issue28-r1-structural.md
• solver-delete: /Users/auric/consensus-rnd/.refactor-loop/runs/phase9-issue28-r1-delete.md

META_JUDGE_DONE:consensus:delete:verified false-positive; existing CI-discovered test_skill_reference_anchors.py satisfies issue28 anchor guard

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧

[loning]

✅ Phase 9 r1 共识 — close as wontfix:false-positive

meta-judge r1 裁决 META_JUDGE_DONE:consensus:delete:verified false-positive。

3 solver(minimal/delete)实地验证发现:anchor guard 已存在于 skills/codex-refactor-loop/scripts/test_skill_reference_anchors.py(由 CI 通过 python3 -m unittest discover 自动跑)。该测试已覆盖 REFERENCE.md anchor 完整性 + SKILL.md 引用对应 anchor 存在等基础 invariant。

#28 在 PR #43(Wake source 3-lane)+ #44(daemon-first)落地过程中已被持续扩展(每次 implement 都加 anchor 断言)。无新增 anchor guard 工作需要。

📢 cc @loning

⟦AI:AUTO-LOOP⟧