Problem
Three skills place an injection directive where a ### follows within the same parent ##. Injected content brings its own headings, so the following section renders as a subsection of the injection rather than of the skill: respond-to-review's ### Writing code after a review, revise-comments's ### File-level carve-outs, and testing-conventions's ### Test files all land under the inlined ## Comment discipline.
A guidance hook makes the shape worse, because its content varies per binding: the parent becomes whichever rulebook the local codeassembly.yaml supplied. respond-to-review escapes that today only because its include follows its hook and re-establishes a ##.
Nothing guards the shape, and the placement rule is stated nowhere.
Context
The nesting was authored deliberately: #973 replaced each skill's own ## Comment discipline section with the partial and demoted the residual prose to a ### beneath it.
#1176 adds a second hook to respond-to-review. Placed below the include, it reparents ### Writing code after a review under a user-bound rulebook.
Proposed solution
Injected content never adopts a host section: a host heading following a directive sits at or above the injected content's shallowest heading level, which is ## for a hook and the partial's own shallowest for an include. Promote the three sections, state the rule where content authors meet it, and guard it with a content-convention test that exempts nothing.
Acceptance criteria
Must have
Should have
Problem
Three skills place an injection directive where a
###follows within the same parent##. Injected content brings its own headings, so the following section renders as a subsection of the injection rather than of the skill:respond-to-review's### Writing code after a review,revise-comments's### File-level carve-outs, andtesting-conventions's### Test filesall land under the inlined## Comment discipline.A guidance hook makes the shape worse, because its content varies per binding: the parent becomes whichever rulebook the local
codeassembly.yamlsupplied.respond-to-reviewescapes that today only because its include follows its hook and re-establishes a##.Nothing guards the shape, and the placement rule is stated nowhere.
Context
The nesting was authored deliberately: #973 replaced each skill's own
## Comment disciplinesection with the partial and demoted the residual prose to a###beneath it.#1176 adds a second hook to
respond-to-review. Placed below the include, it reparents### Writing code after a reviewunder a user-bound rulebook.Proposed solution
Injected content never adopts a host section: a host heading following a directive sits at or above the injected content's shallowest heading level, which is
##for a hook and the partial's own shallowest for an include. Promote the three sections, state the rule where content authors meet it, and guard it with a content-convention test that exempts nothing.Acceptance criteria
Must have
content/, for includes and guidance hooks alike, with no allowlist.Should have
respond-to-reviewplaces its include before its hook, matchingimplement-planandreview-criteria.