skills(pm-dispatch): rank a forced takeover below an in-flight claim

[os-litant]

Fixes #17033

Governed surface (.claude/**) — draft only; a human merge is the review record.

Maintainer ruling implemented (verbatim, as quoted on the card): 「如果你的当前任务对方也在处理了，那技能有问题，需要更新，强制接管也不应该抢已经在处理的任务。」

What changed — three files, every ceiling net-zero (SKILL.md 812/812 · core-rules 151/151 · seat-post-protocol 91/91)

Base 143c715; head 5d1d938. Line numbers below are at the base; bytes are UTF-8 (MAX_LINE_BYTES = 120, CJK is 3 bytes a character).

.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/SKILL.md 〈座位贴协议〉 — 812 → 812 lines

line	before	after	bytes
:269 → :269	- 接管/移交 = 改正文 + 审计评论(评论只作审计不承载状态),接管压缩是标准步骤。	- 维护者强制接管令取席位、队列、未起工卡与待落地 PR;⛔ 不取在飞卡,由原认领者跟完。	108 → 119
new :270	—	- 子代理 dev 的返回消息、探活与续派只在派发会话;落地或 `Release:` 后归新席位。	0 → 107
:285 → cut	- 经验教训散文不再入技能文本;交接按收尾清单逐步走完,并 `list_triggers` 清点自设定时器。	—	120 → 0
:286 → :286	- 四段模板、状态词表、接管/退场收尾清单细则见 `references/seat-post-protocol.md`。	- 接管/移交 = 改正文 + 审计评论(只作审计);收尾清单等细则见 `references/seat-post-protocol.md`。	104 → 119

Two lines added, two paid. The dispatch's suggested one-liner measures 171 bytes and the 「fold :269 and :286」 payment measures 160 bytes, so neither fits the 120-byte cap; the construct is kept and split: :269 carries scope + prohibition + 原认领者跟完, :270 carries the mechanism + the hand-back.

.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/core-rules.md 〈座位贴协议〉 — 151 → 151 lines

line	before	after	bytes
:78 → :78	- 交接按收尾清单逐步走完并清点自设定时器;归档自己派出的会话是不可移交的义务。	- 交接按收尾清单走完;强制接管 ⛔ 不取在飞卡,由原认领者跟完;归档自派会话不可移交。	114 → 118

Judgment — binding-level: yes, so the mirror is owed. (a) SKILL.md :42 ranks 维护者裁决 above AGENTS.md, 红线, 核心条款 and 细则, in that order; a takeover order arrives as a maintainer instruction, so a prohibition that must hold against one has to sit at 核心条款 level, not only among 细则. (b) The digest's 座位贴协议 section already carries the two adjacent hand-off invariants of the same family (:76 在飞安置而非归零, :78 归档不可移交). (c) SKILL.md :44 「一条规则在本文与核心条款一处改动,另一处同 PR 同改」 — once the rule is in SKILL.md and judged core, the same-PR mirror is a requirement, not an option. Rewritten in place: no line added.

.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/seat-post-protocol.md 交接收尾清单 step 9 — 91 → 91 lines

line	before	after	bytes
:50 → :50	9. 确须留跑的会话在座位贴里点名,写明归档不随交接转移,⛔ 不留作接任者的欠账。	9. 在飞 dev 卡与留跑会话在贴里点名(卡号 + 派发会话 ID);跟完与归档 ⛔ 不随交接转移。	111 → 115

The step already spoke of sessions that must keep running; it now also names in-flight dev cards with their dispatching session ID, and says that finishing them, like archiving, does not transfer. Rewritten in place: no line added.

Where every cut rule survives (value gate ②: 「被砍内容若在别处无家,砍掉就是丢规则」)

cut text	where the rule lives now
接管/移交 = 改正文 + 审计评论 (from :269)	kept in SKILL.md, on the pointer line :286
评论只作审计不承载状态 (from :269)	kept in SKILL.md compressed to 「(只作审计)」 on :286; the body-is-authoritative half is SKILL.md :267 and core-rules :72; seat-post-protocol :14 and :17 say what the audit comment is (an author-stamped reading; a version pointer)
接管压缩是标准步骤 (from :269)	seat-post-protocol :16 「接管压缩:接任 PM 把交接的有效内容按四段模板重述为新正文,编辑历史即存档。」
经验教训散文不再入技能文本 (from :285)	dispatch-runbook :103 「行文纪律:出处一行,原话仅限操作性判据;⛔ 实测叙事不进操作文本。」; SKILL.md :283 「…⛔ 不是散文」; .claude/agents/os-dev.md :20 (the dev-side twin: rules only, lessons written as self-contained rules); the AGENTS.md header (rules only, no incident narrative)
交接按收尾清单逐步走完 (from :285)	core-rules :78 (kept in the rewrite); SKILL.md :695 「维护者交接令(走交接收尾清单)」; seat-post-protocol :40 「交接收尾清单(漏一步就是留残缺现场)」
list_triggers 清点自设定时器 (from :285, and from core-rules :78)	seat-post-protocol :47, step 6 of the checklist both surviving lines point at: 「list_triggers 清点本会话全部自设定时器,逐个清理或随移交物转交。」
四段模板、状态词表、接管/退场 (the table-of-contents words on :286)	the reference's own headings (:5, :9, :40) and its lead line :3 — a table of contents, not a rule
⛔ 不留作接任者的欠账 (step 9)	step 8 「归档义务 ⛔ 不可移交」; core-rules :78 「归档自派会话不可移交」; the rewritten step 9 keeps 「归档 ⛔ 不随交接转移」
归档自己派出的会话是不可移交的义务 (core-rules :78)	kept, compressed: 「归档自派会话不可移交」; twin at step 8

Zone-2 measurements (all at 143c715)

• A — holds, with one corrected count. grep -n '接管' SKILL.md hits three lines, not two: :106 (「弃飞无接管」, one of the four release causes in the assignee table row), :269 and :286; none ranks a takeover against an in-flight claim. 「原认领者跟完」 exists for two of the three seat-exit paths — 惰性回收 (dispatch-runbook :52, under 座位贴活性巡查) and epic 僵尸回收 (seat-post-protocol :74, under Epic 车道收尾与僵尸回收, explicitly 「子树内」) — and was absent for the third, 维护者交接令 (SKILL.md :695). The new SKILL.md :269 is what generalises it to that path.
• B — holds. os-dev.md :17 / :319 and SKILL.md :565–:566 (「报告通道统一:GitHub 是两种模式共用的真相源;dev 终报先落 issue 评论、再作返回消息」「收集先扫 GitHub,标记评论在 = 报告完整」): the os-dev-report comment is written by the dev itself, on the card, before its return message, so it outlives the dispatching session and any seat can read it. What does not transfer: 探活 (:569–:577), 续派 / 停摆复位 (:581–:583) and the return message — a mode:subagent dev shares the PM's session (:475 「mode:subagent 的 dev 与 PM 同会话同 ID」) and has no handle another session can address. ⇒ the card's proposal 3 (a one-way relay exemption) is moot and is not written; the precedence line plus 「原认领者跟完」 is the whole fix. Proposal 2 lands as the step-9 rewrite, not as a new clause.
• C — as dispatched. The precedence line is in SKILL.md 〈座位贴协议〉 (:269–:270), the reference a takeover-ordered seat reads first; the core-rules mirror follows the judgment above.
• D — verified per cut (table above). The 「fold :269 and :286」 route measures 160 bytes even with the parenthetical dropped; the 119-byte fold shipped at :286 keeps 改正文 + 审计评论 + 只作审计 + the pointer and loses only the table-of-contents words.

Route on the four axes, briefly: 实际业务需求 — a real, maintainer-confirmed takeover order enumerated 「every pm:dispatched card in the lane whatever session claimed it」; the boundary it needed did not exist in the text. 项目长远合理性 — the rule names the mechanism (subagent of the dispatching session; report channel already on GitHub) rather than adding a relay ritual. 防 AI 犯错 — a ⛔ at 核心条款 level is structurally harder to read past than a 细则 line; the checklist step makes the in-flight set explicit (card + session ID) instead of implied. 创业阶段不扩散 — two lines in, two lines out; no new checklist step, no new gate, no ceiling raised.

Gates (run at 5d1d938; every exit code captured before any pipe)

node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --commands derived 16 commands from the committed change set; --ran reconciles 「16 derived famil(ies) accounted for — 16 run, 0 NOT-MEASURED」. Verdict lines:

• pnpm check:pm-skill-ratchet — exit 0: 「SKILL.md is 812 lines (ceiling 812; headroom 0)」 · 「core-rules.md is 151 lines (ceiling 151; headroom 0)」 · 「seat-post-protocol.md is 91 lines (ceiling 91; headroom 0)」; every line within 120 bytes.
• pnpm check:pm-skill-id-lint — exit 0: 「27 file(s) clean」.
• pnpm check:skill-frame-sync — exit 0: 「the one declared copy of the decision frame is internally coherent」; md5 of SKILL.md :734–:752 = 22f2339f0acb64cdb50c7adc9db681c3, unchanged.
• pnpm check:pm-governed-prose — exit 0: 「2 instruction surface(s) name all 5 registered governed surfaces」.
• pnpm check:nul-bytes — exit 0: 「no raw ASCII control bytes」.
• pnpm check:pm-governed-merges — exit 0 (self-test, 274 assertions).
• node scripts/pm/check-governed-merges.mjs --test on the three paths — exit 3: 「GOVERNED — a human merge is the review record」, .claude/** ×3.
• pnpm --filter @objectstack/lint run check:doc-formula-expressions — first run exit 3 「PREREQUISITE NOT MET」 (unbuilt @objectstack/formula / @objectstack/lint, nothing measured); built both under the verify lock (VERDICT command-exit 0), re-run exit 0.
• pnpm check:agent-test-spelling, pnpm check:doc-authoring, pnpm check:driver-memory-census, pnpm check:refd-timer-probe, pnpm check:watch-hint-literal, node scripts/check-closing-keyword-parity.mjs (and --self-test), node scripts/check-comment-mask-corpus.mjs, node scripts/pm/check-governed-queue-guard.mjs --self-test — all exit 0.
• pnpm check:pm-dispatch-gates (named by the dispatch, not in the derived 16) — exit 0: 「dispatch-gates self-test: 1674 cases pass.」 It ran past the foreground cap; waited on its PID with tail --pid.

Declared narrowing: --ran reported STALE TREE — a sibling's fetch moved origin/main to d29fdcfa (five commits) during this run. Zero of those commits touch .claude/** or any script behind the 16 derived families (the one script change, scripts/check-single-claim-paths.mjs, is an artifact-roster family outside the derived set), so the derivation is unchanged and main was not merged into this three-line governed diff. The repo-wide pnpm lint sweep is CI-owned and was not run here.

Acceptance notes

• noted, not filed: the dispatch's grep reading 「hits :269 and :286 only」 misses :106 (「弃飞无接管」); it changes nothing about assumption A. 承接者: the skills seat, when it next refreshes the dispatch text for this lane.
• noted, not filed: a mode:cloud dev is a separate session, so its 续派 can technically be delivered by another seat through a poke trigger (seat-post-protocol :33); the new :270 is written for the subagent case, and the mode-blind prohibition on :269 plus checklist step 8 (archive not transferable) cover the cloud case. 承接者: 无 — behaviour is already correct; recorded so the two lines are not read as one.
• Dedup: as given by the dispatch ([finding] The lane table's scripts/ clause covers gates only — a non-gate scripts/** script has no row, scripts/pm/** is stated only in references/lanes/skills.md, and three devx.md:8 paths have none — the successor gap to #17222 #17225 and [finding] .claude/agents/os-dev.md states sibling repos have no scripts/pm/ — objectui has one, and a dispatch built on that premise reached a governed file this shift #17244 are queued on other regions of the same files; no card since names takeover). No card filed by this run.

维护者速读(草稿)

改了什么:PM 技能文本三处、三个文件,行数全部不变。新增一条规则:维护者下令「强制接管」时,新席位拿走座位、队列、还没开工的卡和等落地的 PR;正在由开发 agent 处理中的卡不拿,由原席位跟到落地,再经落地记录或 Release: 行交回新席位。并写明机制:处理中的开发 agent 是派发会话的子代理,它的回报、探活和续派只有那个会话做得到。核心条款同步一行;交接清单第 9 步改为逐张点名处理中的卡与派发会话 ID。

为什么改:您 2026-09-09 的裁决(原话在卡上)所要求的「在飞由原认领者跟完」规则文本里已有,但没有任何一行说明它压过强制接管令,上次接管评论因此把「本车道所有 pm:dispatched 卡」一并划走。另外「接管转移卡、转移不了在飞的测量通道」这一架构事实此前没写进任何接管条文。

风险与代价(含回滚):只改协议文本,不改代码与门禁;行数预算全部净零,靠删两行支付,被删内容在别处都有家(正文有逐条对照表)。代价是接管后的新席位对在飞卡只能等它落地,不能主动介入。回滚 = revert 本 PR 的单个提交。

席位意见:(留空)

你要做的:人工合并本 draft PR(受管面,席位不得合并)。

Generated by Claude Code

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-litant]

维护者速读

改了什么 —— PM 技能文本三个文件,行数全部不变(812 / 151 / 91)。主文件〈座位贴协议〉新增两行:① 维护者的「强制接管」令拿走座位、队列、未开工的卡和等落地的 PR,⛔ 不拿正在由开发 agent 处理中的卡——那些由原席位跟到落地,再经落地记录或 Release: 行交回新席位;② 机制:处理中的开发 agent 是派发会话的子代理,它的回报、探活、续派只有那个会话做得到。核心条款同步一行;交接清单第 9 步改为逐张点名处理中的卡与派发会话 ID。支付:删掉主文件里两行(「经验教训散文不再入技能文本 / 交接按收尾清单走完并清点定时器」与一句目录式指针),被删内容在别处都有家——本席逐条核过:dispatch-runbook、os-dev.md、lanes/skills.md、seat-post-protocol 第 6 步与核心条款。

为什么改 —— 您 09-09 的裁决(原话在卡上):「强制接管也不应该抢已经在处理的任务」。规则文本里已有「在飞由原认领者跟完」,但没有一行说它压过接管令,上一次接管评论因此把本车道所有在飞卡一并划走;「接管转移的是卡、转移不了子代理的回报通道」这条架构事实此前没写进任何接管条文。

风险与代价(含回滚) —— 只改协议文本,不改代码与门禁;行数净零、每行 ≤120 字节、决策框架块 md5 不变、派生的 16 个门禁族在 dev 本地全绿;PR 的两个必查 CI job 在本席复核时(10:0xZ)仍在跑,人合前会收敛,本席下次巡检复读。代价:接管后的新席位对处理中的卡只能等它落地或释放,不能主动介入——这正是裁决要的。回滚 = revert 本 PR 的单个提交。

席位意见 —— 通过。本席在契约复审档对照 diff 自读:两行新规与裁决同向;「在飞」一词与座位贴台账既有用法一致(在飞 = dev 在跑,与「待落地 PR」分列,主文件 :74 / :280 / :685 同义);卡上的提案 3(转贴豁免)经 dev 实测为多余(dev 的报告本就先落卡,任何席位可读),没写——正确。dev 报告的一条派发词失误归本席:派发词的 grep 读数漏了主文件 :106 的一处「接管」,不影响结论。受管面:本席不翻 ready、不入队、不批准。

你要做的 —— 一个动作:人工合并本 draft PR。

skills 席,session session_01YKEjmbYNvYWJvWGSWx26zK,2026-09-10T10:05Z。

---

Generated by Claude Code