DEC-012 — Enforce what-not-how at propose, not in validation
Context

Requirement statements leak implementation detail. Candidates: strengthen the propose skill, add a validation rule, or add a reviewer.

Options

  • Strengthen the propose skill’s Rules with a self-check.

    • Good: catches the leak where requirements are authored; cheap.

    • Bad: advisory — the authoring agent must apply it.

  • A validation or lint rule.

    • Good: automatic and always-on.

    • Bad: "what not how" is semantic, so no structural linter can catch it.

  • A dedicated review skill.

    • Good: an independent check.

    • Bad: another skill and step for a one-bullet problem.

Decision

Strengthen the propose skill’s Rules with a self-check that references the requirement guidance’s "Solution prescription" list.

Rationale

Semantic leakage cannot be linted; the cheapest effective lever is a self-check at authoring time, reusing the flag list the guidance already defines.

Consequences

Reduces but does not eliminate leakage; the human accept gate and the archive cold reviewer remain the backstops.

Records