refactor(skills): port pstack's token distill pass

skills/architect/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: "Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then s
 
 # Architect
 
-Design before implementing. Sketch types, function signatures, class shapes, and module boundaries with `not implemented` bodies and pseudocode. Synthesize across multiple model perspectives, then fill in code against the chosen sketch. If implementation proves the sketch wrong, throw it out and redesign.
+Sketch types, function signatures, class shapes, and module boundaries with `not implemented` bodies and pseudocode. Synthesize across multiple model perspectives, then fill in code against the chosen sketch.
 
 ## Start
 
@@ -19,9 +19,7 @@ Open a todolist with one entry per phase before starting.
 
 ## Phase A: Ground the problem
 
-Build a real mental model of every system the new code touches. Run the **how** skill over the relevant subsystems.
-
-Naming a file isn't grounding. Produce the traced model `how` prescribes. If the design redefines ownership or layering, also run the **why** skill on the existing shape so the rationale becomes a constraint, not a guess.
+Build a real mental model of every system the new code touches. Run the **how** skill over the relevant subsystems. Naming a file isn't grounding. Produce the architectural explanation `how` prescribes. If the design redefines ownership or layering, also run the **why** skill on the existing shape so the rationale becomes a constraint, not a guess.
 
 Skip Phase A only when the work is genuinely greenfield with no surrounding system to integrate.
 
@@ -37,7 +35,7 @@ Screen every candidate against [`references/design-red-flags.md`](references/des
 
 Compare viable candidates on interface depth. Prefer the design that hides more complexity behind a smaller, simpler public surface. A rich interface can keep call chains short by concentrating capability instead of scattering it across layers.
 
-Arena returns one synthesized design package. The synthesis decision populates the rationale's "Synthesis decision" section.
+Arena returns one synthesized design package. Its synthesis decision fills the rationale's "Synthesis decision" section.
 
 ## Phase C: Agree (opt-in)
 
@@ -51,9 +49,7 @@ If the human pushes back on the shape (in a checkpoint or after the fact), treat
 
 ## Phase D: Implement against the sketch
 
-Replace `not implemented` bodies with code, pseudocode with logic. The synthesized sketch is the contract.
-
-Deviations from the sketch are signal worth surfacing, not friction to absorb silently. If a function needs a parameter the sketch didn't anticipate, ask whether the sketch was wrong, the requirement was missed, or the implementation is overreaching.
+Replace `not implemented` bodies with code, pseudocode with logic. The synthesized sketch is the contract. Deviations from it are signal to surface, not friction to absorb silently. If a function needs a parameter the sketch didn't anticipate, ask whether the sketch was wrong, the requirement was missed, or the implementation is overreaching.
 
 ## Phase E: Scrap when the architecture is wrong
 

skills/arena/SKILL.md

@@ -5,66 +5,43 @@ description: "Spawn N parallel candidates at the same task, pick a base, graft t
 
 # Arena
 
-Fan out N parallel attempts at the same task. Read every candidate end to end. Pick the strongest as the base. Graft the best ideas from the others into it. Verify the synthesized result.
-
-## Start
-
-Open a todolist with one entry per phase before launching anything.
-
-1. Frame
-2. Fan out
-3. Cross-judge
-4. Pick
-5. Graft
-6. Verify
+Open a todolist with one entry per phase (Frame, Fan out, Cross-judge, Pick, Graft, Verify) before launching anything.
 
 ## Phase A: Frame
 
-The N candidates will receive the same prompt, so the prompt is the contract.
+Every candidate gets the same prompt, so the prompt is the contract.
 
 1. State the artifact each candidate is producing.
-2. Derive the rubric. State what success looks like for *this* task, then turn it into 3-6 concrete gradeable criteria. The rubric is the picker's tool in Phase D. Candidates only see the task.
-3. Pick the runners. Use the `arena runners` line in `p3-models.md` (project root, else `~/.agents/p3-models.md`), resolved against `orchestrator_capabilities`. If the file or that line is missing, pick one model per available provider from `orchestrator_capabilities` and suggest the user run `/setup-p3`. An `auto` or `inherit-parent` entry in this line or the cross-judge line means the parent model, so omit `model` for it. If `delegate_task` rejects a configured entry, run that seat on the closest valid model of the same provider from its error message and say so. Spawn more when the arena covers multiple design directions. Same model N times when the work is generation-bound rather than judgment-sensitive.
-4. Assign output paths. Each candidate writes to its own location (a git worktree where possible, otherwise `/tmp/arena-<slug>/candidate-<n>/`), per the [separate-before-serializing-shared-state](../principle-separate-before-serializing-shared-state/SKILL.md) principle skill. A candidate that needs its own worktree gets one through `t3_thread_launch` with a `workspaceStrategy`. One writer per worktree.
+2. Derive the rubric, 3-6 concrete gradeable criteria for what success looks like on *this* task. It is the picker's tool in Phase D. Candidates only see the task.
+3. Pick the runners. Use the `arena runners` line in `p3-models.md` (project root, else `~/.agents/p3-models.md`), resolved against `orchestrator_capabilities`. If the file or that line is missing, pick one model per available provider from `orchestrator_capabilities` and suggest the user run `/setup-p3`. An `auto` or `inherit-parent` entry in this line or the cross-judge line means the parent model, so omit `model` for it. If `delegate_task` rejects a configured entry, run that seat on the closest valid model of the same provider from its error message and say so. Spawn more runners when the arena covers multiple design directions. Use the same model N times when the work is generation-bound rather than judgment-sensitive.
+4. Give each candidate its own output location (a git worktree where possible, otherwise `/tmp/arena-<slug>/candidate-<n>/`), per the [separate-before-serializing-shared-state](../principle-separate-before-serializing-shared-state/SKILL.md) principle skill. A candidate that needs its own worktree gets one through `t3_thread_launch` with a `workspaceStrategy`. One writer per worktree.
 
 ## Phase B: Fan out
 
-Spawn all N candidates in one turn with `delegate_task`, one per runner entry, each with `mode: "async"`. T3 child agents get only the brief, never the parent's context, so every brief stands alone: the task, the path to the shared grounding, its own output path, and instructions to produce both the artifact and a short rationale.
+Spawn all N candidates in one turn with `delegate_task`, one per runner entry, each with `mode: "async"`. T3 child agents get only the brief, never the parent's context, so every brief stands alone: the task, the path to the shared grounding, its own output path, and instructions to produce the artifact and a short rationale naming the alternatives it considered and what it rejected.
 
-Each rationale names the alternatives the candidate considered and what it rejected.
-
-End the turn and take each candidate's result from its completion wake. If a candidate fails to produce output, proceed with N-1 and note the dropout in the synthesis record.
+End the turn and take each candidate's result from its completion wake. If a candidate produces no output, proceed with N-1 and note the dropout.
 
 ## Phase C: Cross-judge
 
-After all Phase B candidates complete, choose one model from the `arena cross-judge pool` line in `p3-models.md`. Prefer a different provider from the parent's. Spawn one judge with `delegate_task` on that model. The brief says read-only: inspect only, no writes. Spawn it with `interactionMode: "plan"` and `role: "review"`, so the child's harness enforces read-only too. It sees the rubric and the candidates by path label, scores each criterion, and recommends a base with rationale. It runs in parallel with the parent's reading in Phase D, not with the candidates themselves. Don't spawn the judge while candidates are still writing.
+After all Phase B candidates complete, choose one model from the `arena cross-judge pool` line in `p3-models.md`. Prefer a different provider from the parent's. Spawn one judge with `delegate_task` on that model, with `interactionMode: "plan"` and `role: "review"`, and a brief that says read-only: inspect only, no writes. It sees the rubric and the candidates by path label, scores each criterion, and recommends a base with rationale. It runs in parallel with your reading in Phase D. Don't spawn it while candidates are still writing.
 
 ## Phase D: Pick a base
 
-Read every candidate end to end before picking.
-
-Score each candidate against the rubric criterion by criterion, not on holistic feel. Compare against the cross-judge. Agreement on the base confirms the pick. Disagreement means one of you is biased or the rubric was ambiguous. Read both rationales before deciding.
+Read every candidate end to end before picking. Score each against the rubric criterion by criterion, not on holistic feel, and compare with the cross-judge. Agreement on the base confirms the pick. Disagreement means one of you is biased or the rubric was ambiguous. Read both rationales before deciding.
 
-Pick the base on which candidate a future maintainer can extend most easily without breaking invariants. Prefer the cleaner boundary or smaller API when two feel tied, per the Laziness Protocol.
-
-Record the pick and the reason in a short synthesis note alongside the base artifact, including the cross-judge's verdict.
+Pick the base a future maintainer can extend most easily without breaking invariants. When two feel tied, prefer the cleaner boundary or smaller API, per the Laziness Protocol.
 
 ## Phase E: Graft
 
-Walk each losing candidate once more and identify what is worth porting into the base. The signal is usually one or two things per candidate, not most of it.
-
-Fold each graft in by hand, per the [redesign-from-first-principles](../principle-redesign-from-first-principles/SKILL.md) principle skill. Don't paste mechanically. The result has to remain coherent under one mental model.
+Walk each losing candidate once more for what is worth porting into the base, usually one or two things per candidate, not most of it. Fold each graft in by hand, per the [redesign-from-first-principles](../principle-redesign-from-first-principles/SKILL.md) principle skill, so the result stays coherent under one mental model. Don't paste mechanically.
 
-Record what was grafted, from which candidate, and what was rejected and why.
-
-When N candidates converge on the same shape, that is a strong agreement signal. Note the convergence in the record and ship the consensus shape. No graft is needed. When N candidates wildly diverge, Phase A was under-specified. Reframe and re-run rather than averaging the divergence.
+If the candidates converge on one shape, that is strong agreement. Note it and ship the consensus shape. No graft is needed. If they wildly diverge, Phase A was under-specified. Reframe and re-run rather than averaging the divergence.
 
 ## Phase F: Verify
 
-The synthesized artifact has to hold up under the same scrutiny as any other output, per the [prove-it-works](../principle-prove-it-works/SKILL.md) principle skill.
-
-If verification surfaces a problem the arena did not catch, either Phase A was wrong (re-frame and re-run) or one candidate caught it and you missed the graft (go back to Phase E). Don't paper over.
+Verify the synthesized artifact like any other output, per the [prove-it-works](../principle-prove-it-works/SKILL.md) principle skill. If verification finds a problem the arena missed, either Phase A was wrong (re-frame and re-run) or a candidate caught it and you missed the graft (go back to Phase E). Don't paper over it.
 
 ## Outputs
 
-One synthesized artifact. One short synthesis note alongside, naming the base, the grafts (with source candidate), the rejections, the dropouts if any, and the verification result.
+One synthesized artifact, with a short synthesis note alongside naming the base and why, the cross-judge's verdict, each graft with its source candidate, what was rejected and why, any convergence or dropouts, and the verification result.