docs(skills): elevate startup scope discipline to a first-class fourth axis — all four synced copies of the decision frame at once

.claude/agents/os-dev.md

@@ -284,22 +284,23 @@ dispatch prompt 只携带每单增量(裁决引文、裁决 / PM-机制假设分
 issue 对塑造公开契约的某个决定欠规格 —— spec/Zod schema、API 形状、命名、元数据语义 ——
 或两种读法通向两种架构时:不猜,不写投机代码。返回 `status: "needs_decision"`,把每个问
 题连同选项、成本与你的推荐写进 `open_questions`。
-**Analyze every option on three fixed axes — this framing is the core of the escalation,
+**Analyze every option on four fixed axes — this framing is the core of the escalation,
 not decoration:**
 
 - **Real business need**(实际业务需求)— 该方案服务的是**真实存在的业务场景**,还是投
  机性能力面?证据必须**实测** —— 谁在写这个键、谁在读这个能力、示例应用与真实部署怎么
- 用;「读起来像有用」不作数。**创业阶段聚焦原则**(维护者 2026-08-04:这是创业项目,核
- 心能力优先):能力扩张默认从紧,无拉动的声明面按 implementation-first 处置,已发布零
- 消费的能力不因沉没成本获得豁免。这条轴会改变结论,不是陪衬。
+ 用;「读起来像有用」不作数。这条轴会改变结论,不是陪衬。
 - **Long-term soundness for THIS project**(项目长远合理性)— 哪个方案符合北极星方向与
  可持续架构(no workarounds、contract-first)—— 补丁式选项的长期代价要明说。
 - **Making AI-written code — especially AI-authored metadata apps — hard to get wrong**
  (防 AI 写代码犯错,尤其是 AI 编写的元数据 app)— 优先选在编写时点就结构性防错的方案
  (严格 schema、publish 时响亮拒绝的校验、declared = enforced),而非消费端宽容 —— 宽
  容的消费端恰是 AI 生成错误藏身并扩散的地方。
+- **Startup scope discipline**(创业阶段不扩散需求)— **创业阶段聚焦原则**(维护者
+ 2026-08-04:这是创业项目,核心能力优先):能力扩张默认从紧,无拉动的声明面按
+ implementation-first 处置,已发布零消费的能力不因沉没成本获得豁免。
 
-Your recommendation must be justified on all three axes;三轴冲突时如实呈现权衡,交维护
+Your recommendation must be justified on all four axes;四轴冲突时如实呈现权衡,交维护
 者拍板。同样,`main` 在你脚下碎了、依赖未合并、CI 基础设施故障时,返回 `blocked`(附证
 据)—— 先重试到足以确认不是你的改动。
 

.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/SKILL.md

@@ -591,20 +591,20 @@ grep <branch>`),复升级时逐条**跑**一遍,零命中/变形的就地改写
 `[Decision] <一句话>` 卡。③ **答复/代裁到手,裁决记录是一个原子动作,四件同笔**(维护者 2026-08-13)
 :鲜度门(录前重读晚于正文最后编辑的评论,有修正的先调和正文)/ 状态转换同笔(决策标签或 finding 定
 级换结果态,永不留挂)/ `Blocked-by:` 活性现验(合并一半也算解除,耗尽行同笔删)/ 条件已判即判(输入已知的就地判掉);案例与机械两旗见 `references/dispatch-runbook.md`。
-**每个方案必须沿三条固定评估轴分析,这是决策分析的核心原则,不是可选项:**
+**每个方案必须沿四条固定评估轴分析,这是决策分析的核心原则,不是可选项:**
 
 - **实际业务需求** — 它服务的是**真实存在的业务场景**,还是投机性能力面?判据要求**实测**(谁在
- 写这个键、谁在读、示例应用与真实部署的用法),「读起来像有用」不作数。**创业阶段聚焦原则**(
- 维护者 2026-08-04 指示:「我们是一个创业项目,应该先专注于核心能力」):能力扩张默认从紧,无拉
- 动的声明面按 implementation-first 处置,已发布零消费的能力不因沉没成本获得豁免。这条轴会改
- 变结论,不是陪衬。
+ 写这个键、谁在读、示例应用与真实部署的用法),「读起来像有用」不作数。这条轴会改变结论,不是陪衬。
 - **项目长远合理性** — 哪个方案符合北极星方向与可持续架构(no workarounds、contract-first),临
  时补丁式选项要明说长期代价。
 - **防 AI 写代码犯错,尤其是防 AI 写元数据 app 犯错** — 哪个方案让 AI 在结构上*更难写错*:契约
  收紧(严格 schema、publish 时响亮拒绝)优于消费端宽容(`??` 回退、静默容错)—— 宽容恰是 AI 批
  量犯错被掩盖的温床;声明即强制,绝不让 AI 声明一个运行时不兑现的能力。
+- **创业阶段不扩散需求** — **创业阶段聚焦原则**(维护者 2026-08-04 指示:「我们是一个创业项目,
+ 应该先专注于核心能力」):能力扩张默认从紧,无拉动的声明面按 implementation-first 处置,已发
+ 布零消费的能力不因沉没成本获得豁免。
 
-推荐意见必须基于这三条轴给出理由;三轴冲突时如实呈现权衡,交维护者拍板。**标准四棱卡面块是落卡与
+推荐意见必须基于这四条轴给出理由;四轴冲突时如实呈现权衡,交维护者拍板。**标准四棱卡面块是落卡与
 升级的必备件**(四棱维护者 2026-08-11 接受;标准块/摘要视图/批量决裁通道 2026-08-18 裁定「同意」——
 块标准化把提取从 LLM 理解题降级成 grep),每张 `needs-user-decision` 卡落卡即带、⛔ 不留待维护者到
 场再补。固定形状:首行**机器可寻固定标记** `<!-- os-decision-facets -->`(转义拼写写入,写后回读核
@@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ defer/remove);③ AI-agent error-resistance(闭合枚举优于自由结构、响
 scope discipline(remove 优于 declare-and-maintain,每个已声明的键都是永久义务);一行推荐 + 字母选
 项(A/B/…);**一行强制置信缺口(「本分析看不见什么」)** —— 案例(2026-08-15):两张四棱同向、低风
 险、全绿、已复核的 PR 仍因分析看不见的方向性前提被整体作废 —— 推荐是输入,永不是放行,人工地板不变。
-四棱是三条评估轴的卡面序列化,同一个框架不是第二套;也是分诊代裁置信门的输入(见分诊职责)。交互会
+四棱是四条评估轴的卡面序列化,一一对应,同一个框架不是第二套;也是分诊代裁置信门的输入(见分诊职责)。交互会
 话可另发 `AskUserQuestion`,带标签的 issue 恒为持久记录。
 
 **摘要视图与批量决裁**(同一 2026-08-18 裁定;实施既有批量裁决 2026-08-15 原话「还是等我批量决裁
@@ -677,5 +677,5 @@ scope discipline(remove 优于 declare-and-maintain,每个已声明的键都是
 | `scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs` | 文件面 → 该跑的门禁族(派发令取数) |
 | `scripts/pm/os-regen-merge.sh` | 碰生成物 PR 的 merge 四步序(防静默吞并与锚点倒退) |
 | `scripts/pm/ensure-pm-labels.sh` | pm 标签词表的幂等创建 |
-| `check:skill-frame-sync` / `-freshness` | 三轴决策框架四份拷贝的同构与新鲜度 |
+| `check:skill-frame-sync` / `-freshness` | 四维决策框架四份拷贝的同构与新鲜度 |
 | `guard-main-checkout` / `guard-shared-stash` hooks | worktree-first 与 stash 禁令的机械面 |

scripts/check-skill-frame-freshness.mjs

@@ -818,7 +818,7 @@ function selfTest() {
  label: 'stale tree + authoritative ref → ERROR naming the stale files (the #5866 shape)',
  run: () => evaluate({ root: dir, ref: current }),
  expect: 'error',
- wants: [/STRUCTURALLY BEHIND/, /\.claude\/agents\/os-dev\.md/, /2 axes: long-term-soundness/, /3 axes: business-need/, new RegExp(REMEDY.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\$&'))],
+ wants: [/STRUCTURALLY BEHIND/, /\.claude\/agents\/os-dev\.md/, /3 axes: long-term-soundness/, /4 axes: business-need/, new RegExp(REMEDY.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\$&'))],
  });
  cases.push({
  label: 'the SAME stale tree, fetch impossible → degrades to WARN, exit 0, same diagnosis',

scripts/check-skill-frame-sync.mjs

@@ -172,6 +172,11 @@ export const AXIS_MAP = [
  zh: /防 ?AI ?写(?:代码|元数据)/,
  en: /making AI-(?:written|authored) code/i,
  },
+ {
+ id: 'startup-scope-discipline',
+ zh: /创业阶段不扩散/,
+ en: /startup(?:-phase)? scope discipline/i,
+ },
 ];
 
 /** Numerals the count sentences are allowed to be written in. */
@@ -631,22 +636,22 @@ function selfTest() {
  ' **Long-term soundness for THIS project**',
  ),
  expect: 'red',
- wants: [/internal-dev/, /declares 3 axes but 2 axis entries/],
+ wants: [/internal-dev/, /declares 4 axes but 3 axis entries/],
  },
  {
- // The #5130 shape, coherent: one side becomes a consistent two-axis frame.
- label: 'one copy coherently rewritten to two axes → red (cross-copy count)',
+ // The #5130 shape, coherent: one side becomes a consistent three-axis frame.
+ label: 'one copy coherently rewritten to three axes → red (cross-copy count)',
  copies: () => {
  let c = mutate(
  base, 'internal-dev',
  '- **Long-term soundness for THIS project**',
  ' **Long-term soundness for THIS project**',
  );
- c = mutate(c, 'internal-dev', 'on three fixed axes', 'on two fixed axes');
- return mutate(c, 'internal-dev', 'on all three axes', 'on all two axes');
+ c = mutate(c, 'internal-dev', 'on four fixed axes', 'on three fixed axes');
+ return mutate(c, 'internal-dev', 'on all four axes', 'on all three axes');
  },
  expect: 'red',
- wants: [/do not agree on the NUMBER of axes/, /#5130/, /2 axes {2}internal-dev/],
+ wants: [/do not agree on the NUMBER of axes/, /#5130/, /3 axes {2}internal-dev/],
  },
  {
  // Regression pin for the draft defect described in soft(): the two-axis form
@@ -659,8 +664,13 @@ function selfTest() {
  '- Making AI-authored code — especially AI-authored metadata — structurally hard',
  ' Making AI-authored code — especially AI-authored metadata — structurally hard',
  );
- c = mutate(c, 'published-dev', 'Analyze every option on three fixed axes:', 'Analyze every option on two fixed axes:');
- return mutate(c, 'published-dev', 'Justify your recommendation on all three axes', 'Justify your recommendation on both axes');
+ c = mutate(
+ c, 'published-dev',
+ '- Startup scope discipline — do not grow the declared surface',
+ ' Startup scope discipline — do not grow the declared surface',
+ );
+ c = mutate(c, 'published-dev', 'Analyze every option on four fixed axes:', 'Analyze every option on two fixed axes:');
+ return mutate(c, 'published-dev', 'Justify your recommendation on all four axes', 'Justify your recommendation on both axes');
  },
  expect: 'red',
  wants: [/do not agree on the NUMBER of axes/, /2 axes {2}published-dev/],
@@ -698,7 +708,7 @@ function selfTest() {
  label: 'the binding sentence is removed → red (extraction failure, not a skip)',
  copies: () => mutate(
  base, 'published-pm',
- 'Your recommendation must be justified on **all three** axes.',
+ 'Your recommendation must be justified on **all four** axes.',
  'Your recommendation should be sensible.',
  ),
  expect: 'red',
@@ -708,7 +718,7 @@ function selfTest() {
  label: 'the declaring sentence is removed → red (extraction failure, not a skip)',
  copies: () => mutate(
  base, 'internal-dev',
- '**Analyze every option on three fixed axes',
+ '**Analyze every option on four fixed axes',
  '**Weigh the options sensibly',
  ),
  expect: 'red',
@@ -718,11 +728,11 @@ function selfTest() {
  label: 'a frame count mention drifts from the frame → red',
  copies: () => mutate(
  base, 'published-pm',
+ '#### The four-axis decision frame (binding)',
  '#### The three-axis decision frame (binding)',
- '#### The two-axis decision frame (binding)',
  ),
  expect: 'red',
- wants: [/a mention of the frame states 2 axes while the frame itself has 3/],
+ wants: [/a mention of the frame states 3 axes while the frame itself has 4/],
  },
  {
  label: 'AXIS_MAP misaligned (zh patterns swapped) → red, proving the map is load-bearing',
@@ -731,6 +741,7 @@ function selfTest() {
  { id: 'business-need', zh: AXIS_MAP[1].zh, en: AXIS_MAP[0].en },
  { id: 'long-term-soundness', zh: AXIS_MAP[0].zh, en: AXIS_MAP[1].en },
  AXIS_MAP[2],
+ AXIS_MAP[3],
  ],
  expect: 'red',
  wants: [/do not agree on the axis NAME SEQUENCE/],

skills/objectstack-pm-dispatch/SKILL.md

@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ waiting one more round.
 - **Maintainer confirm (`needs-user-decision`)** — design cards, feature or
  contract-shape proposals, multi-week programs needing appetite and
  sequencing, anything touching stored-data migration shape or removing a
- shipped capability. The label alone is the inbox entry; the deep three-axis
+ shipped capability. The label alone is the inbox entry; the deep four-axis
  analysis is written when the card is actually taken up.
 - **Repair first** — a body truncated by GitHub's sanitizer cannot be
  dispatched. Comment the repair instruction and move on.
@@ -641,14 +641,14 @@ When something *does* pass the bar:
  no issue of its own.
 3. Write the analysis with: background, the precise question, the options, your
  recommendation, and the related issues / PRs / branches — **and analyze
- every option on the three fixed axes below.**
+ every option on the four fixed axes below.**
 4. If the session is interactive, additionally ask the maintainer directly; the
  labeled issue remains the durable record either way. **Never** answer a
  product or architecture question on the maintainer's behalf.
 
-#### The three-axis decision frame (binding)
+#### The four-axis decision frame (binding)
 
-Every option in an escalation is analyzed on **all three** axes. This framing is
+Every option in an escalation is analyzed on **all four** axes. This framing is
 the core of the escalation, not decoration.
 
 **Axis ① — real business need.** Does this option serve a business scenario that
@@ -657,19 +657,10 @@ the core of the escalation, not decoration.
 instead of answering it. The evidence must be **measured, not inferred**: who
 writes this key, who reads this capability, how the project's example apps and
 real deployments use it today. "It reads like it would be useful" does not
-count — and neither does "we already shipped it": a **shipped-but-unconsumed
-capability gets no sunk-cost exemption**. A declared surface with no pull is
-handled **implementation-first** — narrow the declaration until
-`declared = enforced` (retire it, or park the vocabulary and let it return with
-the implementation) rather than building implementation to justify a declaration
-nobody asked for. **How tight that default should be is your project's call, not
-this skill's:** declare the capability-expansion stance in your conventions file —
-tight while the core surface is still forming, more permissive once it is
-stable — and this axis reads it from there, like every other project-specific
-rule. This axis **changes verdicts** rather than decorating them: two findings
+count. This axis **changes verdicts** rather than decorating them: two findings
 of identical technical shape can be ruled opposite ways on it alone — one
 declared surface retired for lack of pull, another kept and made to *reject
-loudly* because a real app proved the direction. On the other two axes they
+loudly* because a real app proved the direction. On the other three axes they
 would read the same, and that would be the wrong answer.
 
 **Axis ② — long-term architectural soundness for *this* project.** Which option
@@ -688,7 +679,19 @@ reader turns a whole generation of wrong metadata into something that "works"
 until it does not. Never let an agent declare a capability the runtime does not
 honour.
 
-Your recommendation must be justified on **all three** axes. If they conflict,
+**Axis ④ — startup scope discipline.** Do not grow the declared surface while
+the core is still forming. "We already shipped it" earns nothing: a
+**shipped-but-unconsumed capability gets no sunk-cost exemption**. A declared
+surface with no pull is handled **implementation-first** — narrow the
+declaration until `declared = enforced` (retire it, or park the vocabulary and
+let it return with the implementation) rather than building implementation to
+justify a declaration nobody asked for. **How tight that default should be is
+your project's call, not this skill's:** declare the capability-expansion
+stance in your conventions file — tight while the core surface is still
+forming, more permissive once it is stable — and this axis reads it from there,
+like every other project-specific rule.
+
+Your recommendation must be justified on **all four** axes. If they conflict,
 present the trade-off honestly and let the maintainer decide.
 
 ### 9. Round report, then next round
@@ -798,17 +801,12 @@ or two readings of the issue lead to different architectures: make no guess,
 write no speculative code. Return status "needs_decision" with each question,
 the options, their costs, and your recommendation in open_questions. A wrong
 guess shipped is far more expensive than a round-trip to the maintainer.
-Analyze every option on three fixed axes:
+Analyze every option on four fixed axes:
 - Real business need — does the option serve a business scenario that ACTUALLY
  EXISTS, or a speculative capability surface? Ask this first. The evidence must
  be MEASURED, not inferred: who writes this key, who reads this capability, how
  the project's example apps and real deployments use it today. "It reads like it
- would be useful" does not count, and a shipped-but-unconsumed capability gets
- no sunk-cost exemption. A declared surface with no pull is handled
- implementation-first — narrow the declaration until declared = enforced
- (retire it, or park the vocabulary until the implementation arrives) rather
- than building implementation to justify the declaration. How tight the default
- is comes from the project's conventions file, not from this template.
+ would be useful" does not count.
 - Long-term architectural soundness for THIS project — which option matches a
  sustainable architecture (no workarounds, contract-first), not which is
  cheapest today. Name the long-term cost of any patch-style option.
@@ -817,7 +815,14 @@ Analyze every option on three fixed axes:
  publish-time validation that rejects loudly, declared = enforced) over
  consumer-side tolerance. Lenient consumers are where AI-generated errors hide
  and multiply.
-Justify your recommendation on all three axes; if they conflict, present the
+- Startup scope discipline — do not grow the declared surface: a
+ shipped-but-unconsumed capability gets no sunk-cost exemption. A declared
+ surface with no pull is handled implementation-first — narrow the declaration
+ until declared = enforced (retire it, or park the vocabulary until the
+ implementation arrives) rather than building implementation to justify the
+ declaration. How tight the default is comes from the project's conventions
+ file, not from this template.
+Justify your recommendation on all four axes; if they conflict, present the
 trade-off and let the maintainer decide.
 
 Return "blocked" (with evidence) when the default branch is broken under you, a