AGENTS.md "Delegation" says:
Never tier down the seat holding the judgment. Governance wording, spec logic, rulesets, repository visibility, and the decision to decline a review finding are fleet-wide and durable when wrong. Tier the subagents, not the main thread.
Its remedy is that the judgment does not move into a subagent at all. But every worker backlog-burndown dispatches holds one of those judgments by construction: a worker drives its own review loop through drive-pr, whose outcome 2 is declining a finding in the thread with evidence. So the skill's whole dispatch model delegates a judgment this rule says to keep on the main thread.
backlog-burndown "Choosing the Worker's Model Tier" currently reproduces a three-item subset of the five ("carried canonical content", "a gate, a ruleset, a release condition, or a carried governance section", "complex or entangled"), which silently drops the declining judgment, and because it says "This is only what it leaves to judgment here", a reader takes the three as complete.
An attempt to fix it by reading the list as a tier floor for delegates was reverted before merge, because it licensed the delegation the source rule forbids and because AGENTS.md "Delegation" names no tier for any judgment, only "the cheapest model that does it correctly" for mechanical work, so a floor stated in those terms cannot be executed.
The design question, which is the maintainer's rather than an agent's: does a dispatched worker holding a declining judgment violate the never-tier-down rule, or is the rule about tier rather than about seat, so that a worker at a sufficient tier satisfies it? The answer decides whether the rule needs a delegated-seat clause, whether backlog-burndown needs an explicit override, or whether a worker must escalate every decline to its dispatcher rather than making one.
Related, in the same enumeration: AGENTS.md's "fleet-wide and durable when wrong" belongs to the never-tier-down list while "however small it looks" belongs to the preceding design-change bullet, so a citation merging the two attributes each phrase to the wrong list. See also #1284, which raises that the design-change class names a membership with no obligation attached.
Raised by the local-strict-review passes on the pull request that added backlog-burndown, and deferred there under that skill's own review-round budget.
AGENTS.md"Delegation" says:Its remedy is that the judgment does not move into a subagent at all. But every worker
backlog-burndowndispatches holds one of those judgments by construction: a worker drives its own review loop throughdrive-pr, whose outcome 2 is declining a finding in the thread with evidence. So the skill's whole dispatch model delegates a judgment this rule says to keep on the main thread.backlog-burndown"Choosing the Worker's Model Tier" currently reproduces a three-item subset of the five ("carried canonical content", "a gate, a ruleset, a release condition, or a carried governance section", "complex or entangled"), which silently drops the declining judgment, and because it says "This is only what it leaves to judgment here", a reader takes the three as complete.An attempt to fix it by reading the list as a tier floor for delegates was reverted before merge, because it licensed the delegation the source rule forbids and because
AGENTS.md"Delegation" names no tier for any judgment, only "the cheapest model that does it correctly" for mechanical work, so a floor stated in those terms cannot be executed.The design question, which is the maintainer's rather than an agent's: does a dispatched worker holding a declining judgment violate the never-tier-down rule, or is the rule about tier rather than about seat, so that a worker at a sufficient tier satisfies it? The answer decides whether the rule needs a delegated-seat clause, whether
backlog-burndownneeds an explicit override, or whether a worker must escalate every decline to its dispatcher rather than making one.Related, in the same enumeration:
AGENTS.md's "fleet-wide and durable when wrong" belongs to the never-tier-down list while "however small it looks" belongs to the preceding design-change bullet, so a citation merging the two attributes each phrase to the wrong list. See also #1284, which raises that the design-change class names a membership with no obligation attached.Raised by the local-strict-review passes on the pull request that added
backlog-burndown, and deferred there under that skill's own review-round budget.