Persona at invocation

Before conversational narration, read Persona: and Style: in the active project's ## Agent skills block from CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md. Prefer the file containing the block, then an existing file; ties use CLAUDE.md. A symlink pair is one file. Read the saved value anew on each invocation, including from a subdirectory using the project root. No accessible project or no line means ordinary behavior. Do not search another project or global settings for this preference.

During the Persona at invocation stage, archmage on either line loads this skill's own references/archmage.md for the active workflow. off or an absent value leaves ordinary behavior active. An unknown value leaves ordinary behavior active and gets a brief explanation when conversational output is allowed; it does not stop the work. Explicit conversation instructions override the saved voice without writing settings. A request to enable Archmage for this workflow also loads the local reference.

Apply the voice only to lead-agent conversation. Deliverables, specialist roles, reply-only responses, and JSON-only output retain their contracts, with no added narration. End the persona with this workflow unless the user requests otherwise or a Style: line names archmage, which keeps the voice on for the whole session.

Banish

Honor the user's explicit instructions and decisions already made in this conversation over this skill's workflow defaults. A rule this file states with never, or as read-only, is a gate: it holds whatever the conversation says, and an instruction to cross one is declined and reported. Continue authorized work; ask only about unresolved choices that would materially change the result. Preparing or reviewing work does not authorize publishing it.

If a skill rule requires a pause or leaves requested work unfinished, name and link to the exact SKILL.md and quote the rule. Then explain what decision or prerequisite is missing. Distinguish a required gate from your interpretation.

Comments in a diff are usually the author explaining code that should have explained itself. This skill hands the diff to a reviewer with no attachment to the code, the Comment Reaper, then acts on what comes back.

Scope

Use the files or diff the caller names. Otherwise use the diff between the current branch and the base branch (default main), including the working tree.

Steps

1. Spawn the Reaper

Read references/comment-reaper.md from this skill's directory. Then spawn one subagent with that file's full content as its instructions and the scope appended. In Claude Code, prefer the installed agent named comment-reaper (or fr:comment-reaper when installed as a plugin) if it exists; otherwise, or on any other platform, spawn a generic subagent seeded with the reference file. Do not restate or soften its rules in the prompt.

2. Audit the report

Check the Reaper's diff and report before accepting anything:

• Reject any change to application code. The Reaper deletes comments only.
• Reject deletions that a keep-list clause in the reference file clearly covers (license headers, public API contracts, foreign quirks, formatter directives, style-only suppressions, constraint links). Restore those.
• Reject RESHAPE flags that misstate what the code does. Keep the ones that hold.
• Look for comments and suppressions the Reaper missed inside the scope. Add them to the list.

If the report fails badly (application code edited, scope escaped, several bad flags), revert its changes, spawn it once more with the failures named, and audit again. A second failure ends the run: report it and stop.

3. Act on RESHAPE flags

Each surviving RESHAPE names a symbol whose behavior needed a comment to be understood. Make the smallest change inside the scope that makes the behavior obvious: rename, extract, narrow a type, add a guard, or delete a dead path. Where the fix needs code outside the scope, leave it and report it open. Never bolt on a guard that hides the surprise instead of removing it.

4. Encode constraints instead of pleading

A comment that says "do not remove", "keep this order", or "talk to someone before changing" is a constraint. Find the cheapest enforcement that lives in the code: a type, a test, a runtime assertion, or a lint rule. If the caller already authorized that enforcement, implement it within scope and delete the comment. Otherwise finish the authorized cleanup and present the proposed enforcement with the affected code before asking. Unattended, report the proposal for later. A constraint left unenforced is named in the report when its comment is deleted.

5. Report

Deleted: <n> comments across <n> files
Restored: <n> (<why>)
Reruns: <0 or 1>

Fixed
- <file> <symbol>: <what changed>

Encoded
- <file>: <constraint> -> <test | type | assertion | lint>

Open
- <file> <symbol>: <RESHAPE or constraint left open, and why>