audit-doctrine — Is the rule right, not merely enforced?

Degree of freedom: MIXED.

• Reference-practice comparison and remedy judgment (Phases 1–2): HIGH freedom — weigh each rule against how top products actually build.
• Governance-contract checks (Phases 3–4): LOW freedom — the contract's clauses are pass/fail; check each exactly.

Read-only. audit-gate-logic asks "can this gate be bypassed or gamed?" — it assumes the rule is correct. This asks the harder question: is the rule right on the merits? A ratchet that flawlessly enforces bad doctrine is worse than no ratchet, because greenness certifies the mistake and the developer, given only a codemod list, restyles legitimate work to appease a regex instead of fixing a real problem. An unexplained lint rejection erodes trust at that decision point until people "adopt their own truth." This audit finds the rules that are measuring taste, not correctness.

Present findings. Do not rewrite detectors, baselines, or tokens here.

This skill vs neighbors

The governance contract

A custom rule/axis is sound only if all hold:

1. Has a remedy — states the sanctioned alternative by name; a rule that only says "don't" is measuring taste.
2. Sanctioned form is reachable — the approved pattern exists as a named token/class, not folklore the developer must reverse-engineer.
3. Teaches on failure — the failure output prints the remedy AND the offending file:line, not just a codemod list.
4. Agrees with Tier-D reference practice — where the rule disagrees with how Stripe / Linear / GitHub / Docusaurus actually ship, the burden of proof is on the rule.
5. Exceptions expire; baselines only shrink — no permanent grandfather; the baseline cannot silently regrow (ratchet integrity still belongs to audit-gate-logic).

How to reason (every axis)

1. Observe — what does the detector actually measure? Read the detector, not its name — the name may over-claim (e.g. "no bordered cards" that really counts rounded+border without overflow-clip).
2. Interpret — what real pattern does it catch, and what legitimate pattern does it also reject?
3. Reference-check — do top products ship the rejected pattern?
4. Contract-check — run the five clauses.
5. Verdict — sound / taste-measuring / false-positive / folklore-token / missing-remedy, with the fix.

Worked example

Observe: a nested-rounded-box axis counts rounded + border lines without overflow-clip. Interpret: it rejects bordered 前の章／次の章 chapter-link cards — but the doctrine's own shell recipe passes it, so the sanctioned form exists. Reference-check: bordered chaptered-nav cards are standard — Docusaurus pagination-nav, Stripe docs ship the same pattern. Contract-check: remedy missing; reachable token missing (the passing form was never named); failure printed only a codemod list. Verdict: false-positive + missing-remedy + folklore-token. Fix: name the sanctioned form (e.g. PAGE_LINK_CARD_CLASS — bordered, clipped, hover-tiered); print remedy + file:line. Baseline unchanged — the token already equals the baseline, proving the ban was never real.

Phase 0 — Locate the doctrine [LOW freedom — run exactly]

Find the rule surface: custom lint/ratchet axes, the detector suite, the doctrine/governance doc (e.g. MASTER.md), baseline files, exception lists, and the failure-output code. Enumerate every axis with: what it detects, its remedy (if any), its baseline, and whether a named sanctioned token exists. Record the count — a long tail of un-remedied axes is the common state.

Phase 1 — Separate correctness from taste [HIGH freedom]

For each axis, classify:

• Correctness — catches a real bug / a11y / perf / security issue (missing focus, contrast fail, unclipped overflow that actually breaks layout). These may be stricter with less explanation.
• Taste — enforces a stylistic preference (radius scale, border style, card nesting). Not illegitimate, but they carry a higher burden: they must have a remedy and a reachable token, or they generate the appease-the-regex incident.

Phase 2 — Reference-check taste rules [HIGH freedom]

For each taste rule, check whether Tier-D products ship the pattern it rejects. Use research / official docs against Stripe, Linear, GitHub, Docusaurus, Radix, shadcn — fetch the live page or docs as written; recognizing a product is not knowing what it ships today, and a from-memory reference is needs-reference, not evidence. Where a rule bans what Tier-D ships, it is a false-positive candidate — the burden of proof is on the rule. Document the shipping reference for each disagreement. No reference → mark needs-reference, not a finding.

Phase 3 — Run the governance contract [LOW freedom — do not skip]

Check all five clauses per axis. State coverage honestly: N of M axes carry a remedy (usually a small fraction — remedies get seeded on the axes that bite during feature work; the long tail stays bare). Every bare axis is a latent appease-the-regex incident. Flag:

• missing-remedy
• unreachable-sanctioned-form (folklore)
• non-teaching failure output
• unexpiring exceptions
• regrowable baselines

Un-remedied axes → housekeep-backlog as BL- rows (junior-PR burndown).

Phase 4 — Freeze against regression [LOW freedom]

Confirm or recommend a test suite that freezes the governance properties so remedies cannot be silently stripped and sanctioned tokens cannot drift back into a false-positive form. Without this, the fix decays.

Self-critique before reporting [LOW freedom — do not skip]

• Evidence, not opinion — every "false positive" cites a specific Tier-D reference that ships the pattern. No reference → needs-reference, not a finding.
• Right axis — content problem (this skill) vs enforcement problem (audit-gate-logic). Do not claim a bypass finding.
• Remedy is real — a proposed remedy names an existing or addable token, not "use the right style".
• Baseline honesty — confirm the sanctioned form actually passes at the current baseline before claiming the ban was illusory.

Definition of Done

• Every axis enumerated: detect-target, remedy, baseline, sanctioned-token status
• Each axis classified correctness vs taste
• Taste rules reference-checked; disagreements cite a shipping reference
• Five contract clauses run per axis; remedy-coverage stated as N of M
• False-positives, folklore-tokens, missing-remedies, non-teaching failures, unexpiring exceptions, regrowable baselines flagged
• Freeze-test coverage confirmed or recommended
• Self-critique applied
• Read-only — propose, do not patch

Output format

1. Axis inventory — axis | detects | correctness/taste | remedy? | reachable token? | teaches? | baseline-shrink-only?
2. False-positive findings — axis | legitimate pattern rejected | Tier-D reference | proposed remedy + token
3. Governance gaps — remedy-coverage (N/M), folklore tokens, non-teaching outputs, exception/baseline integrity
4. Backfill burndown — un-remedied long-tail axes as tracked items (→ housekeep-backlog BL- rows)
5. Handoffs — enforcement/bypass → audit-gate-logic; token SSOT → housekeep-design; justified divergence → docs-adr