amend-durable-doc: the guarded path for changing what is diff-protected

The method's durable documents only work because they stay still. A Job Spec's job / outcome / stakes lines are the contract everything anchors to; an active STRATEGY.md is the record of what is funded. The operating contract makes both diff-protected: without a guard, a "durable" Job Spec decays into a description of whatever shipped, one reasonable-looking edit at a time.

The distinction this skill enforces:

• Narration is routine. The implementation changed; the job did not. Add one line: "We used to do X; we changed to Y; the job underneath is unchanged." No ceremony.
• Outcome change is a ratified event. The job, outcome, or stakes line itself changes meaning, or a strategy's funded bets move mid-period. This needs a dated decision record and re-ratification by the humans who own the gates. A change to those lines fails review unless it cites its decision record.

Step 0: Ground yourself

Read the document being changed, in full, plus: its up-anchor (the outcome a Job Spec serves; the anchors a strategy references), anything pointing at it (RFCs with serves: this spec; pillars funding this job), and the decisions/ directory for prior records. A change's blast radius is everything that points here.

Step 1: Classify the change

Take the proposed edit and sort every part of it into one of four classes. An edit often carries more than one; classify each separately.

1. Body edit within the contract. New Prove-it scenario, a sharpened Good/bad line, a spec-gap clause from uat-ux-debug, depth added as stakes rose. The job / outcome / stakes lines do not move. → Proceed; exit through review-doc.
2. Retired-approach narration. The build changed underneath the job. → Add the one-line narration; never silently rewrite sections to match the new build as if the old approach never existed.
3. Outcome change (Job Spec). The job, outcome, or stakes line changes meaning, not just wording. Test honestly: would the old Prove-it scenarios still prove the new line? Would an RFC written against the old line still be in scope under the new one? If either answer is no, it is an outcome change however small the diff looks. → Decision record required; go to Step 2.
4. Material strategy change. Allocation percentages move, a pillar is added or dropped, a deferral is un-deferred, a decision test changes, on an active strategy. → Decision record required; go to Step 2. (A whole new period is create-strategy, which supersedes rather than amends.)

When the user asks for a class-3/4 change as if it were routine ("just update the outcome line"), do not refuse and do not comply silently: explain the guard in one line and route to Step 2. The friction is the feature; it is what keeps "durable" meaning something.

Step 2: For ratified changes, draft the decision record first

Interview briefly, one question at a time, for the three sections of templates/decision-record.md:

• Context: what changed in the world? A market event, a customer signal, an abandon-signal firing, a bet falsified. Name the signal and when it arrived. If the user cannot name what changed in the world, ask whether the original line was wrong from the start; that is still a valid context, recorded honestly.
• Decision: what the document now says that it did not, narrated as intent, matching what the diff will show.
• Consequences: what this commits to, what it gives up, what it is now blind to. Push on the give-up: an outcome change that costs nothing was not load-bearing, which is its own finding. For a Job Spec outcome change, walk the blast radius from Step 0: which RFCs, pillars, and UAT scenarios now need updating? List them in the record.

Name it YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md, place it in decisions/, and note the commit: field gets the SHA after the change commits.

Step 3: Apply the edit and exit through the gate

Apply the document change with its citation: the changed Job Spec or STRATEGY.md references its decision record (and the record will carry the commit). Then hand both to review-doc as a fresh process: it treats an uncited change to diff-protected lines as a BLOCK, so this is where the guard proves it held. Re-ratification of the changed line is the human owner's call, not the agent's; present the diff, the record, and the blast radius, and stop there.

Output

1. The classification of each part of the change (1–4), stated plainly.
2. For ratified changes: the decision record in decisions/, the cited edit, and the blast-radius list of documents needing follow-up.
3. For routine changes: the applied edit with narration where an approach was retired.
4. The review-doc verdict.

The self-teaching check (dogfood this skill)

Give a fresh agent this skill and three asks against the Tempo example: add a Prove-it scenario (class 1), note that the sync mechanism was rebuilt (class 2), and "update the outcome, we only aggregate two locations now" (class 3). It passes if the first two proceed without ceremony, and the third produces a decision record with a real give-up and a blast-radius list before any line moves. If it edits the outcome line with no record, it failed; if it demands a decision record for the Prove-it scenario, it also failed: a guard that fires on everything protects nothing.

Related

• Decision Record template -- the record ratified changes carry
• Job Spec template -- the diff-protected job / outcome / stakes contract
• Strategy as Code -- why strategy changes pair a diff with a why
• review-doc -- the gate that verifies the citation exists
• uat-ux-debug -- the upstream source of spec-gap clauses (class-1 edits)