Fixes the sentences the four design reviews flagged and records what phase 1
actually implements: status line, monitor-topic scope, option A's isolation
and capacity wording, creator/reviewer ownership (tests write; promotion is
the control root's), the control-plane binding persisted and forwarded, two
loop recipes ((a) the loop implements, (b) the base recorded before an
out-of-loop implementation, then --base --review-only; no base in --task),
the loop lock as a refusal, "phase 1 = parallel implementation, one review
loop", the eight Issue #21 items with their status, and a new section 7 with
root definitions and a per-skill compatibility table. The review files are
unchanged. The loop SKILL.md lock note names the lock branch instead of line
numbers that moved.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017R3Eg7MEpSWnm1oB9ZPP6G
claude, agy, grok: PASS with amendments; codex: NOT PASS (recipe overstates
current env-override support; review identity and lifecycle ownership
underspecified). Direction (creator per worktree, shared reviewer pool)
agreed by all four.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VCgu9Fa9iT7TbJUSzdq4Ff
Design proposal for review (no code change): why the checkout-path
workspace assumption blocks parallel issues and caused the #18 checkout
switch, three candidate models, the recommended hybrid (writers isolated
per worktree, readers shared, one .mam control plane via env overrides),
how it maps onto today's scripts, what has to change, and the questions
put to the reviewers.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VCgu9Fa9iT7TbJUSzdq4Ff
GodopuandClaude Opus 5