Separate initiative definition, issue planning and orchestration scope

[thisisjun786]

Initiative definition and issue planning previously shared one skill, and project/issue ownership was implicit. This change adds crw-define for intent, success evidence and scope; crw-plan decomposes the agreed goal into projects, useful milestones and issues. Requests for both chain them, while definition-only and advisory requests keep their boundaries.

Parents orchestrate one project and children one issue. Implementation issues map one-to-one to delivery PRs; non-code work keeps a verifiable result. Stable IDs survive renamed projects, goal membership and product/repository classification. Project names need no product prefix.

Validation: 7-skill structure/link checks, 33 CI/installer tests, existing offline contracts and new/changed skill validators pass. Independent scenario review and hosted gates are being refreshed for this revision. These checks do not establish real intent-dialogue quality, automatic Linear state settings, Desktop behavior or runtime installation. No package or service changes.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-16T11:13:35.031429Z	dc3ef47	New commits
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-16T08:29:38.172856Z	c1a2b33	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[thisisjun786]

@codex security review
Please review current head 829b8de, including the full-plan scope and one-issue/one-PR instructions. The earlier security review covered c1a2b33.

[thisisjun786]

Independent fresh-context review of current head 4e93dd8 against dev 83b020a: PASS, no blockers. Covered definition-only versus combined planning, advisory writes, standalone issues, project/issue ownership, one-PR mapping, five-plane documents, stable identity, installer metadata and next-action routing.

Local validation passed: seven-skill structure and links, 33 CI/installer tests, existing offline contracts, changed-skill validators, diff check. Hosted required dev-gate also passed (run 35087389897). Hosted code reviews are still running; the security summary is for an older revision and is not current-head evidence. No live dialog, service or Desktop compatibility claim.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dc3ef47de6

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[thisisjun786]

Current candidate 2c94164: independent incremental scenario review PASS; required dev-gate and Devin Review PASS. All hosted findings have been addressed and conversations resolved. The last Codex code-review summary covers dc3ef47; its launch-record finding is fixed in this candidate and independently reviewed. The older optional security summary is not current-head evidence.

Validation: seven-skill structure/links, 33 installer/CI tests, owning offline contracts, changed skill metadata and diff checks passed. Non-PR cases now distinguish input baseline from immutable delivered output, retain actual coordinator routing, and require frozen manifest artifacts when using the existing relay. No live dialogue, relay service, Desktop behavior or installation claim.