Add changeset for the self-grilling fix

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

.changeset/wayfinder-grilling-not-self.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": patch
+---
+
+Stop **`wayfinder`** grilling *itself* instead of the human, and classify ticket types by **HITL** / **AFK**.
+
+Students reported `/wayfinder` picking a **grilling** ticket and answering its own questions rather than turning to the human. Root cause: **`grilling`** carried a line written for the live-human case — "If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead" — which, once `wayfinder` runs grilling inside a resolve-the-ticket frame, reads as license to answer questions autonomously and race the ticket to "resolved".
+
+Two changes:
+
+- **`grilling`** now splits *facts* (look them up) from *decisions* (put each one to the human and wait for their answer).
+- **`wayfinder`** labels every ticket type **HITL** (human in the loop — Prototype, Grilling) or **AFK** (agent alone — Research; Task is either). A HITL ticket only resolves through the live exchange, so the "wait for the human" behaviour falls out of the label instead of being spelled out per type — a grilling agent that answers its own questions has, by definition, broken HITL.

.changeset/wayfinder-no-fog-early-exit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": patch
+---
+
+Restore **`wayfinder`**'s early exit when the frontier grilling turns up no fog.
+
+The skill used to have a **Skipping The Decision Map** section: if the opening grilling surfaced no fog of war, there was no map to build, so it offered to skip straight to implementing. That clause was demoted to a parenthetical inside the Handoff section, then deleted as collateral when Handoff was removed — never an intentional cut.
+
+It's back, co-located in **Chart the map** step 2 (Map the frontier), where the fog/no-fog outcome is actually determined: if breadth-first grilling surfaces no fog — the journey is small enough for one session — you don't need a map, so stop and ask the user how they'd like to proceed. The ask, rather than an auto-skip, is preserved from the original.

skills/in-progress/wayfinder/SKILL.md

@@ -7,6 +7,10 @@ A loose idea has arrived — too big for one agent session, and wrapped in fog:
 
 The destination varies per effort, and naming it is the first act of charting — it shapes every ticket. It might be a spec to hand off and iterate on, a decision to lock before planning starts, or a change made in place like a data-structure migration. The map is domain-agnostic — engineering work, course content, whatever fits the shape.
 
+## Plan, don't do
+
+Wayfinder is **planning** by default: each ticket resolves a decision, and the map is done when the way is clear — nothing left to decide before someone goes and does the thing. The pull to just do the work is usually the signal you've reached the edge of the map and it's time to hand off. An effort can override this in its **Notes** — carrying execution into the map itself — but absent that, produce decisions, not deliverables.
+
 ## Refer by name
 
 Every map and ticket is an issue, so it has a **name** — its title. In everything the human reads — narration, the map's Decisions-so-far — refer to it by that name, never by a bare id, number, or slug. A wall of `#42, #43, #44` is illegible; names read at a glance. The id and URL don't vanish — a name wraps its link — but they ride *inside* the name, never stand in for it.
@@ -67,10 +71,12 @@ The answer isn't part of the body — it's recorded on resolution (see [Work thr
 
 ## Ticket Types
 
-- **Research**: Reading documentation, third-party APIs, or local resources like knowledge bases. Creates a markdown summary as a linked asset. Use when knowledge outside the current working directory is required.
-- **Prototype**: Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to — an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code via the /prototype skill. Links the prototype as an asset. Use when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question.
-- **Grilling**: Conversation with the agent. Uses the /grilling and /domain-modeling skills. Asks one question at a time. The default case.
-- **Task**: Literal manual work that must be done before the discussion can move forward — nothing to decide, prototype, or research. Moving data, signing up for a service, provisioning access. The agent automates it where it can; otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist. Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on.
+Every ticket is either **HITL** — human in the loop, worked *with* a human who speaks for themselves — or **AFK**, driven by the agent alone. A HITL ticket only resolves through that live exchange; the agent never stands in for the human's side of it (a grilling agent that answers its own questions has broken this).
+
+- **Research** (AFK): Reading documentation, third-party APIs, or local resources like knowledge bases. Creates a markdown summary as a linked asset. Use when knowledge outside the current working directory is required.
+- **Prototype** (HITL): Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to — an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code via the /prototype skill. Links the prototype as an asset. Use when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question.
+- **Grilling** (HITL): Conversation via the /grilling and /domain-modeling skills, one question at a time. The default case.
+- **Task** (HITL or AFK): Manual work that must happen before a *decision* can be made — nothing to decide, prototype, or research, but the discussion is blocked until it's done. Signing up for a service so its API can be judged, provisioning access, moving data so its shape can be seen. This is the one type that *does* rather than decides — and it earns its place by unblocking a decision, not by delivering the destination. The agent drives it alone where it can (AFK); otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist (HITL). Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on.
 
 ## Fog of war
 
@@ -102,7 +108,7 @@ Two modes. Either way, **never resolve more than one ticket per session.**
 User invokes with a loose idea.
 
 1. **Name the destination.** Run a `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling` session to pin down what this map is finding its way to — the spec, decision, or change. The destination fixes the scope, so it's settled first.
-2. **Map the frontier.** Grill again, **breadth-first** this time: fan out across the whole space rather than deep on any one thread, surfacing the open decisions and the first steps takeable now.
+2. **Map the frontier.** Grill again, **breadth-first** this time: fan out across the whole space rather than deep on any one thread, surfacing the open decisions and the first steps takeable now. **If this surfaces no fog** — the way to the destination is already clear, the whole journey small enough for one session — you don't need a map. Stop and ask the user how they'd like to proceed.
 3. **Create the map** (label `wayfinder:map`): Destination and Notes filled in, Decisions-so-far empty, the fog sketched into **Not yet specified**.
 4. **Create the tickets you can specify now** as child issues of the map — then wire blocking edges in a **second pass** (issues need ids before they can reference each other). Wiring sorts them into the frontier and the blocked; everything you can't yet specify stays in the fog — the **Not yet specified** section.
 5. Stop — charting the map is one session's work; do not also resolve tickets.

skills/productivity/grilling/SKILL.md

@@ -7,6 +7,6 @@ Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a share
 
 Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing. Asking multiple questions at once is bewildering.
 
-If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
+If a *fact* can be found by exploring the codebase, look it up rather than asking me. The *decisions*, though, are mine — put each one to me and wait for my answer.
 
 Do not enact the plan until I confirm we have reached a shared understanding.