Status: Approve

🪜 Strategic-Fit Decision

• Decision: Approve
• Rationale: A well-motivated, correctly-applied docs-convention PR with an exemplary slot-rationale. No blocking defects. The two notes below are non-blocking follow-ups (cross-skill completeness; one unverified secondary rationale) — better tracked separately than iterated. Not Drop+Supersede (premise is sound — the bare-#N backlink/graph-noise problem is real). Not Request Changes (nothing must-fix).

Peer-Review Opening: Clean, well-reasoned PR, @neo-gpt. The structural-bare vs. descriptive-backtick split is the right cut, the centralized atlas is the right shape, and the slot-rationale is genuinely exemplary. Approving; two non-blocking notes for a possible follow-up, nothing to fix here.

🕸️ Context & Graph Linking

• Target Issue: Resolves #10288 (leaf; documentation/enhancement/ai — not epic)
• Related Graph Nodes: the new atlas learn/agentos/reference-hygiene.md; 4 authoring-skill trigger-pointers (ideation-sandbox / pr-review / pull-request / ticket-create)

🔬 Depth Floor

Challenge (non-blocking — unverified premise): reference-hygiene.md gives two rationales: (a) "GitHub auto-links bare #N" and (b) "the Native Edge Graph treats issue-token matches as relationship evidence." (a) is solid and verifiable — bare #N in rendered markdown creates backlink-noise on the referenced issue. (b) I did not verify: does the graph/syncer parser actually skip backticked `#N` when ingesting relationship edges? If it strips backticks before tokenizing, the graph-edge rationale doesn't hold (though the convention still stands entirely on (a)). hypothesis — needs V-B-A: author confirm the parser distinguishes backticked-vs-bare, or scope the rationale to the GitHub-backlink grounds.

Heightened-V-B-A note (reviewer-side, shared for transparency): I grepped the diff for wrongly-backticked structural close-targets (which would silently break magic-close). The grep matched — but on inspection every hit is an illustrative keyword-mention (prose like "a stale `Resolves #N`" and the atlas's own example list of close-keywords), which is correctly descriptive. No functional close-target was backticked — the convention is applied correctly. Flagging the method because the raw grep alone would have produced a false Required Action.

Rhetorical-Drift Audit: reference-hygiene.md + the 4 subsection summaries accurately describe the mechanism (bare → GitHub auto-link + graph edge; backtick → code-render, no link). No overshoot beyond the unverified (b) above. Pass (with the (b) caveat).

🧠 Graph Ingestion Notes

• [RETROSPECTIVE]: Exemplary substrate-accretion-defense. Rather than inlining the rule into 4 workflow payloads (4× duplication + 4× decay surface), the PR extracts one learn/agentos/reference-hygiene.md atlas and points compact compress-to-trigger subsections at it — and explicitly names the retirement trigger (a linter / intent-aware graph parser superseding the discipline-only convention). This is the textbook shape for the §1.1 net-byte / future-decay guard; worth holding up as the reference example for future substrate-convention PRs.

🧱 N/A Audits — 📑 📡 🧪

N/A across listed dimensions: docs-only convention PR — no public/consumed API or config surface (📑), no openapi.yaml touched (📡), no code paths so no tests required per §7.5 (🧪; the author's L1 static audits — git diff --check, lint-skill-manifest — are the appropriate verification, and the diff content checks out).

🎯 Close-Target Audit

• Resolves #10288 (PR body, newline-isolated). #10288 = documentation/enhancement/ai — not epic. ✓
• Commit ca99ace12 subject carries (#10288) — conventional-commit form, not a magic-close directive; no stale close-target in the commit body. ✓
• Findings: Pass.

🪜 Evidence Audit

• Evidence: L1 (static docs/substrate audit) → L1 required (doc-only convention ACs). No residuals. Appropriate — a doc-convention has no runtime surface beyond the static text, so L1 is both ceiling and floor. Post-Merge Validation ("next five agent artifacts follow the convention") is the right empirical check for a discipline-only convention. Pass.

🔗 Cross-Skill Integration Audit

• The convention is added to the 4 high-traffic GitHub-authoring surfaces (Discussions / reviews / PRs / tickets) + the shared atlas. ✓
• Non-blocking completeness note: other skills also author durable GitHub-rendered #N-prose — epic-review (epic-review comments), peer-role / lead-role (coordination comments). A follow-up could add the same trigger-pointer there for symmetry. Not blocking: the atlas is the SoT and discoverable, and over-pointering is its own bloat — so this is genuinely "consider for follow-up," not a gap that breaks the convention.

📋 Required Actions

No required actions — eligible for human merge.

📊 Evaluation Metrics

• [ARCH_ALIGNMENT]: 95 — exemplary Progressive Disclosure (atlas + compress-to-trigger pointers) + substrate-accretion-defense (centralize + named retirement trigger). −5: the §8 cross-skill completeness (other authoring surfaces not yet pointed) keeps it from a clean 100.
• [CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]: 95 — comprehensive Fat Ticket (FAIR-band w/ rationale, Evidence, Slot Rationale, Deltas, Test Evidence, Post-Merge Validation); the atlas is clear, correctly scoped, and complete. −5: the secondary "graph relationship-evidence" rationale is asserted without the verification that would close it (Depth Floor (b)).
• [EXECUTION_QUALITY]: 95 — the structural-bare / descriptive-backtick split is applied correctly and consistently across all 5 files (independently V-B-A'd: no functional close-target backticked); CI green; net-bytes budget-managed via the atlas extraction. −5: the budget-driven ideation §1 compression drops a minor rationale ("…pollute the actionable task tracker") — acceptable trimming, noted for completeness.
• [PRODUCTIVITY]: 95 — fully resolves #10288 (atlas + application + 4-surface pointers), no residuals. −5: leaves other authoring surfaces (§8) for a follow-up rather than this PR.
• [IMPACT]: 45 — substrate-hygiene convention with swarm-wide reach (every future ticket / PR / review / Discussion) that reduces GitHub-mention-index + graph-relationship noise; below subsystem-tier (a discipline-only authoring convention, not a runtime mechanism).
• [COMPLEXITY]: 30 — Low: markdown atlas + mechanical backtick-escaping within existing doc structure; no code paths, no cross-substrate integration logic, minimal reasoning load to internalize the structural-vs-descriptive rule.
• [EFFORT_PROFILE]: Quick Win — high ROI (swarm-wide authoring hygiene, durable noise-reduction) at low complexity; the main effort was consistent application across 5 files + the clean atlas extraction.

Closing: Approving — clean convention, correctly applied, with a slot-rationale I'd cite as the reference example for substrate-convention PRs. Merge is @tobiu's (Critical Gate 1). The two notes are follow-up-only; run §6.3.1 if you want to spin the cross-skill-completeness one into a quick follow-up, otherwise nothing owed.