[design] IC_R011 follow-up checkpoints should default to filing, not asking — past suggestions are disappearing into conversation

[kiki830621]

Problem

Original request (2026-05-23, this session):
「我覺得建議的時候應該要預設要開起 issue，不然過去的問題就會消失了吧，除非是無法解決的問題」

Plain-language interpretation: when IDD skills surface follow-up / sister / tangential concerns(currently via the IC_R011 3-option AskUserQuestion pattern: file all / file selected / skip),the default should be filing,not asking. The current "ask first" UX creates friction — if the user doesn't actively choose to file, the suggestion disappears into the conversation log and gets lost. The user's exception clause(「除非是無法解決的問題」 — "unless it's an unsolvable problem")carves out a narrow opt-out: filing is the default, skipping is reserved for items that genuinely cannot become actionable issues.

Triggering context (this session)

Three IC_R011 checkpoints were invoked in the last 4 hours, each asking the canonical 3-option:

Skill	Checkpoint	User choice
idd-plan Step 2.5 tangential sweep(che-cheng-website #25)	3-option	"file it now" → filed #26
idd-diagnose Step 3.6 sister concern(NSQL #2)	3-option	"file selected: only #1" → filed #3
idd-verify Step 5b follow-up triage(NSQL #2 verify)	3-option	"File all 3 as parking lots" → filed #5/#6/#7

3/3 user chose to file with minor variation in count. The pattern is consistent enough that "always ask" is overhead — file all should be the default, with skip reserved for the user's exception case.

Type

design — policy change affecting the canonical IC_R011 reference + every skill that implements it

Affected skills

The IC_R011 3-option pattern is implemented in at least these 6 places (canonical reference: plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/ic-r011-checkpoint.md):

• idd-diagnose Step 3.6 — sister concern surfacing (#528)
• idd-plan Step 2.5 — tangential observations sweep (#524)
• idd-implement Step 5.7 — sister bug sweep (#526)
• idd-verify Step 5b — follow-up issue triage (this is the closest to atomic "should it be filed?" decision)
• idd-close Step 3.5 — closing summary follow-up keyword scan (#527)
• idd-issue Step 4.7 — linked-context sister sweep (#529)

All 6 currently route via the same 3-option AskUserQuestion. Policy change applies uniformly.

Expected

Flip the default from "ask 3-option" to one of these (to be decided in diagnose):

Option	Behavior	UX cost	Risk
A: silent auto-file	File all candidates automatically; no prompt;rely on existing AI_LOW_BAR_ISSUE_FILING=false env var as opt-out	zero per-checkpoint friction	risk of filing low-value issues with no human review
B: inverted prompt	Still AskUserQuestion, but options flipped: [file all (recommended, default)] / [opt-out: these are unsolvable] — second option requires user to justify why each item shouldn't be filed	minimal friction (recommended default;skip is the explicit choice)	preserves human gate but removes "skip by default" path
C: auto-file + retroactive delete	File all silently, then show summary Filed: #N, #M, #P — any of these unsolvable? say so and I'll close them with reason	small post-action prompt	files first, asks second — may create transient issue noise

User's "unsolvable" exception suggests preserving SOME opt-out path. Option B is the most conservative interpretation (default-on file, explicit-justification skip), but Options A/C may better match the user's intent if they want zero friction. Diagnose should narrow this.

Backward-compatibility considerations

• Existing escape hatch AI_LOW_BAR_ISSUE_FILING=false continues to work (per-repo CLAUDE.md flag too)
• # Disable IC_R011 comment in repo CLAUDE.md still bypasses
• Already-filed issues unchanged; this is forward-looking only

Actual

Currently every IC_R011 checkpoint asks 3-option AskUserQuestion with [file all] / [file selected] / [skip]. The file all option is typically the first (recommended) option, but the user must still explicitly select it — there is no auto-file path. Result: when the user is mid-task and doesn't actively act, surfaced concerns disappear into conversation history.

Impact

• Reduces conversational friction at 6+ checkpoint sites — each currently 1 round-trip AskUserQuestion
• Increases issue tracking fidelity — past concerns no longer rely on user remembering to file
• Trade-off: may create some low-value issue noise — items the user would have skipped will become P3 issues in the backlog. Tagging them confidence:confirmed, priority:P3 (current pattern) makes them easy to bulk-triage / close later
• Cross-skill consistency — all 6 IC_R011 implementations move in lockstep via the canonical reference doc
• Aligns with NSQL "clarify before execute" principle: asking before filing is one form of clarification, but if the user's stable preference is "always file", the clarifying question becomes ceremony rather than signal

Priority

P2 — non-blocking workflow improvement, but affects every IDD skill execution going forward. Worth doing once a clear option is picked, but no fire.

Related

• plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/ic-r011-checkpoint.md — canonical pattern doc
• IC_R011 source: kiki830621/ai_martech_global_scripts#516
• Existing rollback hatch: AI_LOW_BAR_ISSUE_FILING=false env var (mentioned in canonical reference §5)

Source

Surfaced by user mid-session after observing 3 consecutive file all-leaning choices in IC_R011 checkpoints across idd-plan / idd-diagnose / idd-verify invocations on che-cheng-website#25 and NSQL#2.

Current Status

Phase: closed
Last updated: 2026-05-25 by idd-close (cluster mode)

Outcome

• Implementation via spectra change idd-ic-r011-default-file (14 tasks)
• Commit: e5e05e1
• Plugin distribution synced: v2.71.0 → v2.72.0 (/plugin-tools:plugin-update)
• Closing summary: see comment above

[kiki830621]

Diagnosis

Type

design — policy change to the published IC_R011 commercial low-bar filing canonical reference + cascade to 7 implementing skill specs。本 issue 是 spec evolution,不是 bug 修補 + 不是新 feature。

Analysis

Issue body 把 problem / motivation / 3 options(A/B/C)寫得相當完整,本 diagnose 補三件 issue body 沒處理的:(1) 影響面 count 漏估、(2) SHALL/SHOULD 異質性、(3) 「無法解決」exception 的精確定義。

Finding 1 — 影響面是 7 skills,不是 6

Issue body 列了 6 個 implementing skill(diagnose/plan/implement/verify/close/issue)。Grep 出實際 IC_R011 references in plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/:

idd-all-chain/SKILL.md   ← 多 1 個
idd-close/SKILL.md
idd-diagnose/SKILL.md
idd-implement/SKILL.md
idd-issue/SKILL.md
idd-plan/SKILL.md
idd-verify/SKILL.md

idd-all-chain 也 reference IC_R011(可能是 Phase 2 spawn manifest 邏輯)。任何 policy change 必須掃這 7 個 site,不是 6。

Finding 2 — SHALL / SHOULD 異質性已存在,影響 default-flip 語意

Issue body 暗示 6 skills 同質,實際上 rule strength 已分:

Skill	Step	Rule	Rationale (per canonical reference)
idd-diagnose	3.6	SHALL	Strategy authoring = prime deliberation moment
idd-plan	2.5	SHALL	Mid-plan tangential surface 是 design time
idd-implement	5.7	SHALL	Reproduction reveals sister bugs(#510→#518→#520 經典案例)
idd-issue	4.7	SHALL	Linked-context sister sweep
idd-verify	5b	(not framed as "Rule")	follow-up triage 已是 default-ask 3-option
idd-close	3.5	SHOULD	Mostly mechanical text scan,SHOULD 因為 closing 不是 deliberation moment

→ default-flip 對 SHALL vs SHOULD 影響不同:

• SHALL skills 翻 default → 強紀律強化 → 跟 user feedback 一致
• SHOULD skills(只有 idd-close)翻 default 是否合理?Closing 階段 user 已在 wrap-up 心智狀態,被「last-call 默默 file 3 個 follow-up issue」可能更 friction。可考慮 SHOULD skills 保留現行 3-option,只翻 SHALL skills 的 default

Finding 3 — 「無法解決」的 3 個語意解讀

User 原文:「除非是無法解決的問題」。「無法解決」可有 3 種解讀,影響 Option B/C 的 skip-path UX:

解讀	範例	該 file?
(a) Conceptual / unactionable	「AI 模型 hallucinate 是 statistical fact」	不 file — 走 IC_R011 §3 已有的 default-off exemption
(b) Technically infeasible but understood	「需要 100 倍 budget 才能 reproduce」	file P3 "research / blocked" — 是 trackable parking lot
(c) Blocked on external state never likely to change	「等 GitHub 加新 API」	file P3 "wait for X" — trackable wait queue

User 最可能指 (a) — 純觀察 / 非 actionable。但 Option B 的 UX 需明示「unsolvable」=「上述哪一種」,否則 user 會把 (b)/(c) 也 skip 掉(意外失去 parking lot 功能)。

Strategy

Spec evolution path:Spectra discuss → propose → apply。

Phase 1 — spectra-discuss(對齊未決項)

• 確認影響面 = 7 skills(更新 issue body)
• 確認 SHALL skills 全翻 default;idd-close(SHOULD)是否也翻 — open question
• 收斂 A/B/C 3 options 至 1 個(下方推薦 Option B + 加 (a)/(b)/(c) skip 分類)
• 確認 「unsolvable」UX:skip 是否要強制選 (a)/(b)/(c) reason category
• 確認 backward-compat:AI_LOW_BAR_ISSUE_FILING=false 與 # Disable IC_R011 兩個既有 escape hatch 在 default-flip 後語意是否仍正確

Phase 2 — spectra-propose(formal proposal)

• openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/proposal.md — pick A/B/C
• design.md — UX detail(per Option chosen)+ SHALL/SHOULD treatment + canonical reference doc 改法
• tasks.md — per-skill checklist(canonical ref + 7 skills + CHANGELOG)

Phase 3 — spectra-apply(implementation)

• Update plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/ic-r011-checkpoint.md(canonical source of truth,301 lines)
• Update 7 skill SKILL.md sites(SHALL skills + idd-all-chain;close 視 Phase 1 決議)
• Update CHANGELOG with breaking-behavior note(default flipped)
• Verify per-skill via idd-verify(dogfood)

Recommended Option(可在 spectra-discuss revise)

Option B with 3-category skip taxonomy(per Finding 3):

• Default = file all(recommended,first option)
• Skip = explicit 3-option follow-up:(a) unactionable observation / (b) infeasible — file as research blocker / (c) waiting on external state — file as wait queue
• (b) / (c) actually file but with explicit blocker: label
• (a) 才是真 skip — recorded in audit trail with reason category

理由:user feedback 直翻 = 「don't ask, just file」(Option A)。但 user 也說「除非無法解決」— 保留 escape valve。Option B 把 escape valve 從「默默全 skip」變成「explicit per-reason」,file rate 提高 + parking-lot 不遺失 + skip 有 audit reason。

Impact

• 7 spec files + 1 canonical reference doc(>2000 lines total)— substantial spec evolution
• Downstream consumers:任何 install IDD plugin 的 repo,IC_R011 checkpoint 行為改變 = user-visible behavior shift。CHANGELOG 必須 prominent 標 breaking-behavior。可考慮 minor version bump
• Audit trail format:既有 Skipped per user choice (...) 字串改成新格式 — 若有外部 telemetry / log 分析依賴舊格式,需 deprecation period
• Backward-compat:既有 escape hatch (AI_LOW_BAR_ISSUE_FILING=false + # Disable IC_R011) 必須仍有用 — 用 env var 的 user 是 explicit opt-out,不該被新 default 影響
• Dogfood loop:本 issue 的 diagnose / plan / implement 自己就會 trigger IC_R011 checkpoints。Spec change 過程中新 default 還沒 land,所以仍走舊 3-option 流程。Spec change merge 後第一個用新 default 的 invocation 就是 dogfood

Complexity

Spectra(Layer 2 + Layer 3 雙命中)

Layer-by-layer 評估:

• Layer 1 narrative ❌ 不命中 — deliverable 是 spec change + 7 code-file updates,非 prose-only
• Layer V(Step 3.4)— V1=2(clear), V4=3(moderate;3 options 待收斂),not triggered
• Layer 2(Spectra necessary)✅ — IC_R011 是 published canonical spec(references/ic-r011-checkpoint.md 301 lines),7 skill 引用為 normative behavior anchor;改 default 是 normative behavior 改動,downstream maintainers 必須 review。Contract 應寫為 documented spec
• Layer 3 confirmation signals(≥1 needed,3 個都中):
  • ✅ 修改既有 published spec 的 normative behavior(IC_R011 §1 3-option pattern 是 SHALL/SHOULD clause)
  • ✅ 影響 2+ 既有 specs(canonical ref + 7 skill SKILL.md)
  • ✅ Architectural decision with long-term maintenance implications(default behavior 一旦 ship 就是 sticky,影響每個 invocation 的 user experience)
• Layer P(Plan)也命中(decision-heavy、risk-sensitive),但 Layer 2 + 3 已決 verdict

Verdict:Spectra(default — discuss first)

Risks

• R1 Bikeshedding on A/B/C: 3 options 都有 reasonable case,spectra-discuss 可能拖長。Mitigation:本 diagnose 已推薦 Option B + 細化 skip taxonomy,discuss 從推薦點切入
• R2 SHALL/SHOULD heterogeneity 被遺漏:若 propose 階段把 7 skills 當同質處理 → close 翻 default 後 closing 體驗變煩。Mitigation:Phase 1 discuss 必須明示 close 處理方式
• R3 「無法解決」semantic drift:Option B 若不細化 (a)/(b)/(c),user 會把 trackable items 也 skip 掉。Mitigation:推薦的 3-category skip 強制 disambiguate
• R4 Audit trail backward-compat break:既有 telemetry 若分析 Skipped per user choice 字串會 break。Mitigation:CHANGELOG 標明 audit trail format change + 提供 grep migration hint
• R5 idd-all-chain 漏更新:Issue body 算 6 個 skill,實際 7 個。若 propose tasks.md 沿用 issue body 數字會漏。Mitigation:本 diagnose Finding 1 已明示,propose 必引用
• R6 Dogfood paradox:Spec change 過程中 IC_R011 checkpoint 仍跑舊 default。某個 sister concern 可能因此被 skip,等新 default land 後再翻回來看會慢一拍。Mitigation:本 spec change 全程 manual 注意 sister concerns,不依賴舊 default 表現

Residue

(NSQL §4.6 — operationalize 不到的部分):

• 「past problems disappear」這個 horizon 不能由 spec 完全解決:即使 default-file 100% 落地,人能在對話中 skip,filed issue 也可能 P3 sit-forever。Spec 改善 file rate 但無法保證 backlog grooming 紀律
• Cross-skill UX consistency 是 cultural,不是 spec 能 force:即使 SHALL/SHOULD 統一 + default 翻完,使用者對「該不該 file」的 judgment 仍因 context 變動。Spec 是 nudge,不是 enforce
• Dogfood asymmetry:本 spec change 過程的 IC_R011 不會自動 retroactively 套用新 default。Spec land 後第一個用 new default 的 invocation 才是真實驗證,在那之前都是 confidence-by-design,不是 verified-by-use

---

Vagueness Pre-check — Final

• V1: 2 — Clear。「Default 翻成 file」要做什麼明確;3 options A/B/C 已在 issue body laid out
• V4: 3 — Mostly clear。Acceptance 待 option 收斂後才 testable,但 Phase 1 discuss → Phase 2 propose → Phase 3 apply 路徑明確
• Triggered: no — both axes ≤ 3

Sister Concerns Filed (mid-diagnose, v2.47.0+ #528)

Filed: #149 ([docs] idd-verify Step 5b lacks canonical "Rule (SHALL/SHOULD)" framing — IC_R011 spec consistency gap)

Rationale: Independent spec-consistency gap surfaced during Finding 2 SHALL/SHOULD landscape survey;separable from #148 default-flip scope but naturally cleaned up together if #148 enters spectra-apply。Per user's just-filed #148 「預設 file」 preference,bias toward filing — and dogfood: this is exactly the kind of tangential observation that should not disappear into conversation.

[kiki830621]

Implementation Complete

Note: this Implementation Complete comment is synthesized post-spectra-apply to bridge the spectra workflow's tasks.md tracking with the IDD /idd-close canonical source-of-truth. Per idd-close Step 0 supersession logic (v2.41.0+ #515), once ## Implementation Complete > ### Checklist exists with all items [x], Strategy / Implementation Plan checkboxes are superseded. Spectra change idd-ic-r011-default-file shipped via 1 git commit e5e05e1;the spectra tasks.md tracking lives at openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/tasks.md with 13/14 tasks done (task 5.1 dogfood = closing this issue via cluster IS the dogfood).

Checklist (synced from spectra change tasks.md)

• 1.1 Verify idd-all-chain IC_R011 reference is structural pattern, not standalone filing checkpoint (6-site scope confirmed) → commit e5e05e1
• 2.1 Centralize canonical reference 301→397 lines (6 audit string literals + file-by-default + 3-category skip taxonomy) → e5e05e1 plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/ic-r011-checkpoint.md
• 2.2 Source footer normative format (7 cite sites) → e5e05e1 (same canonical ref edit)
• 3.1 idd-diagnose Step 3.6 → cite-only (74→18 lines) → e5e05e1
• 3.2 idd-plan Step 2.5 → cite-only (78→17 lines) → e5e05e1
• 3.3 idd-implement Step 5.7 → cite-only (75→28 lines) → e5e05e1
• 3.4 idd-issue Step 4.7 → cite-only (58→20 lines) → e5e05e1
• 3.5 idd-verify Step 5b → cite-only + Rule (SHALL) framing added (closes [docs] idd-verify Step 5b lacks canonical "Rule (SHALL/SHOULD)" framing — IC_R011 spec consistency gap #149) → e5e05e1
• 3.6 idd-close Step 3.5 → cite-only BUT preserves legacy [file all]/[file selected]/[skip] 3-option ask → e5e05e1
• 4.1 Escape hatch semantic shift (AI_LOW_BAR_ISSUE_FILING=false → "revert to ask";# Disable IC_R011 same) → e5e05e1 canonical ref Section 5
• 4.2 CHANGELOG [2.72.0] BREAKING entry + plugin.json v2.71.0 → v2.72.0 → e5e05e1
• [~] 5.1 Dogfood acceptance — deferred to post-apply manual invocation. Resolved: closing [design] IC_R011 follow-up checkpoints should default to filing, not asking — past suggestions are disappearing into conversation #148/[docs] idd-verify Step 5b lacks canonical "Rule (SHALL/SHOULD)" framing — IC_R011 spec consistency gap #149 via cluster mode (this very /idd-close invocation) IS the dogfood for SHOULD-tier close preservation. SHALL-tier file-by-default verification naturally happens on next sister-concern-surfacing invocation in any subsequent IDD lifecycle.
• 5.2 Automated structural verify (all 5 acceptance items pass) → ran 2026-05-25
• 5.3 spectra validate idd-ic-r011-default-file PASS + 0 Critical/Warning analyzer findings → ran 2026-05-25

Legend: - [x] done · - [~] skipped (with reason) · - [-] won't fix (with reason)
idd-close will accept this as canonical source of truth (per #515 supersession). Strategy / Plan checkboxes earlier in comment history are pre-implementation snapshots — superseded.

Changes

• e5e05e1 feat: IC_R011 default-flip — file by default + 3-category skip taxonomy ([design] IC_R011 follow-up checkpoints should default to filing, not asking — past suggestions are disappearing into conversation #148 [docs] idd-verify Step 5b lacks canonical "Rule (SHALL/SHOULD)" framing — IC_R011 spec consistency gap #149)

Files Changed

plugins/issue-driven-dev/CHANGELOG.md
plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/ic-r011-checkpoint.md (301→397 lines)
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-{close,diagnose,implement,issue,plan,verify}/SKILL.md
openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/{.openspec.yaml,proposal.md,design.md,specs/idd-ic-r011-checkpoint/spec.md,tasks.md}

Spec artifact (for cross-reference)

• openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/proposal.md — capability idd-ic-r011-checkpoint
• openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/design.md — 5 decisions + per-site treatment matrix + implementation contract + 8 risks + migration plan
• openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/specs/idd-ic-r011-checkpoint/spec.md — 7 normative requirements + scenarios + 3 SBE examples
• openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/tasks.md — 14 task checklist (13 done, 1 dogfood resolved by this close)

Distribution sync (already done pre-close)

/plugin-tools:plugin-update issue-driven-dev ran successfully 2026-05-25 prior to this close (2.71.0 → 2.72.0 published to issue-driven-development marketplace). Plugin cache reloaded post-restart. Step 6.5 distribution sync chain will record as completed.

Scope Compliance

無超出範圍改動。Phase 2 (17 archive files migration) + Phase 3 (automation) 未觸碰;core/ docs/ extensions/ 未動。

Next: this comment unblocks /idd-close #148 gate

[kiki830621]

Closing Summary

Problem

IC_R011 follow-up filing checkpoint(7 IDD skill SKILL.md sites)defaulted to AskUserQuestion 3-option (file all / file selected / skip)。User session pattern confirmed 3/3 file all-variant choices — the ceremony of asking was not signal,it was friction making surfaced concerns silently disappear into conversation log when user didn't actively choose. Skip path had no audit reason recorded(generic Skipped per user choice string), making post-hoc "should we have filed?" un-answerable. Additionally,7 sites each inlined ~50 lines of identical procedure body — spec drift source.

Root Cause

Default behavior chosen during initial IC_R011 implementation (v2.43.0) — at that time no usage data existed to confirm whether user preference was file or skip. The ask-3-option was the conservative default. By the time 3/3 file-all-variant pattern accumulated (this session 2026-05-23), reverse direction was warranted but required cross-cutting change touching canonical ref + 6 SKILL.md + audit format + escape hatch semantic.

Inline procedure duplication compounded:any single spec change (default flip, escape hatch shift, audit format change) required syncing 7 places. The very change resolving the default — touching 6 SKILL.md + 1 canonical ref — demonstrated the centralization need.

Solution

Default flipped from "ask 3-option" to "file by default + 3-category skip taxonomy" across 5 SHALL-tier sites(idd-diagnose Step 3.6 / idd-plan Step 2.5 / idd-implement Step 5.7 / idd-issue Step 4.7 / idd-verify Step 5b)。idd-close Step 3.5 SHOULD-tier preserved legacy 3-option ask per canonical Section 6 reasoning (closure is wrap-up moment, not deliberation moment — friction increase without proportional value).

Skip path now requires explicit 3-category taxonomy:

• (a) unactionable observation — real skip, no issue created
• (b) infeasible but understood — auto-files P3 with blocker:infeasible label (parking lot)
• (c) blocked on external state — auto-files P3 with blocker:waiting label (parking lot)

Net effect:only (a) avoids filing — (b)/(c) preserve the parking lot. File rate up + audit reason recorded.

Centralization:canonical reference plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/ic-r011-checkpoint.md grew from 301 → 397 lines absorbing the normative procedure body. 6 implementing skill SKILL.md files refactored from inline duplication (~50 lines each) to cite-only form (~15-20 lines per site) per Section 8 citation template. Future IC_R011 spec changes only edit 1 file.

Escape hatch semantic shift (backward-compat preserved):AI_LOW_BAR_ISSUE_FILING=false env var + # Disable IC_R011 repo CLAUDE.md flag retain their names but shift from "silently skip checkpoint" to "revert to pre-default-flip 3-option ask". CI / unattended (no TTY) + =false falls back to implicit (a) skip + audit trail. No new env var introduced.

Side effect closure of #149:idd-verify Step 5b previously lacked canonical **Rule (SHALL/SHOULD)** framing line (#149 tracked this gap). The same refactor pass added the explicit **Rule (SHALL)** line — closes #149 as side effect.

Verification

Check	Result
spectra validate idd-ic-r011-default-file	✓ PASS (exit 0)
spectra analyze Critical/Warning findings	0 (only 1 Suggestion, ignored per skill spec)
All 6 SKILL.md cite canonical (grep -L 'per IC_R011' empty)	✓
idd-close legacy 3-option preserved (1 [file all] hit)	✓
5 SHALL sites flipped (0 [file all] across diagnose/plan/implement/issue/verify)	✓
Canonical reference ≥ 350 lines	✓ (397 actual)
#149 Rule (SHALL) framing in verify	✓
Plugin distribution sync (v2.71.0 → v2.72.0)	✓ (/plugin-tools:plugin-update issue-driven-dev ran 2026-05-25 pre-close)
Post-restart plugin cache reload	✓ (claude plugin list shows v2.72.0 enabled)
Cluster close itself as dogfood	✓ (this /idd-close #148 #149 invocation exercises SHOULD-tier close preservation — legacy 3-option still asked at Step 3.5;SHALL-tier file-by-default verification deferred to next natural sister-concern-surfacing invocation)

Changes

• e5e05e1 feat: IC_R011 default-flip — file by default + 3-category skip taxonomy ([design] IC_R011 follow-up checkpoints should default to filing, not asking — past suggestions are disappearing into conversation #148 [docs] idd-verify Step 5b lacks canonical "Rule (SHALL/SHOULD)" framing — IC_R011 spec consistency gap #149)

Files Changed

plugins/issue-driven-dev/CHANGELOG.md                                                +37 -1
plugins/issue-driven-dev/references/ic-r011-checkpoint.md                            (301→397 lines, full rewrite)
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-close/SKILL.md                                   inline procedure → cite-only (preserves 3-option)
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-diagnose/SKILL.md                                inline procedure → cite-only (-56 lines)
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-implement/SKILL.md                               inline procedure → cite-only
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-issue/SKILL.md                                   inline procedure → cite-only
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-plan/SKILL.md                                    inline procedure → cite-only (-61 lines)
plugins/issue-driven-dev/skills/idd-verify/SKILL.md                                  inline procedure → cite-only + Rule (SHALL) framing (closes #149)
openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/.openspec.yaml                             new
openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/proposal.md                                new
openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/design.md                                  new (5 decisions, 8 risks, implementation contract)
openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/specs/idd-ic-r011-checkpoint/spec.md       new (7 requirements + scenarios + 3 SBE examples)
openspec/changes/idd-ic-r011-default-file/tasks.md                                   new (14 tasks)

Related

• [docs] idd-verify Step 5b lacks canonical "Rule (SHALL/SHOULD)" framing — IC_R011 spec consistency gap #149 — idd-verify Step 5b Rule (SHALL) framing gap, closed as side effect (retroactive summary at [docs] idd-verify Step 5b lacks canonical "Rule (SHALL/SHOULD)" framing — IC_R011 spec consistency gap #149 (comment))
• Spectra change — idd-ic-r011-default-file in openspec/changes/ (full proposal/design/specs/tasks artifacts, 13/14 tasks done — task 5.1 dogfood resolved by this very close)

Closing Follow-ups Filed (v2.45.0+ #527)

(none surfaced — 3 trigger-phrase matches in closing summary were all topic references to the issue's own subject ("follow-up filing checkpoint" / "future spec changes" / "deferred to next invocation"), not orphan mentions of new actionable follow-up work. Per IC_R011 §3 exemption — existing topic, not net-new tangential.)

Residue Acknowledgement (v2.66.0+ #105)

Acknowledged as still residue — per user decision 2026-05-25, the 3 residue items declared at diagnose time remain unchanged post-implementation:

「past problems disappear」這個 horizon 不能由 spec 完全解決:即使 default-file 100% 落地,人能在對話中 skip,filed issue 也可能 P3 sit-forever。Spec 改善 file rate 但無法保證 backlog grooming 紀律

Cross-skill UX consistency 是 cultural,不是 spec 能 force:即使 SHALL/SHOULD 統一 + default 翻完,使用者對「該不該 file」的 judgment 仍因 context 變動。Spec 是 nudge,不是 enforce

Dogfood asymmetry:本 spec change 過程的 IC_R011 不會自動 retroactively 套用新 default。Spec land 後第一個用 new default 的 invocation 才是真實驗證,在那之前都是 confidence-by-design,不是 verified-by-use

These are NSQL §4.6 horizons — design-tension acknowledgements about IDD's limits, not actionable issues. The spec ships at its operational scope;the horizons remain as horizons by intent.

Distribution Sync (v2.56.0+ #45)

• Detected: plugin (PsychQuant/issue-driven-development self-hosted marketplace)
• Choice: chained to /plugin-tools:plugin-update issue-driven-dev pre-close (2026-05-25)
• Outcome: plugin v2.71.0 → v2.72.0 published + cache reloaded post-restart;current session confirms claude plugin list shows enabled. Cluster close itself (this /idd-close) IS the post-distribution-sync dogfood for SHOULD-tier close preservation.
• At: 2026-05-25T01:30:00+08:00