Development record

README process section asserts two unshipped capabilities a brief-drafting skill and a Socratic interview the framework provides

issueresolvedmajoriss-316

Evidence

README.md:77 (§ Process, present tense, unmarked): "abcd has a skill that ingests that material and produces a plain-language draft of your project's brief; the parts that feel fuzzy, you sharpen together with a Socratic interview the framework provides." Both clauses are unshipped:

abcd ships ZERO skills by design (brief/05-internals/08-skills.md; 04-surfaces/README.md:34; docs/reference/terminology.md:47 REJECTS the skills format). No skills/ dir; not in launch-payload.json. No command turns discovery material into a brief draft (ingest → sources corpus; disembark/embark → a repository).
The Socratic interview is the grill sub-verb, intents/planned/ (itd-27), "no grill sub-verb ships yet" (04-surfaces/05-intent.md:198); abcd intent --help lists audit/link/new/plan/ready.

Adversarial verdict: CONFIRMED (major)

Two refuters, independently. It is the first instruction of the documented workflow ("It starts with the brief"), so a new reader asks their agent for a skill that does not exist. Severity major by the repo's own precedent for this class (iss-43, iss-181 documentation/major; iss-244 files the identical class on an internal record as major). Fix: reword to the human process that is true today, dropping both surface claims; the noun "skill" is forbidden for any abcd surface, and the ingest-to-brief-draft half has no backing intent (itd-90 is a different capability). Not prior art: iss-43 (resolved) closed three OTHER README claims and dropped its detector; this line was written 2026-08-16, 11 days after that closure. iss-181 records this exact class as knowingly ungated on README.

Frontmatter

id	iss-316
type	issue
lifecycle	resolved
severity	major

.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-316-readme-process-section-asserts-two.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions6

dcn-26082000000000032026-08-20 — Bug-hunt round 1 (hunt A), landed late: the round ran 2026-08-19 on a branch that
iss-43README capability currency. Re-scoped by the 2026-08-05 maintainer disposition to one surviving instance; the original three-claim corpus is closed as filed.
iss-18106-lint.md section 1 (the lint-code namespace) is a catalogue of a predecessor project's Python-era implementation — the `IL001`–`RC007` code families and the class names they cite (`IntentLinter`, `BundleLinter`, `PromptLinter`, `SpecLinter`) describe code this repo does not carry. Re-filed here from iss-37 (2026-08-03 maintainer disposition), which is re-scoped to its three doc-claim instances.
iss-244The intents README lifecycle diagram documents four things the binary does not have: an /abcd:intent ship verb, an /abcd:intent reclassify verb, an intent_lifecycle_hook, and the bundle-member and discipline paths of intent plan. abcd intent plan takes exactly one id and silently defaults kind to standalone with no classifier, no kind confirmation and no plan-review; the shipped verb set is intent create, intent plan, intent ready, intent link, intent review, intent review ingest and spec close. The diagram also frames the lifecycle as 'mostly automatic, with deliberate manual steps' when it is mostly manual with three transition verbs, and its step 1 claims intent create refuses without acceptance criteria when the refusal actually lives in intent plan. A committed record describing an unbuilt future as present reality is the inverse of change-narration and misleads every session that reads it.
itd-27Domain Experts Get Their Intents Grilled Before Anyone Codes Them
itd-90The Product Thinker Is Handed Exactly The Questions Only They Can Answer — And Nothing Else