Spec moves with the surface

The rule. A verb, skill, or surface lands with its brief row in the same change. The brief never trails the shipped surface: if a landing surface violates a brief criterion, that same change either amends the criterion or the surface does not land. There are no unspecified live verbs.

Why. The brief is what agents build from; every claim it makes is a premise inherited by all future surface decisions. The 2026-07-08 review's single Critical finding was this drift compounded: the brief asserts a skills boundary that shipped skills already violate, undercounts its own command surface, and gives implemented, user-reachable verbs no spec home at all — so the specification actively misleads about the system it specifies. A sibling project's audit offers the end state of unchecked spec-vs-shipped divergence: ten built features discovered unreachable only by a later dedicated sweep.

Bounds.

• The row can be small — surface name, criterion it satisfies, wiring status. What is non-negotiable is same-change, not exhaustiveness.
• Script-first MVPs fronted by a plugin surface (per script-first-mvp) still get their row: the brief records the surface and its staging, which is what keeps one surface truthful across the later swap.

Promotion. A record-lint cross-check — every entry under commands/ and skills/ resolves to a brief surface row — would promote this to a discipline.