# Remediation Governance > Partial Skill: invoke by name only — the SDD remediation bar: how a producer responds to a `change` verdict at either gate. Loaded by the spec-producer and the impl-producer, not user-triggered. - Skill: `cyberuni/remediation-governance` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add cyberuni/remediation-governance` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/cyberuni/remediation-governance/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: cyberuni (https://skillmd.com/u/cyberuni) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/cyberuni/remediation-governance --- # Remediation Governance — responding to a `change` verdict A gate verdict's findings are **evidence to reason from**, never a task list to execute. Working down the list edit-by-edit fixes cited lines while leaving the defect, and can introduce defects the next round then reports. This bar applies at **both** gates — the spec gate and the impl gate — and is loaded by whichever producer is responding. ## The four rules 1. **Substantiate each finding first.** A finding is a **hypothesis**. Verify it against the artifact before touching anything. One you cannot substantiate is **contested** — return your evidence and edit nothing. Fixing an unverified finding is how a vague line becomes a wrong one. 2. **State the rule, then sweep.** A judge names an **instance**; the defect is the **rule**. Name the rule the finding instantiates and sweep for every other instance — in a script, so the result is reproducible. Return the sweep's **negative** half too: the candidates inspected and excluded, so the next reader need not re-run it. 3. **Re-derive the correction against the rule governing the artifact**, not merely against the finding. "Does this still trip the finding?" is the weak question. "Is what it now says **true**?" is the one that matters — a correction that clears the finding while contradicting a governance the artifact is bound by is a worse defect than the one it replaced. 4. **Account for each finding's provenance.** A finding is a **regression** when the artifact it names was changed by the **previous remediation round's commits**; it is **pre-existing** when the artifact predates them. Any regression means the loop is **no longer converging**: stop, report it, and re-plan. Do not open another remediation round on a regressing loop. ## The Clearance-repair proof — a repaired frozen scenario must fail its pre-repair draft A `change` verdict that re-opens an **already-frozen** scenario under a **ratified Clearance re-open** (a narrowing/rewrite of specified behavior, or an impl-gate Oracle-lens revert) carries one extra bar on top of the four rules. The repair changes a contract that was already frozen, so the danger is a **back-fit**: a "correction" reverse-engineered to fit whatever the current draft/implementation already says, changing nothing of substance. The proof against that is directional — > a genuine repair makes the **pre-repair** artifact **FAIL**; a contract narrowed to fit an existing > draft moves *toward* passing it. So the repair is re-approved only when the repaired scenario **fails when checked against the pre-repair artifact/draft** — not merely that it passes against the post-repair one: - a repaired scenario that **fails** the pre-repair artifact is **accepted** as a genuine contract correction — the pre-repair failure is the evidence its substance changed; - a repaired scenario that **already passes** the pre-repair artifact is **rejected** as a suspected **back-fit** — it may be reverse-engineered from what already existed, not a real correction; - a **post-repair pass with no demonstrated pre-repair failure is not enough** — a repair carrying no pre-repair-failure proof is **not re-approved** (absence of the proof is not proof of substance). The bar has **two faces**, both owed: the **producer** *demonstrates* the pre-repair failure as part of the repair (run the repaired scenario against the pre-repair artifact and show it fails); the **gate/judge** *requires* that proof before re-approving (a post-repair pass alone never re-approves). An independent cold judge confirming the repaired scenario against the still-unrevised artifact is the strongest form of the demonstration. ## A sweep is scope-aware, never a blanket match Rule 2's sweep answers "every instance of the rule", which is **not** "every occurrence of a string". Before acting on a sweep, separate: - **use vs mention** — a retired term deployed as if current is the defect; the same term named *in order to* mark it deprecated, or preserved in an append-only record, is correct. - **scope** — the live project spec is bound by the rule; ADRs and ledger lines are history and are never rewritten to match current vocabulary; a sibling tree may use the same word for a different concept. - **word boundaries** — a substring hit is not an instance. Report the excluded candidates with the reason each was excluded. A sweep that reports only its hits cannot be checked, and invites the next producer to re-run it. ## What the producer returns Remediation is **verifiable only if it leaves a trace**. Each finding answered carries, in the producer's `Output`: ``` REMEDIATION: : verdict= rule= swept= ruled-out= provenance= pre-repair-proof= ``` A `contested` finding carries the evidence against it and **no edit** to the artifact it named. A Clearance-gated repair of a frozen scenario carries its **`pre-repair-proof`** — the demonstration that the repaired scenario fails the pre-repair artifact; a repair without it (or one that passes the pre-repair draft) is not re-approved. ## Key points (read-check) 1. **A verdict is evidence, not a work order** — remediating cited lines one at a time is the defect this bar exists to prevent. 2. **Substantiate before acting** — an unsubstantiated finding is contested with evidence, not edited away. 3. **A finding names an instance; the defect is the rule** — sweep for every instance, and report the ruled-out candidates as well as the hits. 4. **A sweep is scope-aware** — use vs mention, scope, and word boundaries; a string match is not an instance. 5. **Re-derive the correction against the rule governing the artifact**, not against the finding alone. 6. **Provenance is derived from the diff** — an artifact changed by the previous round's commits makes its finding a **regression**, which stops the loop for a re-plan rather than another round. 7. **A Clearance-gated repair of a frozen scenario must fail its pre-repair draft** — re-approval requires the repaired scenario to **fail** against the pre-repair artifact (a repair that already passes it is a suspected back-fit; a post-repair pass alone is not enough). The producer demonstrates the failure; the gate/judge requires it.