# Fraysaxii Openclaw Akos Synthesis Before Tranche Craft > Synthesis Before Tranche Craft - Skill: `tomevault-io/fraysaxii-openclaw-akos-synthesis-before-tranche-craft` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/fraysaxii-openclaw-akos-synthesis-before-tranche-craft` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/fraysaxii-openclaw-akos-synthesis-before-tranche-craft/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/fraysaxii-openclaw-akos-synthesis-before-tranche-craft --- # Synthesis Before Tranche Craft ## Why this skill exists The cursor rule `akos-synthesis-before-tranche.mdc` and the canonical `SYNTHESIS_BEFORE_TRANCHE_DISCIPLINE.md` tell you **when** the discipline fires (in-scope tranche classes; trigger conditions; INFO→ FAIL ramp gates) and **what** the 10 dimensions + 6 tranche classes + 5-option disposition enum are. This skill tells you **how** to apply them well — how to classify a tranche's class under pressure, how to think about the 3 ERP-engagement-governance surfaces when SYN-06 fires, how to compose the disposition `AskQuestion` so the operator can ratify in seconds, and how to avoid the false-scope-creep anti-pattern the operator named verbatim at 2026-05-25 Q-A ratify: > *"we need this kind of thinking to ensure we scale and don't find > false scope creep that we knew was a logical tactical move and > design from our part but we're not taking the full design in mind > of these processes, why we're doing what we're doing."* Read this skill before authoring any tranche-charter, running `scripts/synthesis_before_tranche_check.py --check-charter`, or dispositioning a finding from the runbook output. ## Principle 1 — Classify the tranche-class FIRST, before drafting any charter frontmatter The single most load-bearing decision in this discipline is the `tranche_class` choice. The 6 classes each carry a different `DIMENSION_FIRE_RULES` always-fire + conditional-fire pair; picking wrong means firing the wrong subset of dimensions, which means missing the design-intent gaps the discipline was created to catch. Decision tree: ``` Q1: Does the tranche ship value to a counterparty (customer / advisor / partner / ENISA / investor / recruiter / collaborator) via a deliverable, surface, or service? YES → Q1a: Is the deliverable an artifact you SEND to them (PDF / mail body / deck PDF) vs a surface they USE (operator dashboard / web page / portal)? SEND artifact → tranche_class = external_deliverable (fires all 10 — the most exhaustive class) USE surface → Q1b: Is the surface engagement-scoped (a specific counterparty uses it for a specific engagement) vs general (all visitors / all users)? engagement-scoped → tranche_class = engagement (fires all 10; SYN-06 ERP-surface citation mandatory) general → tranche_class = brand_surface (fires 9; SYN-06 conditional only if engagement-scoped) NO → Q2: Does the tranche mint or modify a canonical CSV under docs/references/hlk/v3.0/Admin/O5-1/People/Compliance/ canonicals/? YES → tranche_class = canonical_csv_mint (fires 6 baseline; SYN-02 + SYN-03 + SYN-10 conditional when the CSV surfaces in dashboards or external rollups) NO → Q3: Does the tranche mint a new Quality Fabric specialty (doctrine + chassis + validator + runbook + rule + skill + SOP) per akos-quality-fabric.mdc RULE 7? YES → tranche_class = specialty_mint (fires 7; SYN-03 conditional when end-user scenarios apply — usually no, because specialties are agent-and-operator-facing) NO → tranche_class = internal_governance (fires 3 baseline; SYN-01/02/04/09 conditional when non-J-OP audience OR ≥ 3 files touched) ``` Worked decision examples: - **This rule's mint (Commit 2c-a)** → `specialty_mint` (recursive self-application). Fires 7 dimensions: SYN-01 (J-OP + J-AIC named), SYN-02 (cursor + repo channel), SYN-04 (internal CORPINT register; no translation needed), SYN-05 (D-IH-86-EA..EE), SYN-07 (atomic 4-commit-kit per `akos-quality-fabric.mdc` RULE 7), SYN-08 (reversibility medium; rule + skill + SOP are reversible by `git revert`; PRECEDENCE + DECISION_REGISTER + process_list edits at Commit 2c-b less so), SYN-09 (validator + runbook self-test in pre_commit + this skill's pre-flight checklist). - **SUEZ POC FULL KIT (Commit 4 target)** → `external_deliverable` (mail + PDF dossier + Excel attachment ship to SUEZ rep). Fires all 10. SYN-06 conditional but recommended (the operator framing explicitly names the ERP-engagement-governance UX shape). - **I82 P1 capability registry mint (Commit 3 target)** → `canonical_csv_mint`. Fires 6 baseline. SYN-10 conditional but recommended (capabilities surface in the operator dashboard eventually). - **Wave-close commit landing a single SOP edit + CHANGELOG entry + files-modified row** → `internal_governance` (3-file scope; J-OP- only audience). Fires 3 baseline only. - **A new `_candidates/i-nn-foo.md` file** → out of scope (under §9 exception 4: per-engagement WIP synthesis or candidate-stage scope sheets). When unclear, halt and re-read the doctrine §4 + §11 BEFORE posting any `AskQuestion`. Re-reading takes 5 minutes; re-running a sweep under the wrong class takes 30+ AND surfaces wrong findings the operator has to manually correct. ## Principle 2 — Run synthesis BEFORE the tranche commits, not after The defining temporal posture of this discipline (vs sister disciplines INDEX_INTEGRITY + INTER_WAVE_REGRESSION which run after-commit) is the pre-tranche cadence. Synthesis is design-layer pre-flight; UAT + index- sweep + regression-sweep are post-commit signals. Doing them in the wrong order is the most expensive failure mode. Bad (synthesis-after): ``` 1. Author tranche files 2. Commit 3. UAT verdict fills in 4. Realize SYN-06 ERP-surface was never named for the engagement 5. Amend the engagement folder + UAT report + commit-amend OR ship as-is and accept the design debt ``` Good (synthesis-before): ``` 1. Classify tranche-class 2. Draft tranche-charter frontmatter 3. Run scripts/synthesis_before_tranche_check.py --check-charter 4. Inspect findings; dispose via inline-ratify AskQuestion 5. Apply ratified scope adjustments to tranche files 6. Commit; UAT verdict fills in cleanly ``` The discipline's value is in the order of operations. Skipping step 3 defeats the discipline. ## Principle 3 — When SYN-06 fires, walk the 3 ERP-engagement-governance surfaces explicitly SYN-06 is the ERP-engagement-governance UX surface citation. It fires mandatorily for `engagement` class tranches and conditionally for `brand_surface` + `canonical_csv_mint` tranches when the artifact eventually surfaces in a dashboard. The 3 surfaces (per `SYNTHESIS_BEFORE_TRANCHE_DISCIPLINE.md` §11) are: ### Surface 1 — Operator dashboard (Holistika-side) The dashboard the operator uses to govern the engagement. Lives in HLK-ERP under `/operator//`. Holds: counterparty brief; objections brief; commercial schedule; settlement statements; tranche progress; risk flags; AIC delegations. Built first because the operator is the always-on actor; collaborators may not use the dashboard but the operator always does. ### Surface 2 — Customer dashboard (counterparty-side) The dashboard the counterparty uses to consume the engagement. Lives in HLK-ERP under `/customer//` OR in the counterparty's own ERP via integration. Holds: read-only views of engagement progress; milestone deliverables; settlement summaries; status updates; AI-assisted summaries when the counterparty doesn't log in often. **Recipient-fallback (SYN-10):** the customer dashboard MUST have a traditional-means counterpart (email summary; PDF report; SMS update) for counterparties who *"don't log so much or see it that much"*. Citing the surface alone is not enough; the fallback channel is the load-bearing claim per the operator's 2026-05-25 framing. ### Surface 3 — ERP workflow join The workflow logic that joins operator-side governance to customer- side consumption. Lives in HLK-ERP `app/workflows//` + the runbook scripts that fire on tranche close events. Holds: state transitions; webhook dispatches; data joins (operator dashboard ↔ customer dashboard ↔ external systems); audit trails. ### Worked example (SUEZ POC SYN-06 inventory) For the SUEZ POC engagement (`tranche_class: engagement`; FULL KIT Commit 4 target), SYN-06 fires mandatorily. The 3 surfaces: | Surface | SUEZ-POC-specific shape | |:---|:---| | **Operator dashboard** | `/operator/suez-poc/` carrying counterparty brief + Aïsha continuity-role briefing + commercial-schedule (`orchestration_broker_thin_margin`) + tranche progress (libellé generator + parc engins + PO normalisation) + Aïsha delegation status. | | **Customer dashboard** | `/customer/suez-poc/` carrying Phase 1/2/3 milestone status + libellé generator output samples + parc engins lookup widget + Aïsha contact card. Recipient-fallback per SYN-10: email summaries to SUEZ rep on every milestone close + PDF architecture addendum on every Phase transition + Loom video for Phase 1 walkthrough. | | **ERP workflow join** | `app/workflows/engagement-suez/` firing on Aïsha continuity tasks + sync to SUEZ CTO office replicability checklist + commercial settlement events into `finops.registered_fact`. | Naming the 3 surfaces explicitly in the engagement-tranche-charter frontmatter is the SYN-06 satisfaction; not naming them is the SYN-06 FAIL the discipline catches BEFORE commit. ## Principle 4 — Compose the disposition AskQuestion so the operator can ratify in seconds, not minutes Bad (raw finding-by-finding): ``` AskQuestion: SYN-04 brand-register-citation WARN finding. What to do? Options: 1. fix 2. defer ``` Good (per-finding rationale + recommended default per severity class): ``` AskQuestion: SUEZ FULL KIT synthesis sweep (engagement class; all 10 dims fired). 3 FAIL + 2 WARN + 1 INFO surfaced; full report at reports/synthesis-suez-full-kit-2026-05-26.md. Finding #1: SYN-04 brand-register-citation FAIL — engagement-charter frontmatter missing audience-class-to-brand-register mapping. Recommended: scope-complete — add `brand_register_per_audience:` mapping `J-CU.suez-rep: translated-external` + `J-CO.aisha: internal- corpint-with-AL3-restriction` to the engagement-tranche-charter frontmatter (5-line edit; reversible). Ratify? [scope-complete (recommended) / scope-extend / defer-OPS] Finding #2: SYN-06 ERP-surface-citation FAIL — operator-dashboard + customer-dashboard surfaces named but ERP-workflow-join not cited. Recommended: scope-complete — add §"ERP workflow join" subsection naming app/workflows/engagement-suez/ + sync-to-SUEZ-CTO-office handoff per Aïsha-continuity-role (10-line edit; reversible). Ratify? [scope-complete (recommended) / scope-narrow / defer-OPS] ... (one option-set per finding; batch all in single AskQuestion call when total ≤ 10 findings; split into 2 batches when 11-20) ``` Each finding gets: severity class explicit + recommended default (rationale embedded inline) + a 3-option subset of the 5-option enum chosen per the finding's reversibility class. When findings exceed 20, halt and propose splitting the tranche per `SYNTHESIS_BEFORE_TRANCHE_DISCIPLINE.md` §6 bandwidth-recovery pattern. ## Principle 5 — When `scope-extend` is the disposition, file the forward-pointer in the same chat `scope-extend` is the safety valve that keeps tranches atomic without losing the extended scope. But "extend later" with no follow-up pointer is the silent-debt-accumulation anti-pattern. When ratifying `scope-extend`, file ONE of: 1. **OPS_REGISTER row** — for operator-class follow-ups with a named owner + ETA. Append to `docs/references/hlk/v3.0/Admin/O5-1/People/Compliance/canonicals/dimensions/OPS_REGISTER.csv`. 2. **Tracker file** — for scope that needs more than a one-liner. Mint `docs/wip/planning/_trackers/-tracker.md` per the tracker template in [`akos-conflict-surfacing-and-blocker-trackers.mdc`](../../rules/akos-conflict-surfacing-and-blocker-trackers.mdc) §"Scope-overlap-tracker file shape" (adapt to scope-extend shape). 3. **`_candidates/` file** — for scope that's initiative-sized. Mint `docs/wip/planning/_candidates/i-nn-.md` with 3-paragraph scope sheet. The pointer is filed in the SAME chat that dispositions the finding, not deferred to the next session. Deferred pointer-filing is the shape of the false-scope-creep the discipline catches. ## Principle 6 — Update operator-scratchpad BEFORE the tranche commits The operator-scratchpad continuity dimension (this rule's RULE 1 sister discipline INTER_WAVE_REGRESSION dimension 12) is implicitly enforced by SYN-05 (governance ratification lineage). Before any in-scope tranche commits, the scratchpad MUST carry: - Tranche ID + tranche class + classification rationale (one line). - Synthesis sweep verdict (PASS / PASS-WITH-FOLLOWUP / FAIL) with finding count + disposition summary. - Decision IDs minted at the tranche (D-IH-NN-X for ratifying decisions; D-IH-NN-Y for disposition decisions when novel). - Forward-pointers filed (OPS row IDs; tracker paths; candidate file paths). - Next-tranche forward-pointer (the next tranche-charter's slug + expected tranche-class). The scratchpad entry is the operator's audit trail of synthesis discipline application; it's also the next-session-continuity surface when chat rolls over. ## Pre-flight checklist (walk mentally before posting any tranche-charter) 1. ✓ `tranche_class` resolved via Principle 1 decision tree (NOT defaulted silently). 2. ✓ Tranche-charter frontmatter drafted with: `tranche_id`, `tranche_class`, `tranche_title`, `audiences_named[]`, `channels_named[]` (if applicable), `scenarios_named[]` (if applicable), `brand_register_per_audience` (if non-J-OP-only), `ratifying_decisions[]`, `erp_surfaces_named[]` (if engagement class), `reversibility_class` + rationale, `closing_loop_test`, `recipient_fallback_channel` (if external surface). 3. ✓ `scripts/synthesis_before_tranche_check.py --check-charter ` invoked; findings table inspected. 4. ✓ Per-finding disposition mapped to one of 5 enum options with per-severity-class recommended default. 5. ✓ `AskQuestion` batch posted with one option-set per finding; total findings ≤ 10 per batch. 6. ✓ For every `scope-extend` ratify, the forward-pointer is filed in the same chat. 7. ✓ For every `scope-narrow` ratify, the removed scope is named in the synthesis report's SYN-07 row. 8. ✓ For every `escalate-to-blocker-tracker` ratify, the tracker file is minted in the same chat. 9. ✓ operator-scratchpad entry appended with tranche_id, class, verdict, decisions, forward-pointers. 10. ✓ Tranche commit assembled; UAT verdict line drafted ONLY AFTER synthesis sweep verdict is PASS or PASS-WITH-FOLLOWUP. ## Anti-patterns (recovery patterns) - **Anti-pattern: classify silently** — most common failure when agent under pressure defaults to `internal_governance` for a tranche that's actually `engagement` or `external_deliverable`. Recovery: re-run synthesis under correct class; expect more findings; re- dispose. - **Anti-pattern: synthesis-after-commit** — same shape as the operator's "false scope creep" framing. Recovery: amend the tranche if reversibility allows; OR file the post-hoc synthesis report as evidence-only and forward-charter the next tranche to apply synthesis-before. - **Anti-pattern: SYN-06 cite operator-dashboard only, forget customer-dashboard + ERP-workflow-join** — partial citation passes the validator at INFO ramp but misses the operator's full design intent. Recovery: walk the 3 surfaces per Principle 3 worked example; amend the tranche-charter. - **Anti-pattern: ratify `scope-extend` without filing forward-pointer** — the silent-debt-accumulation shape. Recovery: file the pointer retroactively in the same chat; never let the disposition close without the pointer. - **Anti-pattern: post the `AskQuestion` with one finding per call** — exhausts the operator's bandwidth + breaks the batching guidance. Recovery: re-compose into ≤ 10 findings per call; split into 2 calls when 11-20. - **Anti-pattern: defer the operator-scratchpad entry to next session** — breaks the continuity audit trail. Recovery: write the entry before the commit; never let "I'll catch up next session" rationale win. ## Recovery pattern: tranche-charter retroactive backfill When a pre-2026-05-25 tranche needs to be re-validated under this discipline (e.g., I86 cluster wave-close UATs), the retroactive backfill pattern: 1. Mint a `tranche-charter` retroactive file at `docs/wip/planning//charters/.tranche-charter.md` capturing the tranche's as-shipped scope using current canonical tag values. 2. Run `--check-charter` against the retroactive file. 3. Document findings as RETRO-class (no commit changes). 4. File any high-severity findings as forward-charters for the next in-scope tranche to inherit + remediate. Per `SYNTHESIS_BEFORE_TRANCHE_DISCIPLINE.md` §9 migration posture, the discipline is forward-only from this rule's mint commit; retroactive backfill is OPTIONAL and used only when the operator explicitly requests it. ## Cross-references - Doctrine: [`SYNTHESIS_BEFORE_TRANCHE_DISCIPLINE.md`](../../../docs/references/hlk/v3.0/Admin/O5-1/People/canonicals/SYNTHESIS_BEFORE_TRANCHE_DISCIPLINE.md). - Cursor rule: [`akos-synthesis-before-tranche.mdc`](../../rules/akos-synthesis-before-tranche.mdc) — the *when* layer. - Paired SOP: [`SOP-PEOPLE_SYNTHESIS_BEFORE_TRANCHE_001.md`](../../../docs/references/hlk/v3.0/Admin/O5-1/People/canonicals/SOP-PEOPLE_SYNTHESIS_BEFORE_TRANCHE_001.md). - Runbook: [`scripts/synthesis_before_tranche_check.py`](../../../scripts/synthesis_before_tranche_check.py). - Validator: [`scripts/validate_synthesis_before_tranche.py`](../../../scripts/validate_synthesis_before_tranche.py). - Pydantic chassis: [`akos/hlk_synthesis_before_tranche.py`](../../../akos/hlk_synthesis_before_tranche.py). - Sister skill: [`inline-ratify-craft`](../inline-ratify-craft/SKILL.md) — disposition `AskQuestion` craft per Principle 4. - Sister skill: [`index-integrity-craft`](../index-integrity-craft/SKILL.md) — Wave N specialty mint precedent for pre-flight checklist shape. - Sister skill: [`collaborator-share-craft`](../collaborator-share-craft/SKILL.md) — Wave R+1 13th specialty mint precedent for per-pattern decision-tree shape. - Sister discipline doctrines: [`INDEX_INTEGRITY_DISCIPLINE.md`](../../../docs/references/hlk/v3.0/Admin/O5-1/People/canonicals/INDEX_INTEGRITY_DISCIPLINE.md), [`INTER_WAVE_REGRESSION_DISCIPLINE.md`](../../../docs/references/hlk/v3.0/Admin/O5-1/People/canonicals/INTER_WAVE_REGRESSION_DISCIPLINE.md), [`UAT_DISCIPLINE.md`](../../../docs/references/hlk/v3.0/Admin/O5-1/People/canonicals/UAT_DISCIPLINE.md), [`COLLABORATOR_SHARE_DOCTRINE.md`](../../../docs/references/hlk/v3.0/Admin/O5-1/People/canonicals/COLLABORATOR_SHARE_DOCTRINE.md). --- > Source: [FraysaXII/openclaw-akos](https://github.com/FraysaXII/openclaw-akos) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).