Claude Code First, specification version 0.1.0. The plain-language guide

Version 0.1.0. Grade R3/S3.

F306 The agent configuration broke silently, and the remedy was to put it under the project's own gate

FieldValue
Statusactive
TopicGates, verification, and hooks against instructions
GradeR3/S3
Casesroadkeep, freewilly, Shio
Contrarynone
Harness factsH11, H13

Claim

In three projects a part of the agent's own configuration (a skill's frontmatter, the committed settings with their hook wiring, a published plugin's skills) stopped working without any error, and each project answered by adding a check to its test suite or CI that fails when that configuration is lost.

Mechanism

The harness reads settings, hooks, skills and plugin manifests without reporting what it dropped or never loaded, and an agent working in the session cannot see what is missing from it. A test that reads the committed configuration, or a validator run in CI, is the only reader that fails where the harness stays silent.

Observations

Independence

Three independent origins: roadkeep's frontmatter, freewilly's settings, Shio's unloaded plugin skills. Each is a different part of the configuration and a different remedy. The component that rewrote freewilly's settings is not established by its sources (see harness observation O1), which does not affect the claim: the loss was silent whatever caused it.

Counter-evidence

None found at the pins. freewilly's DD115 tests are not recorded as ever failing: git log c1c2eaf -- .claude/settings.json shows no change to the file after the incident, so the pin holds no occasion on which they could have.

Grade

R3: independent failures in three projects. S3: freewilly's is counted (fifteen entries, twice) and roadkeep's gate header counts three defects in one family. Not S4: the checks encode the remedy, and no source records one of them failing on a real loss after it was added.