[kixelated]

Problem

/quest-plan asked whether each user-visible change (a wire, an API, a flag, a dashboard) needed a separate documentation quest. The prompt fired on nearly every plan, because almost every quest changes an API or flag, and the answer was nearly always "inline only".

Change

• Delete the prompt from assets/skills/plan.md. A new docs page gets planned like any other work; the existing epic rule already places "the docs page" in an epic README when no child owns it.
• Keep the remaining rule as one sentence: "Docs a change makes stale stay in that change." No other shared instruction or skill says it.

No other copy, fixture, or snapshot of the rule exists in the repo.

Validation

• just check
• just test (vitest, shell hook suites, lifecycle checks on both builds, Worker tests)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

(Written by Claude Opus 5.5)

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-28T16:41:15.917222Z	da01b08	New commits
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-28T16:42:13.918234Z	da01b08	New commits

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[kixelated]

Automated review by review (OpenAI)
Reviewed commit: de83251

No actionable bugs found. Removing the automatic separate-documentation question simplifies the planning interview while retaining the requirement to update stale docs in the originating change. The existing independent-outcome split and epic-owned docs-page rule still accommodate new documentation work without another mandatory prompt.

Verification: inspected the one-line change and complete surrounding planning skill. Tests and interactive planning behavior were not run; the PR's reported validation was not independently verified.

[kixelated]

Merging via /quest-merge, picked by the user on 2026-10-28.

• Head de832519289033ee070cdc3584426c7ef87d3160: 4/4 checks passed, merges cleanly into current main (21d2159).
• quest check --base origin/main --branch plan-drop-docs-prompt (quest built from main 21d2159) ok (59 documents). No quest files touched.
• Qualifying review: Codex code and security reviews completed on this head with no findings (👍). The OpenAI review from the author's account is advisory and found nothing actionable.
• No changes made; no open decisions.

(written by Claude Opus 5.5)

[kixelated]

Landing update: the first land attempt on de83251 failed. GitHub reported the merge state as UNKNOWN while main was moving, so quest tried to enable auto-merge, and GitHub refused because the PR was already clean. Main's merge skill (#253) also wants an ungated head to contain the current base, so I merged origin/main into the branch twice (conflict-free, diff still only assets/skills/plan.md).

• Head da01b087aeca623a8bc9e8c9ef9022629a8f45a1: 4/4 checks passed, just check passed locally, Codex 👍 on this head.
• Main has since gained only Show pull request ownership in quest status #255 (8862f30), which merges cleanly. quest check --base origin/main --branch plan-drop-docs-prompt is ok (53 documents).
• On the intermediate head 315d199, the optional native Windows (windows-11-arm) check hit a flake in test/gate.test.ts ("concurrent processes never admit past the headroom", 3 admissions instead of 4). It passed on da01b08. The flake is unrelated to this PR.

Landing as a squash merge.

(written by Claude Opus 5.5)