git:20260811.eede7ad to git:20260914.459c4d6

---

name: asset-placement-gate

description: Routes a proposed skill, plugin, or agent to its correct home — forge-harness (FH) meta-skill, project-local agent, or drop — by applying a 4-criteria meta-skill bar followed by a project-local value test.

user-invocable: true

allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Bash"]

model: sonnet

---

# asset-placement-gate

Routes new skills, agents, and plugins to the correct location when proposed.

## Triggers

- "Should I make this an FH skill?"

- "Where should I put this agent?"

- When a new FH asset creation is proposed

- `/asset-placement-gate {asset name or description}`

### Natural Language Triggers (example user phrases)

When unsure where to place a new asset or skill:

| Example phrase | Intent |

|---|---|

| "Should I put this in a separate file?" | Asset necessity + placement decision |

| "Can this pattern be shared across projects?" | FH cross-project value assessment |

| "Is this only for our project, or can others use it too?" | cross-project vs local routing |

| "What if I turn this into a skill and use it across projects?" | FH 4-criteria trigger |

| "Where should I put this agent if I want to share it?" | Placement routing needed |

| "Should I extract this to a separate file, or leave it?" | Asset necessity + placement decision |

| "I'd like to manage this as a shared resource" | Cross-project shared management review |

| "Decide whether this stays local or is available to other teams too" | cross-project vs local routing |

| "I don't know where to save this" | Placement routing needed |

| "Should this become a shared asset?" | FH 4-criteria trigger |

### Execution Order (summary)

1. Request full file path from user (or accept natural language description)

2. Load asset content via `Read` (if path provided)

2.5. Step 0.5 mechanical overlap pre-scan (grounds criterion ④) + Step 0.6 official-corpora check (grounds criterion ③)

3. Evaluate Step 1 4-criteria in order (LLM makes the judgment, ④ gated on the Step 0.5 scan, ③ informed by Step 0.6)

4. ① + ④ both pass + at least one of ②③ passes → output **"FH suitable"**

Otherwise, proceed to Step 2 local assessment → if fails, output **"Project-local agent or no asset needed"**

---

## Step 0. Parse Input + Fetch Asset

Immediately after trigger, acquire asset content in the following order.

1. **Path provided** (contains `.md` or starts with `/`): Read the file.

- If read fails: "File not found. Please verify the path or provide a direct description." — then stop.

2. **Description provided** (natural language): Check whether all 3 fields can be identified:

- **Purpose**: What this asset does (1 line)

- **Trigger**: In what situation is it invoked?

- **Expected callers**: Which project / which users will use it?

All 3 identifiable → use as asset description.

Any 1 unclear → stop with this question:

> **The asset description is insufficient. Please provide:**

> 1. Purpose of this asset (one line)

> 2. In what situation is it invoked?

> 3. Which project/users will primarily use it?

3. **No input**: Stop with the question below.

> **Which asset should I evaluate?**

> Enter a file path (e.g., `.claude/agents/jira-create.md`) or a description.

After acquiring the asset content, run Step 0.5 (mechanical overlap pre-scan) and Step 0.6 (official-corpora check) **before** the judged Step 1.

## Step 0.5. Mechanical Overlap Pre-Scan (grounds criterion ④)

Criterion ④ ("no overlap with existing FH skills") is otherwise an LLM **recall** judgment with no

ground truth — a duplicate skill with a novel name passes because the judge has no enumerated list to

check against (judge-robustness swarm, 2026-06-13). Ground it mechanically first:

Run this in **Bash** from the FH repo root (the pipeline below is `grep | grep -v | grep -c`, which the

Grep tool cannot express).

```bash

# LEG A — enumerate existing skill names + descriptions (grounds the judged comparison).

# This leg is ALSO the liveness check for leg B: a dead scan and a genuine no-collision both

# produce collision-count 0, so the enumerate count must be read FIRST.

ROSTER="$(grep -riE 'name:|description:' plugins/fh-meta/skills/*/SKILL.md plugins/fh-commons/skills/*/SKILL.md)"

ROSTER_N="$(printf '%s' "$ROSTER" | grep -c . )"

echo "roster_entries=$ROSTER_N"

if [ "$ROSTER_N" -eq 0 ]; then

echo "SCAN_DEAD — enumerate leg returned 0 rows (wrong cwd / missing plugins tree / glob did not match)."

echo "Criterion ④ = UNDETERMINED. Do NOT read this as 'no collision'. Fix the cwd and re-run."

# fail-closed: stop here, do not run leg B, do not pass ④

fi

# LEG B — hard-collision check (run ONLY when ROSTER_N > 0).

# WHOLE proposed name or a WHOLE trigger phrase reused verbatim.

# grep -wF (whole-word, fixed-string) on the full strings — NOT -E on tokens (a shared common

# word like "review" is not a collision). Exclude the asset's own file (self-match = false hit).

SELF="plugins/fh-meta/skills/PROPOSED_NAME/SKILL.md"

grep -rwF -e "PROPOSED_FULL_NAME" -e "FULL_TRIGGER_PHRASE_1" -e "FULL_TRIGGER_PHRASE_2" \

plugins/*/skills/*/SKILL.md | grep -v "$SELF" | grep -c .

```

(Replace the `PROPOSED_*` / `FULL_TRIGGER_*` tokens with the literal strings under evaluation.)

Surface **roster_entries + collision count + nearest existing skill(s)** — the roster count is part of

the report, not a private step: `collision=0` is only meaningful next to a non-zero `roster_entries`

(not-found ≠ zero). Criterion ④ then passes only if **`roster_entries` > 0 AND 0 whole-name/

whole-trigger collision AND the judged ≤90%-overlap check agrees**. `roster_entries = 0` is

`SCAN_DEAD` → ④ **UNDETERMINED** (fail-closed), never a pass. A verbatim whole-name or

whole-trigger reuse is a hard ④ fail regardless of the LLM judgment. **Honest scope**: the grep grounds

*literal* name/trigger reuse only — a post-cutoff duplicate with a *paraphrased* trigger is invisible to

both the judge (cutoff) and the grep (literal); that residual leans on the judged half **fed the

enumerated descriptions above** (grounded comparison, not pure memory), not on full mechanization. A

shared common word is a judged-review flag, **not** a hard fail.

## Step 0.6. Tier-0/1 Official-Corpora Check (grounds criterion ③)

Besides the FH roster (Step 0.5), check the proposal against the official corpora: platform

built-ins, `claude-plugins-official`, and the **Claude Cookbook pattern list**

(platform.claude.com/cookbook — agent patterns · tools · RAG · evals · skills). A hit here is a

**judged ③ flag, not an automatic ③ fail**: it obliges the proposal to state its governance

increment over the official pattern (no-reinvention rule — an official pattern that fully covers

the need outranks a net-new build; a pattern the proposal governs *on top of* does not fail ③).

Offline fallback: note `cookbook: unchecked` **in the Step 3 routing output** rather than silently

skipping. (Provenance: `tracks/_audit/session_2026_07_25_claude5-context-rules-sister.md`.)

## Done When

Each condition declares its check class (mandatory-pass / measured / judged); every judged condition

names its adversarial pairing — no judge-only path.

```

All steps 0–3 completed

(mandatory-pass — each step's output block is present; a skipped step is a FAIL, not a default pass)

+ Step 0.5 scan is LIVE: roster_entries > 0

(measured: the reported roster_entries count. 0 = SCAN_DEAD → criterion ④ UNDETERMINED and this

skill is NOT done — a dead scan and a genuine no-collision both read 0 collisions, so the

liveness number is what separates them)

+ Step 3 routing result output (location: FH meta-skill / local agent / drop)

(judged — adversarial pairing: `fh-meta:challenger` re-argues the case for the destination that was

NOT chosen, citing the 4 criteria; a routing verdict that survives the opposite case passes, an

unopposed one does not)

+ Next action specified (write SKILL.md / create .claude/agents/ / none)

(mandatory-pass — a literal next-action string from that enum; blank or "TBD" does not satisfy it)

```

---

## Step 1. FH Meta-Skill 4-Criteria Evaluation

| # | Criterion | Evaluation Question |

|:-:|---|---|

| ① | Cross-project value | Is this asset equally useful in other projects without depending on a specific project? |

| ② | Orchestration / judgment layer | Is it just a list of MCP/Bash calls, or a judgment layer that synthesizes multiple signals? |

| ③ | Not replaceable by built-ins | Can this be equally achieved with direct MCP calls or basic bash? (If yes, fails this criterion.) A Step 0.6 official-pattern hit is a judged flag: fails ③ only if the pattern fully covers the need with no governance increment |

| ④ | No overlap with existing FH skills | Step 0.5 mechanical scan = 0 name/trigger collision **AND** judged ≤90% overlap. Non-zero collision → hard fail. |

**FH suitable** → ① + ④ both pass + at least one of ②③ passes.

**Fail** → ① or ④ fails → immediate fail. Or both ②③ fail → proceed to Step 2.

---

## Step 2. Project-Local Agent Value Assessment

For assets that failed Step 1:

| # | Criterion | Evaluation Question |

|:-:|---|---|

| A | Project-specific knowledge | Does it encode paths, conventions, or domain rules specific to a project? |

| B | Repeated workflow pattern | Is it a workflow performed repeatedly within that project? |

| C | Differentiation from built-ins | Does it provide local-context-based convenience such as automatic convention application or step integration? |

**Local agent suitable** → A satisfied + at least one of B·C.

→ Recommend creating `{project}/.claude/agents/{name}.md`.

**Drop** → A not satisfied or both B·C not satisfied.

→ Equivalent to built-in capability. No asset needed.

---

## Step 3. Routing Result Output

```

[asset-placement-gate verdict]

Asset: {asset name}

Description: {one-line summary}

── FH 4-criteria ──────────────────

① Cross-project value : O / X

② Orchestration/judgment : O / X

③ Not replaceable : O / X

④ No overlap with existing : O / X ← required gate with ① (immediate fail if either fails)

→ FH suitable: Pass / Fail (① + ④ required + at least one of ②③)

── Project-local assessment ────── (if FH failed)

A. Project-specific knowledge : O / X

B. Repeated workflow pattern : O / X

C. Differentiation from built-ins : O / X

→ Local agent: Suitable / Drop

── Conclusion ────────────────────

Location: [FH meta-skill | {project} local agent | Drop]

Next action: [Write SKILL.md | Create .claude/agents/ | None]

```