---
name: wakeflow-controller
description: Use when Wakeflow total control starts or resumes Wakeflow Delivery Loop, reviews target result envelopes, creates dispatch packets, builds delivery envelopes, decides acceptance / rework / block / next wave, or stops unattended automation.
---

# Wakeflow Controller

Use this skill only from the controller window. `AGENTS.md` owns hard judgment;
this skill owns the mechanical loop steps.

## Purpose

Wakeflow Delivery Loop lets the controller fan out work to target windows,
receive compact result envelopes, inspect target-authored review inputs, run
independent checks, and decide the next package. It does not replace planning,
scope control, validation, or acceptance.

Direct-thread dispatch is the normal transport. In explicitly enabled
unattended mode, keep reviewing results, inspecting inputs, validating, deciding, planning
next eligible packages, and dispatching until final completion, a hard gate,
explicit user stop, missing review inputs that need human judgment, or no eligible
TODO remains.

After the host accepts a delivery, record `status=sent` with
`transportStatus=accepted`. `readback.status` separately records the bounded
observation; `pending` or `unavailable` never authorizes a resend or lease
release. The controller dispatch turn is then complete unless the Agent chooses
one more bounded read-only inspection. Do not keep the
turn open with `sleep`, repeated result review, repeated thread reads, or manual
polling. The target returns later through a `TargetResultEnvelope` and, if
policy allows, a controller-return delivery.

## Source Practices For Acceptance

**Iron Law: NO ACCEPTANCE UNTIL THE CONTROLLER HAS PERSONALLY ESTABLISHED THE INTENDED BEHAVIOR FROM FRESH RAW INPUTS AND INDEPENDENT CHECKS.** A result
envelope, a script's `OK`, or a window's success report is only a review input.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating its spirit.

Controller acceptance adapts mature review practice — `code-reviewer` (understand intent first, then
correctness, safety, maintainability, performance, tests; start large changes at entrypoints and
high-risk files), `senior-qa` (confidence per unit effort; flakiness is evidence degradation, not
success), and SRE evidence practice (separate symptom, cause, black-box, and white-box evidence;
logs, probes, and scripts are inputs, not conclusions) — under Wakeflow's stricter authority
boundary: target windows, Test, Design, scripts, and MCP tools provide review inputs; only the
controller accepts, requests rework, blocks, waits, completes a demand, archives, or creates the
next package.

| Claim | Requires | Not sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Target task done | the VCS diff inspected and relevant behavior independently checked this turn | the envelope says "done" |
| Behavior delivered | the controller reproduced or directly inspected the user-visible behavior | a connection / empty API / static mock exists |
| Demand complete | line-by-line vs the requirement design + non-goals | all tasks marked done |
| Ready for Test | existing non-Test targets accepted + controllerSelfChecks recorded | hoping Test will establish correctness |

**Red Flag — a third point-fix on the same task.** Two failed reworks on one task mean the next move
is a *new* root-cause hypothesis or a non-bug-mismatch route to Design redesign — not another bounce
between product windows.

## Controller Return Prompt Shape

Controller return prompts should be compact:

```text
Continue controller review: <windowA>, <windowB> backfill.

Review context:
- stateRoot: <path>
- dispatchGroup: <group>
- trigger: <window/task>
- blockedTargets: <only when non-empty>
- remainingTargets: <only when non-empty>
- pendingDispatchTargets: <only when non-empty>

Required execution Skill:
- skills/wakeflow-controller/SKILL.md
```

Do not expose empty `blockedTargets`, `remainingTargets`, or
`pendingDispatchTargets`; keep full group details in machine state.

## Start Or Resume A Dispatch

1. Read `AGENTS.md`, the active workspace index/status, and the current state
   root or controller document.
2. Confirm the user goal, fully read original plan / requirement design
   decisions, completion definition, remaining gap, first blocker, current
   demand status, and eligible target tasks.
3. State the safe operation, recovery boundary, and one-sentence plan before
   using tools, editing files, dispatching, accepting, archiving, or deleting.
   If a tool returns `state-transition-recovery-required`, stop the original
   operation, run `wakeflow_recover_state_transition` as a dry-run and then
   with `apply=true`, re-read state, and only then decide whether the original
   operation is still needed. Never make another state writer recover it
   implicitly.
4. If the demand is blocked, cancelled, archived, review-ready, or lacks
   required review inputs, stop instead of preparing another package. If it is completed,
   classify the new fact before acting: same-demand continuation, independent
   follow-up, or no work. Never call `wakeflow_add_task` against completed state.
5. Create or select a task package only when it advances the confirmed goal.
   New packages must record the complete dispatch context once: `workType`,
   one observable `objective`, a short ordered `contextSummary`, anchored
   `requirementRefs`, `boundaries` (`inScope`, `outOfScope`, `forbidden`),
   `completionExpectations` ordered most important first, explicit `dependsOnTaskIds`, and
   `commitExpectation`. The prompt is a compact briefing generated from this
   package: it surfaces the objective, at most the first two completion
   expectations, one highest-priority context fact, one critical boundary, up
   to four acceptance-anchor ids/claims, and the ordered document/Skill
   navigation. The package retains every context fact, requirement anchor,
   boundary, completion condition, probe, and policy. Do not defer these
   decisions to the target or re-author them during dispatch.
   Order each boundary list most important first. The compact prompt surfaces
   only the first available boundary in `forbidden → outOfScope → inScope`
   order, so its first entry must be the one the target cannot safely miss.
   For implementation work, author a small `acceptanceAnchors` list from the
   confirmed requirement: each entry names `{id, claim, probe, expected}` that
   the target can turn into a RED check before coding. Do not invent anchors
   from implementation leftovers; if the required behavior cannot be stated as
   a probe, the package is not ready. Doc-only and research packages may omit
   anchors.
6. For a Test package, first confirm every active required non-Test target is
   `accepted` and `controllerSelfChecks` states what you already verified and
   why the real scenario remains necessary. A Test-only reproduction or
   environment diagnostic is valid; unfinished controller validation is not.
   For any Pod product/Test dispatch, also require
   `podProvisioning.phase=execution-ready` and the target's verified
   host-scoped binding. A suffix, static config path, or prompt identity is not
   a binding. For Pod Test specifically, additionally require
   `podProvisioning.testAccess.status=validated`,
   `capability=direct-multi-root`, and exact coverage of every active product
   binding. An unsupported probe blocks dispatch; never substitute a main
   checkout, product window, or unverified per-repository executor.
7. Call `wakeflow_prepare_delivery` for the target without `apply`. Review its
   `readiness`, `taskBriefing`, repository identity, requirement anchors,
   dependency status, required Skills, and exact prompt. A preview writes no
   packet, envelope, window config, or lock.
8. If the preview is correct, call the same tool again with `apply=true`. This
   freezes the validated packet and delivery envelope; pass
   `previewDigest` back as `expectedPreviewDigest`. Do not
   override the package objective or substitute another human-context
   reference. The digest covers the package, state revision, resolved
   repository, prompt, and transport configuration; any change requires a
   fresh preview.
9. Send the envelope prompt through the Codex host thread tool exactly as stored
   in the envelope.
10. Inspect the host tool's actual result, wait 1200 ms, then make exactly one
    `read_thread` observation (hard cap five seconds) and record every transport
    and readback field explicitly. An error-like host response is not accepted.
    If the prompt is not visible, record `sent-unconfirmed`; do not read again,
    infer controller reachability, or resend automatically.
11. End the dispatch turn.

## Review Target Results

1. Import or locate target result envelopes for the dispatch group.
2. Run group review against the state root.
3. Check for missing, blocked, or ready targets.
4. Inspect the target-authored materials and plan fresh independent checks before deciding.
5. Review acceptance inputs:
   - full original plan / requirement design, including explicit decisions,
     non-goals, and forbidden shortcuts;
   - original user goal and completion definition;
   - current state root and task package;
   - dispatch group and target identity;
   - target result envelope;
   - target-authored paths, commits, commands, reports, logs, screenshots,
     runtime JSON, probes, or Test materials;
   - product repository rules and relevant Design/Test artifacts;
   - TODO/backlog implications.
6. Check acceptance questions:
   - Do my fresh independent checks establish the intended user/system
     behavior, rather than merely confirm that a target-reported script ran?
   - Are inputs, outputs, state/data changes, call chains, real consumers,
     failure paths, and edge cases covered enough for this task scope?
   - Did the target stay inside its assigned window/repository and task package?
   - For every authored acceptance anchor, where is the target's RED/GREEN
     mapping, and what fresh independent probe did I run against the claim?
   - Are tests or probes at the right seam, and did they cover the behavior that
     matters?
   - For a non-Test target, have I personally established functional
     completeness and correctness without relying on a future Test run?
   - For a Test target, do its materials only explore the approved real
     environment or hidden-defect boundary, without redefining completion?
   - If adding a TODO, follow-up, or next package, is it authorized by the
     original requirement decisions rather than inferred from residual code,
     existing tests, target backfill, or implementation leftovers?
   - Is the remaining gap a product-code defect, or a non-bug mismatch between
     the current effect and the user's intended outcome?
   - Is any remaining risk a blocker, a follow-up, or a user/controller
     decision?
   - Which TODOs close, remain, or need to be added?
7. Decide explicitly, two-stage (spec compliance first, then quality):
   - **accept** the target result;
   - **rework** — a product-code defect: re-dispatch the same window
     (`decide-review --decision rework`, reworkCount++);
   - **redesign** — a non-bug mismatch, or a small requirement-level fix that is Design's
     job and not a code defect: `decide-review --decision redesign` parks the task and
     increments `redesignCount` instead of bouncing point-fixes between product windows.
     Mainline may use its stateless Design delivery and then add a full-context replacement
     with `replacesTargetTaskId=<parked task>`. A Pod must stay in its own Design lane;
     because 0.9.3 supports only one frozen Pod Design request/handoff
     generation, a redesign may use that sole generation only before any
     request exists; a different second request remains blocked rather than
     falling back to mainline Design or overwriting the recorded handoff;
   - **blocked** — a hard blocker that needs a human;
   - wait for missing targets, complete the demand, or create the next eligible package.
   - **Brake:** when the task-ledger shows `recurringProblem` (reworkCount ≥ 2) on a task,
     do NOT plain-rework it again — give a *new* root-cause hypothesis or choose `redesign`.
   - **Brake:** if a demand's `redesignCount` reaches 2 and the effect still misses, the
     requirement is unclear at the *user* level — escalate to the user, not another redesign round.
8. Record the decision in controller state before dispatching follow-up work.

## Acceptance Decision Format

Use this shape when recording or reporting controller acceptance:

```markdown
## Controller Acceptance

- User goal:
- Scope reviewed:
- Original requirement authority:
- Target/window:
- Target inputs inspected:
- Independent checks run:
- Implementation reality:
- Validation result:
- Blockers:
- Missing review inputs:
- Residual risks:
- TODO/backlog rollup:
- Decision:
- Next action:
```

`Decision` must be one of:

- `accept-target-result`
- `request-rework`
- `request-redesign`
- `mark-blocked`
- `wait-for-missing-target`
- `needs-user-decision`
- `complete-demand`
- `archive-completed-work`
- `create-next-package`

Never use `accepted` as a shorthand unless the independent checks, scope, and
TODO rollup are already stated.

## Target Craft Inputs At Acceptance

When a task package carries an `evidenceContract`, the machinery has checked only
the structural half at reduce (`craft-review-inputs-required`: required kinds present,
declared artifacts resolve). It has not checked truth. Validation and judgment are yours:

- The review pack echoes each result's `craftEvidence` and a `craftCheck` /
  `advisoryCraftKinds` reminder. Entries with `verify: controller-rerun` mean
  YOU re-run them at acceptance (tests/typecheck/lint within the controller
  self-validation boundary) — the script never runs repo commands for you;
  `artifact-present` means the artifact was existence-checked only;
  `self-attested` is a claim on the audit trail, not proof.
- Read the `self-review` note: stage-1 spec compliance against designIntent,
  and — on a rework round — the point-by-point response to your previous
  rework reason. A result that silently ignores a rework point is not ready.
- `recurringProblem` (reworkCount >= 2, surfaced at prepare-dispatch and in the
  task ledger): stop redispatching point fixes — expect a `root-cause-note`,
  and prefer the root-cause re-derivation or the `redesign` route.
- A package WITHOUT a contract is not a defect (doc-only work legitimately
  skips it) — the create/add reminders exist so the omission is a decision,
  never an accident.
- For a full-context result, `resultMapping.status=complete` means every
  authored acceptance anchor or approved Test step is represented exactly
  once. It is only a review-readiness fact: independently inspect/rerun the
  referenced materials and run the required independent checks before accepting.
- Check `commitDisposition`, `commits`, and `changedRepos` against the task
  package's `commitExpectation`. A `resultContractGap` blocks a verdict until
  the target records a corrected result or an honest blocked/needs-review
  result.

## Group Policies

- `group-ready`: wait until every expected target is ready or a blocker makes
  the group impossible. Then return once to the controller.
- `per-target`: return when a target result arrives, still with group context.
- Empty target groups are not grounds for completion.
- A single target result is not group completion unless the group expected only
  that target.

## One Window Per Repo Within A Demand

- WITHIN one demand, each repository runs exactly ONE window and receives ONE
  combined task package: list every work item for that repo in the package
  (the state root holds the detail), and the window self-sequences priorities
  and returns one evidenced result. A window is never dispatched two
  simultaneous tasks inside the same demand — more work for that repo arrives
  as the NEXT combined package after review, never as a parallel dispatch.
- Mainline work uses the configured mainline product window. A Pod product
  window (`<repo>__<pod>`) exists only after explicit user Pod authorization
  and a host-created worktree receipt. Wakeflow refuses a second active binding
  for the same `(host, demand, repo)`; it does not impose a numeric Pod or
  per-repository limit.
- Merge/integration remains a human-reviewed repository decision. Logical Pod
  close records the host's disposition; it never treats an archived thread as
  proof that Codex physically removed a worktree or branch.

## Demand Pods (explicit parallel execution, never automatic placement)

- **Default:** ordinary and Auto Claim work uses the idle, healthy mainline.
  If mainline is busy, wait. Missing/unhealthy required mainline identity
  returns `mainline-unavailable` before demand/TODO mutation; repair the
  mainline. Never infer Pod placement from another active demand or a
  `Controller__*` name.
- **Authorization:** a Pod demand must already carry
  `executionPlacement.selection=explicit-user-pod` and an auditable
  `authorizationRef`. Legacy `maxActiveDemands` / `maxStreamsPerRepo` fields
  are migration warnings only; they neither authorize nor reject a Pod.
- One Pod = independent `Controller__<pod>`, `Design__<pod>`,
  `Test__<pod>`, and one product session per selected repository. Pods are
  mutually unaware and every controller-return uses that demand's stamped
  controller window.
- `wakeflow_pod_open` is plan/reserve only. It creates host-neutral launch
  operations and no branch, worktree, thread, or dynamic repository overlay.
  For each product operation, resolve the exact saved Codex project and call
  `create_thread` with `environment.type=worktree`; never fall back to the
  workspace parent or `local`. Control roles are three distinct local threads.
- Immediately before each host create call, record `creating` through
  `wakeflow_pod_record event=materialization`. If Codex returns `clientThreadId`,
  record `pending`, then call bounded `list_threads(limit=50)` and match the
  exact `launchCorrelationId` marker in each task `preview`; do not create
  again. Use `query` only when the current host schema supports it, never as a
  requirement. The temporary id is persisted only as a digest and can never
  enter the registry. Record `finalized` only when exactly one final task
  matches; zero or multiple matches stay pending/blocked.
- Register only that final real `threadId`, collect the entry-sync cwd/Git
  receipt, then call `wakeflow_pod_bind`. A prompt assertion or window-name
  suffix is not a binding. `control-ready` requires all three control
  bindings; `execution-ready` additionally requires the recorded Pod Design
  handoff and every planned product binding.
- The Pod's single Design generation uses
  `wakeflow_pod_plan action=design-request → PodDesignRequest →
  PodDesignHandoffEnvelope → wakeflow_pod_record event=design-handoff`; the frozen
  request supplies exact lineage and cannot be replaced by a different
  request. Wakeflow 0.9.3 does not yet persist multiple Pod Design generations:
  if a later supplement or redesign needs a new request/handoff, stop with a
  capability blocker. Never overwrite the frozen request, route the Pod
  through the mainline Design window, or create a duplicate global TODO.
- Before Pod Test dispatch, call `wakeflow_pod_plan action=test-access`, execute
  that exact host-local probe from `Test__<pod>`, and record the redacted
  receipt with `wakeflow_pod_record event=test-access`. Only validated
  `direct-multi-root` access across all active product bindings opens dispatch.
  Unsupported access stays blocked; a verifiable per-repository executor is
  not currently implemented.
- Test ENVIRONMENTS may be physical singletons even though Test windows are
  per-pod: an exclusive environment (per the S1 Test Environment Spec) is a
  cross-pod serial resource — confirm no other pod is using it before
  dispatching the card.
- Close is two-stage: `wakeflow_pod_plan action=close` emits host-close operations; the
  Agent archives/handoffs the Codex threads and records each result through
  `wakeflow_pod_record event=close-receipt`. Only then does Wakeflow close the
  logical binding. Physical Codex worktree GC remains a separate host fact.
- `wakeflow_view scope=pods` reads canonical state plus host-scoped operations and
  bindings. It never guesses identity from a path or overlay.
- Cancelling instead of finishing: `wakeflow_cancel_demand` stops an
  in-flight demand WITHOUT pretending completion — no acceptance, result
  history stays, open tasks keep their last honest status. A cancelled Pod still needs
  the same logical close receipts before archive.

## Completed Demand Continuations

- Completion is an accepted checkpoint, not permission to rewrite history. If
  a completed but unarchived demand later has a verified bug inside its
  original completion definition, a confirmed supplement to that definition,
  or an explicitly authorized optimization that the user says belongs to the
  same demand, use `wakeflow_continue_demand`.
- Read the original plan / Requirement Design, accepted result history, and
  controller validation record first. Record `continuationType`, a reason that explains why this is still the
  same demand, review-input or decision references, and the first concrete target
  package in the SAME call. The operation preserves all accepted tasks and the
  earlier `demand.completed` event, then returns the state to `planned`; it does
  not dispatch or accept anything. The demand must pass normal review and
  `wakeflow_complete_demand` again.
- Do not split the operation into a manual state edit followed by
  `wakeflow_add_task`, and do not create a temporary demand/pod to work around
  the terminal-state guard. If the operation fails, the completed state must
  remain unchanged.
- Archived demand roots are immutable to workflow continuation. The only
  sanctioned in-place amendment is `wakeflow_archive target=sanitize-demand`, which may
  replace a polluted archived root with a re-scanned privacy-clean copy while
  preserving the original locally; it never reopens tasks or changes
  acceptance. Independently scoped optimization,
  backlog work, or anything discovered after archive goes through the normal
  TODO / `wakeflow_create_demand` path with an explicit reference to the prior
  demand; never move or edit the archived root back into `current/`.

## Intent Alignment

- Two flexible sides, one check: Design's `designIntent` is a sketch, not a
  contract; the controller's `objective` is today's best arrangement, not a
  transcription. Deviation is often adaptation, not error — the check turns
  unconscious drift into a conscious confirmation, nothing more.
- Dispatch moment: when the task package carries a designIntent, the prepare
  output shows it beside your objective. Authoring the objective IS the
  confirmation; make an intentional adaptation visible in its wording (author
  it at the FIRST prepare — same-revision re-prepares must not change content).
- Review moment: the review pack shows designIntent / objective / result per
  task plus one `intentCheck` line. If the delivery departs from the design
  intent without a declared adaptation, run a requirement review (Original
  Plan / Requirement Design) first; if the requirement itself must change,
  decide `redesign`. Your decide-review reason is the confirmation record.
- No scores, no gates: intent alignment never blocks anything;
  controller-validated acceptance stays the only verdict.

## Stage Gates (route map: wakeflow-governance/references/stage-route-map.md)

- Before the FIRST implementation dispatch of a demand, verify the Design exit
  gate AT THE DEMAND'S SCALE: full five-item gate for a requirement; a bug
  needs reproduction + scope + non-goals + Test decision (no Original Plan
  ceremony); a supplement needs a delta against the existing Requirement
  Design; research never gets an implementation dispatch. Any missing item
  routes back to Design — do not close the gap by reading code and deciding
  alone, and never fake a gate artifact to pass.
- Before adding or dispatching a Test package, verify every active required non-Test
  target is accepted, record the concrete controller reruns in
  `controllerSelfChecks`, and copy the Design-stage Test Environment Spec
  into the card's realScenarioConditions/allowedOperations. You DECIDE which
  confirmed environment applies; the user CONFIRMED it at Design; Test only
  EXECUTES. Never send Test hunting for env vars, endpoints, or credentials.
- A Design-stage Test Environment Spec that turns out stale at Test time is a
  product-decision gap (quick user confirm) or a controller decision WITHIN
  the confirmed spec's bounds — not a full redesign, and never Test's guess.
- A missing input is never guessed: requirement/option gap → redesign lane;
  product decision → ask the user and record it; fact gap → bounded read-only
  investigation, then back into the owning stage's artifact.

## Storage Hygiene (idle-moment habit)

- Archive a completed/cancelled demand through `wakeflow_archive` dry-run
  first. If it reports real-id or user/workspace absolute-path findings, review
  the categories and re-run with `redact: true`; the committed staging copy
  must pass the final scan and the original moves to `preserved/`. Opaque
  evidence stays byte-for-byte in that local original; unless clean opaque byte
  inclusion was explicitly authorized with `allowOpaque`, the portable archive
  contains only its safe placeholder and manifest metadata. A real id
  in a path preserves the highest sensitive file/subtree once, writes one
  `redacted-id-N` path placeholder, and applies the same alias to text
  references; a portable-path collision remains a blocker.
- If a historical archived demand is already committed with those findings,
  use `wakeflow_archive target=sanitize-demand` on that exact archived state root (dry-run
  first). Never hand-edit it, move it back to `current/`, or use this repair as
  a continuation path.
- In a spare moment (no in-flight deliveries, no pending reviews), glance at
  `wakeflow_view` scope `storage`: known trees with class/size/age, legacy
  residue, unknown trees, aging `preserved/` entries. It is orientation, not
  a work queue — nothing there authorizes deletion.
- An `unknown-tree` under `.wakeflow-local/` always routes to the user. After
  the user selects a keeper, call `wakeflow_storage_preserve` with `source`
  and `reason` first as a dry-run, then repeat with `apply: true` (the ONE
  sanctioned rescue move; writes the manifest). Never invent another holding
  location and never auto-delete.
- Aged audit holds: review each `MANIFEST.md`, then
  `wakeflow_prune_runtime target=preserved` (dry-run first) or keep with an
  updated manifest. Transport GC stays `wakeflow_prune_runtime` (default
  target).

## Stop Conditions

Stop instead of dispatching when:

- The user goal or completion definition is unclear.
- The Design exit gate is incomplete for a new demand's first implementation
  dispatch, or a Test dispatch leaves an existing non-Test target unaccepted,
  omits the controller's self-checks, or lacks its confirmed environment block.
- Required review inputs are missing or unreadable.
- The state root is not current or cannot be trusted.
- The controller is reacting to a keyword, familiar command shape, script hint,
  or urgency before naming the safe operation, recovery boundary, explicit
  plan, and smallest valid next step.
- A target window, repository, upstream dependency, or real thread id is
  missing.
- The next action would change scope, delete capability, downgrade capability,
  or make a product decision without user confirmation.
- The next action would add a TODO, follow-up requirement, task package, or
  scope expansion from code facts, test output, target backfill, implementation
  leftovers, or residual fields without first reading the full original plan /
  requirement design and confirming that the addition stays inside the original
  decisions and non-goals.
- A target result lacks reviewable inputs.
- Review inputs are only target prose, superficial script output, or status-table
  motion.
- Test says its result is acceptable but the controller has not inspected the
  named materials and run its own relevant probe.
- The result is only an empty interface, static mock, unused adapter, type-only
  contract, unreachable route, or documentation motion without a real consumer
  and validation path.
- Controller validation establishes a non-bug outcome mismatch, or a small requirement-level fix that is
  Design's job and not a code defect: `decide-review --decision redesign` parks the demand
  (needs-rework, redesignCount++) instead of bouncing point fixes between product windows.
  For a mainline demand, surface the redesign to the stateless mainline Design window with
  `wakeflow_deliver`; after the corrected requirement returns, add a full-context replacement
  package to the SAME demand with `replacesTargetTaskId` set to the parked product task. Do
  not create a new demand or re-dispatch the old task. For a Pod demand, do not use mainline
  Design: Wakeflow 0.9.3 cannot create a second frozen Pod Design generation, so keep the
  demand blocked and report that capability gap rather than overwriting the recorded handoff.
  Accepting a valid replacement marks the old task/package `superseded`; the parked demand's
  history and counts carry over.
- A completed result would leave TODO/backlog, archive state, or current status
  inconsistent.
- The controller is about to poll/wait for targets after a send was recorded.
- There are no eligible tasks.

## Verification

Use the smallest verification that covers the changed surface. For Wakeflow
total-control work in an installed workspace, use MCP tools instead of direct
runtime scripts:

- `wakeflow_verify` for overall Wakeflow verification. Use `scriptTests: true`
  only when the change is Wakeflow source/plugin script maintenance.
- `wakeflow_status` for repository, state-root, and delivery-loop orientation.
- `wakeflow_next_work` for after-completion candidate scans.
- `wakeflow_archive` (target=docs / target=todo) for archive
  dry-runs or applies.
- `wakeflow_create_demand`, `wakeflow_add_task`, `wakeflow_complete_demand`,
  `wakeflow_continue_demand`,
  `wakeflow_prepare_delivery`, `wakeflow_record_delivery`,
  `wakeflow_record_target_result`, `wakeflow_review_pack`,
  `wakeflow_reduce_results`, and `wakeflow_decide_review` for state-root,
  result review, and delivery mechanics.

Do not run `node .../plugins/cache/.../wakeflow/.../scripts/*.mjs`, copy
installed runtime script paths, or infer script flags from old docs during
normal total control. If the Wakeflow MCP tool surface is unavailable, stop and
report that the plugin must be reloaded or reinstalled.

Only when the current repository is Wakeflow source and the user is maintaining
Wakeflow scripts or automation, source-repo verification may use:

- `node scripts/wakeflow-verify.mjs`
- `node scripts/wakeflow-verify.mjs --with-script-tests`
- `node scripts/wakeflow-check-scripts.mjs --json`
- `node scripts/wakeflow-smoke.mjs`
- `npm test`

Script output is a review input, not acceptance.

- A proven host rejection before send is normally released automatically by
  exact compare-and-delete during host-send recording. If that cleanup is not
  recorded, use the manual fallback
  `release-window-lock --window <name> --expected-delivery-id <id> --write`
  (MCP `expectedDeliveryId`). Accepted, ambiguous, or readback-pending sends
  retain the lease. Omitting the id remains deliberate manual stale/corrupt
  recovery; dry-run first and never infer pre-send failure from old prose.