I'll design the verification BEFORE deploying this change, following the Iron Law: no skill edit without a failing test first.

## First: Classify the Failure Type

This guidance is a **positive recipe / contract** — it states what the dispatch IS (5 named parts, in order). Per "Match the Form to the Failure," that's the right form for a **wrong-shaped-output** failure: the agent already produces a dispatch, but the dispatch has the wrong shape (missing the brief framing, omitting interfaces, burying ambiguity resolution).

This is NOT a discipline failure (agent knowing a rule and skipping under pressure), so full pressure-scenario testing is the wrong primary tool. The right primary tool is **micro-testing the wording against a no-guidance control**.

But I must verify that classification, not assume it. The test plan has to first establish the baseline failure even exists.

## The Test Plan

### Phase 0 — Establish the baseline failure exists (RED)

If the no-guidance control doesn't exhibit the failure, there is nothing to fix — stop and don't author the guidance.

- **Method:** One API call per sample. System prompt = the full SDD skill *as it exists today, without this addition* (realistic context). User message = a task that requires dispatching a subagent to implement a task that has a brief and depends on earlier tasks.
- **Sample size:** 5+ reps.
- **What I score:** For each generated dispatch, does it (a) point to the brief, (b) frame the brief as authoritative requirements ("read this first"), (c) include interfaces from earlier tasks, (d) surface ambiguity resolution, (e) give the report path?
- **Decision gate:**
  - If controls already produce all 5 parts reliably → the addition is solving a non-problem. **Stop. Don't deploy.**
  - If controls reliably drop specific parts → I now know *which* parts the guidance must fix, and those become my scoring targets.

### Phase 1 — Micro-test the wording (GREEN)

Head-to-head comparison, same task prompts as Phase 0.

- **Variants (run blind/randomized order):**
  1. **Control:** current skill, no addition.
  2. **Treatment:** current skill + the teammate's 5-part recipe.
  3. (Optional) **Alt-form treatment:** the 5 parts expressed as a fill-in template/slot list the agent completes, to test whether a structural slot beats prose enumeration.
- **Sample size:** 5+ reps per variant (variance is a metric — I want to see whether treatment reps converge).
- **Scoring:**
  - **Per-part presence** (5 binary checks per dispatch) — programmatic flag, but **every flagged match read manually**. Template echoes and the agent quoting the instruction ("I should read this first") masquerade as real hits; only a real brief-path-with-framing counts.
  - **Order:** are the parts in the stated sequence?
  - **Brief framing strength:** is the brief actually presented as *authoritative* ("your requirements") vs. mentioned in passing?
  - **Failure-mode watch:** does the recipe cause *bloat* — agent restating the brief contents inline instead of pointing to it? (Part 2 says "introduce the path," not "summarize the brief." A recipe can backfire into restatement.)
  - **Convergence:** do the 5 treatment reps produce the same shape, or 5 different interpretations? Five interpretations = wording isn't binding; tighten before adding words.

### Phase 2 — Conditional edge check

Part 3 ("interfaces from earlier tasks") and part 4 ("resolution of any ambiguity") are **conditional** — they only apply when those things exist.

- **Method:** Run a task variant where there ARE no earlier-task interfaces and no ambiguity.
- **Sample size:** 5+ reps, treatment only.
- **Watch for:** does the agent fabricate interfaces/ambiguity to satisfy the recipe, or correctly omit them? An unconditional recipe can force agents to invent content. If this fails, the fix is to key parts 3 and 4 to observable predicates ("if earlier tasks defined interfaces…").

### Acceptance Criteria

Deploy only if ALL hold:

1. **Baseline failed:** control omitted ≥1 target part in a majority of reps (the problem is real).
2. **Treatment fixes it:** treatment includes all applicable parts, correctly framed, in ≥4/5 reps.
3. **No backfire:** treatment does not increase brief-restatement/bloat vs. control (manually read).
4. **Convergence:** treatment reps agree on shape (low variance).
5. **Conditional parts behave:** parts 3 and 4 are omitted, not fabricated, when absent.

If any fail, revise wording (e.g., add the conditional predicates, sharpen "introduce the path" to forbid inline restatement) and re-run — don't deploy the draft as-is.

### Note on scope

Micro-tests verify wording, not discipline. Since this is shaping, not discipline, I'm intentionally NOT building a rationalization table or red-flags list — those backfire on shape problems. The whole gate is "does the output match the stated shape," which is exactly what the recipe form is supposed to make unnegotiable.