feat(workflows): audit-warranted pre-step + priority and tag enforcement

Two changes land together because each is broken without the other.

open-tasks.org gains a new Phase A.1, evaluated only in Next Mode. The
phase reads :LAST_AUDIT: from notes.org and walks five state signals
(reminder/task mismatch, passed scheduled date, "waiting on X" matches a
shipped X, dead file: link, sub-task >75% DONE coverage). If the temporal
threshold of 14 days trips, or any signal fires, Next Mode offers a
task-audit run before producing the recommendation. Item 1 in the offer
is "run task-audit first" per the recommendation-at-item-1 convention.

task-audit.org gains two pieces. Phase C now enforces priority and
type-tag presence per the project's legend, applies the [#A] dating rule
from that legend, and re-assesses :quick: and :solo: from reconciled
facts. Unambiguous calls land autonomously. Ambiguous ones flag
NEEDS-USER instead of being guessed. A new Phase E stamps :LAST_AUDIT:
on completion.

1 files changed, 15 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org b/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
index edbaa8d..c999dab 100644
--- a/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
+++ b/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
@@ -73,7 +73,9 @@ For every STALE task, edit it in the main thread:
 - Mark statuses that moved; rewrite "waiting on X" lines whose X resolved.
 - Fix dead/renamed =file:= links.
 - *Consolidate duplicates* — when several tasks track the same thing, fold them into one home and delete the duplicates (per the user's call on which is canonical).
-- *Re-assess the =:quick:= and =:solo:= tags* — reconciliation can change a task's effort or autonomy: a resolved dependency may make a stuck task =:solo:=, a scope cut may make it =:quick:=, and new complexity surfaced by the sources can invalidate either. Add or remove the tags per the definitions in [[file:task-review.org][task-review.org]] when the reconciled facts make the call clear. When they don't — an effort estimate you can't pin down, a =:solo:= gate you can't confirm — it's a NEEDS-USER flag, not a guess.
+- *Ensure priority is set per the project scheme.* The top of the project's =todo.org= should carry the priority legend (=[#A]= through =[#D]=). Every task should carry an explicit priority cookie. If a cookie is missing, or no longer matches the reconciled facts, assign the right level per the legend. If the level is unambiguous from the body, do it autonomously; if it's a judgment call (especially the [#A] / [#B] line for important-but-not-urgent work), flag NEEDS-USER. Also enforce the [#A]-discipline rule from the legend — an [#A] task without a =SCHEDULED:= or =DEADLINE:= line is mis-graded and is either down-graded to [#B] (when reconciled facts say "important but not urgent") or surfaced as NEEDS-USER for the user to date.
+- *Ensure a type tag is set.* Every task carries one type tag from the project's tag legend (typically =:feature:= / =:chore:= / =:spec:= / =:bug:=). If missing or wrong, assign or correct it from the body when the type is unambiguous. If two tags fit (a refactor that also fixes a bug; a spec that's also a chore), flag NEEDS-USER rather than picking one silently.
+- *Re-assess the =:quick:= and =:solo:= tags* — reconciliation can change a task's effort or autonomy: a resolved dependency may make a stuck task =:solo:=, a scope cut may make it =:quick:=, and new complexity surfaced by the sources can invalidate either. Add or remove the tags per the definitions in the project's tag legend (and [[file:task-review.org][task-review.org]]) when the reconciled facts make the call clear. When they don't — an effort estimate you can't pin down, a =:solo:= gate you can't confirm — it's a NEEDS-USER flag, not a guess.
 - Bump =:LAST_REVIEWED:= on each edited task.
 
 Follow =todo-format.md= for completion mechanics (depth-based DONE vs dated-rewrite) and the working-files / link-hygiene rules when moving artifacts.
@@ -84,6 +86,18 @@ Present the NEEDS-USER bucket as a short, scannable list — one line per task,
 
 When the trail on a task has gone cold and only the user knows the outcome, *say so and ask* — do not invent a status. ("The screen was set for 5/15; nothing in sessions, email, or chat records what came of it. Did it happen, and what's your read?")
 
+** Phase E — Close out
+
+After Phase D's judgment calls are adjudicated and applied, stamp the audit run by updating =.ai/notes.org='s *Workflow State* section:
+
+#+begin_example
+:LAST_AUDIT: YYYY-MM-DD
+#+end_example
+
+Use today's =date= output (=date "+%Y-%m-%d"=). Overwrite the previous value — the marker reflects the most recent run, not a history.
+
+If the *Workflow State* section doesn't exist yet, create it (placement: after *Active Reminders*). Other workflows (notably =open-tasks.org= Next Mode's audit-warranted check) read this marker to decide whether to offer running another audit.
+
 * Common Mistakes
 
 1. *Guessing a judgment call instead of flagging it.* If the answer isn't in the sources, it's bucket 3. Ask.