chore(ai): resync workflow and script mirror with canonical

The .ai/ mirror lagged claude-templates/.ai/ for three workflows (task-audit, task-review, triage-intake) and two scripts (screenshot.py and its test) — earlier commits updated the canonical copies without resyncing the mirror in the same commit. The startup rsync caught it up; this commit tracks the result so the two stay identical.

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/.ai/workflows/task-review.org b/.ai/workflows/task-review.org
index 6a9a266..7cc1e29 100644
--- a/.ai/workflows/task-review.org
+++ b/.ai/workflows/task-review.org
@@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ While reviewing each task, estimate its effort. If you judge it *30 minutes or l
 
 This is orthogonal to the action chosen — a task can be kept (or re-graded, or marked DOING) *and* tagged =:quick:= in the same pass. Skip the assessment on a Kill, since it's leaving the pool. Tags go on the heading line per [[file:../../claude-rules/todo-format.md][todo-format.md]], sharing one =:tag1:tag2:= cluster.
 
+*** Tagging =:solo:= — tasks Claude can finish end-to-end
+
+While reviewing each task, judge whether Claude could finish it without Craig's input, and if so add =:solo:= to the heading line. Three gates, all of which must hold: the scope is well-defined and bounded, there's no design or preference call that needs Craig, and the outcome is verifiable locally — no waiting on hardware Craig owns, an external service, or Craig's own confirmation that the result is right. If any gate is shaky, leave the tag off. Like =:quick:=, a wrong =:solo:= is worse than none — it tells Craig he can hand the task off and walk away, so a mislabeled one wastes that trust. When the heading and body don't make all three gates clear, ask Craig instead of guessing.
+
+=:solo:= is independent of both the action and =:quick:=. A task can be =:solo:= but slow (a bounded refactor that takes hours yet needs no input) or =:quick:= but not =:solo:= (a five-minute change that hinges on a preference call). Tag each axis on its own merits; both share the one =:tag1:tag2:= cluster. Skip the assessment on a Kill.
+
 *** Stamping =:LAST_REVIEWED:=
 
 Set =:LAST_REVIEWED:= to today's date (from above) in the task's =:PROPERTIES:= drawer:
@@ -86,7 +92,7 @@ Follow the completion rules in [[file:../../claude-rules/todo-format.md][todo-fo
 
 When the batch is done (or Craig calls it early):
 
-1. Summarize what changed — re-grades, kills, anything marked DOING, anything newly tagged =:quick:= — in a couple of lines. Don't list the keeps individually; "the rest were confirmed as-is" is enough.
+1. Summarize what changed — re-grades, kills, anything marked DOING, anything newly tagged =:quick:= or =:solo:= — in a couple of lines. Don't list the keeps individually; "the rest were confirmed as-is" is enough.
 2. The edits are already written to =todo.org=. If Craig keeps =todo.org= open in Emacs, remind him to revert the buffer so his editor picks up the changes (and flag that any unsaved edits he had open could collide — re-running picks up whatever's on disk).
 
 * Common Mistakes
@@ -98,6 +104,7 @@ When the batch is done (or Craig calls it early):
 5. *Drifting the date format* — =:LAST_REVIEWED:= must be =YYYY-MM-DD=, or the staleness script won't read it.
 6. *Marking a kill DONE instead of CANCELLED* — DONE means finished, CANCELLED means abandoned. A task review kills tasks that shouldn't be done at all.
 7. *Guessing a =:quick:= estimate* — if the heading and body don't make the effort clear, ask Craig instead of tagging on a hunch. A mislabeled =:quick:= defeats the tag's purpose.
+8. *Over-tagging =:solo:=* — if you can't confirm all three gates (bounded scope, no preference call, locally verifiable), leave it off. A =:solo:= that actually needs Craig's input, his hardware, or his sign-off to verify defeats the tag's purpose.
 
 * Living Document