docs: add :solo: tag handling to the task workflows

The task-review and task-audit workflows already assess :quick:, an effort estimate. I added :solo: alongside it: a task Claude can finish end-to-end without Craig's input, gated on bounded scope, no design or preference call, and local verifiability.

In task-review.org I added a tagging subsection paralleling :quick:, a mention in the close-out summary, and a common-mistake entry against over-tagging. task-audit.org now re-assesses both tags during content reconciliation, since a resolved dependency can make a stuck task newly solo-able. It points at task-review.org for the definitions rather than restating them.

2 files changed, 9 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org b/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
index d9767e5..edbaa8d 100644
--- a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
+++ b/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ 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.
 - 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.
diff --git a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-review.org b/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-review.org
index 6a9a266..7cc1e29 100644
--- a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-review.org
+++ b/claude-templates/.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