2 files changed, 5 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org b/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
index b6e59dc..8dd2fb2 100644
--- a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
+++ b/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-audit.org
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ For every STALE task, edit it in the main thread:
 - *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.
 - *Enforce the project's declared tag vocabulary.* If the project's tag legend declares an *exhaustive* set of allowed tags, strip from each task any tag outside that set — the heading and parent section already carry topic/scope context, so ad-hoc tags only fragment the vocabulary and defeat tag-based filtering. Normalize near-duplicate spellings to the canonical tag (a plural to its singular, say). Where the legend does not declare the set closed, leave existing tags alone; this step applies only where the allowed set is exhaustive by design.
-- *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.
+- *Re-assess the =:quick:= and =:solo:= tags (mandatory — an audit that skips this is incomplete).* 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 hard definitions in [[file:../../claude-rules/todo-format.md][todo-format.md]] ("Hard definitions: :solo: and :quick:"; task-review carries the same three-gate walk). Autonomous execution reads =:solo:= as its eligibility gate and trusts the tag, so a stale one is a run-time hazard, not cosmetic drift. When the call isn't clear — 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 7b6327b..ba1571a 100644
--- a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-review.org
+++ b/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/task-review.org
@@ -57,7 +57,9 @@ Keep is the common case — most tasks are still right and just need re-stamping
 
 *** Tagging =:quick:= — small tasks
 
-While reviewing each task, estimate its effort. If you judge it *30 minutes or less* and it doesn't already carry =:quick:=, add the tag to the heading line. If the heading and body don't tell you how long it'll take, *ask Craig* — don't guess. A wrong =:quick:= is worse than none: the tag exists so Craig can grab a genuinely small task in a spare moment, and a mislabeled one wastes that moment.
+The =:quick:= and =:solo:= assessments (this section and the next) are *mandatory* for every reviewed task except a Kill — a review that skips them is incomplete. The hard definitions live in [[file:../../claude-rules/todo-format.md][todo-format.md]] ("Hard definitions: :solo: and :quick:"); autonomous execution (work-the-backlog / the no-approvals speedrun) reads =:solo:= as its eligibility gate and trusts the author's tag, so the run-time gate is only as trustworthy as this pass.
+
+While reviewing each task, estimate its effort. If you judge it *30 minutes or less* and it doesn't already carry =:quick:=, add the tag to the heading line. If the heading and body don't tell you how long it'll take, *ask Craig* — don't guess. A wrong =:quick:= is worse than none: the tag exists so Craig can grab a genuinely small task in a spare moment, and a mislabeled one wastes that moment. =:quick:= is an effort hint only, never an eligibility gate — size does not decide what runs autonomously.
 
 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.
 
@@ -67,7 +69,7 @@ While reviewing each task, judge whether Claude could build *and* verify it with
 
 1. *Buildable* — Claude has the capability and access to do the work.
 2. *Verifiable by Claude* — an objective or local check exists that Claude can run itself. Craig's routine spot-checking does not count against this, and neither does handing off a residual human-in-the-loop confirmation as a structured manual-testing reminder (the =verification.md= "Handing Off Manual Verification" pattern). The disqualifier is having no verification path of Claude's own at all — when the success criterion is only judgeable by Craig's eyes or subjective taste.
-3. *No upfront decision* — no design or preference call Craig must make before Claude can begin.
+3. *No deliberation* — no open design question and no "weigh these approaches" with real tradeoffs. At most one or two *quick, upfront-answerable* factual decisions are allowed — the speedrun preset batches those into its pre-flight Q&A, so they don't break the hands-off run. A genuine design or preference call disqualifies.
 
 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.