# gl0w-swarm feedback on the f0rge skill (first external read)

Date: 2026-09-08. Source: the gl0w project's swarm (different,
larger models) reading `f0rge --skill` cold, during migration.
Tracked in issue #23.

## What worked (verbatim signal)
tree, frontmatter, never delete, --jq / "never parse prose" — used
immediately. Philosophy lines are sound.

## Gaps found (procedural / git-bridge layer, not philosophy)
1. (retracted by user — user mistype, not a skill fault) binary
   name "forge" vs "f0rge".
2. Nothing says the forge needs creating: `f0rge init`.
3. Tree line omits ci.env, releases/, merges/, labels.md,
   milestones.md — formats unknown without ls + spec/.
4. THE big one: the contract never says .forge/ is committed and
   travels in git; PRs-as-branches, worktrees, branch scrub all
   invisible.
5. Merge semantics invisible: who resolves conflicts; "scrubbed"
   vs "never delete" tension.
6. CI execution model fuzzy: does `f0rge ci` run steps or record
   them? (It runs them; orchestrator was also fuzzy — real hole.)
7. "archive moves folder" — to WHERE? .forge/archive/ never named.
8. labels.md/milestones.md formats opaque.

## Orchestrator triage (adopted 1:1 in #23)
Keep: git bridge (MUST), ci execution (MUST), merge+never-delete
clarity (no carve-out — merged PR folder STAYS state:merged, only
the branch dies), archive destination, init bootstrap, spec/
format pointer. Cut: full skeleton enumeration (discoverable), all
repo-specific conventions (gitignores, AGENTS.md placement,
migration scope).

## Budget decision
Cap stays 900B/30ln — smallest comprehensive skill, start as we
mean to go on. Compress by priority if drafting exceeds it.

## Also learned
- `f0rge issue create --body` accepts multi-line bodies
  (quoted-scalar fix holds).
- The .forge formatters: releases/out + ci/runs are gitignored by
  repo policy — NOT a contract fact.