Allow leaf sub-skills to emit agent findings within their domain

The original DO contract pinned all agent reasoning to the super-skill:
'Agent findings are emitted only by super-skills... Leaf sub-skills MUST
NOT emit agent findings'. This funnels all agent reasoning across all 6
domains through a single super-skill pass, which is the root structural
cause of the attention dilution we have been chasing in BCAppsBCQuality
PRs #28 and #30:

- T1 standalone run showed al-security-review finds rimd-on-read-only
  cleanly when run alone, but emits zero agent findings because the
  contract forbids it. So obvious things like case-without-else (no
  matching KB article yet) get dropped on the floor.
- The al-code-review self-review pass keeps producing 0-1 agent findings
  per PR because it is asked to reason across 6 domains in one pass.

The fix is to move agent reasoning into the leaves, bounded by each
leaf's domain. Each leaf now has both knowledge-backed and agent-finding
permissions within its own scope; the super-skill self-review pass
becomes a smaller, cross-cutting role.

skills/do.md
  - Replace the 'only by super-skills' / 'MUST NOT' clause with a
    two-tier model: leaf sub-skills MAY emit agent findings strictly
    within their declared domain; super-skills MAY emit agent findings
    for cross-cutting concerns that span domains.
  - Update the encoding rules: leaf agent findings have references:[]
    and an agent:-prefixed id, no from-sub-skill (the leaf's own report
    carries the finding under its own skill.id). Super-skills set
    from-sub-skill='agent' for their own self-review findings; when
    rolling up leaf agent findings, they set from-sub-skill=<leaf-id>.
  - Clarify that 'MUST validate against knowledge' applies to super-
    skill self-review candidates only - leaves already validated within
    their domain when they decided to emit.

microsoft/skills/review/al-{security,performance,privacy,style,upgrade,
                                                            ui}-review.md
  - New paragraph after the confidence rules instructing each leaf to
    surface domain-specific agent findings when no knowledge file
    covers a defect the agent recognises from general AL knowledge.
  - Bound the scope: 'The scope is strictly <domain>; defects outside
    this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here.'
  - Same validation requirement: check the worklist for a matching
    knowledge file first; if one exists, upgrade to a knowledge-backed
    finding instead.

microsoft/skills/review/al-code-review.md
  - Rewrite the 'Agent self-review pass' subsection. The pass is now
    explicitly for cross-cutting concerns that no single leaf could
    have surfaced because they span multiple domains. Domain-specific
    reasoning belongs in the leaves, not duplicated here.
  - Update the rollup behavior to acknowledge leaf-emitted agent
    findings: they are rolled up like any other sub-skill finding, with
    from-sub-skill set to the leaf id, and are not re-validated by the
    super-skill (the leaf already validated within its own domain).
  - Drop the 'Leaf sub-skills MUST NOT emit agent findings' line.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

microsoft/skills/review/al-code-review.md

@@ -80,27 +80,27 @@ For each sub-skill in the worklist, executed one at a time per the discipline ab
 
 ### Agent self-review pass
 
-After every sub-skill has produced its sub-result, perform a self-review pass against the same task input using the agent's built-in BC and AL knowledge. BCQuality is an **additive** knowledge layer: it augments the agent's review judgement, it does not replace it. The goal of this pass is to surface defects the agent recognises on its own — bugs, anti-patterns, error-handling gaps, AL idioms — that the leaf sub-skills did not catch because no BCQuality knowledge file covers them yet.
+Each leaf sub-skill emits both knowledge-backed findings and, per its own contract, agent findings within its own domain. After every sub-skill has produced its sub-result, perform a super-skill self-review pass against the same task input. The goal of this pass is to surface defects the agent recognises on its own that **no single leaf could have surfaced** because they cross domain boundaries — architecture-level issues that touch performance and reliability at once, error-handling gaps that span security and UX, resource-lifecycle patterns that affect both correctness and performance, and similar cross-cutting concerns. BCQuality is an **additive** knowledge layer: it augments the agent's review judgement, it does not replace it.
 
-This pass is mandatory. An empty agent-findings list is acceptable only when the diff is small enough that the leaves have provably exhausted the surface (in practice: PRs of ≤2 files with ≤30 changed lines and at least one sub-skill emitting findings). For larger diffs, returning an empty agent-findings list is a defect — the agent has built-in BC/AL knowledge that the leaves cannot supply, and refusing to apply it is the most common cause of parity loss against agents that do not have a BCQuality layer at all.
+This pass is mandatory on real-size PRs. An empty agent-findings list at the super-skill level is acceptable only when the diff is small enough that nothing cross-cutting plausibly applies (in practice: PRs of ≤2 files with ≤30 changed lines). For larger diffs, the fact that leaves emitted findings does not exempt the super-skill — the leaves handle within-domain reasoning, the super-skill handles cross-domain reasoning, and a real-size PR with no cross-cutting candidates is rare.
 
-Frame the pass by the domains the sub-skills already cover (performance, security, privacy, style, upgrade, UI) and by the cross-cutting concerns that span them (architecture, error handling, resource lifecycle). For each domain, ask whether the diff exhibits a pattern the agent recognises as a defect from general AL knowledge and that the corresponding sub-skill did not flag. The categories are anchors for completeness, not a script: a candidate from any category is in scope, and a candidate from no category is also in scope when the agent has independent grounds for it.
+Frame the pass by cross-cutting concerns — architecture, error handling, resource lifecycle — and by the seams between leaf domains. Do not duplicate domain-specific reasoning that belongs in a leaf: a security-only concern is the security leaf's responsibility, not the super-skill's. The super-skill pass adds value where no individual leaf has the right scope.
 
 For every candidate the agent identifies in this pass:
 
 1. **Validate against BCQuality knowledge.** Check the candidate against the knowledge files the sub-skills have already loaded for this task (visible via their `references` and `suppressed` lists in `sub-results`).
    - If a BCQuality knowledge file matches the candidate, upgrade it to a knowledge-backed finding: cite the file in `references`, set `id` to the file's path, set `from-sub-skill` to the sub-skill that owns that knowledge domain, and merge with or deduplicate against any sub-skill finding that already covers the same concern at the same location.
    - If a BCQuality knowledge file **explicitly contradicts** the candidate (its `## Best Practice` or `## Anti Pattern` says the opposite of what the agent flagged), suppress the candidate and do not surface it.
-   - Otherwise the candidate has no BCQuality coverage; emit it as an agent finding.
+   - Otherwise the candidate has no BCQuality coverage; emit it as a super-skill agent finding.
 2. **Emit agent finding.** Per DO's *Agent findings* rules:
-   - `from-sub-skill: "agent"`
+   - `from-sub-skill: "agent"` (the super-skill itself produced it)
    - `references: []`
    - `id` is a skill-defined slug prefixed with `agent:` (for example, `agent:missing-error-handling-on-http-call`).
    - `confidence` capped at `medium`.
    - `message` is non-empty and self-contained, describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation. A consumer rendering the finding has no knowledge-file footer to fall back on.
-   - `suggested-code` SHOULD be set when the fix is small and mechanical (e.g. removing a few unreachable lines, replacing a `Count() > 0` test with `not IsEmpty()`, declaring a missing `Label`, adding an `else` branch to a `case` over an enum). Omit it when the appropriate fix depends on context the agent cannot determine.
+   - `suggested-code` SHOULD be set when the fix is small and mechanical. Omit it when the appropriate fix depends on context the agent cannot determine.
 
-Leaf sub-skills MUST NOT emit agent findings: their scope is bounded by the knowledge subset they evaluate. The self-review pass is a super-skill responsibility.
+Leaf-level agent findings (those with `references: []` inside a sub-skill's report) are rolled up into the super-skill's top-level `findings[]` like any other sub-skill finding — they keep their `from-sub-skill: <leaf-id>` attribution and are not rewritten. They are not subject to the "MUST validate against knowledge" step above, because each leaf has already validated within its own domain.
 
 ### Suggested-code guidance
 

microsoft/skills/review/al-performance-review.md

@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ Set `confidence` to:
 - `medium` when detection relies on heuristics or when any frontmatter dimension was `unknown`.
 - `low` when the finding is an advisory derived only from applicability.
 
+After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a performance defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). The scope is strictly performance; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
+
 When the knowledge file ships an unambiguous `.good.al` companion that names exactly the correction the finding requires (and the diff context makes the substitution mechanical), set `findings[].suggested-code` to the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. Skip the field when the appropriate fix depends on context the skill cannot determine, or when more than one defensible replacement exists. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
 
 Outcome selection:

microsoft/skills/review/al-privacy-review.md

@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ Set `confidence` to:
 - `medium` when detection relies on heuristics or when any frontmatter dimension was `unknown`.
 - `low` when the finding is an advisory derived only from applicability.
 
+After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a privacy defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). The scope is strictly privacy; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
+
 When the knowledge file ships an unambiguous `.good.al` companion that names exactly the correction the finding requires (and the diff context makes the substitution mechanical), set `findings[].suggested-code` to the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. Skip the field when the appropriate fix depends on context the skill cannot determine, or when more than one defensible replacement exists. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
 
 Outcome selection:

microsoft/skills/review/al-security-review.md

@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ Set `confidence` to:
 - `medium` when detection relies on heuristics or when any frontmatter dimension was `unknown`.
 - `low` when the finding is an advisory derived only from applicability.
 
+After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a security defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). The scope is strictly security; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
+
 When the knowledge file ships an unambiguous `.good.al` companion that names exactly the correction the finding requires (and the diff context makes the substitution mechanical), set `findings[].suggested-code` to the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. Skip the field when the appropriate fix depends on context the skill cannot determine, or when more than one defensible replacement exists. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
 
 Outcome selection:

microsoft/skills/review/al-style-review.md

@@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ Set `confidence` to:
 - `medium` when detection relies on heuristics or when any frontmatter dimension was `unknown`.
 - `low` when the finding is an advisory derived only from applicability.
 
+After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a style defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). The scope is strictly style; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
+
 When the knowledge file ships an unambiguous `.good.al` companion that names exactly the correction the finding requires (and the diff context makes the substitution mechanical), set `findings[].suggested-code` to the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. Skip the field when the appropriate fix depends on context the skill cannot determine, or when more than one defensible replacement exists. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
 
 Outcome selection:

microsoft/skills/review/al-ui-review.md

@@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ Set `confidence` to:
 - `medium` when detection relies on heuristics (judging whether a caption is a noun phrase or a sentence phrase) or when any frontmatter dimension was `unknown`.
 - `low` when the finding is an advisory derived only from applicability.
 
+After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a UI defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). The scope is strictly UI; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
+
 When the knowledge file ships an unambiguous `.good.al` companion that names exactly the correction the finding requires (and the diff context makes the substitution mechanical), set `findings[].suggested-code` to the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. Skip the field when the appropriate fix depends on context the skill cannot determine, or when more than one defensible replacement exists. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
 
 Outcome selection:

microsoft/skills/review/al-upgrade-review.md

@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ Set `confidence` to:
 - `medium` when detection relies on heuristics or when any frontmatter dimension was `unknown`.
 - `low` when the finding is an advisory derived only from applicability.
 
+After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a upgrade defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). The scope is strictly upgrade; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
+
 When the knowledge file ships an unambiguous `.good.al` companion that names exactly the correction the finding requires (and the diff context makes the substitution mechanical), set `findings[].suggested-code` to the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. Skip the field when the appropriate fix depends on context the skill cannot determine, or when more than one defensible replacement exists. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
 
 Outcome selection:

skills/do.md

@@ -134,17 +134,22 @@ An empty `findings` array with `outcome: completed` means the skill ran and foun
 
 When a super-skill rolls up a non-citation finding from a sub-skill (an `id` that is a slug, not a path), the super-skill MUST prefix the `id` with `<from-sub-skill>:` to avoid collisions across sub-skills (for example, a slug `missing-test` from `al-security-review` becomes `al-security-review:missing-test`). Citation-based findings are already globally unique through their repo-relative path and MUST NOT be rewritten.
 
-**Agent findings.** A super-skill MAY emit findings that the agent identified through its own reasoning rather than from a BCQuality knowledge file. BCQuality is an **additive** knowledge layer: it augments the agent's pre-existing review judgement, it does not replace it. An agent finding is encoded by:
+**Agent findings.** A skill MAY emit findings that the agent identified through its own reasoning rather than from a BCQuality knowledge file. BCQuality is an **additive** knowledge layer: it augments the agent's pre-existing review judgement, it does not replace it. An agent finding is encoded by:
 
-- `from-sub-skill: "agent"` — the canonical marker. Use this exact value; do not invent equivalents.
 - `references: []` — required. An agent finding has no knowledge-file citation by definition; if a citation existed, the finding would be a knowledge-backed finding instead.
 - `id` — a skill-defined slug, prefixed with `agent:` (mirroring the `<from-sub-skill>:` rule). For example, `agent:obsolete-find-signature`.
 - `confidence` — capped at `medium`. Without a knowledge-file citation there is no authoritative basis for `high` confidence.
 - `message` — non-empty and self-contained. It MUST describe the issue and a concrete recommendation, since a consumer rendering the finding has no knowledge-file footer to fall back on.
+- `from-sub-skill` — set by super-skills only. The literal string `"agent"` when the super-skill itself produced the finding from its own cross-cutting reasoning; or the producing leaf's `skill.id` when the super-skill is rolling up a leaf's agent finding. Absent on findings emitted directly by a leaf (the leaf's own report carries the finding under its `skill.id` already).
 
-Agent findings are emitted **only by super-skills** (the `al-code-review` super-skill is the canonical example). Leaf sub-skills MUST NOT emit agent findings: a leaf's job is to evaluate one knowledge subset, and a finding it cannot cite from that subset is out of scope for it. Before emitting an agent finding, a super-skill MUST validate the candidate against the BCQuality knowledge it has already loaded for the task — if a knowledge file matches, the candidate is upgraded to a knowledge-backed finding (and merged or deduplicated against any sub-skill output that already covers the same concern); if a knowledge file explicitly contradicts the candidate, it is suppressed.
+Agent findings may be emitted by both leaf sub-skills and super-skills, with different scope boundaries:
 
-Consumers that render output MAY treat agent findings differently from knowledge-backed findings (for example, by labelling them and routing them to a separate review domain). The `from-sub-skill: "agent"` marker is the contract they rely on.
+- A **leaf sub-skill** MAY emit agent findings strictly within its declared `domain`. al-security-review MAY surface an agent security finding that no knowledge file covers (for example, a `case` over a security-relevant enum with no `else` arm), but MUST NOT emit a style or performance agent finding — those are out of scope for the leaf and belong to other leaves or to the super-skill. The leaf's domain is the bounding box.
+- A **super-skill** MAY emit agent findings of any kind, but its self-review pass is most useful for **cross-cutting** concerns that span multiple leaf domains (architecture-level smells, error-handling gaps that touch security and reliability, resource lifecycle issues). Domain-specific agent reasoning is the leaves' job; the super-skill should not duplicate it.
+
+Before emitting an agent finding, a skill MUST validate the candidate against the BCQuality knowledge it has already loaded for the task — if a knowledge file matches, the candidate is upgraded to a knowledge-backed finding (and merged or deduplicated against any existing finding that already covers the same concern); if a knowledge file explicitly contradicts the candidate, it is suppressed. For a super-skill rolling up leaf reports, this validation is done against the union of knowledge files all leaves loaded, not just one leaf's set.
+
+Consumers that render output MAY treat agent findings differently from knowledge-backed findings (for example, by labelling them and routing them to a separate review domain). The `references: []` marker, together with the `agent:` `id` prefix, is the contract they rely on; `from-sub-skill: "agent"` is the additional marker for super-skill-emitted agent findings.
 
 **`findings[].severity`** — see the taxonomy below.
 
@@ -167,7 +172,7 @@ The first reference is the **primary** reference: the knowledge file the finding
 
 **`findings[].confidence`** — the skill's confidence that the finding is a true positive, given the evidence it evaluated. Not applicability confidence, not severity confidence. Values: `high`, `medium`, `low`.
 
-**`findings[].from-sub-skill`** — optional. Set only by super-skills. The `skill.id` of the sub-skill that produced the finding, or the literal string `"agent"` for an agent finding the super-skill produced from its own reasoning. Absent on findings produced directly by a leaf skill.
+**`findings[].from-sub-skill`** — optional. Set only by super-skills. The `skill.id` of the sub-skill that produced the finding, or the literal string `"agent"` for an agent finding the super-skill produced from its own cross-cutting reasoning. Absent on findings emitted directly by a leaf skill — including agent findings the leaf emits within its own domain, which appear in the leaf's own report without this field.
 
 **`findings[].suggested-code`** — optional. A concrete code-replacement payload for the lines indicated by `location`. When present, the string MUST be a literal replacement for the source lines covered by `location.line` (or `location.range` if set) — i.e., what the file would contain after the fix, with no surrounding diff markers, fences, or commentary. Consumers MAY render it as a one-click suggestion in the delivery surface (for example, a GitHub ```` ```suggestion ```` block). Emit `suggested-code` only when the fix is small, mechanical, and unambiguous; omit it when the appropriate fix depends on context the skill cannot determine. The `suggested-code` payload supplements `message`; it does not replace the explanation in `message`.