al-complexity v2: standard-foerst-tjek + KISS, foer nogen tier foreslaas

Michaels retning: loes tingene saa standard som muligt foerst (Microsoft
Learn + det faktiske BCApps-indhold), derefter KISS paa hvad der reelt skal
bygges custom.

Ny Step 0 i al-complexity.agent.md, koert FOER klassificering:
- Soeg Microsoft Learn efter forretningsbehovet (ikke "hvordan bygger jeg X i AL")
- Tjek den rigtige BCApps-kildekode via reference-repos-klonen (ikke traenings-
  data-antagelser)
- Krav om bevis, ikke en paastand ("jeg tjekkede og fandt intet" er kun
  troværdigt hvis du viser hvad du soegte) - samme standard som TDD-rød-
  bekraeftelsen
- Ny STANDARD-tier: hvis BC allerede klarer det, ingen kode, kun opsaetning
- KISS goeres til en eksplicit begraensning paa selve routen, ikke kun paa
  Step 0 - en HIGH-tier retfaerdiggoer mere PROCES, ikke en mere elaboreret
  LOESNING

Smiley v3 (samme commit-serie): rettede ogsaa en snag i selve aktiveringen -
Columbo->al-complexity-kaeden trigges i dag kun naar kravet er UKLART. Men
standard-foerst-tjekket boer koere for ETHVERT nyt custom-arbejde, ogsaa et
krystalklart formuleret et - et klart krav kan stadig vaere noget BC allerede
goer. Samme klasse gap som TDD-triggerfixen i forrige commit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

custom/agents/smiley.agent.md

@@ -66,32 +66,46 @@ Smiley's assets, activation conditions, and how they surface:
 
 ### 🔴 STOP GATE — Columbo → al-complexity
 
-**Activate when:**
-- A user says "can you implement", "add a feature", "let's build", "hurtigt lige..." or
-  similar — and the requirement has not been clearly specified
-- A task feels MEDIUM or HIGH complexity before any scoping has happened
-- Coding is about to start on something ambiguous
+**Two separate triggers here — do not let the first eclipse the second:**
+
+1. **Columbo (clarify) activates when the requirement is ambiguous:** "can you
+   implement", "add a feature", "let's build", "hurtigt lige..." or similar,
+   where what's actually wanted isn't yet clear.
+2. **al-complexity's standard-first check activates on ANY new AL customization
+   work, whether or not Columbo had anything to clarify.** A perfectly clear,
+   well-specified request ("add a field X that does Y") still deserves the
+   check — a crisp requirement can still turn out to be something standard BC
+   already does. Do not skip straight to coding just because there was nothing
+   to ask about. 2026-07-31: this is the same class of gap as the TDD trigger
+   fix — a gate tied only to "is this ambiguous" misses the clear-but-possibly-
+   unnecessary-custom-work case entirely.
 
 **How it surfaces (undercover):**
-Claude naturally pauses. Asks one clarifying question. Listens. Asks the next.
-Does not say "I need to clarify first" — just does it. This IS Columbo.
+Claude naturally pauses. Asks one clarifying question. Listens. Asks the next
+— but only if there's genuinely something to clarify. Does not say "I need to
+clarify first" — just does it. This IS Columbo.
 
-After the picture is clear, Claude naturally assesses scope and proposes a complexity
-tier. Does not say "al-complexity says..." — just reasons through it out loud and
-waits for the user to confirm before writing any code.
+Whether or not Columbo had anything to ask, Claude naturally checks Microsoft
+Learn and the BCApps reference clone before assessing scope (al-complexity's
+Step 0), then proposes STANDARD or a complexity tier. Does not say
+"al-complexity says..." — just reasons through it out loud, shows what was
+checked, and waits for the user to confirm before writing any code.
 
 **The chain:**
 ```
-Ambiguous task detected
-  → Claude asks questions (Columbo pattern — one at a time)
-  → Picture becomes clear
-  → Claude proposes scope + tier + route
+New AL customization work about to begin
+  → requirement ambiguous? → Claude asks questions (Columbo, one at a time) → clear
+  → Claude checks Microsoft Learn + BCApps reference clone (al-complexity Step 0)
+  → standard BC covers it? → propose STANDARD, no code, stop here
+  → doesn't → Claude proposes scope + tier + route
   → User confirms
   → Code begins
 ```
 
-Smiley will wave the flag hard here. "Hurtig lige" is a red flag.
-Coding before clarity is the most expensive mistake in development.
+Smiley will wave the flag hard here. "Hurtig lige" is a red flag — and so is a
+task that looks obviously custom enough that nobody thought to check standard.
+Coding before clarity is the most expensive mistake in development. Coding
+before checking standard is a close second.
 
 ### 🔴 STOP GATE — Task Lifecycle (start, focus, close)
 

custom/setup/templates/al-complexity.agent.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 ---
 kind: action-skill
 id: curabis-al-complexity
-version: 1
+version: 2
 title: CURABIS AL complexity triage
-description: Advisory intake classifier. Assesses an implementation task and proposes a complexity tier (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH) plus a route. Recommends only - it never starts work and never routes by itself. The developer confirms or adjusts the tier first.
+description: Advisory intake classifier. First checks whether Business Central already solves the requirement natively (Microsoft Learn + the BCApps reference clone) before proposing a complexity tier (STANDARD/LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH) plus a route. KISS applies to whatever custom route is chosen. Recommends only - it never starts work and never routes by itself. The developer confirms or adjusts first.
 inputs: [task-description]
 outputs: [tier-recommendation]
 bc-version: [all]
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ technologies: [al]
 countries: [w1]
 application-area: [all]
 domain: orchestration
-keywords: [complexity, tier, routing, intake, scope, spec, tdd, architecture, advisory, human-in-the-loop]
+keywords: [complexity, tier, routing, intake, scope, spec, tdd, architecture, advisory, human-in-the-loop, standard-first, kiss, microsoft-learn, bcapps]
 sub-skills:
   - microsoft/skills/review/al-code-review.md
 ---
@@ -54,7 +54,36 @@ it never starts implementation and never routes on its own.
 This is a **rubric, not a calculation** - there is no numeric score. The tier comes from
 which classification signals below match the task.
 
-Loop: classify -> propose tier + route -> WAIT for human confirmation -> hand off.
+Loop: **standard-first check -> classify -> propose tier + route -> WAIT for human
+confirmation -> hand off.**
+
+## Step 0 — Standard-first check (2026-07-31, runs before classification)
+
+Custom AL is the most expensive way to solve a requirement — every line becomes something
+CURABIS must maintain forever. Before proposing ANY tier, check whether Business Central
+already does this natively: a standard feature, a setup/configuration option, an existing
+extension point. This is not optional and not skippable because the task "obviously" needs
+code — the check itself is what proves that.
+
+1. **Search Microsoft Learn** (`mcp__microsoft-learn__microsoft_docs_search`, then
+   `microsoft_docs_fetch` on anything promising) for the actual business requirement, not
+   the AL implementation you're imagining. Search for what the user wants to happen, not
+   "how to build X in AL".
+2. **Check the real standard app**, not memory or training-data assumptions. Use the
+   machine-global reference clone (`~/.claude/reference-repos/microsoft/BCApps/` — see
+   `[[curabis-app-sources-must-be-checked-first]]` for the clone/refresh mechanism) and
+   grep for the relevant tables/pages/setup fields. Training data goes stale; the clone
+   does not.
+3. **State the finding, with evidence — never "I checked and found nothing" unsupported.**
+   Cite the Learn URL or the BCApps object/field you found (or searched for and confirmed
+   absent). This is the same human-verifiable-evidence bar as the TDD red-confirmation —
+   a claim of "nothing" is only trustworthy if you show what you searched.
+4. **If standard BC already covers it:** propose **STANDARD** — no tier, no code, just the
+   configuration/setup steps. This is the cheapest possible resolution and the reason this
+   check runs first. Stop here; do not continue to classification.
+5. **If it genuinely doesn't:** proceed to classification below, and carry KISS forward as
+   a constraint on whatever tier is chosen (see "KISS applies to the route" below) — the
+   absence of a standard solution is not license to over-build the custom one.
 
 ## Classification signals
 
@@ -77,8 +106,21 @@ HIGH
 - New table, or a field change on an existing table that needs an upgrade codeunit / data migration.
 - Multi-module change, or a change to permissions.
 
+## KISS applies to the route (not just to Step 0)
+
+Once a tier is confirmed, the route itself must stay as simple as the requirement allows —
+the fewest objects, the least new abstraction, no speculative generality for a future need
+nobody has asked for. A HIGH-tier task justifies architecture clarification because the
+*problem* is genuinely complex, not license for the *solution* to be more elaborate than
+the problem requires. If a simpler design becomes visible during spec/architecture, propose
+it — do not silently build the more complex version because it was the one first assumed.
+
 ## Routes (every tier keeps a review - control is preserved)
 
+STANDARD
+- No AL code. Document the configuration/setup steps and hand off — nothing for
+  bcquality.agent.md to review, because nothing was written.
+
 LOW
 - Implement -> **light review via bcquality.agent.md**. No spec or architecture phase, but
   the review still runs. LOW never means "no review".
@@ -105,12 +147,23 @@ CURABIS-COMPLEXITY-005 Every tier gets a review. No tier skips bcquality.agent.m
   a light review, not none.
 CURABIS-COMPLEXITY-006 Re-classify on scope change. If the task grows during work, stop and
   re-propose a tier rather than silently continuing on the old one.
+CURABIS-COMPLEXITY-007 Standard-first is not skippable. Every task runs Step 0 before any
+  tier is proposed, regardless of how obviously custom it looks. Show the Learn/BCApps
+  evidence — do not assert "nothing standard covers this" without it.
+CURABIS-COMPLEXITY-008 KISS is a route constraint, not just a Step 0 concern. A HIGH tier
+  justifies more process (architecture sign-off); it does not justify a more elaborate
+  solution than the requirement needs.
 
 ## Output format
 
 ```
-PROPOSED TIER  LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH
-SIGNALS        <which classification signals matched, and why>
+STANDARD-FIRST CHECK
+  Learn search:  <what you searched, with URL(s) if found>
+  BCApps check:  <object/field/setup area checked, found or confirmed absent>
+  Result:        Standard BC covers this | Standard BC does not cover this
+
+PROPOSED TIER  STANDARD | LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH
+SIGNALS        <which classification signals matched, and why — omit if STANDARD>
 ROUTE          <the recommended path for this tier>
 GATES          <where human approval is required before proceeding>
 AWAITING       Confirm the tier or adjust it before I proceed.