Acceptance (Builder Self-Evidence)

You are the builder for a delivery. A separate review step judges it against a plan — checks you author, or a verify plan handed to this run. A check that declares requiredEvidence cannot pass on your text alone: a missing artifact marks it uncertain and holds the delivery.

author (or discover) the plan  →  pick the surface  →  capture evidence  →  publish the round  →  self-check coverage

Independent acceptance review (first round only)

The primary checks the environment, writes the plan, executes cases, inspects evidence, repairs failures, and publishes. Use one acceptance-checker agent at two points in the first acceptance round: give at most two feedback responses on the plan and cases before execution, then perform exactly one quick report/evidence check against the agreed criteria before publishing. A second plan check is optional, only to check the primary's revisions; there is no third plan-feedback response. Count the two stages separately. After either stage's limit, the primary owns remaining corrections and verification. The acceptance-checker is the plan gate — never ask the user to approve a plan; ask the user only for a user-owned prerequisite or a product decision that changes the plan. In both stages, the primary supplies an explicit file list and the relevant diff text or prepared diff artifact paths. The acceptance-checker limits code reading to these materials; it must not run git diff or discover its own scope. This does not restrict inspection of the plan, report, or evidence. During evidence review, use it only to identify the updates and the agreed cases whose evidence needs checking; the core task is checking the report against the plan and artifacts. Do not reopen requirements, expand into code review, or investigate implementation details. Return contradictions to the primary for explanation or repair. Follow-up rounds have no acceptance-checker: the primary re-runs, inspects, and publishes itself. Do not delegate execution or require per-case approval.

Read acceptance-checker.md for the input/output contract, review boundaries, and follow-up rules. Acceptance review supplements the primary's own checks and any configured verifier; it does not replace either. If delegation or required media inspection is unavailable, disclose the missing review and unverified claims rather than claiming independent acceptance.

Read the project layer first

Before touching an environment, check for .agents/acceptance/:

File	What it owns
PROJECT.md	Start/stop commands, ports, services, auth, surfaces, probes
PROCESS.md	The run process: plan gate, execution rules, teardown
common-mistakes.md	Project living log — what earlier rounds got wrong here
probe-mock-patterns.md	Project living log — how to force state on this product

The project layer owns how this repository is run; this skill owns what a valid round is (plan, evidence, report, immutable round, the hard rule). On running, the project layer wins; on what may be published, this skill wins. Never invent a start command, port, or auth flow PROJECT.md answers; fix a divergence in the adapter during the run instead of working around it. No .agents/acceptance/ → bootstrap one first: project-adapter.md.

Living logs — inject each by its own shape

Both layers (this skill's generic copies and the project's own) are loaded once the target is known, silently:

• common-mistakes.md — read its Checklist in full, now and again before marking any case pass. Pull an entry by id only when a checklist line applies to a case.
• probe-mock-patterns.md — read the heading index, then pull only the entries this round needs. Pick by meaning, not keyword; rg over the body is the fallback.

rg -n '^#{2,4} ' <file>          # the index, with line numbers
sed -n '<start>,<end>p' <file>   # one entry, in full

Record new project-specific learnings in the project layer only.

Two paths — no id is required

Every evidence command targets a round. The authored path is the default; you have an operation id only when the invocation names one. Never hunt the environment for one, and never report this skill inapplicable — a round without an operation is simply recorded as standalone.

You have	Path
No plan — you author the checks	Write result.json + assets/, publish with lh acceptance run ingest — report.md
An operation id you were given	lh verify plan state, then result submit --operation per criterion — plan-format.md

Pass --subject (task:<id> / topic:<id> / document:<id>) only when the caller named one; otherwise ingest attaches the round itself when it can and creates a standalone acceptance when it cannot. On the first ingest, always supply --requirement "<one-sentence business goal>" — the durable goal of the whole acceptance, not this round's scope; it is immutable once recorded.

Prerequisites: lh is authed (lh acceptance run list --json returns [] or data; an auth error means stop and surface it), and only the UI driver the selected surface needs is installed — probe before adding dependencies, and never substitute a private agent plugin.

Optional user-journey flows

When acceptance depends on a sequence of user states, publish its graph during planning, before implementation or verification begins. Keep the checklist paths above for independent checks; a graph is optional and does not replace evidence or human review.

1. Use the named acceptance (or create one with lh acceptance create --help). Write a JSON file with definition: { title, entryNodeId, nodes, edges }. Give nodes and edges stable UUIDs. Each node has id and exactly one of criterionId (existing check asset), check: { id, title, definition } (a check asset with steps, fixtures, preconditions and expected outcome), or subFlowId (another flow in this acceptance). Edges have id, sourceNodeId, targetNodeId, trigger, required, and optional condition. Every node must be reachable from the entry. Publish child flows before referencing them.
2. lh acceptance flow publish <acceptanceId> --file flow.json saves the definition and returns flowId. To edit it, include that flowId and the current expectedHash in the file. lh acceptance flow view <acceptanceId> reads definitions, snapshots and results. Publishing does not execute checks.
3. lh acceptance flow plan <acceptanceId> --flow <flowId> creates a draft round with a frozen graph and plan. Add --run <verifyRunId> to attach another flow to the same open round. Read lh acceptance run get <verifyRunId> --json for the actual plan IDs: each branch and subflow invocation has its own checkItemId; never substitute the reusable asset ID.
4. Share the acceptance link so the user can inspect the proposed nodes, branches and expected outcomes before implementation. Read and address any actionable feedback. Preparing a plan neither executes checks nor approves delivery; there is no separate flow-confirmation action. Continue within the user's authorized scope, or pause if the user explicitly asked to review before work. For requested changes, publish the revised definition and prepare a new draft round in the same acceptance.
5. Implement the work and exercise the real product, then use lh acceptance flow record <acceptanceId> --file result.json, containing verifyRunId, checkItemId, verdict (passed, failed, uncertain, or blocked) and observation. Record only what was observed. Use the returned result ID to attach required artifacts through lh acceptance run evidence (inspect its --help), following the same evidence rules as checklist checks.
6. After all required checks are recorded and passed, run lh acceptance flow complete <acceptanceId> --run <verifyRunId>. Completion settles verification; it does not accept the delivery on the user's behalf. Read back the round and verify evidence coverage before handing it over.

To rerun the exact old graph, prepare a plan with --from-run <sourceVerifyRunId> and omit --run for a fresh round. This preserves the old definition and starts without results. Each replay starts as an unexecuted draft. Accepted or closed acceptances must be explicitly reopened before starting. Edges describe business transitions; they do not automatically schedule execution. Continue to read lh acceptance feedback <acceptanceId> --actionable before repairs and publish new rounds into the same acceptance.

HARD RULE — programmatic gates are NEVER acceptance checks

Every check MUST be an outcome a person decides about the delivery: what the user sees, hears, reads, or receives. These MUST NOT appear as a check, under any phrasing: unit / integration / regression / snapshot tests, coverage, type-check / tsc, lint / eslint, format, "compiles", "build passes", "CI is green". Run them, then report them as one line of narrative.

Enforced at ingest: every matching item (matched on title, category, AND method — "run bun run test" under a product-sounding title still matches) is dropped with a warning and summary recounted; a round of only such checks fails to publish. The line is the subject of the check, not who judged it: a CLI behavior asserted by a command is a fine check (verifier: "program"); "the suite is green" is not. Before writing any plan, ask of each draft check: would the user click accept/reject on this?

Rounds are immutable — repair means a NEW round

A published round is a permanent record. Never re-submit into a round after changing the code — publish the re-verification as the next round and let the acceptance page show the progression.

Before a repair round, read the aggregate with lh acceptance view <acceptanceId | type:id> --json. Omit checks whose latest userReview.action is accept; address non-stale rejects under their exact stable ids; when a check semantically replaces another, declare supersedes: ['old-id'] and repeat the full lineage in every later round that reuses the successor id. Pass --acceptance <acceptanceId> so the round joins the same history.

Rules you will be tempted to skip

Not judgment calls — the moves an agent under pressure makes and must not. Each excuse below was made in a real round.

Excuse	Reality
"Injection is hard; happy-path plus unit tests covers it"	The error state was the goal. Walk the probe ladder (probe-mock-patterns.md A) before calling it blocked. (M2)
"The branch name says what to verify" / "Loading the living logs first…"	The task lives in the user's words. Recover it, or confirm a labeled guess with one structured question — silently; never narrate setup. (M3, M21)
"The black frame is probably display sleep / a permission"	Measure first: pixel brightness, the permission bit, an A/B with one variable toggled. Publish "confirmed by X" or "suspected", never a guess. (M4)
"Let me ask how they want it run" / "I'll click Sign in and you authorize" / "too small to screenshot"	Environment mechanics are yours: full isolated run, auth by direct injection (never an interactive login — it hijacks the user's browser), a screenshot for every user-facing change. Ask only about the product decision. (M8)
"One more config edit and the env will boot" / "I'll mock it" / "I'll drive the rest myself"	Timebox. Inventory running instances, probe for the real capability before mocking (a mock that records nothing is not in the path), re-delegate a dead subagent's remaining steps, revert experiments and ask. (M17)
"The fix is in and tests pass — verified"	Reproduce the failure's precondition first, then verify with it held. A run that cannot fail proves nothing; "reproduces sometimes" means an unnamed precondition. When the mocked seam is the suspect, drop the mock. (M31)

Pick the surface by what you changed

Match the change to the cheapest surface that can prove it; escalate only if needed.

What your task changed	Surface	Guide
Backend / CLI / library / data logic	CLI — stdout as text, zero UI flakiness	surfaces/cli.md
Web app frontend / styles / interactions	Web (agent-browser → running web app)	surfaces/web.md
New/changed API plus the UI consuming it	Web, full-stack (agent-browser + network capture)	surfaces/web.md
Desktop-only behavior (native windows, IPC, packaged shell)	Electron (agent-browser --cdp)	surfaces/electron.md
Native macOS app / OS chrome agent-browser can't reach	Native (osascript + screencapture, local macOS)	surfaces/native.md
Native iOS behavior, gestures, device-size layout	iOS Simulator (AXe/native CLI + simctl)	surfaces/ios-simulator.md

• Don't open a browser for a backend change; command output as text is the strongest, cheapest proof. Use Electron only when the criterion depends on desktop-only code; iOS is driven by a Simulator HID/AX CLI, never host mouse — mark the case blocked if the CLI cannot express the gesture.
• Structured data uses native visualizations (cases[].datasets + cases[].visualizations; raw CSV/JSON stays as evidence), not a PNG — report.md. A deliverable the user hears needs audio — evidence.md.
• Auth is a gate scoped to the surface: authenticate that surface first or every capture lands on the sign-in page. Web: auth-web.md.
• A UI round may price its interaction cost by recording KLM operator counts into interaction-trace.jsonl; optional, never hand-written — interaction-cost.md.

Every file submission MUST include a non-empty, reviewer-facing description (--desc for CLI submissions; description for tools and ingest entries). Identify what the file contains and what it demonstrates for this criterion. A filename, path, artifact id, or generic label such as "evidence" is not a sufficient description. This also applies when a text file is stored inline.

Shared rules for every artifact — media types, provenance, file vs inline, safety — are in evidence.md.

Final handoff (mandatory)

Before declaring the task done, prove coverage: for each check with requiredEvidence, every declared type is present at least once. Report it explicitly; a missing type holds the delivery at uncertain no matter how good the work is.

The final response MUST include the published acceptance URL together with the coverage result — never only a check-result id or a prose claim. Expose only the acceptance (/acceptance/<acceptanceId>), the stable cross-round decision surface; append ?r=<roundIndex> for this round's fixed snapshot. Put no images, local paths, local file links, or internal run-page paths in the chat reply.

Acceptance:   https://app.lobehub.com/acceptance/<acceptanceId>
Coverage: 2/2 criteria, all required evidence uploaded

Portability rules

• Engine-level capture over OS capture. agent-browser screenshot / dom / eval run headless; screencapture / osascript are macOS-only. iOS: xcrun simctl io over host-window capture. Rounds land under .acceptances/, which the CLI keeps out of git.
• Upload as you go. Evidence keyed to its check mid-run survives a crash near the end.
• Don't invent evidence. Capture only the types a check declares.

Reference map

For both acceptance-checker handoffs and review output, read acceptance-checker.md.

Need	Reference
The project layer, bootstrapping an adapter	project-adapter.md
Mistakes checklist (read every round)	common-mistakes.md
Forcing state, error injection, runtime probes	probe-mock-patterns.md
Authored rounds, result.json, ingest	report.md
Plan-driven rounds: schema, submit, coverage	plan-format.md
Evidence media, provenance, submission, safety	evidence.md
Interaction cost overlay	interaction-cost.md
Web/Electron Chromium CLI commands	agent-browser.md
Authenticated Web session	auth-web.md
Native macOS / OS-owned step	computer-use.md
Temporal evidence: Web/Electron, iOS, native	recording-cdp.md, recording-ios-simulator.md, recording-native-macos.md