/edit-contract — Bounded Chapter Edits

One file per contract at contracts/{chapter}-{slug}.md. No other ledgers.

Running Python helpers

Choose the interpreter before running the examples. For a globally installed copy, use the private runtime recorded by its installer. In a checkout or linked workspace, use AWT_PYTHON when set, otherwise the toolkit's .venv (follow the skill directory link back to the toolkit): Scripts/python.exe on Windows, bin/python on macOS/Linux. Without that environment, check that python (Windows) or python3 (macOS/Linux) actually runs and has the helper's dependencies. Replace the example's python3 with that executable. In PowerShell, prefix a quoted executable with &; keep commands on one line and quote file paths.

When to use

Before a substantive edit (rewriting more than one paragraph, changing what a section claims, restructuring). Not for typo fixes or single-sentence edits.

Contract file format

# Edit Contract: {chapter} — {short goal}

## Spine card
- Section role: {what this section must keep doing in the argument}
- Core claim (must not broaden): {one sentence}
- Sources in scope: {list; their roles — support / background / challenge}
- Forbidden: {claims that must NOT appear; scope that must NOT leak in}

## Scope
- May change: {chapters/ch3.md}
- Must not change: {chapters/ch2.md, chapters/ch4.md}

## Attempts
- [ ] Attempt 1: {date} — {outcome: accepted / revise / rejected, one line why}

Workflow

1. Draft the contract from the user's request and the current section; show it; the user approves or amends it in conversation before any edit.
2. Make the edit within Scope. After the edit, restate in one short table: what changed, whether the core claim broadened (quote before/after if it did), and whether anything Forbidden appeared.
3. Record the attempt line. The user's accept/revise/reject decision in conversation is the gate — the file records it, it does not grant it.

Three-strike escalation

After three recorded failed attempts on the same contract (not before — a single "this is unclear" is feedback, not an escalation trigger): stop patching. Diagnose which it is — underspecified request, wrong scope (needs section-level restructure, not a patch), evidence gap (the claim wants support the sources cannot give), or drifted spine — and offer: (a) rewrite the contract, (b) escalate scope deliberately, (c) drop the change. Do not produce a fourth patch under the old contract.

Constraints

1. One contract file per edit goal; append-only Attempts. Append the next attempt line as you make it rather than pre-writing empty ones.

   Scope lines are paths. May change: and Must not change: are read by a guard, not by a reader: comma-separated repository paths only, no prose around them. Write chapters/ch3.md, not "the opening sentence of chapters/ch3.md". A line the guard cannot read is refused with CONTRACT_UNPARSABLE rather than guessed at — reading it as an empty scope would silently ignore a contract you wrote, and reading it as a list would deny every chapter write including the one it exists to allow. If the real constraint is narrower than a file, say so in the spine card, where it is guidance for you, and leave the scope line at the file.

   Retiring a contract. A contract is active while any - [ ] Attempt line is unticked, and an active contract scopes every chapter write. Tick an attempt only when the goal is complete or abandoned — not after a single edit. Ticking retires the contract, and a retired contract stops constraining anything, including the paths it lists under Must not change. Leaving a finished contract active instead makes it scope tomorrow's work, and two active contracts at once are refused with CONTRACT_AMBIGUOUS naming both, because the guard cannot know which one an edit belongs to.

2. Never edit outside Scope; never touch quoted spans.

3. In the dsh app this is enforced: a write outside Scope is denied with CONTRACT_SCOPE, and after three typed denials under one contract the next in-scope chapter write asks the author (ESCALATION_REQUIRED), resolved through the harness's own approval events. As a plain Agent Skill it is advisory prose you follow. Say which surface you are on rather than asserting either; the scope comes from the active contract on disk at the moment of the decision.

4. No emoji. British English.

Project-level intent card (optional, Advisory)

Per-edit spine cards sit under a project-level intent. If the project keeps one, it is 00_AUTHOR_INTENT.md from the lightweight author-control profile in .claude/skills/edit-contract/references/author-control/ (scaffold with python3 .claude/skills/edit-contract/scripts/scaffold-author-control.py "{project_root}", check structure with python3 .claude/skills/edit-contract/scripts/check-author-control.py "{project_root}" --strict). A contract's core claim must not broaden beyond that card. The card's approval field is a record the author keeps, not an enforcement: nothing on this surface gates on it, and in the AWT app approvals exist only as harness events.