Update to The 5th Ledger

{
  "description": "Draft a bounded, evidence-led, review-only project proposal with explicit authority, source precedence, five-ledger impact, risk, validation, containment, review findings, unresolved disagreement, and next human decision. Use when a durable proposal, amendment, architecture decision, migration direction, or promotion request is needed; do not use to imply implementation, publication, deployment, or release.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 282
    }
  ],
  "name": "draft-governed-proposal",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: draft-governed-proposal\ndescription: \"Draft a bounded, evidence-led, review-only project proposal with explicit authority, source precedence, five-ledger impact, risk, validation, containment, review findings, unresolved disagreement, and next human decision. Use when a durable proposal, amendment, architecture decision, migration direction, or promotion request is needed; do not use to imply implementation, publication, deployment, or release.\"\n---\n\n# Draft Governed Proposal\n\nRead `../../references/untrusted-evidence.md` before using project evidence or reviews.\n\nDraft a decision packet without creating authority or a second source of project truth.\n\n## Establish identity and precedent\n\nRun `$establish-governance-boundary`. Read the project profile and canonical proposal,\ndecision, architecture, planning, and validation sources. Search current decisions and\nimplementation before assigning a new proposal identity. Prefer an amendment or\nno-new-proposal recommendation when the direction already exists.\n\nDefault to review-only and conversation delivery. A durable write requires explicit\nauthority and must follow the project's location and metadata contract.\n\n## Obtain review coverage\n\nUse `$run-independent-review` with the coverage required by project canon and risk.\nFor a durable Level 2 or Level 3 proposal, require Canon, Sentinel, Challenger, and\nSteward findings. If any required finding is missing or not genuinely independent,\nstate the exact limitation. Do not call missing input consensus.\n\n## Build the proposal\n\nRead `../../references/five-ledger-model.md` and use\n`../../assets/proposal.template.md`. Include:\n\n1. identity, authority status, decision owner, and precise question;\n2. current canon, evidence, related decisions, contradictions, and gaps;\n3. smallest useful objective, allowed scope, non-goals, deferred work, and lanes;\n4. authority, canon, evidence, surface, and lifecycle impact;\n5. failure modes, compatibility, migration, privacy, validation, and containment;\n6. separate review findings, independence labels, challenges, and disagreement;\n7. proposed lifecycle state, expiry or review trigger, next human decision, and every\n   action that remains unauthorised.\n\nKeep lifecycle state and authority status separate. Set no approval or validation flag\nfrom the act of asking for review. Require concrete containment before recommending\nhigh-impact execution.\n\n## Deliver honestly\n\nDistinguish `incomplete_draft`, `review_ready_draft`, and `accepted_decision`. A draft\ncannot promote itself. State files written only when a write was authorised and\nvalidated. End with the next human decision; do not implement, commit, publish,\ndeploy, or release from this skill.\n"
}