auto(polish): W21 #6 8d-problem-solving-builder pass, regen STATUS.md

Autonomous daily run.
- Polished 8d-problem-solving-builder per W21 target #1 (carryover from W20)
- DoD passes cleanly: D1-D8 named, all three required trigger phrases present
- Wrote docs/skill-polish-log/8d-problem-solving-builder.md with severity-low findings
- Regenerated STATUS.md byte-identical to W20 canonical body (header only diff)
- No code edits applied to the .skill archive itself

Generated by automotive-skills-daily-standup scheduled task.

STATUS.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Automotive Skills Suite — STATUS
 
-_Generated: 2026-05-18 by autonomous daily run (PLAN mode)._
+_Generated: 2026-05-19 by autonomous daily run (POLISH mode)._
 
 **Builders:** 76 · **Reviewers:** 76 · **Paired:** 76/76 (100.0%)
 

docs/AUTONOMOUS_LOG.md

@@ -147,3 +147,24 @@ A classifier-honesty note while regenerating STATUS: my first pass (strict spec
 - Issue #2 ("goodd", empty body) is still open and needs-triage; a human glance is overdue. Not touched this run because PLAN is the wrong venue.
 - If target #5 (classifier freeze) lands this week, RELEASE on Saturday should include a brief note in RELEASES.md that the STATUS classifier is now deterministic.
 - Watch for any commits this week that introduce a new `safety-` or `triggering-` prefix skill — the dispatch ordering above will need to be re-verified against new names.
+
+## 2026-05-19 (autonomous run, POLISH)
+
+**Mode:** POLISH (Tuesday)
+**Action:** Polished `8d-problem-solving-builder.skill` per W21 target #1 (issue #6 carryover from W20). Wrote `docs/skill-polish-log/8d-problem-solving-builder.md` (~10 KB). Regenerated STATUS.md byte-identically to the W20 canonical body (header date/mode only diff). No edits applied to the .skill archive itself.
+**Files touched:** STATUS.md, docs/skill-polish-log/8d-problem-solving-builder.md, docs/AUTONOMOUS_LOG.md
+**Tests:** N/A (no test suite in this repo yet)
+**Skill count:** 76 builders / 76 reviewers / 100.0% paired (alias map unchanged: `item-definition-builder ↔ item-def-checklist-reviewer`, `ppap-package-builder ↔ ppap-checklist-reviewer`)
+**Open issues:** 9 (#2 needs-triage + #3-#6 W20 targets + #7-#10 W21 targets created Monday)
+**Notes:** Strict DoD on the carryover passed cleanly on the existing description — all 8 disciplines D1–D8 named (Team/Description/Containment/RCA/PCA/Prevention/Recognition), and all three required trigger phrases ("warranty response," "customer complaint," "corrective action tracking") present verbatim. "customer complaint" lands at char ~50, inside the 400-char fast-trigger window — strongest possible position. This is the first POLISH target this month with zero open DoD items; the W20 pattern (one missing formal trigger phrase per skill) broke today.
+
+Findings are accuracy and casual-coverage polish, all severity-low:
+(1) `D5-D6` is hyphenated as one bucket in the description but the generator emits two distinct tabs (`05_D4`/`06_D5_Permanent_Corrective_Actions`/`07_D6_Implement_Corrective_Actions`/`08_D7`/`09_D8`/`10_References`); (2) the 11th tab (`10_References`) is absent from the description's enumeration (count is right at 11, enumeration only names 10); (3) D0 not mentioned (industry-acceptable, no action); (4) casual framings thin compared to peer skills like `hara-builder`. Drafted a proposed rewrite that fixes #1/#2/#4 in a single ~825-char description, well under the 1024-char cap, with all four DoD phrases preserved. Per the autonomous-edit allowlist (typo / over-length / missing-required-field only), the rewrite was NOT committed; it stays in the polish log for human review.
+
+Classifier regression caught and fixed during STATUS regen: my first pass had a startswith-with-trailing-dash bug (`"hsi".startswith("hsi-")` is False), which dropped `hsi-builder` and `dia-builder` out of safety/program-mgmt into `other`, and the alias-map keys were off-by-one (`item-definition-builder` vs `item-definition`) which broke pairing for both alias entries. Fix is local to the throwaway regen script (a `has_prefix` helper that accepts both bare and dashed forms, and an alias dict keyed on bbase rather than full filename) — the output is now byte-identical to the W20 canonical body in every cell except the header date and mode. This is exactly the kind of bug W21 target #5 ("freeze the STATUS classifier into `scripts/classify_skill.py` with a golden-file test") is supposed to make impossible. Worth landing target #5 sooner rather than later.
+
+**Follow-ups:**
+- Wed POLISH should service issue #7 (dbc-builder) — comms cluster, untouched in W20. Expect the W20 pattern (one missing formal trigger phrase) to resume.
+- Thu POLISH: pick between #8 (autosar-swc) and #9 (uds-services). Recommend #9 uds-services — it's the diagnostics anchor and the spec's strict-trigger demand list (canonical service IDs 0x10/0x11/...) is the longest of any W21 target, so the description is the most likely to drift.
+- W21 target #5 (classifier freeze) still unserviced. If Wed/Thu cycle time permits, slot it in as a fourth POLISH; otherwise it carries to W22. Three consecutive runs have now hit classifier bugs that would have been caught by the golden-file test.
+- Issue #2 ("goodd", empty body) still open and needs-triage; un-actioned again — POLISH is the wrong venue. Flag this for the human if it's still open by Saturday's RELEASE.

docs/skill-polish-log/8d-problem-solving-builder.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+# 8d-problem-solving-builder polish log
+
+_Polish target for W21 (issue [#6](https://github.com/jherrodthomas/automotive-skills-suite/issues/6), carryover from W20). Reviewer: autonomous daily-standup task._
+
+---
+
+## 2026-05-19 — first POLISH pass (W21 Tuesday)
+
+**Mode:** POLISH (Tuesday)
+**File reviewed:** `skills/8d-problem-solving-builder.skill` (ZIP archive; SKILL.md is 2,122 bytes / 35 lines).
+**DoD recap (from `docs/weekly/WEEK-2026-W21.md`):**
+description names all 8 disciplines (D1–D8) and triggers include "warranty
+response," "customer complaint," and "corrective action tracking."
+
+### DoD verdict
+
+| DoD check | Result | Evidence |
+|---|---|---|
+| All 8 disciplines (D1–D8) named in description | **PASS** | `Team (D1), Problem Description (D2), Interim Containment (D3), Root Cause Analysis (D4), Permanent Corrective Actions (D5-D6), Prevention (D7), and Team Recognition (D8)` — every label D1 through D8 appears |
+| Trigger includes "warranty response" | **PASS** | verbatim in the "Use this skill whenever..." sentence (char ~430) |
+| Trigger includes "customer complaint" | **PASS** | verbatim in the opening clause "for warranty, customer complaint, or field failure response" (char ~50, inside the 400-char fast-trigger window) |
+| Trigger includes "corrective action tracking" | **PASS** | verbatim in the "Use this skill whenever..." sentence |
+
+**Headline:** strict DoD passes cleanly — first POLISH this month with zero open
+DoD items. Pattern from the W20 logs (one missing formal trigger phrase per skill,
+either CAL allocation / CSR derivation / v3.1-v4.0 / safety goal) does **not**
+repeat here. This was the right pick for "clear the carryover first" — the
+backlog item turned out to be a smaller lift than the W20 skills.
+
+### What's good
+
+- **Description char count is generous.** Frontmatter description is 617 / 1024
+  chars — substantial headroom for additive edits without hitting the cap.
+- **Frontmatter is clean.** Both required keys present (`name`, `description`);
+  YAML parses without complaint; no drift fields. Same shape as the W20 skills.
+- **11-tab claim is exact and matches the generator.** Cross-checked SKILL.md's
+  "11-tab xlsx" against `scripts/generate_8d.py`:
+  - `00_Title_Page` · `01_Document_Control` · `02_D1_Establish_Team` ·
+    `03_D2_Describe_Problem` · `04_D3_Interim_Containment` ·
+    `05_D4_Root_Cause_Analysis` · `06_D5_Permanent_Corrective_Actions` ·
+    `07_D6_Implement_Corrective_Actions` · `08_D7_Prevent_Recurrence` ·
+    `09_D8_Recognize_Team` · `10_References`
+  - Generator dict literally reports `"tabs": 11`. Count matches description.
+- **Workflow section is tight.** 9 numbered steps (Capture → Team → Describe →
+  Containment → RCA → Corrective → Implement/Verify → Prevent → Closure) map
+  one-to-one onto the D1–D8 tab labels with the implement/verify split — same
+  shape as the generator. No drift between doc, workflow narrative, and code.
+- **"When to use this skill" list is concrete and well-scoped.** Six bullets
+  (customer complaint, warranty claim, structured RCA, CAPA, audit closure,
+  cross-functional action plan, management hand-off) cover the realistic
+  invocation paths — none of them filler.
+- **Description placement of trigger phrases is good.** All three DoD trigger
+  phrases land inside the description (under the 1024-char cap), and "customer
+  complaint" lands in the first 50 chars — the strongest possible trigger
+  position. The pattern the W20 logs flagged ("formal trigger phrase outside
+  the first 400 chars") does not occur here.
+
+### What to fix
+
+1. **`D5-D6` is hyphenated as a single bucket in the description, but the
+   generator emits two separate tabs with distinct content.**
+   The description says `Permanent Corrective Actions (D5-D6)` — implying one
+   combined tab. The generator actually emits two: tab 6 is
+   `D5_Permanent_Corrective_Actions` (design the fix), tab 7 is
+   `D6_Implement_Corrective_Actions` (implementation tracker). The Workflow
+   section in the SKILL.md body even separates them (step 6 "Permanent
+   corrective actions" vs step 7 "Implement and verify"). The description is
+   the only artefact that fuses them. Minor accuracy issue; does not affect
+   triggering. Severity: **low**.
+
+2. **The 11th tab (`10_References`) is absent from the description's tab
+   enumeration.** The description names tabs for D1–D8 plus the two admin tabs
+   (title, document control) — that totals 10. The actual workbook has an 11th
+   References tab. The description's *count* ("11-tab xlsx") is correct but
+   its *enumeration* implies only 10 named outputs. A reader counting from the
+   enumeration will be off by one. Severity: **low**.
+
+3. **No explicit mention of D0 (Plan/Prepare).** Many modern 8D references
+   (Ford's TOPS-8D refresh, ASQ's 2020s guidance) name D0 explicitly as the
+   prerequisite "is an 8D the right tool?" gate. This skill goes D1–D8 — which
+   is still industry-standard and matches the AIAG materials — but a user
+   trained on the D0–D8 variant who searches for "D0 prepare" won't match.
+   Not a fix, just an observation; not in DoD. Severity: **low**, observation.
+
+4. **Casual framings are thin compared to peer skills.** The trigger list
+   covers formal terms well (8D problem solving, warranty response, complaint
+   handling, corrective action tracking, cross-functional problem resolution)
+   but no casual-phrasing safety nets like the ones `hara-builder` ships
+   ("'I need the safety analysis for this ECU'"). Realistic casual invocations
+   a user might type: "open an 8D for this defect," "build a CAPA for this
+   complaint," "we got a warranty claim back from the OEM." None of these
+   match verbatim. Severity: **low**, optional.
+
+### Suggested edits (NOT applied this run)
+
+The autonomous-edit allowlist for the daily-standup task is narrow — typo,
+over-length description, missing required frontmatter field. None of the four
+findings match that list: #1 and #2 are accuracy rewrites of the tab
+enumeration, #3 is an observation (no action), and #4 is an editorial
+trigger-coverage rewrite. **No edits committed today.** Captured here for the
+next human review pass.
+
+Minimal proposed rewrite of the description — splits D5/D6, adds References,
+adds two casual phrasings, still under 1024 chars, all four DoD trigger phrases
+preserved verbatim:
+
+```
+description: Generate an audit-ready 8D problem-solving workbook for warranty,
+  customer complaint, or field failure response. Produces an 11-tab xlsx with
+  title page and document control, plus one tab per discipline — Team (D1),
+  Problem Description (D2), Interim Containment (D3), Root Cause Analysis (D4),
+  Permanent Corrective Actions (D5), Implementation Tracker (D6), Systemic
+  Prevention (D7), Team Recognition (D8) — and a References tab. Use this
+  skill whenever the user mentions 8D problem solving, warranty response,
+  customer complaint, complaint handling, corrective action tracking, CAPA, or
+  cross-functional problem resolution — even casual phrasings like "open an
+  8D for this defect" or "build a CAPA for this warranty claim." Always use
+  this skill instead of producing freeform corrective action notes in chat.
+```
+
+Quick stats on the proposed rewrite:
+
+| Check | Result |
+|---|---|
+| Char count | ~825 (under the 1024 cap) |
+| All 8 disciplines named | yes (D1 through D8 each on its own clause) |
+| `warranty response` first appears | trigger list (~char 555) |
+| `customer complaint` first appears | char ~50 (inside 400) |
+| `corrective action tracking` first appears | trigger list (~char 610) |
+| References tab named | yes |
+| Casual framings | two ("open an 8D for this defect", "build a CAPA for this warranty claim") |
+
+### Other observations (not fixes, just notes for future passes)
+
+- The SKILL.md body has **no "Files in this skill" tree** block (the safety
+  builders do). Adding one would make the absence of a `references/` directory
+  (compare `cs-concept-builder` and `aspice-assessment-builder`, both of which
+  ship reference markdown bundled alongside SKILL.md) visible. This skill
+  ships only `scripts/` and `examples/` — no `references/`. That's likely
+  fine for 8D (it's a process method, not a standards-laden artefact), but a
+  reader scanning for "what reference material does this skill carry?" gets
+  no answer.
+- The `recalc.py` and `scripts/office/soffice.py` helpers are present in the
+  archive — same shared pair as every other builder in the suite. Consistent.
+- The `examples/sample_8d_input.json` is **non-trivial** (~5 KB, populated
+  with a realistic warranty scenario per the binary preview). Worth a human
+  glance next time the skill comes up — examples this fleshed-out are the
+  kind of thing a junior engineer can copy-modify, which is exactly the point.
+- The workflow narrative groups D5+D6 into step 6 "Permanent corrective
+  actions" but the tab list separates them. Minor doc-vs-code drift inside
+  SKILL.md itself, not just the frontmatter. Could be unified to either
+  pattern next pass — the generator (two tabs) is the source of truth, so the
+  SKILL.md body should align to the two-tab split.
+
+### Severity roll-up
+
+| Finding | Severity | Action |
+|---|---|---|
+| D5/D6 hyphenated as one bucket in description | low | proposed rewrite drafted; await human review |
+| References tab absent from enumeration | low | folded into the same rewrite |
+| D0 not mentioned | low (obs) | flagged; not in DoD, no action |
+| Casual framings thin | low (optional) | included in proposed rewrite |
+
+**No code edits committed in this run.** Issue #6 stays open with this log
+linked from the journal entry. The W20 pattern — one missing formal trigger
+phrase per polish target — broke today: 8d-problem-solving-builder is the
+first polish target this month where the strict DoD passes on the existing
+description with no rewrite required. The findings here are accuracy and
+casual-coverage polish rather than DoD gaps. Recommendation for tomorrow's
+POLISH (W21 #7 dbc-builder): expect the W20 pattern to resume; comms cluster
+hasn't been touched yet so trigger-coverage drift is plausible.