Captures three findings from the review of 013c625 ("phase0 amendment:
insert MCP phase 2"). Opening as a PR rather than direct-to-main: the
non-PR-flow convention works fine for autonomous work, but feedback-
required iteration needs a readable medium that isn't the Claude Code
transcript.
§11 phase 2 row: spell out two scope items the original row left implicit —
the system-prompt rewrite to declare the tools schema (Phase 0's `CMD:`
contract is hard-coded into the prompt) and `safety.lua` extension to
gate tool calls (per Q8).
§13 Q6: explicit note that choosing "retire `CMD:`" requires a §3
invariant amendment in the same commit — keeps the substrate-vs-phase
boundary honest. Adds (§3 if retiring) to the impact column.
§13 Q9 (new): MCP system-prompt augmentation locus — static block in
broker.lua / per-request assembly from connected servers / hybrid.
Real architectural call with token-cost tradeoff per option.
§13 Q10 (new): tool-call streaming vs the Phase 1 SSE substrate —
phase-ordering question. Either Phase 2 lands on the blocking Phase 0
broker and refits when SSE arrives, or Phase 1 SSE moves before MCP
so tool-call deltas stream from day one.
claude-noether