# DAO Decisions — Change Request

| Entry ID | Timestamp | Task ID | Calling Skill | Disposition | Confidence | Summary |
|----------|-----------|---------|---------------|-------------|------------|---------|
| DAO-080 | 2026-03-16T02:09:33Z | TASK-881 | N/A | instruction | 0.92 | Process UIUX feedback: add expand/collapse toggle to session explorer border |
| DAO-090 | 2026-03-16T04:06:00Z | TASK-891 | x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement | instruction | 0.95 | Route to Technical Design for FEATURE-038-C CR-001 (.docx/.msg preview) |
| DAO-093 | 2026-03-16T05:54:11Z | TASK-894 | x-ipe-task-based-feature-acceptance-test | answer | 0.95 | User questions why human-playground is next. Corrected: workflow DAG says acceptance_testing → code_refactor → feature_closing. human_playground is optional FEEDBACK stage, not next. |
| DAO-094 | 2026-03-16T05:57:58Z | TASK-894 | x-ipe-task-based-feature-acceptance-test | instruction | 0.93 | Two units: (0) proceed with CR-001 pipeline → code_refactor, (1) update human-playground skill to be human-initiated only via x-ipe-meta-skill-creator |

## DAO-080
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T02:09:33Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-881
- **Feature ID:** N/A
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** N/A
- **Source:** human
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.92

### Message
> Get uiux feedback, please visit feedback folder x-ipe-docs/uiux-feedback/Feedback-20260316-100612 to get details.

### Guidance Returned
> The feedback requests adding a toggle on the session explorer border to expand/collapse the panel (currently only supports resize bigger/smaller). This is a change request to an existing UI feature (#session-explorer in the terminal panel). Route to x-ipe-task-based-change-request skill to analyze impact on existing specs/designs and determine the refinement path.

### Rationale
> UIUX feedback modifying existing session explorer behavior maps to change-request workflow. The feedback is clear and specific (element, location, desired behavior). Engineering workflow Stage 5 FEEDBACK → change_request is the correct pipeline position.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "Feedback requests modifying existing session explorer panel behavior — adding expand/collapse toggle to border. This is a change to an existing feature."
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "1. Analysis"
>         step: "1.1 Impact Analysis"

### Follow-up
> None

| DAO-081 | 2026-03-16T02:15:41Z | TASK-881 | x-ipe-task-based-change-request | approval-like | 0.95 | CR challenge validated — proceed with border toggle scope |
| DAO-082 | 2026-03-16T02:15:41Z | TASK-881 | x-ipe-task-based-change-request | approval-like | 0.93 | Classification confirmed — MODIFICATION to FEATURE-029-D |

## DAO-081
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T02:15:41Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-881
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-029-D
- **Workflow:** engineering
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request
- **Source:** ai
- **Disposition:** approval-like
- **Confidence:** 0.95

### Message
> CR Challenge Confirmation (Phase 2.1): Should the CR proceed with the validated scope — add click-to-toggle on `#explorer-resize-handle` with drag vs click threshold, and show a thin visible strip when collapsed instead of `display: none`?

### Guidance Returned
> **APPROVED — Proceed with validated scope.** All four challenges are satisfactorily addressed:
> 1. **Necessity:** Border toggles are a universally established UX pattern (VS Code, IntelliJ, Chrome DevTools). Adding this aligns with user muscle memory.
> 2. **Existing coverage gap:** Confirmed — the header toggle and resize handle are independent controls. Click-to-toggle on the border is genuinely new behavior that cannot be achieved with current controls.
> 3. **Approach soundness:** The drag-vs-click threshold (mousedown→mouseup without significant mousemove) is a proven technique. The thin visible strip when collapsed is essential — without it, the toggle target disappears and becomes undiscoverable.
> 4. **Impact of deferral:** Low severity but real — users must locate a small header button instead of clicking an obvious panel border. This is a discoverability improvement, not a critical gap.
>
> No scope adjustments needed. Proceed to conflict analysis.

### Rationale
> The CR challenges follow a rigorous 4-question framework and each answer demonstrates clear engineering reasoning. The border toggle is standard in professional IDEs, the technical approach (drag threshold + visible strip) is well-proven, and the scope is tightly bounded to a single UI element. The confidence is high (0.95) because no challenge revealed a blocking concern or scope ambiguity.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "Continue CR workflow — proceed to Phase 3 (Conflict Analysis) and Phase 4 (Classification)."

### Follow-up
> None — proceed to conflict analysis and classification phases.

## DAO-082
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T02:15:41Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-881
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-029-D
- **Workflow:** engineering
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request
- **Source:** ai
- **Disposition:** approval-like
- **Confidence:** 0.93

### Message
> CR Classification Confirmation (Phase 4.2): Confirm classification as MODIFICATION to FEATURE-029-D (Explorer UI Controls)? Conflict analysis found 1 minor conflict (resize handle hidden when collapsed → must change to visible strip). Scoring: MODIFICATION +6 vs NEW_FEATURE +0.

### Guidance Returned
> **APPROVED — Classification as MODIFICATION to FEATURE-029-D is correct.** The analysis is thorough and well-scored:
> - **Conflict analysis:** 1 minor design conflict (changing `display: none` to a thin visible strip) is an expected and easily resolved adjustment. No spec or dependency conflicts.
> - **Classification scoring:** MODIFICATION +6 is accurate — existing data model (+2), same users (+1), extends workflow (+2), reuses UI (+1). NEW_FEATURE scores 0 because no new screens, APIs, data models, or system boundaries are introduced.
> - **Target feature:** FEATURE-029-D (Explorer UI Controls) is the correct target — the resize handle is part of the explorer's UI control surface.
>
> Proceed with MODIFICATION refinement path: update FEATURE-029-D spec → update technical design → implement.

### Rationale
> The MODIFICATION classification is unambiguous. The change adds click behavior to an existing DOM element (`#explorer-resize-handle`) within an existing feature's scope. All five MODIFICATION criteria are met (same users, same data model, extends workflow, reuses UI, within system boundaries). The +6 vs +0 scoring gap leaves no room for misclassification. Confidence is 0.93 (slightly lower than DAO-081) only because the minor design conflict requires a spec change to the collapsed state behavior, but this is well-understood and bounded.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "Continue CR workflow — proceed to MODIFICATION refinement path (update spec → update design → implement)."
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement"
>     match_strength: "moderate"
>     reason: "Next step after CR classification — refine FEATURE-029-D specification with new border toggle acceptance criteria."

### Follow-up
> Next action: Update FEATURE-029-D specification to include border toggle acceptance criteria, then update technical design.

| DAO-083 | 2026-03-16T02:45:12Z | TASK-881 | x-ipe-task-based-change-request | instruction | 0.94 | CR complete — proceed to Feature Refinement for FEATURE-029-D border toggle |

## DAO-083
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T02:45:12Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-881
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-029-D
- **Workflow:** engineering
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request
- **Source:** ai
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.94

### Message
> TASK-881 (Change Request) completed. CR-001 classified as MODIFICATION to FEATURE-029-D. Spec updated with AC-19–AC-23 (border toggle). AC-9 conflict resolved inline. Mockup v2 pending. Next suggested skill: x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement. Should the agent proceed to Feature Refinement or stop here?

### Guidance Returned
> **PROCEED — Launch Feature Refinement for FEATURE-029-D.**
>
> The CR phase was analysis only. Stopping here would leave the feature in an incomplete state:
> 1. **Spec is updated but not implementation-ready.** AC-19–AC-23 establish *what* the border toggle does, but refinement must flesh out edge cases (keyboard accessibility, animation timing, state persistence across sessions, interaction with resize drag threshold).
> 2. **Mockup v2 is pending.** The old mockup was marked superseded — without a new mockup the visual behavior of the collapsed strip is unspecified. Refinement is the correct phase to produce this.
> 3. **Technical design is stale.** The existing FEATURE-029-D design doesn't account for click-vs-drag discrimination or the visible strip collapsed state. Refinement feeds into design update.
> 4. **Pipeline continuity.** The engineering workflow is CR → Refinement → Technical Design → Implementation. Halting after CR breaks the pipeline at a natural continuation point.
>
> **Scope for refinement:** Focus narrowly on the border toggle ACs (AC-19–AC-23) and the updated AC-9 collapsed state. Do NOT re-refine the entire FEATURE-029-D — only the CR-affected acceptance criteria.

### Rationale
> The CR skill's own `next_task_based_skill` output explicitly recommends Feature Refinement with condition "When CR modifies an existing feature" — which is exactly this case. The human's original feedback (toggle on border) implies an expectation of implementation, not just spec documentation. All three perspectives align: the user wants the feature built, engineering needs the refinement to proceed, and the product pipeline requires it. Confidence is 0.94 because the path is unambiguous — the only variable is refinement scope, which is bounded by the CR's affected ACs.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "CR classified as MODIFICATION to FEATURE-029-D. Refinement must flesh out border toggle ACs (AC-19–AC-23), produce mockup v2, and prepare for technical design update."
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "Refinement"
>         step: "Refine FEATURE-029-D specification — border toggle ACs only"

### Follow-up
> After refinement completes, proceed to technical design update for FEATURE-029-D (scoped to border toggle changes), then implementation.

| DAO-084 | 2026-03-16T02:50:00Z | TASK-882 | x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement | instruction | 0.95 | Refinement complete — proceed to Technical Design for FEATURE-029-D border toggle (CR-001) |

## DAO-084
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T02:50:00Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-882
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-029-D
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.95

### Context
> Feature Refinement for FEATURE-029-D v1.1 (CR-001) is complete. 25 ACs in GWT format with Test Types, mockup v2 created, 6/6 DoD passed. The spec introduces click-vs-drag detection (3px threshold), chevron indicators, visible handle when collapsed, and CSS transition changes — all warrant a proper technical design before implementation.

### Instruction Unit 0
> **Disposition:** instruction
> **Content:** Proceed to Technical Design for FEATURE-029-D. Design the border toggle interaction: click-vs-drag 3px threshold in mousedown/mouseup handlers, chevron DOM element and state management, CSS changes to keep handle visible when collapsed (remove display:none), cursor switching (pointer vs col-resize), and integration with existing toggleExplorer(). Scope design to CR-001 additions only — do not redesign existing drag-to-resize or localStorage persistence.
> **Rationale:** Engineering workflow prescribes Refinement → Technical Design. CR-001 introduces non-trivial interaction logic that benefits from explicit design before coding. The spec's 25 ACs give Technical Design clear acceptance targets.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-technical-design"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "Next stage in engineering workflow after Feature Refinement. FEATURE-029-D v1.1 has new interaction patterns (click detection, chevron state) requiring architectural decisions before implementation."
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "1. Study Broadly"
>         step: "1.1 Read specification, 1.2 Analyze existing codebase"
>       - phase: "5. Practice Earnestly"
>         step: "5.1 Create/Update technical-design.md"

### Follow-up
> After technical design completes, proceed to code implementation for FEATURE-029-D border toggle (CR-001).

| DAO-085 | 2026-03-16T03:10:00Z | TASK-883 | x-ipe-task-based-technical-design | instruction | 0.96 | Technical Design complete — proceed to Code Implementation for FEATURE-029-D border toggle (CR-001) |

## DAO-085
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T03:10:00Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-883
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-029-D
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-technical-design
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.96

### Context
> Technical Design v1.1 for FEATURE-029-D (CR-001) is complete. 8/8 DoD passed. Design covers: click-vs-drag 3px threshold in `_initExplorerResize()`, chevron via CSS `::before`, visible handle when collapsed (`.collapsed` class instead of `display:none`), animation guard, touch support. All 25 ACs mapped to components. Two self-critique fixes applied (explicit `display:block`, touch handlers).

### Instruction Unit 0
> **Disposition:** instruction
> **Content:** Proceed to Code Implementation for FEATURE-029-D CR-001. Implement the border toggle per technical-design.md v1.1 Section 3.5 (click detection, chevron CSS, visible handle, animation guard) and Section 3.6 (touch support). Scope: modify `terminal.js` (`_initExplorerResize()`, `toggleExplorer()`, `_restoreExplorerState()`) and `terminal.css` (add `.explorer-resize-handle::before`, `.explorer-resize-handle.collapsed`). Write tests for AC-19 through AC-25.
> **Rationale:** Engineering workflow: Technical Design → Code Implementation. Design is complete and validated. All implementation details are specified — agent can proceed directly to coding.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-code-implementation"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "Next stage after Technical Design. FEATURE-029-D has complete spec + design ready for implementation."

### Follow-up
> After code implementation, proceed to acceptance testing for FEATURE-029-D border toggle.

---

## DAO-086

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Entry ID | DAO-086 |
| Timestamp | 2026-03-16T04:12:00Z |
| Task ID | TASK-885 |
| Feature ID | FEATURE-029-D |
| Calling Skill | x-ipe-task-based-feature-acceptance-test |
| Source | ai |
| Disposition | instruction |
| Confidence | 0.97 |
| Fallback Required | false |

### Need
> Route to next skill after acceptance testing completed successfully (25/25 tests passed — 18 unit, 7 browser UI).

### Disposition Rationale
> Engineering workflow: Acceptance Testing → Human Playground. All acceptance criteria validated. Code implementation is solid with an additional bug fix (inline width override). Ready for interactive human validation demo.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-human-playground"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "Next stage after Acceptance Testing. FEATURE-029-D CR-001 border toggle is fully tested and ready for human demo."

### Follow-up
> Create interactive playground for human to validate the border toggle feature. After playground validation, proceed to feature closing.

---

## DAO-087

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Entry ID | DAO-087 |
| Timestamp | 2026-03-16T04:20:00Z |
| Task ID | TASK-886 |
| Feature ID | FEATURE-029-D |
| Calling Skill | x-ipe-task-based-human-playground |
| Source | human |
| Disposition | instruction |
| Confidence | 1.00 |
| Fallback Required | false |

### Need
> Human explicitly said "no human playground required" — skip playground, proceed to feature closing.

### Disposition Rationale
> Direct human override. Playground step skipped. Route to feature closing (x-ipe-task-based-feature-closing).

### Follow-up
> Proceed to feature closing for FEATURE-029-D CR-001.

| DAO-088 | 2026-03-16T03:41:16Z | TBD | N/A (direct human message) | instruction | 0.85 | UIUX feedback: Add .docx and .msg file content preview to file preview modal and folder view |

## DAO-088
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T03:41:16Z
- **Task ID:** TBD
- **Feature ID:** N/A
- **Workflow:** test (user's test workflow)
- **Calling Skill:** N/A (direct human message)
- **Source:** human
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.85

### Message
> Get uiux feedback, please visit feedback folder x-ipe-docs/uiux-feedback/Feedback-20260316-113736 to get details. Feedback: "for workflow 'test' I have uploaded two files, one it's docx, one is msg. when I preview them in file preview or open in the folder view, we all need to see it's content, you can research see if it's achievable, if so, implement it"

### Guidance Returned
> Process as a change request to the existing file preview feature. The .msg file currently shows "Binary file — cannot preview" in the preview modal. The CR adds .docx and .msg content preview support to both the file preview modal and folder view. Research feasibility of Python libraries (python-docx for .docx, extract-msg/olefile for .msg) for server-side content extraction, then implement if achievable. Route to x-ipe-task-based-change-request skill to analyze impact on existing preview code.

### Rationale
> User requests enhancement to existing file preview feature that currently shows "Binary file — cannot preview" for .docx/.msg formats. This is a change request modifying existing functionality (file preview modal + folder view). The user explicitly stated research-first approach ("research see if it's achievable, if so, implement it"). Engineering workflow Stage 5 FEEDBACK → change_request is the correct pipeline position.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "UIUX feedback requesting modification to existing file preview feature — add .docx and .msg content rendering. This changes existing behavior (binary → rendered content) in an existing UI component."
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "1. Analysis"
>         step: "1.1 Impact Analysis — assess existing preview code, identify affected components"
>       - phase: "2. Challenge"
### Follow-up
> None

---

| DAO-089 | 2026-03-16T03:52:00Z | TASK-890 | x-ipe-task-based-change-request | approval | 0.92 | Classification confirmed — MODIFICATION to FEATURE-038-C for .docx/.msg preview |

## DAO-089
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T03:52:00Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-890
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-038-C
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request
- **Source:** ai
- **Disposition:** approval
- **Confidence:** 0.92

### Message
> CR Challenge + Classification Confirmation (Phases 2.1 + 4.2): Should the CR proceed with classification as MODIFICATION to FEATURE-038-C? Conflict analysis found 6 expected + 3 unexpected conflicts (all mitigated). Scope: .docx via mammoth, .msg via extract-msg, server-side conversion.

### Guidance Returned
> **APPROVED — Classification as MODIFICATION to FEATURE-038-C is correct.** All four CR challenges satisfied: (1) Necessary — system accepts uploads but can't preview them; (2) No existing workaround — binary pipeline dead-ends at UTF-8 decode; (3) Server-side conversion is the right approach — mammoth/extract-msg are lightweight, keeps frontend thin; (4) Without this, users must download-and-open externally for common business formats. Conflict analysis is thorough — 6 expected spec/design conflicts are natural consequences, 3 unexpected are low-severity with documented mitigations. Scope bounded to .docx and .msg only (YAGNI). Proceed to Feature Refinement.

### Rationale
> MODIFICATION +6 vs NEW_FEATURE +0 is unambiguous. Same users, same UI, same data model, extends existing preview capability within system boundaries. All conflicts are manageable through spec updates during refinement phase.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "CR classified as MODIFICATION to FEATURE-038-C. Refinement must update AC-038-C.15, BR-038-C.3, add new ACs for .docx/.msg conversion, and update FEATURE-043-A spec."

### Follow-up
> Proceed to Feature Refinement for FEATURE-038-C v1.1 (CR-001).

## DAO-090
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T04:06:00Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-891
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-038-C
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.95

### Context
> Feature Refinement for FEATURE-038-C v1.1 (CR-001) completed. Spec updated with 23 GWT-format ACs, 8 FRs, 5 NFRs, 5 BRs, updated edge cases, dependencies (mammoth, extract-msg), and technical considerations. DoD verified by sub-agent — all 6 checkpoints pass.

### Decision
> Proceed to Technical Design for FEATURE-038-C CR-001. Create TASK-892, load x-ipe-task-based-technical-design, design the .docx/.msg file conversion pipeline (backend conversion layer, HTML sanitization, frontend rendering path).

### Rationale
> Standard pipeline progression: Refinement → Technical Design. Spec v1.1 is complete and DoD-verified. No blockers or open questions. The conversion approach (mammoth + extract-msg) is well-understood from CR-001 analysis.

### Instruction Units
> - **Unit 0:** disposition=instruction, skill=x-ipe-task-based-technical-design (strong match)
>   - Execution plan: sequential, groups: [[0]]

### Follow-up
> Create TASK-892 for Technical Design of FEATURE-038-C CR-001.

## DAO-091
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T04:16:00Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-892
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-038-C
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-technical-design
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.95

### Context
> Technical Design for FEATURE-038-C CR-001 completed. Design v1.1 documents: 3 backend helpers (_convert_docx, _convert_msg, _sanitize_converted_html), modified get_idea_file() route, frontend X-Converted header detection. All 8 CR-001 ACs mapped. DoD verified.

### Decision
> Proceed to Code Implementation for FEATURE-038-C CR-001. Create TASK-893, implement the 6 steps from technical design: add deps, add helpers, modify route, modify frontend, write backend tests, write frontend tests.

### Instruction Units
> - **Unit 0:** disposition=instruction, skill=x-ipe-task-based-code-implementation (strong match)

### Follow-up
> Create TASK-893 for Code Implementation of FEATURE-038-C CR-001.
| DAO-092 | 2026-03-16T05:35:06Z | TASK-893 | x-ipe-task-based-code-implementation | instruction | 0.95 | User confirms: proceed with acceptance testing for FEATURE-038-C CR-001. Route to x-ipe-task-based-feature-acceptance-test |

## DAO-093
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T05:54:11Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-894
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-038-C
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-feature-acceptance-test
- **Source:** human
- **Disposition:** answer
- **Confidence:** 0.95

### Message
> why the next is human-playground?

### Guidance Returned
> The engineering workflow DAG says: acceptance_testing → code_refactor → feature_closing. human_playground is in the FEEDBACK stage (Stage 5) and is NOT required. I incorrectly suggested it as the immediate next step. The correct next step is code_refactor, then feature_closing.

### Rationale
> User correctly questioned the suggested workflow order. Checking references/engineering-workflow.md confirms: Stage 4 VALIDATION has acceptance_testing → code_refactor → feature_closing. human_playground is Stage 5 FEEDBACK and is optional. The agent's earlier suggestion was wrong.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills: []

### Instruction Units
> - **Unit 0:** disposition=answer, no skill needed (workflow clarification)

### Follow-up
> Correct the pipeline: next is code_refactor (if needed), then feature_closing.

## DAO-094
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-16T05:57:58Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-894
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-038-C
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-feature-acceptance-test
- **Source:** human
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.93

### Message
> let's do this, update human playground skill, except human indicate they want to have a playground, otherwise avoid to use it

### Guidance Returned
> Two instruction units: (0) Proceed with CR-001 pipeline — next engineering step is code_refactor via x-ipe-task-based-code-refactor. (1) Update x-ipe-task-based-human-playground skill to be human-initiated only — remove auto-suggestion from workflow, make it trigger only on explicit human request. Use x-ipe-meta-skill-creator for the modification.

### Rationale
> User message contains two independent instructions: continue the CR-001 work AND modify the human-playground skill behavior. Unit 0 aligns with engineering-next (acceptance_testing → code_refactor). Unit 1 is a skill modification requiring x-ipe-meta-skill-creator per custom instructions.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - Unit 0: x-ipe-task-based-code-refactor (strong) — engineering-next after acceptance_testing
>   - Unit 1: x-ipe-meta-skill-creator (strong) — mandatory for skill modifications

### Instruction Units
> - **Unit 0:** disposition=instruction, skill=x-ipe-task-based-code-refactor (strong match). Proceed with CR-001 code refactoring.
> - **Unit 1:** disposition=instruction, skill=x-ipe-meta-skill-creator (strong match). Update human-playground to human-initiated only.

### Follow-up
> Execute sequentially: Unit 1 first (skill update is quick, changes workflow understanding), then Unit 0 (code_refactor for CR-001).
