docs(rfc): classify RFCs by kind via path-encoded subdirectories

Add a second axis to every RFC — its class (feature, bug-fix,
simplification, architecture, process, testing) — encoded in the path
as docs/rfc/{lifecycle}/{class}/file.md. The folder is the label, so
the closed set is enforced by structure rather than a parsed field.

Two new doc-sync gates back it:
- verify-rfc-classification: every RFC sits in a valid class folder and
  the README index lists it under the matching lifecycle→class heading.
- verify-doc-refs: every docs/*.md path cited in a packages|examples TS
  comment resolves — closes a drift class verify-md-links can't see, and
  catches the four comment refs this reorg moved.

The README gains a Classification section explaining the taxonomy and
per-class index sub-sections. A self-referential process RFC records why
the scheme is path-encoded and gated.

.agents/skills/dsh-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ description: Use when reviewing a pull request in the deepseek-harness repo —
 
 **This skill is guidance, not a complete checklist.** It is a where-to-look map that lowers your startup cost on an unfamiliar PR — clearing every item here does not mean the PR is good. You are the reviewer: reason independently from the code in front of you, and think broadly across every dimension a change can fail on. The items below are the failure modes this repo has already paid for; a real review also catches the ones nobody has written down yet.
 
-Independent judgment governs *what to look at* and *how to apply a rule to this case* — not whether the repo's documented requirements still hold. AGENTS.md, packages/AGENTS.md, and the [quality gates](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/2026-06-11-quality-gates.md) remain authoritative; a missing HMR-safety test or out-of-sync docs is a blocking gap regardless of your judgment, not a suggestion you can waive. Use your own reasoning to go *beyond* these checks and to weigh genuine edge cases against an RFC (raise it as a discussion, don't silently override) — never to demote a documented blocker to optional.
+Independent judgment governs *what to look at* and *how to apply a rule to this case* — not whether the repo's documented requirements still hold. AGENTS.md, packages/AGENTS.md, and the [quality gates](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/process/2026-06-11-quality-gates.md) remain authoritative; a missing HMR-safety test or out-of-sync docs is a blocking gap regardless of your judgment, not a suggestion you can waive. Use your own reasoning to go *beyond* these checks and to weigh genuine edge cases against an RFC (raise it as a discussion, don't silently override) — never to demote a documented blocker to optional.
 
 ## How to think about a review
 
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ These define the conventions and gates this repo is checked against, and they ar
 - **AGENTS.md § Defensive patterns (hard-won)** — each bullet is a bug class that bit us. Reviewing anything touching process lifecycle, async/await, disposal, or adapter error paths? Re-read this first — then look for the *adjacent* mistake it doesn't name.
 - **AGENTS.md § Type Safety and Documentation** — the doc-sync rule (code change ⇒ update README + JSDoc in the SAME commit) and the no-hard-wrap markdown convention.
 - **[packages/AGENTS.md](../../../packages/AGENTS.md)** — per-package conventions (file layout, the HMR-safety test requirement).
-- **[RFC index](../../../docs/rfc/README.md)** — the *why* behind the architecture. Especially [quality gates](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/2026-06-11-quality-gates.md) (what a PR must pass) and [capability seams](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/2026-06-13-capability-seams.md) (the three-package split). If a change seems to fight an RFC, that's a discussion, not a silent override — and not an automatic veto either: an RFC can be wrong for this case, so reason about it.
+- **[RFC index](../../../docs/rfc/README.md)** — the *why* behind the architecture. Especially [quality gates](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/process/2026-06-11-quality-gates.md) (what a PR must pass) and [capability seams](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/architecture/2026-06-13-capability-seams.md) (the three-package split). If a change seems to fight an RFC, that's a discussion, not a silent override — and not an automatic veto either: an RFC can be wrong for this case, so reason about it.
 
 ## Hard blockers (documented requirements — missing one blocks merge)
 
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Where your independent reasoning earns its keep. Start here, then keep going acr
 - **Plugin export shape + real-loader coverage.** A new/changed `cordis.yml`-loaded plugin: is it a function/namespace plugin (`name`/`inject`/`Config`/`apply` named exports) with NO `export default`? A stray default export makes the Loader's `unwrapExports` drop `inject` and the plugin crashes at load with `cannot get property … without inject` — invisible to hand-built `ctx.plugin({...})` tests and to line coverage. Confirm there's a test driving it through the REAL loader path (the no-key subprocess e2e for ACP is the model). And any opportunistic read of a service NOT in `static inject` should use `ctx.get(name)`, not `ctx.<name>` (the property proxy throws through a foreign shadow). See [packages/AGENTS.md](../../../packages/AGENTS.md) and [docs/postmortem/0001](../../../docs/postmortem/0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.md).
 - **Seam discipline.** New swappable capability? Check it's split per the capability-seams RFC (interface / impl / consumer), and that the consumer injects the interface key, never an implementation type.
 - **Test quality — sufficiency, not just coverage.** 100% per-file coverage and a green suite are necessary, not sufficient: they prove the lines *ran*, not that the feature *works the way it ships*. Judge whether the tests are sufficient on two axes. (1) **Would they fail if the behavior regressed?** A test that passes but asserts the wrong thing — or restates the implementation instead of the contract (events fired, disposal reached, the world changed) — is worse than none. (2) **Do they exercise the REAL thing, the way it's actually used?** Prefer the genuine collaborator over a fake, drive the change through its real entry path (the cordis Loader, the ACP bridge, a booted subprocess — not a hand-built `ctx.plugin({...})` that bypasses `unwrapExports`), and verify the WORLD (re-read the file/log/registry externally), not the agent's self-report. A test that fakes the inputs just enough to cover every line will agree with whatever the author assumed; the real thing won't. When a test sets up a *clean/happy* path to reach a line, ask whether the line's PURPOSE is exercised — e.g. a durability/teardown path "tested" by a fully-completed turn never proves the mid-flight teardown it exists for; a torn-tail recovery branch covered by a well-formed log never proves recovery. Flag tests that hit the line but not the scenario. See AGENTS.md § Defensive patterns "Line coverage is not behavior coverage" and "Prefer the REAL implementation over a mock/stand-in in tests".
-- **Snapshot coverage for transcript/UX changes.** If the PR changes the editor-facing transcript or end-to-end agent UX — the ACP bridge's event→update translation, the agent loop's observable output, tool presentation, or anything an editor renders — it must add or update a snapshot scenario (`examples/*/tests/**/*.snapshot.ts`, goldens under `examples/acp-agent/tests/snapshots/`) or note explicitly why none applies (AGENTS.md § Conventions). Review the golden diff itself: a changed `stdout.golden.txt` / `session.golden.txt` is a behavior change in disguise — confirm it's intended, not an accidental regression someone re-recorded away. A pure internal refactor with no observable-output change is exempt, but the PR should say so. See [docs/rfc/implemented/2026-06-19-acp-snapshot-tests.md](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/2026-06-19-acp-snapshot-tests.md).
+- **Snapshot coverage for transcript/UX changes.** If the PR changes the editor-facing transcript or end-to-end agent UX — the ACP bridge's event→update translation, the agent loop's observable output, tool presentation, or anything an editor renders — it must add or update a snapshot scenario (`examples/*/tests/**/*.snapshot.ts`, goldens under `examples/acp-agent/tests/snapshots/`) or note explicitly why none applies (AGENTS.md § Conventions). Review the golden diff itself: a changed `stdout.golden.txt` / `session.golden.txt` is a behavior change in disguise — confirm it's intended, not an accidental regression someone re-recorded away. A pure internal refactor with no observable-output change is exempt, but the PR should say so. See [docs/rfc/implemented/testing/2026-06-19-acp-snapshot-tests.md](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/testing/2026-06-19-acp-snapshot-tests.md).
 - **Intent and contracts.** Does the change do what the PR says, and honor the documented contract on *both* sides of every seam it touches (see AGENTS.md "Honor cross-seam contracts on BOTH sides")?
 
 ## How to respond

.agents/skills/dsh-find-simplifications/SKILL.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ This skill helps turn a broad "find things to simplify" request into evidence-ba
 
 - Read `AGENTS.md`, especially the pre-release stance, tests-document-behavior section, conventions, defensive patterns, and Type Safety and Documentation section.
 - Skim [docs/architecture.md](../../../docs/architecture.md) before judging anything under `packages/`; simplifications that fight the service map or event taxonomy need extra evidence.
-- Use the RFC index ([docs/rfc/README.md](../../../docs/rfc/README.md)) to understand intentional architecture. The most relevant implemented examples are [drop mutable session summary](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/2026-06-19-drop-mutable-session-summary.md), [shared persistence write coordinator](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/2026-06-18-shared-persistence-write-coordinator.md), [capability seams](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/2026-06-13-capability-seams.md), and the twin adapter / dual persistence backend RFCs.
+- Use the RFC index ([docs/rfc/README.md](../../../docs/rfc/README.md)) to understand intentional architecture. The most relevant implemented examples are [drop mutable session summary](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/simplification/2026-06-19-drop-mutable-session-summary.md), [shared persistence write coordinator](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/architecture/2026-06-18-shared-persistence-write-coordinator.md), [capability seams](../../../docs/rfc/implemented/architecture/2026-06-13-capability-seams.md), and the twin adapter / dual persistence backend RFCs.
 - Treat dual LLM adapters and dual persistence backends as intentional by default. Do not propose deleting either twin/backend as "low effort" unless the user explicitly overrides that constraint. Removing an unused method or hook inside a protected seam can still be valid if it does not collapse the protected design.
 
 ## What Counts As A Strong Candidate