feat: Ralph Loop integration — mini-reflect, alternatives, structured confidence

- Mini-Reflect for fast workflow: Creator must restate task, list assumptions,
  name highest-damage risk before proposing (catches misunderstandings early)
- Alternatives Considered section: Creator must evaluate 2+ approaches with
  rejection rationale before committing to one (prevents tunnel vision)
- Structured confidence scoring: 3-axis table (task understanding, solution
  completeness, risk coverage) replaces bare 0.0-1.0 number. Low scores
  trigger targeted action (clarify, upgrade workflow, or research)
- Mini-Reflect fallback for skipped tasks: quick reflection even when
  ArcheFlow doesn't activate (non-trivial single-file changes)

skills/orchestration/SKILL.md

@@ -47,19 +47,30 @@ Agent(
 **Context to include:** Task description, Explorer's research output. On cycle 2+: prior cycle's structured feedback (see Cycle Feedback Protocol).
 **Context to exclude:** Raw file contents (Explorer already summarized), git diffs, reviewer full outputs.
 
+**Fast workflow only (no Explorer):** The Creator must perform a Mini-Reflect before proposing:
+1. Restate the task in your own words (catch misunderstandings early)
+2. List 3 assumptions you're making
+3. Name the one risk that would cause most damage if wrong
+
 ```
 Agent(
   description: "🏗️ Creator: design proposal",
   prompt: "<task description>
     You are the CREATOR archetype.
-    Based on the research findings: <Explorer's output>
+    <if fast workflow (no Explorer): Before proposing, perform a Mini-Reflect:
+      1. Restate the task in one sentence
+      2. List 3 assumptions you're making
+      3. Name the highest-damage risk
+      Then propose.>
+    <if standard/thorough: Based on the research findings: <Explorer's output>>
     <if cycle 2+: Prior cycle feedback: <structured feedback — see Cycle Feedback Protocol>>
     Design a solution proposal including:
     1. Architecture decisions (with rationale)
     2. Files to create/modify (with specific changes)
-    3. Test strategy
+    3. Alternatives considered (at least 2, with rejection rationale)
-    4. Confidence score (0.0 to 1.0)
+    4. Test strategy
-    5. Risks you foresee
+    5. Confidence (scored by axis: task understanding, solution completeness, risk coverage)
+    6. Risks you foresee
     <if cycle 2+: 6. How you addressed each unresolved issue from prior feedback>
     Be decisive. Ship a clear plan, not a menu of options.",
   subagent_type: "Plan"

skills/plan-phase/SKILL.md

@@ -32,11 +32,21 @@ Explorer researches, then Creator designs. Sequential — Creator needs Explorer
 
 ```markdown
 ## Proposal: <task>
-**Confidence:** <0.0 to 1.0>
+
+### Mini-Reflect (fast workflow only — skip if Explorer ran)
+- **Task restated:** <one sentence>
+- **Assumptions:** 1) ... 2) ... 3) ...
+- **Highest-damage risk:** <the one thing that would hurt most if wrong>
 
 ### Architecture Decision
 <What and WHY>
 
+### Alternatives Considered
+| Approach | Why Rejected |
+|----------|-------------|
+| <option A> | <reason> |
+| <option B> | <reason> |
+
 ### Changes
 1. **`path/file.ext`** — What changes and why
 2. **`path/test.ext`** — What tests to add
@@ -44,6 +54,13 @@ Explorer researches, then Creator designs. Sequential — Creator needs Explorer
 ### Test Strategy
 - <specific test cases>
 
+### Confidence
+| Axis | Score | Note |
+|------|-------|------|
+| Task understanding | <0.0-1.0> | <why> |
+| Solution completeness | <0.0-1.0> | <gaps?> |
+| Risk coverage | <0.0-1.0> | <unknowns?> |
+
 ### Risks
 - <what could go wrong + mitigations>
 
@@ -51,13 +68,14 @@ Explorer researches, then Creator designs. Sequential — Creator needs Explorer
 - <adjacent concerns deliberately excluded>
 ```
 
+**Confidence triggers:** If any axis scores below 0.5, flag it to the orchestrator. Low task understanding → clarify with user. Low solution completeness → consider standard workflow. Low risk coverage → spawn targeted Explorer research.
+
 ## Creator with Prior Feedback (Cycle 2+)
 
 When the Creator receives structured feedback from a prior cycle, the proposal must include an additional section addressing each unresolved issue:
 
 ```markdown
 ## Proposal: <task> (Revision — Cycle N)
-**Confidence:** <0.0 to 1.0>
 
 ### Prior Feedback Response
 | Issue | Source | Action | Rationale |
@@ -75,6 +93,13 @@ When the Creator receives structured feedback from a prior cycle, the proposal m
 ### Test Strategy
 <updated test cases>
 
+### Confidence
+| Axis | Score | Note |
+|------|-------|------|
+| Task understanding | <0.0-1.0> | <why> |
+| Solution completeness | <0.0-1.0> | <gaps?> |
+| Risk coverage | <0.0-1.0> | <unknowns?> |
+
 ### Risks
 <updated risks — include any new risks from the revision>
 

skills/using-archeflow/SKILL.md

@@ -36,6 +36,8 @@ Do NOT use ArcheFlow for these — just do them directly:
 - Config changes to a single file
 - Git operations (commit, push, branch)
 
+**Mini-Reflect fallback:** Even when skipping ArcheFlow, apply a quick reflection for non-trivial single-file changes: (1) restate what you're changing, (2) name one assumption, (3) check if it could break anything. This takes ~10 seconds and catches misunderstandings before they become commits.
+
 ## Archetypes
 
 | Archetype | Avatar | Virtue | Shadow | Phase |