update skills

.agents/skills/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md

@@ -18,14 +18,13 @@ Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and th
 
 ### 2. Spawn sub-agents
 
-Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
+Honor the requested number of alternatives; two is a useful default. Use independent subagents through the available delegation tool when useful and within available slots, or compare directly when delegation is unavailable. Each option should explore a meaningfully different trade-off for the same requirements.
 
 Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
 
-- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
-- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
-- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
-- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
+- One option can optimize for the primary caller's workflow.
+- Another can emphasize explicit state transitions or failure handling.
+- Add a dependency-focused option only when that is an actual design question; do not invent flexibility, adapters, or a target method count.
 
 Include both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
 
@@ -39,6 +38,6 @@ Each sub-agent outputs:
 
 ### 3. Present and compare
 
-Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
+Use the requested or clearest concise format. Contrast **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), **seam placement**, implementation effort, and risk.
 
 After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.