For the 5 v2 build repos (code-inherit-v2 / code-inheritkit / code-ias / code-inheritv2-www / code-inheritv2-test-suite), Phase-0 hardening passes work cleanly when split into two autonomous sessions:
- Session 1: legal + tooling foundation (LICENSE / NOTICE / THIRD-PARTY-* / COMMERCIAL-LICENSE / README v1.0 / package.json + tooling configs / .github/workflows minimum). 7 deliverables; ~3-4 hours.
- Session 2: documentation + scaffolding + BUILD-PLAN.md hardening (src/ skeleton + stub READMEs / docs/ci-pipeline.md / examples/hello-world / BUILD-PLAN.md v1.0 → v1.1 with §1.4 + §3.0 + §3.4 mirroring code-inherit-v2 v1.1 / docs-strategy lockstep update). 5 deliverables; ~4-5 hours.
Why: Two-session split produces ~9 cleanly-bounded commits per repo with explicit §1/§2 commit messages — easier to review later than 1 monster session. Each session is independently re-runnable if it crashes mid-flow. Session 2 builds on Session 1’s commit hashes (referenced in arch-state changelog row + BUILD-PLAN.md §3.0.1), creating a clean audit trail.
How to apply: When hardening a new v2 build repo (next candidates: code-ias / code-inheritv2-www / code-inheritv2-test-suite), follow the same Session 1 / Session 2 split. Use the 5-technique autopilot recipe per ~/.claude/projects/-home-richardd-testatetech-docs-strategy/memory/feedback_autopilot_prompt_techniques.md. Reference exemplars: code-inherit-v2 (arch-state v2.93) + code-inheritkit (arch-state v2.94 Session 1 + v2.95 Session 2). Cross-validation script ../docs-strategy/scripts/validate-build-plan-sync.sh must report ALL CONSISTENT before declaring closure.
Confirmed across two repos: code-inherit-v2 (v2.93) + code-inheritkit (v2.94+v2.95). Same recipe; both zero-question; both produced Day-1-ready substrate for the eventual engineer (Paul).