emrg: the promote task reads what is addressed to it, and counts what it publishes

emrg/server/promote_prompt.md

@@ -211,7 +211,19 @@ if a platform forbids automated publishing, comply or mark the platform blocked.
 
 #### Step 1 — Find topics (recon)
 
-Search for topics related to {{ project.name }}:
+Recon has two directions, and **the inbound one comes first**: read what is already waiting on this account before looking for anything new.
+
+```bash
+# the threads this account opened elsewhere — its own open pull requests and issues
+gh search prs --author @me --state open --limit 20 --json repository,number,title,updatedAt
+gh search issues --author @me --state open --limit 20 --json repository,number,title,updatedAt
+# then the newest comment on each one that is not this account's own
+gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/<n>/comments --jq '.[-1] | "\(.user.login) @ \(.created_at): \(.body)"'
+```
+
+A maintainer who asks for a rebase, a test, clearer wording, or an answer has addressed a **request to this account**, and carrying it out is the round's first work — ahead of any new participation. A thread left waiting while the same account opens another costs twice from one cause: the request stands unanswered, and there is one more thread to keep up with. A request this round cannot carry out does not drop out of sight — it enters `promotion tracking` as the to-do, with the link and what was asked (§4.1).
+
+Then look outward. Search for topics related to {{ project.name }}:
 
 ```bash
 # Reddit example: search topics related to the project's domain
@@ -230,7 +242,7 @@ curl -s "https://hn.algolia.com/api/v1/search?query=<keywords>&tags=story"
 
 1. **Read the full discussion**: open the original post with the browser harness, read all replies (not just the OP), understand the context, existing viewpoints, and the asker's real concern.
 2. **Research related material**: verify third-party projects/terms/background involved in the discussion first (docs / repos / official sites) — no unfounded claims.
-3. **Verify locally**: if the discussion involves technical claims (performance, API, behavior), **write a test script / run a local verification before replying** — technical facts in your reply must be verified, not from memory or reasoning alone.
+3. **Verify locally**: if the discussion involves technical claims (performance, API, behavior), **write a test script / run a local verification before replying** — technical facts in your reply must be verified, not from memory or reasoning alone. **A count is such a claim**: how many tests a file holds, how many files a directory has, how many commits, versions, users or bytes — each is a number a command produced in this round, and it is quoted from that output. A count that no command produced, one carried over from an earlier round included, is taken out rather than softened, because a wrong count reads exactly like a verified one and the reader has no way to tell them apart.
 4. **Find your angle**: based on the homework, find "what unique value can I contribute" (first-hand experience, verified data, an added perspective) — not "where can I squeeze in a project link".
 5. **If homework is too costly or time is limited → skip that discussion** (record it in this round's closing summary as a `promotion opportunities` entry, join when you can do it properly) rather than posting a low-quality reply.
 
@@ -322,7 +334,7 @@ Every field below is REPLACED every round — this is a snapshot, not a log:
 - promotion target: <project repo URL>
 - promotion log: <last 5 promotion actions: time + channel + link + result>
 - promotion opportunities: <topics found during recon but not yet acted on>
-- promotion tracking: <posted promotions with replies / ongoing discussions / questions awaiting clarification; each with link and to-do>
+- promotion tracking: <posted promotions with replies / ongoing discussions / questions awaiting clarification / requests addressed to this account that it has not answered yet; each with link and its to-do>
 - last learned: <timestamp of the most recent §0.4 project learning + project commit HEAD (knowledge freshness)>
 - homework record: <which discussions were read / what materials researched / what was verified locally before this round's participation (commit HEAD + link + verification conclusion) — §2 homework trail, last 3 rounds>
 - flagged/negative: <flagged discussions/channels + time + cool-down status (like banned but reversible)>

tests/test_prompt_templates.py

@@ -2124,3 +2124,62 @@ def test_the_published_contribution_pin_answers_both_ways():
             f"removing {phrase!r} did not make exactly that phrase read as missing, so this "
             "pin would not notice its own rule being deleted"
         )
+
+
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- the inbound half
+#
+# A round of the promotion task is written as four outward steps: find a topic, join it,
+# follow the threads it started, hand the feedback on. Every list such a round carries is
+# therefore a list of what it sent out, and nothing in the template answered the opposite
+# question — what has someone else asked this account to do, and is it still waiting.
+#
+# Measured cost, on a pull request this account had opened in another project: a maintainer
+# asked for a rebase in a comment, no round read it, and the request sat unanswered for nine
+# days while later rounds opened new threads instead. Carrying it out took minutes.
+#
+# The second half is the same defect one level down. A changelog entry published in that pull
+# request said a test file held "7 tests"; the file had held six since the branch was created,
+# and no command had counted anything. Step 2 already requires technical claims to be verified
+# locally, and a count does not read as a claim, so it passed under a rule written for prose.
+#
+# Pinned as verbatim phrases for the reason the pin above states: the file and the *render*
+# are two carriers, and a rewrite that keeps the surrounding paragraphs while dropping these
+# leaves every keyword in place.
+
+PROMOTE_INBOUND_PHRASES = (
+    "the inbound one comes first",
+    "addressed a **request to this account**",
+    "it enters `promotion tracking` as the to-do",
+    "requests addressed to this account that it has not answered yet",
+    "**A count is such a claim**",
+    "A count that no command produced",
+)
+
+
+def test_the_promote_prompt_reads_what_is_asked_of_it_and_counts_what_it_publishes():
+    """Both halves of a round the template was missing: inbound work, and measured numbers.
+
+    What this measures and what it does not: it pins that the two rules are still **stated**.
+    Whether a round ran the reading is that round's closing summary — not something a text
+    assertion can answer, so this guard has no verdict on behaviour.
+    """
+    text = _PROMOTE_TEMPLATE.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
+    missing = _missing_phrases(text, PROMOTE_INBOUND_PHRASES)
+    assert not missing, (
+        "the promote template no longer states what its four outward steps leave out: "
+        f"{missing}. Without the first, every list a round carries is one-directional and a "
+        "maintainer's request can wait indefinitely while the round finds new topics; without "
+        "the second, a published count is a number nothing counted."
+    )
+
+
+def test_the_inbound_pin_answers_both_ways():
+    """The control: removing one phrase makes exactly that phrase read as missing."""
+    text = _PROMOTE_TEMPLATE.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
+    for phrase in PROMOTE_INBOUND_PHRASES:
+        stripped = text.replace(phrase, "")
+        assert stripped != text, f"{phrase!r} is pinned but absent, so this arm measured nothing"
+        assert _missing_phrases(stripped, PROMOTE_INBOUND_PHRASES) == [phrase], (
+            f"removing {phrase!r} did not make exactly that phrase read as missing, so this "
+            "pin would not notice its own rule being deleted"
+        )