polynv

Run polynv over the arguments in $ARGUMENTS. This is the ELICITATION side of the method (Polygraph audits, polygen authors, polyrun executes, polyvers evolves, polynv ELICITS): every other gate is exactly as good as invariants.mjs, and this engine is how that file gets good — the plugin takes the lead, and the designer's job reduces to judging concrete stories. Deterministic and no API key except the optional --llm harvest source.

Follow the polynv skill — it is the dialog protocol, and the dialog is the product. The CLI is ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/polynv/bin/polynv.mjs:

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/polynv/bin/polynv.mjs harvest   --artifacts <dir> [--traces <p>] [--snapshots <p>] [--min-obs N] [--llm --model <id>]
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/polynv/bin/polynv.mjs questions --artifacts <dir> [--next] [--for <name>] [--json]
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/polynv/bin/polynv.mjs add       --artifacts <dir> --id prior:<slug> --target state|transition --question "…" --js "…" --author <you> [--source domain-prior --domain <d> --norm "…" --model <id>]
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/polynv/bin/polynv.mjs record    --artifacts <dir> --id <id> --disposition confirm|reject|abandon|defer|modify --author <designer>
                                                           [--js "…"] [--concern "…"] [--assign <name>] [--target state|transition] [--out <path>] [--force]
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/polynv/bin/polynv.mjs grade     --artifacts <dir> [--include-invariants]
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/polynv/bin/polynv.mjs drift     --artifacts <dir> [--reopen --author <name>]
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/polynv/bin/polynv.mjs report    --artifacts <dir> [--log]

On a version bump (the machine changed since the interview), run drift first: it re-checks every recorded answer against the machine as it is now and names every verdict that moved — a confirmed rule now violated is a finding; a rejected candidate whose behavior changed is re-asked (--reopen, attributed). Emission candidates get real verdicts whenever the dir carries the composition (effects.cjs + manifest, via polyrun check-effects).

Disposition flags that trip the unprepared: a temporal (precedence) record's revision is STRUCTURED — --disposition modify --js '{"kind":"precedence","first":"<ACTION>","then":"<ACTION>"}' — free-form js is refused (there is no checker for it). A mutation-survivor record arrives with no predicate: your answering modify supplies both the rule and its shape (--target state|transition), then a separate confirm. And --source domain-prior is what routes --domain/--norm/--model into the record's provenance — omit it and a model-drafted prior is silently recorded as designer-sourced; never omit it when adding YOUR priors.

Workflow (the skill has the full protocol — these are the fixed points):

1. Harvest first, passing every substrate the user has (traces, a polyrun journal export, fleet snapshots) — then contribute your own domain priors via add before the first question: identify the domain from the contract and enumerate its canonical invariants; the designer of a payment system gets asked about authorization-before-capture whether or not any harvester surfaced it.
2. Interview one question at a time (questions --next), concrete-story-first. You propose and frame; only the designer dispositions — never answer an intent question on their behalf; offer defer --assign when they are unsure. Every record carries --author <designer>.
3. Grade before closing (--include-invariants when a hand-written invariants.mjs exists). Survivor questions rank first on the next pass.
4. End with the verdict: CONVERGED (all records terminal AND graded) or PARTIAL with what remains, per assignee. Commit intent-ledger.json (the system of record) and the generated invariants.mjs; INTENT-LOG.md is the rendered view for the PR.

Always state the disclosure the skill carries: pre-checks are consistency checks over the declared finite domains; harvested candidates are behavior, not intent; the grade bounds unconstrained behavior (behavior-REMOVING mutations largely evade it) and never certifies that the questions asked were sufficient.