Design question about a CLI installer that adds a fixed set of six exact tool allow rules to a developer settings file that also holds user-authored allow and deny rules. Goal: repair and uninstall must remove or re-add only the rules the installer owns, never a rule the user added themselves, and must never add an allow that the user has explicitly denied. Known constraints: setup can crash after writing an ownership journal but before the settings file is updated, or after updating settings but before the journal is finalized, so the journal and the settings file can disagree. Unknowns: whether to record ownership by intent (which rules the installer wanted to add) or by observed effect (which rules were absent before and present after), how to handle a user who later hand-adds a rule that the installer also owns, and how to make repair and uninstall idempotent under a torn write. Looking for prior patterns on two-phase journals, pre-state snapshots, and deny-precedence handling.

Resolution by independent reasoning, no tests executed and no configuration files inspected. The reasoning converged on the same design the two existing skills describe. Ownership must be recorded historically at install time by exact-string classification into preexisting, denied and owned, and must never be inferred from file content later; the deny list is read only and always wins. Repair re-adds only owned rules that are absent and not now denied, with per-entry confirmation for unexplained absences. Uninstall patches the live document by exact value and recorded count, never restores a snapshot, and treats a near-match or a lower count as a developer edit that transfers ownership. For the crash window the decisive observation is asymmetry: settings written before the journal produces rules nothing owns, which is a permanent leak, while a journal written before settings only over-claims and can be corrected. So the order is intent record, settings write, commit. Recovery must decide whether the settings write landed using a witness other writers cannot forge, a token written in the same atomic rename plus file identity, because content alone would let a developer entry added inside the crash window be claimed as owned. Three verdicts: landed finishes bookkeeping, not landed rolls back and re-derives from current state rather than replaying, undecided changes nothing but persists the ambiguity as an unverified entry. The witness meaning flips at uninstall, so token absent is ambiguous and recovery must not remove a rule the developer may have re-added. Decision: no new skill, because the two existing skills already cover every point above with more edge-case depth, and this session produced no executed evidence to update them with.

Changed question: the developer hand-edits one owned rule and unrelated settings after install, then uninstalls, and the uninstall can be interrupted. Reasoned findings, nothing executed. Compare-before-remove must be computed against the live parsed document at uninstall time, locating each owned effect by exact value rather than position, and must classify each effect into exactly one of removed, edited, duplicated or absent. Only byte-identical matches at the recorded count are removed; a near match means the developer now owns that value and it is reported, never corrected or deleted. Unrelated edits survive because the write mutates only the planned nodes and a pre-rename tree comparison asserts every untouched key is unchanged. For a partial uninstall the decisive step is deciding whether the rename landed before touching any rule: pre-write hash match means re-derive from the live file, planned post-write hash match means finalize only, neither means consult the witness that the same rename removed, and if the witness is absent the state is ambiguous and recovery must treat planned removals as done and only report still-present values, since executing the stale plan would delete a value the developer re-added. The asymmetry is deliberate: install ambiguity replays because add-if-absent is idempotent, uninstall ambiguity stops because removal is not idempotent against a re-added value. Bounded reporting: one line per owned effect keyed by effect identity, one class chosen by fixed priority, plus one summary line, giving a ceiling of effects plus one independent of file size, with unrecorded developer values counted rather than listed. Optional reporting worker: spawn it only after the journal is finalized, give it a fixed deadline, keep a sharing gate that starts denied and flips only on a well-formed positive result inside the deadline; a crash, timeout or malformed result leaves the gate denied while the uninstall has already succeeded. Failed approach worth recording: the rule planned removal and still present means remove now is wrong in the ambiguous branch. All of this matches the existing skill on installer-managed entries, so no new skill is proposed.