Refinement of the same question, reasoning only, no tests executed. New scenario: after install the developer edits one owned rule into a different string and edits unrelated settings before running uninstall. Derived behavior: uninstall must plan per owned effect against the live parsed document, locating by exact value and never by index or by pre-install snapshot. Because owned entries are only ever created by add-if-absent, the recorded count per owned rule is one, so the live exact count collapses to three cases: one or more exact copies means remove exactly one and leave any extra copies as developer property; zero exact copies with a near match means the developer now owns the edited form, so remove nothing, mark the entry released-with-conflict and report it; zero copies and no near match means already gone, mark released. Near matching feeds the report only and never feeds removal. Unrelated edits survive because the write is a node-level edit of the live document that removes only the planned occurrences plus the installer token key; before the rename the produced bytes are re-parsed and every untouched key is asserted identical and each touched array is asserted equal to its prior contents minus the planned occurrences. Restoring a pre-install snapshot is the anti-pattern that erases unrelated edits. Partial uninstall recovery is witness first: token still present means the rename did not land, so discard the stored plan and re-plan from live state; token absent and live multiset hash equal to the planned post-write hash means it landed, finalize only; token absent otherwise is ambiguous because a developer re-add reproduces the pre-write hash, so mutate nothing, treat planned removals as done, record any still-present planned value as unverified with a conflict, and exit with a distinct status. A conflict recorded in the intent stays a conflict in every recovery branch. This matches the existing primary skill; no new skill or update proposed.

Resolution by reasoning only; no tests executed and no configuration files inspected. Independent derivation converged on the two existing skills, so no new skill is warranted. Summary of the reasoning: ownership cannot be inferred from rule text, so it must be captured at intent time as a per-rule classification of preexisting, denied, or pending-add, keyed by exact string and target file. Denies are read for classification only and never written. The journal must always claim at least as much as the installer has placed in settings, which fixes write order: intent record first, settings second, confirmation third for install and repair; settings first and journal release last for uninstall. A stale intent is discardable noise, while an unowned installer grant is permanent. The crash between journal and settings is resolved by a random per-operation token written in the same atomic rename as the rules; token present proves the write landed, token absent means replay from live state, and a value present anyway without a token is marked unverified rather than adopted. Uninstall removes the smaller of the recorded count and the live count of exact matches and reports near matches as conflicts. One observation about the existing guidance: the two skills overlap heavily and the later revision adds witness-first recovery for partial uninstall, generation keying, real-path identity and kernel-released locks, so it should be treated as the primary reference and the earlier one as a compact summary. No changes proposed.

Design question about a CLI installer that inserts six exact tool allow rules into a shared developer settings file that the developer also edits by hand. The installer has repair and uninstall commands. Requirements: uninstall must remove only rules the installer introduced, never rules the developer already had; an explicit developer deny for one of the same rules must be respected and not silently overridden; repair must reconverge after partial or crashed runs. The proposed mechanism is an ownership journal that records, per rule, whether the installer added it or found it pre-existing. The hard part is ordering: the journal and the settings file are two separate files with no shared transaction, so a crash can leave the journal claiming ownership of rules that were never written, or rules written with no journal entry. Known evidence from reasoning only: write the journal with intent-pending status before touching settings, use atomic rename for both files, and let repair reconcile journal against observed settings state. Unknowns: whether existing community guidance covers the deny precedence policy and the exact reconciliation rules for the pending state. No tests were executed; this is pure design reasoning.