* fix(squads): align parent issue status ownership with agent-managed model
Squad leaders now open assigned parents to in_progress on first dispatch, keep them there while members work, and only move to in_review when overall completion is confirmed—matching ordinary agent status semantics without server auto-flips.
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
* fix(squads): scope leader parent-status ownership to squad-assigned issues
Review follow-up on the parent-status alignment change. Two boundaries were
left ambiguous, both of which the change's own premise ("don't make the model
resolve a contradiction in the prompt") argues should be closed in-place.
1. Status ownership was granted too widely. The leader briefing is injected on
every leader path, keyed off is_leader_task — including the MUL-3724 case
where an issue is assigned to a plain agent and a squad was merely
@mentioned for help. The unqualified "Own the parent issue status"
responsibility therefore also reached guest leaders, who could push another
assignee's in-flight issue to in_review.
buildSquadLeaderBriefing now takes ownsIssueStatus and selects between two
variants of responsibility 6: the grant only when the issue's assignee is
this squad, otherwise an explicit "do NOT change this issue's status".
Quick-create passes false — no issue exists on that turn. Everything else in
the protocol (roster, delegation, evaluation) is unchanged for both.
2. The comment-triggered path still contradicted itself. The runtime brief says
"do not change status unless the comment explicitly asks", and a member's
delivery comment never asks. Squads that dispatch by @mention create no
child issues, so no child-done system comment exists to carry the explicit
ask either — that parent would sit in in_progress indefinitely.
writeWorkflowComment now names the protocol responsibility as the one
exception for squad leaders. It is safe to state unconditionally because the
grant is only present in the instructions when the server decided this squad
owns the issue; for a guest leader the sentence has nothing to activate.
Tests: two composition tests assemble both halves (server-side briefing +
daemon-side CLAUDE.md) for one real scenario each, since asserting each half
alone is how the original contradiction shipped. Plus execenv coverage that the
carve-out appears only for leaders and the ordinary-agent rule stays absolute.
Docs and the multica-squads skill / source map record the narrower contract.
Co-authored-by: multica-agent <github@multica.ai>
---------
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Co-authored-by: J <j@multica.ai>
Co-authored-by: multica-agent <github@multica.ai>
