diff --git a/.squad/agents/_alumni/mcmanus/charter.md b/.squad/agents/_alumni/mcmanus/charter.md
index b6a722845..9caebe9ec 100644
--- a/.squad/agents/_alumni/mcmanus/charter.md
+++ b/.squad/agents/_alumni/mcmanus/charter.md
@@ -16,6 +16,9 @@
 - Demos and examples
 - Tone review and messaging
 - i18n patterns
+- External community responses (draft-only, human review gate)
+- Tone enforcement via humanizer skill
+- Community signal aggregation (unanswered issues → product signals)
 
 ## How I Work
 
@@ -23,11 +26,15 @@
 - Celebration blog structure: wave:null, parallel narrative
 - docs/proposals/ pattern: proposals before execution
 - Every public-facing statement must be substantiated
-- **DOCS-TEST SYNC (hard rule):** When I add new docs pages (blog posts, guide pages, etc.), I MUST update the corresponding test assertions in test/docs-build.test.ts — specifically EXPECTED_GUIDES, EXPECTED_BLOG, and similar arrays. New files that aren't reflected in test assertions break CI for all contributors. Check the test file before committing any new docs page.
+- - **DOCS-TEST SYNC (hard rule):** When I add new docs pages (blog posts, guide pages, etc.), I MUST update the corresponding test assertions in test/docs-build.test.ts — specifically EXPECTED_GUIDES, EXPECTED_BLOG, and similar arrays. New files that aren't reflected in test assertions break CI for all contributors. Check the test file before committing any new docs page.
+- - **EXTERNAL COMMS (hard rule):** NEVER post community responses autonomously. All responses are drafted, presented in a review table with confidence flags, and require explicit human approval before posting.
+- **HUMANIZER (hard rule):** All external-facing content must pass tone validation — warm, helpful, human-sounding. No corporate speak, no marketing hype, no empty acknowledgments.
+- **AUDIT TRAIL (hard rule):** Every draft-review-post action is logged to `.squad/comms/audit/`. The audit log is append-only.
+
 
 ## Boundaries
 
-**I handle:** Documentation, demos, messaging, tone review, developer experience, i18n.
+**I handle:** README, API docs, demos, examples, tone review, community messaging, contributor recognition, external community response drafting (with human review gate).
 
 **I don't handle:** Runtime implementation, architecture decisions, security, distribution mechanics.
 
diff --git a/.squad/agents/eecom/history.md b/.squad/agents/eecom/history.md
index 87425dcc0..b4007c402 100644
--- a/.squad/agents/eecom/history.md
+++ b/.squad/agents/eecom/history.md
@@ -80,6 +80,25 @@ CLI completeness audit (2026-03-08) confirmed: 26 primary commands routed in cli
 
 **PR:** #417 opened targeting dev.
 
+
+### PR #427 Cross-Fork Rebase (2026-03-15T21:00:00Z)
+
+**Context:** PR #427 (PAO external communications Phase 1) conflicted with upstream/dev after team recast (#423 Usual Suspects → Apollo 13) and model updates. Cross-repo PR (diberry/squad → bradygaster/squad). Initial rebase attempts failed due to git worktree confusion — main worktree was checked out to a different branch, causing git checkout commands to silently switch to wrong branches.
+
+**Problem:** Git commands (checkout, rebase) kept switching to unrelated branches (squad/agent-on-disk-concept, squad/320-fix-migration-guide-version-local) mid-rebase. Root cause: main worktree at C:\Users\diberry\repos\project-squad\squad was checked out to squad/agent-on-disk-concept. Git was treating checkout commands as worktree operations and switching the main worktree's HEAD, aborting the rebase.
+
+**Solution:** Created dedicated worktree (.worktrees/pao-rebase) for the rebase operation. This isolated the rebase from main worktree state and prevented branch switching.
+
+**Conflict Resolution (3 files, 7 commits rebased):**
+1. **.squad/agents/_alumni/mcmanus/charter.md** - Merged both rule sets: DOCS-TEST SYNC (from upstream reskill) and EXTERNAL COMMS, HUMANIZER, AUDIT TRAIL (from PR #427). Used PowerShell regex to extract and combine both sides.
+2. **.squad/routing.md** - Accepted Apollo 13 team names (EECOM, PAO, FIDO) from upstream via `git checkout --ours` (in rebase context, "ours" = upstream, "theirs" = our branch). PAO external comms infrastructure is team-agnostic.
+3. **.squad/agents/keaton/history.md** - Accepted deletion via `git rm` (file moved to _alumni in upstream recast).
+
+**Rebase Commits:** 7 commits from squad/426-pao-external-comms rebased onto upstream/dev (f87a7a5), covering #423 team reskill, #424 SDK switch, #425/#428 test parity, #429 model updates.
+
+**Force Push:** `git push origin squad/426-pao-external-comms --force-with-lease` succeeded. PR #427 comment posted via gh CLI.
+
+**Pattern:** When working with git worktrees, always create a dedicated worktree for complex operations (rebase, cherry-pick) to avoid main worktree state interference. Use `git worktree list` to diagnose unexpected branch switching.
 ### Adoption Tracking Tier 1 Implementation (2026-03-10)
 Implemented Flight's privacy-first adoption monitoring strategy on PR #326 branch. Moved `.squad/adoption/` → `.github/adoption/` for better GitHub integration. Stripped tracking.md to aggregate-only metrics (removed all individual repo names/URLs). Updated GitHub Action workflow (adoption-report.yml) and monitoring script (scripts/adoption-monitor.mjs) to write reports to `.github/adoption/reports/`. Removed "Built with Squad" showcase link from README.md (deferred to Tier 2 opt-in feature). This honors the principle: collect aggregate metrics via public APIs, but never publish individual repo lists without explicit consent. Test discipline: verified npm run build passes; docs-build.test.ts passed structure tests (Astro build failure unrelated to changes). Committed with clear message explaining privacy rationale.
 
diff --git a/.squad/comms/.gitignore b/.squad/comms/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..1313383b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/comms/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Runtime state (not committed)
+review-state.db
+review-state.db-journal
+review-state.db-wal
+review-state.db-shm
+audit/
+!audit/.gitkeep
diff --git a/.squad/comms/README.md b/.squad/comms/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8359c476a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/comms/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# PAO External Communications
+
+> Phase 1: Manual-trigger, draft-only mode with human review gate.
+
+## Directory Structure
+
+- `audit/` — Runtime-only audit trail for every draft-review-post action (not committed to git; keep `audit/.gitkeep`)
+- `review-state.db` — SQLite-based single-reviewer lease and draft state (created at runtime)
+- `templates/` — Response templates for common scenarios
+- `tests/` — Comms workflow and review-state coverage
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Human manually triggers PAO to scan issues and discussions for unanswered items
+2. PAO drafts responses using humanizer skill
+3. PAO presents review table with confidence flags
+4. Human reviews, approves/edits/skips each draft
+5. Human posts approved responses
+6. Every action is logged to runtime-only `audit/`
+
+## Safety
+
+- `banana` — freezes all pending drafts (safe word)
+- Phase 1 is manual-trigger only
+- All responses require explicit human approval
+- Audit trail is append-only and runtime-only
+- SQLite lease prevents concurrent review race conditions
diff --git a/.squad/comms/templates/audit-entry.md b/.squad/comms/templates/audit-entry.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2bec18bff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/comms/templates/audit-entry.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+timestamp: "{ISO-8601}"
+action: "scan|draft|approve|edit|skip|post|halt|resume|delete|lint_failure|expire"
+---
+
+> All other fields are conditional on the action type. See **Conditional Fields** table below.
+> Frontmatter includes `timestamp` and `action` universally, plus any action-specific required fields from the table.
+> Include only the body sections relevant to your action type.
+
+## Context (draft, approve, edit, skip, post, delete actions)
+- Thread depth: {comment count}
+- Response type: {welcome|troubleshooting|feature-guidance|redirect|acknowledgment|closing|technical-uncertainty|empathetic-disagreement|information-request}
+- Confidence: {🟢|🟡|🔴}
+- Long thread flag: {true|false}
+
+## Draft Content (draft, edit, post actions)
+{full draft text}
+
+## Reviewer Notes (approve, edit, skip actions)
+{any edits or comments from reviewer, or "—" if none}
+
+## Post Result (post, delete actions)
+{link to posted comment, or original URL if deleted}
+
+## Conditional Fields
+
+Not all fields apply to every action. The `outcome` value is contextual per action:
+
+| Action | Required Fields | Outcome Value | Optional Fields |
+|--------|----------------|---------------|-----------------|
+| scan | timestamp, action | item count found (e.g., "5 candidates") | — |
+| draft | timestamp, action, item_type, item_number, draft_id, confidence, draft_content | — (no outcome for draft) | thread_depth |
+| approve | timestamp, action, draft_id, reviewer | "approved" | reviewer_notes |
+| edit | timestamp, action, draft_id, reviewer, draft_content | "edited" | reviewer_notes |
+| skip | timestamp, action, draft_id, reviewer | "skipped" | reviewer_notes |
+| post | timestamp, action, item_number, draft_id, reviewer | "posted" + post_result link | — |
+| halt | timestamp, action, reviewer (halter) | "halted" | reason |
+| resume | timestamp, action, reviewer (resumer) | "resumed" | — |
+| delete | timestamp, action, item_number | "deleted" + original URL | reason |
+| lint_failure | timestamp, action, draft_id | violation details (free text) | — |
+| expire | timestamp, action, draft_id | "expired" | — |
diff --git a/.squad/comms/templates/review-state-schema.sql b/.squad/comms/templates/review-state-schema.sql
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d49de8d11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/comms/templates/review-state-schema.sql
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+-- Runtime reminder: PRAGMA foreign_keys = ON;
+-- PAO External Communications: Review State Database
+-- Created at runtime in .squad/comms/review-state.db
+-- Zero new dependencies (Copilot CLI already uses SQLite)
+
+-- Single global review lease — only ONE reviewer at a time
+CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS review_lease (
+    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY CHECK (id = 1),
+    status TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT 'available' CHECK (status IN ('available', 'held')),
+    reviewer TEXT,
+    hostname TEXT,
+    pid INTEGER,
+    acquired_at TEXT,
+    expires_at TEXT
+);
+
+-- Initialize the single lease row
+INSERT OR IGNORE INTO review_lease (id, status) VALUES (1, 'available');
+
+-- Acquire: UPDATE review_lease
+--          SET status = 'held', reviewer = ?, hostname = ?, pid = ?, acquired_at = datetime('now'), expires_at = datetime('now', '+1 hour')
+--          WHERE id = 1 AND (status = 'available' OR expires_at < datetime('now'));
+-- Release: UPDATE review_lease
+--          SET status = 'available', reviewer = NULL, hostname = NULL, pid = NULL, acquired_at = NULL, expires_at = NULL
+--          WHERE id = 1;
+-- Check:   SELECT * FROM review_lease WHERE id = 1;
+-- Cleanup expired lease before work: UPDATE review_lease
+--          SET status = 'available', reviewer = NULL, hostname = NULL, pid = NULL, acquired_at = NULL, expires_at = NULL
+--          WHERE id = 1 AND status = 'held' AND expires_at < datetime('now');
+
+-- Draft tracking table
+CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS draft_queue (
+    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
+    reviewer TEXT,
+    item_type TEXT NOT NULL CHECK (item_type IN ('issue', 'discussion')),
+    item_number INTEGER NOT NULL,
+    item_url TEXT,
+    response_type TEXT NOT NULL,
+    confidence TEXT NOT NULL CHECK (confidence IN ('high', 'medium', 'low')),
+    draft_content TEXT NOT NULL,
+    thread_depth INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
+    long_thread_flag INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
+    status TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT 'pending' CHECK (status IN ('pending', 'approved', 'edited', 'skipped', 'posted', 'halted', 'deleted')),
+    reviewed_at TEXT,
+    posted_url TEXT,
+    created_at TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT (datetime('now'))
+);
+
+-- Halt state (safe word "banana" mechanism)
+CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS halt_state (
+    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY CHECK (id = 1),
+    halted INTEGER NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
+    halted_by TEXT,
+    halted_at TEXT,
+    reason TEXT
+);
+
+-- Initialize halt state (not halted by default)
+INSERT OR IGNORE INTO halt_state (id, halted) VALUES (1, 0);
+
+-- Audit log (append-only, mirrors runtime audit files)
+CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS audit_log (
+    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
+    timestamp TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT (datetime('now')),
+    action TEXT NOT NULL,
+    item_type TEXT,
+    item_number INTEGER,
+    draft_id INTEGER,
+    reviewer TEXT,
+    outcome TEXT,
+    details TEXT
+);
diff --git a/.squad/comms/templates/tone-validation.json b/.squad/comms/templates/tone-validation.json
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c66625fc3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/comms/templates/tone-validation.json
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+{
+  "version": 1,
+  "description": "Tone validation patterns for PAO external communications",
+  "reject_patterns": [
+    {
+      "id": "corporate-speak",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Ww]e appreciate your patience|[Pp]lease be advised|[Pp]er our discussion|[Aa]s per|[Kk]indly note|[Pp]lease do not hesitate)",
+      "message": "Corporate speak detected. Use conversational tone instead."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "passive-voice-formal",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Ii]t has been determined|[Ii]t was decided|[Hh]as been escalated|[Ii]s being investigated|[Hh]as been noted)",
+      "message": "Formal passive voice detected. Use active voice: 'We determined...' or 'We're looking into...'"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "marketing-hype",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Bb]est[- ]in[- ]class|[Cc]utting[- ]edge|[Rr]evolutionary|[Gg]ame[- ]changing|[Ii]ndustry[- ]leading|[Nn]ext[- ]generation|[Aa]mazing feature)",
+      "message": "Marketing hype detected. Be specific about what the feature does, not how great it is."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "empty-acknowledgment",
+      "pattern": "^\\s*(?:[Tt]hanks for your feedback\\.?|[Tt]hank you for reaching out\\.?)\\s*$",
+      "message": "Empty acknowledgment without substance. Add specific context or next steps."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "robot-signature",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Bb]est regards|[Ss]incerely|[Kk]ind regards|[Rr]espectfully|[Ww]arm regards)\\s*[,.]?\\s*(?:[Pp][Aa][Oo]|[Tt]he [Ss]quad [Tt]eam|[Ss]quad [Bb]ot)",
+      "message": "Robot signature detected. Responses should end naturally, not with formal sign-offs."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "over-promising",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Ww]e will ship|[Ww]e'll release|[Cc]oming soon|[Ii]n the next release|[Dd]efinitely fix|[Gg]uaranteed)",
+      "message": "Over-promising detected. Only commit to what the team has explicitly agreed to."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dismissive",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Ww]orks as designed|[Nn]ot a bug|[Ww]on't fix|[Tt]hat's expected|[Uu]ser error)",
+      "message": "Dismissive language detected. Acknowledge the experience before explaining the design."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "profanity",
+      "pattern": "\\b(?:[Dd]amn|[Hh]ell|[Cc]rap|[Ss]hit|[Ff]uck|[Aa]ss|[Bb]astard|[Bb]itch)\\b",
+      "message": "Profanity detected. Never include profanity, even when quoting."
+    }
+  ],
+  "require_patterns": [
+    {
+      "id": "acknowledgment",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Tt]hanks|[Tt]hank you|[Gg]ood catch|[Gg]reat question|[Ii]nteresting|[Aa]ppreciate|[Ww]elcome)",
+      "message": "Response should include acknowledgment of the author's contribution.",
+      "applies_to": ["welcome", "troubleshooting", "acknowledgment"]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "action-oriented",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Ll]et us know|[Ff]eel free|[Hh]appy to help|[Ww]e'll update|[Rr]each out|[Ww]e'll dig|[Kk]eep us posted)",
+      "message": "Response should end with an action-oriented close.",
+      "applies_to": ["troubleshooting", "feature-guidance", "technical-uncertainty"]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "context-provided",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Cc]urrently|[Rr]ight now|[Aa]t the moment|[Aa]s of|[Tt]he way it works)",
+      "message": "Feature guidance should provide context on current state.",
+      "applies_to": ["feature-guidance"]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "uncertainty-honest",
+      "pattern": "(?:[Nn]ot sure|[Nn]ot 100%|[Dd]on't know yet|[Ss]till investigating|[Uu]nclear|[Hh]aven't determined)",
+      "message": "Technical uncertainty should be honest about unknowns.",
+      "applies_to": ["technical-uncertainty"]
+    }
+  ],
+  "confidence_thresholds": {
+    "high": {
+      "description": "Answered before, clear docs, community consensus",
+      "min_similarity": 0.8,
+      "baseline_blocking": true
+    },
+    "medium": {
+      "description": "Technically sound but minor uncertainty or tone-dependent",
+      "min_similarity": 0.6
+    },
+    "low": {
+      "description": "Technical uncertainty, policy decision, reputational risk",
+      "min_similarity": 0.0,
+      "requires_review": true
+    }
+  }
+}
diff --git a/.squad/comms/tests/ci-gate.md b/.squad/comms/tests/ci-gate.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ba9f658e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/comms/tests/ci-gate.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# CI Tone Lint Gate
+
+> Automated quality checks for PAO community response drafts.
+
+## When This Runs
+
+- Before any draft enters the review table
+- As part of PR review when modifying humanizer or external-comms skills
+- Weekly tone analytics (manual trigger via `pao analytics`)
+
+## Checks
+
+### Mandatory (blocks draft)
+
+1. **Anti-pattern scan** — Run all `reject_patterns` from `tone-validation.json` against draft
+2. **Profanity filter** — Zero tolerance, even in quotes
+3. **Minimum substance** — Draft must be >50 characters (no empty acknowledgments)
+4. **Thread read verification** — Confirm all comments in thread were read before drafting
+
+### Mandatory for High-Confidence Drafts (🟢 only)
+
+5. **Baseline similarity** — Block if tone similarity to gold standard <80% for high-confidence (🟢) drafts. Aligns with `baseline_blocking: true` in `tone-validation.json`.
+
+### Warning (flags but doesn't block)
+
+1. **Positive pattern check** — Warn if response type should contain patterns from `require_patterns`
+2. **Length check** — Warn if draft >500 words (may be too verbose for a GitHub comment)
+3. **Emoji count** — Warn if >2 emoji in draft
+4. **Similarity check** — Warn if tone similarity to gold standard <80% for medium/low-confidence drafts
+
+### Informational
+
+1. **Response type classification** — Log which template was used
+2. **Confidence level** — Log confidence flag and rationale
+3. **Thread depth** — Log comment count for analytics
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+✅ PASS: Anti-pattern scan (0 violations)
+✅ PASS: Profanity filter (clean)
+✅ PASS: Minimum substance (127 chars)
+⚠️ WARN: Positive pattern — missing action-oriented close
+⚠️ WARN: Similarity to GS-2: 72% (threshold: 80%)
+ℹ️ INFO: Response type: troubleshooting | Confidence: 🟡 | Thread: 4 comments
+```
+
+## Failure Mode
+
+If ANY mandatory check fails:
+1. Draft is NOT added to review table
+2. Error message shown to PAO with specific violation
+3. PAO must redraft before presenting to reviewer
+4. Failure logged to audit trail (action: "lint_failure")
diff --git a/.squad/comms/tests/tone-validation-spec.md b/.squad/comms/tests/tone-validation-spec.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4e8edd5d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/comms/tests/tone-validation-spec.md
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+# Tone Validation Test Specification
+
+> Quality gates for PAO's external communications. All tests must pass before a draft enters the review table.
+
+## Test Categories
+
+### T1: Reject Anti-Patterns
+
+Drafts containing these patterns MUST be rejected:
+
+| Test ID | Pattern | Example (should FAIL) |
+|---------|---------|----------------------|
+| T1.1 | Corporate speak | "We appreciate your patience as we investigate this matter" |
+| T1.2 | Formal passive voice | "It has been determined that this is a known issue" |
+| T1.3 | Marketing hype | "Squad is the best-in-class solution for this" |
+| T1.4 | Empty acknowledgment | "Thanks for your feedback." (with nothing else) |
+| T1.5 | Robot signature | "Best regards, PAO" |
+| T1.6 | Over-promising | "We'll definitely ship this in the next release" |
+| T1.7 | Dismissive language | "Works as designed" (without empathy) |
+| T1.8 | Profanity | Any profanity, even quoted from the original issue |
+
+### T2: Require Positive Patterns
+
+Drafts of specific types MUST contain these patterns:
+
+| Test ID | Response Type | Required Pattern | Example (should PASS) |
+|---------|---------------|-----------------|----------------------|
+| T2.1 | Welcome | Author acknowledgment | "Hey @user! Welcome to Squad 👋" |
+| T2.2 | Troubleshooting | Action-oriented close | "Let us know if that helps!" |
+| T2.3 | Feature guidance | Context on current state | "Currently, Squad handles this by..." |
+| T2.4 | Technical uncertainty | Honesty about unknowns | "We're not 100% sure yet..." |
+
+### T3: Confidence Flag Accuracy
+
+| Test ID | Scenario | Expected Confidence |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|
+| T3.1 | Issue matches existing FAQ | 🟢 High |
+| T3.2 | Technical question with partial docs | 🟡 Medium |
+| T3.3 | Architecture question requiring Flight | 🔴 Needs review |
+| T3.4 | Question about unreleased feature | 🔴 Needs review |
+| T3.5 | Simple "how to install" question | 🟢 High |
+
+### T4: Thread Safety
+
+| Test ID | Scenario | Expected Behavior |
+|---------|----------|------------------|
+| T4.1 | Thread with >10 comments | ⚠️ Long thread flag set |
+| T4.2 | Thread with deleted comments | Validation warning |
+| T4.3 | Thread where squad member already responded | Skip (no draft) |
+| T4.4 | Thread in different language | Flag for review |
+
+### T5: Review Gate Enforcement
+
+| Test ID | Scenario | Expected Behavior |
+|---------|----------|------------------|
+| T5.1 | Draft without human review | BLOCKED — cannot post |
+| T5.2 | `pao approve` command without draft ID | Error message |
+| T5.3 | Concurrent review sessions | SQLite lock prevents race |
+| T5.4 | Stale lock (>1 hour) | Auto-cleanup, new session allowed |
+| T5.5 | `banana` issued (safe word) | All pending drafts frozen |
+| T5.6 | `pao resume` after banana | Drafts unfrozen |
+
+### T6: Audit Trail Completeness
+
+| Test ID | Action | Expected Audit Entry |
+|---------|--------|---------------------|
+| T6.1 | Scan completed | scan action with item count |
+| T6.2 | Draft created | draft action with content |
+| T6.3 | Draft approved | approve action with reviewer |
+| T6.4 | Draft skipped | skip action with reviewer |
+| T6.5 | Response posted | post action with URL |
+| T6.6 | `banana` issued (safe word) | halt action with issuer |
+| T6.7 | Draft deleted (rollback) | delete action with reason |
+
+### T7: Baseline Comparison (Weekly)
+
+| Test ID | Metric | Threshold | Frequency |
+|---------|--------|-----------|-----------|
+| T7.1 | Tone similarity to gold standard | >80% | Per draft |
+| T7.2 | Response type distribution | No single type >60% | Weekly |
+| T7.3 | Confidence flag distribution | 🔴 items <20% | Weekly |
+| T7.4 | Average thread read depth | >95% of comments read | Per draft |
+
+## Gold Standard Responses
+
+The following 7 gold standard responses serve as the tone baseline. New drafts should align with this tone:
+
+### GS-1: Welcome (High confidence)
+> Hey @newuser! Welcome to Squad 👋 Thanks for opening this — great first issue!
+>
+> To answer your question: Squad uses `.squad/team.md` to define your team roster. You can add members by editing that file directly or running `squad init`.
+>
+> Let us know if you hit any snags — happy to help!
+
+### GS-2: Troubleshooting (High confidence)
+> Thanks for the detailed report, @reporter!
+>
+> This looks like it might be related to the casting registry not finding the universe file. Here's what we'd suggest:
+> 1. Check that `.squad/casting/registry.json` exists and is valid JSON
+> 2. Run `squad build` to regenerate from source
+> 3. If that doesn't work, try deleting `.squad/casting/` and re-running `squad init`
+>
+> Let us know if that helps, or if you're seeing something different.
+
+### GS-3: Feature Guidance (Medium confidence)
+> Great question! Right now, Squad handles cross-repo orchestration through the hub-and-spoke model — you'd have a central `.squad/` in one repo and reference it from others.
+>
+> We know this isn't ideal for every setup. There's been some discussion about making this more seamless (see #316 for the RFC).
+>
+> For now, the workaround is to use `squad export` to share config across repos. Hope that helps!
+
+### GS-4: Acknowledgment (High confidence)
+> Good catch, @finder. We've confirmed this is a real issue with the session pool cleanup.
+>
+> It looks like sessions aren't being released when the adapter disconnects unexpectedly. We're tracking it and will update this thread when we have a fix.
+>
+> Thanks for flagging it — this one would have been hard to find without your repro steps!
+
+### GS-5: Technical Uncertainty (Low confidence)
+> Interesting find, @explorer. We're not 100% sure what's causing this yet.
+>
+> Here's what we've ruled out:
+> - It's not a casting issue (registry looks fine)
+> - It's not a config issue (your squad.config.ts parses correctly)
+>
+> Could you share the output of `squad build --verbose`? That would help us narrow it down. We'll dig deeper and update this thread.
+
+### GS-6: Redirect (High confidence)
+> Thanks for reaching out, @asker! This one is actually better suited for the Squad-IRL repo, which covers deployment patterns and infrastructure around Squad.
+>
+> You can open it here: https://github.com/bradygaster/Squad-IRL — they'll be able to help with the Terraform setup specifically.
+>
+> Feel free to link back to this thread for context!
+
+### GS-7: Closing (High confidence)
+> This should be resolved in v0.8.22! 🎉
+>
+> The fix was in PR #389 — the casting registry now handles universe overflow correctly when you have more than 15 agents.
+>
+> Thanks for reporting this, @reporter — your repro steps made this one easy to track down. Closing this out!
+
+## Phase 1 Readiness Criteria
+
+Before launch, ALL of the following must be true:
+- [ ] All T1 tests have corresponding patterns in `tone-validation.json`
+- [ ] All T2 tests verified against humanizer skill templates
+- [ ] All 7 gold standard responses reviewed and approved by Brady or Dina
+- [ ] All 9 response types have corresponding templates (7 original + empathetic disagreement + information request)
+- [ ] Thread-read verification tested with threads of 1, 5, 10, and 20+ comments
+- [ ] Rollback workflow (delete-and-repost) tested end-to-end
+- [ ] Review gate SQLite schema tested with concurrent access
+- [ ] Audit trail format validated against template
+- [ ] `banana` / `pao resume` flow tested end-to-end
+- [ ] At least one full scan→draft→review→post cycle completed successfully
diff --git a/.squad/skills/external-comms/SKILL.md b/.squad/skills/external-comms/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9ac372dca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/skills/external-comms/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,329 @@
+---
+name: "external-comms"
+description: "PAO workflow for scanning, drafting, and presenting community responses with human review gate"
+domain: "community, communication, workflow"
+confidence: "low"
+source: "manual (RFC #426 — PAO External Communications)"
+tools:
+  - name: "github-mcp-server-list_issues"
+    description: "List open issues for scan candidates and lightweight triage"
+    when: "Use for recent open issue scans before thread-level review"
+  - name: "github-mcp-server-issue_read"
+    description: "Read the full issue, comments, and labels before drafting"
+    when: "Use after selecting a candidate so PAO has complete thread context"
+  - name: "github-mcp-server-search_issues"
+    description: "Search for candidate issues or prior squad responses"
+    when: "Use when filtering by keywords, labels, or duplicate response checks"
+  - name: "gh CLI"
+    description: "Fallback for GitHub issue comments and discussions workflows"
+    when: "Use gh issue list/comment and gh api or gh api graphql when MCP coverage is incomplete"
+---
+
+## Context
+
+Phase 1 is **draft-only mode**.
+
+- PAO scans issues and discussions, drafts responses with the humanizer skill, and presents a review table for human approval.
+- **Human review gate is mandatory** — PAO never posts autonomously.
+- Every action is logged to `.squad/comms/audit/`.
+- This workflow is triggered manually only ("PAO, check community") — no automated or Ralph-triggered activation in Phase 1.
+
+## Patterns
+
+### 1. Scan
+
+Find unanswered community items with GitHub MCP tools first, or `gh issue list` / `gh api` as fallback for issues and discussions.
+
+- Include **open** issues and discussions only.
+- Filter for items with **no squad team response**.
+- Limit to items created in the last 7 days.
+- Exclude items labeled `squad:internal` or `wontfix`.
+- Include discussions **and** issues in the same sweep.
+- Phase 1 scope is **issues and discussions only** — do not draft PR replies.
+
+### Discussion Handling (Phase 1)
+
+Discussions use the GitHub Discussions API, which differs from issues:
+
+- **Scan:** `gh api /repos/{owner}/{repo}/discussions --jq '.[] | select(.answer_chosen_at == null)'` to find unanswered discussions
+- **Categories:** Filter by Q&A and General categories only (skip Announcements, Show and Tell)
+- **Answers vs comments:** In Q&A discussions, PAO drafts an "answer" (not a comment). The human marks it as accepted answer after posting.
+- **Phase 1 scope:** Issues and Discussions ONLY. No PR comments.
+
+### 2. Classify
+
+Determine the response type before drafting.
+
+- Welcome (new contributor)
+- Troubleshooting (bug/help)
+- Feature guidance (feature request/how-to)
+- Redirect (wrong repo/scope)
+- Acknowledgment (confirmed, no fix)
+- Closing (resolved)
+- Technical uncertainty (unknown cause)
+- Empathetic disagreement (pushback on a decision or design)
+- Information request (need more reproduction details or context)
+
+### Template Selection Guide
+
+| Signal in Issue/Discussion | → Response Type | Template |
+|---------------------------|-----------------|----------|
+| New contributor (0 prior issues) | Welcome | T1 |
+| Error message, stack trace, "doesn't work" | Troubleshooting | T2 |
+| "How do I...?", "Can Squad...?", "Is there a way to...?" | Feature Guidance | T3 |
+| Wrong repo, out of scope for Squad | Redirect | T4 |
+| Confirmed bug, no fix available yet | Acknowledgment | T5 |
+| Fix shipped, PR merged that resolves issue | Closing | T6 |
+| Unclear cause, needs investigation | Technical Uncertainty | T7 |
+| Author disagrees with a decision or design | Empathetic Disagreement | T8 |
+| Need more reproduction info or context | Information Request | T9 |
+
+Use exactly one template as the base draft. Replace placeholders with issue-specific details, then apply the humanizer patterns. If the thread spans multiple signals, choose the highest-risk template and capture the nuance in the thread summary.
+
+### Confidence Classification
+
+| Confidence | Criteria | Example |
+|-----------|----------|---------|
+| 🟢 High | Answer exists in Squad docs or FAQ, similar question answered before, no technical ambiguity | "How do I install Squad?" |
+| 🟡 Medium | Technical answer is sound but involves judgment calls, OR docs exist but don't perfectly match the question, OR tone is tricky | "Can Squad work with Azure DevOps?" (yes, but setup is nuanced) |
+| 🔴 Needs Review | Technical uncertainty, policy/roadmap question, potential reputational risk, author is frustrated/angry, question about unreleased features | "When will Squad support Claude?" |
+
+**Auto-escalation rules:**
+- Any mention of competitors → 🔴
+- Any mention of pricing/licensing → 🔴
+- Author has >3 follow-up comments without resolution → 🔴
+- Question references a closed-wontfix issue → 🔴
+
+### 3. Draft
+
+Use the humanizer skill for every draft.
+
+- Complete **Thread-Read Verification** before writing.
+- Read the **full thread**, including all comments, before writing.
+- Select the matching template from the **Template Selection Guide** and record the template ID in the review notes.
+- Treat templates as reusable drafting assets: keep the structure, replace placeholders, and only improvise when the thread truly requires it.
+- Validate the draft against the humanizer anti-patterns.
+- Flag long threads (`>10` comments) with `⚠️`.
+
+### Thread-Read Verification
+
+Before drafting, PAO MUST verify complete thread coverage:
+
+1. **Count verification:** Compare API comment count with actually-read comments. If mismatch, abort draft.
+2. **Deleted comment check:** Use `gh api` timeline to detect deleted comments. If found, flag as ⚠️ in review table.
+3. **Thread summary:** Include in every draft: "Thread: {N} comments, last activity {date}, {summary of key points}"
+4. **Long thread flag:** If >10 comments, add ⚠️ to review table and include condensed thread summary
+5. **Evidence line in review table:** Each draft row includes "Read: {N}/{total} comments" column
+
+### 4. Present
+
+Show drafts for review in this exact format:
+
+```text
+📝 PAO — Community Response Drafts
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+| # | Item | Author | Type | Confidence | Read | Preview |
+|---|------|--------|------|------------|------|---------|
+| 1 | Issue #N | @user | Type | 🟢/🟡/🔴 | N/N | "First words..." |
+
+Confidence: 🟢 High | 🟡 Medium | 🔴 Needs review
+
+Full drafts below ▼
+```
+
+Each full draft must begin with the thread summary line:
+`Thread: {N} comments, last activity {date}, {summary of key points}`
+
+### 5. Human Action
+
+Wait for explicit human direction before anything is posted.
+
+- `pao approve 1 3` — approve drafts 1 and 3
+- `pao edit 2` — edit draft 2
+- `pao skip` — skip all
+- `banana` — freeze all pending (safe word)
+
+### Rollback — Bad Post Recovery
+
+If a posted response turns out to be wrong, inappropriate, or needs correction:
+
+1. **Delete the comment:**
+   - Issues: `gh api -X DELETE /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/{comment_id}`
+   - Discussions: `gh api graphql -f query='mutation { deleteDiscussionComment(input: {id: "{node_id}"}) { comment { id } } }'`
+2. **Log the deletion:** Write audit entry with action `delete`, include reason and original content
+3. **Draft replacement** (if needed): PAO drafts a corrected response, goes through normal review cycle
+4. **Postmortem:** If the error reveals a pattern gap, update humanizer anti-patterns or add a new test case
+
+**Safe word — `banana`:**
+- Immediately freezes all pending drafts in the review queue
+- No new scans or drafts until `pao resume` is issued
+- Audit entry logged with halter identity and reason
+
+### 6. Post
+
+After approval:
+
+- Human posts via `gh issue comment` for issues or `gh api` for discussion answers/comments.
+- PAO helps by preparing the CLI command.
+- Write the audit entry after the posting action.
+
+### 7. Audit
+
+Log every action.
+
+- Location: `.squad/comms/audit/{timestamp}.md`
+- Required fields vary by action — see `.squad/comms/templates/audit-entry.md` Conditional Fields table
+- Universal required fields: `timestamp`, `action`
+- All other fields are conditional on the action type
+
+## Examples
+
+These are reusable templates. Keep the structure, replace placeholders, and adjust only where the thread requires it.
+
+### Example scan command
+
+```bash
+gh issue list --state open --json number,title,author,labels,comments --limit 20
+```
+
+### Example review table
+
+```text
+📝 PAO — Community Response Drafts
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+| # | Item | Author | Type | Confidence | Read | Preview |
+|---|------|--------|------|------------|------|---------|
+| 1 | Issue #426 | @newdev | Welcome | 🟢 | 1/1 | "Hey @newdev! Welcome to Squad..." |
+| 2 | Discussion #18 | @builder | Feature guidance | 🟡 | 4/4 | "Great question! Today the CLI..." |
+| 3 | Issue #431 ⚠️ | @debugger | Technical uncertainty | 🔴 | 12/12 | "Interesting find, @debugger..." |
+
+Confidence: 🟢 High | 🟡 Medium | 🔴 Needs review
+
+Full drafts below ▼
+```
+
+### Example audit entry (post action)
+
+```markdown
+---
+timestamp: "2026-03-16T21:30:00Z"
+action: "post"
+item_number: 426
+draft_id: 1
+reviewer: "@bradygaster"
+---
+
+## Context (draft, approve, edit, skip, post, delete actions)
+- Thread depth: 3
+- Response type: welcome
+- Confidence: 🟢
+- Long thread flag: false
+
+## Draft Content (draft, edit, post actions)
+Thread: 3 comments, last activity 2026-03-16, reporter hit a preview-build regression after install.
+
+Hey @newdev! Welcome to Squad 👋 Thanks for opening this.
+We reproduced the issue in preview builds and we're checking the regression point now.
+Let us know if you can share the command you ran right before the failure.
+
+## Post Result (post, delete actions)
+https://github.com/bradygaster/squad/issues/426#issuecomment-123456
+```
+
+### T1 — Welcome
+
+```text
+Hey {author}! Welcome to Squad 👋 Thanks for opening this.
+{specific acknowledgment or first answer}
+Let us know if you have questions — happy to help!
+```
+
+### T2 — Troubleshooting
+
+```text
+Thanks for the detailed report, {author}!
+Here's what we think is happening: {explanation}
+{steps or workaround}
+Let us know if that helps, or if you're seeing something different.
+```
+
+### T3 — Feature Guidance
+
+```text
+Great question! {context on current state}
+{guidance or workaround}
+We've noted this as a potential improvement — {tracking info if applicable}.
+```
+
+### T4 — Redirect
+
+```text
+Thanks for reaching out! This one is actually better suited for {correct location}.
+{brief explanation of why}
+Feel free to open it there — they'll be able to help!
+```
+
+### T5 — Acknowledgment
+
+```text
+Good catch, {author}. We've confirmed this is a real issue.
+{what we know so far}
+We'll update this thread when we have a fix. Thanks for flagging it!
+```
+
+### T6 — Closing
+
+```text
+This should be resolved in {version/PR}! 🎉
+{brief summary of what changed}
+Thanks for reporting this, {author} — it made Squad better.
+```
+
+### T7 — Technical Uncertainty
+
+```text
+Interesting find, {author}. We're not 100% sure what's causing this yet.
+Here's what we've ruled out: {list}
+We'd love more context if you have it — {specific ask}.
+We'll dig deeper and update this thread.
+```
+
+### T8 — Empathetic Disagreement
+
+```text
+We hear you, {author}. That's a fair concern.
+
+The current design choice was driven by {reason}. We know it's not ideal for every use case.
+
+{what alternatives exist or what trade-off was made}
+
+If you have ideas for how to make this work better for your scenario, we'd love to hear them — open a discussion or drop your thoughts here!
+```
+
+### T9 — Information Request
+
+```text
+Thanks for reporting this, {author}!
+
+To help us dig into this, could you share:
+- {specific ask 1}
+- {specific ask 2}
+- {specific ask 3, if applicable}
+
+That context will help us narrow down what's happening. Appreciate it!
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- ❌ Posting without human review (NEVER — this is the cardinal rule)
+- ❌ Drafting without reading full thread (context is everything)
+- ❌ Ignoring confidence flags (🔴 items need Flight/human review)
+- ❌ Scanning closed issues (only open items)
+- ❌ Responding to issues labeled `squad:internal` or `wontfix`
+- ❌ Skipping audit logging (every action must be recorded)
+- ❌ Drafting for issues where a squad member already responded (avoid duplicates)
+- ❌ Drafting pull request responses in Phase 1 (issues/discussions only)
+- ❌ Treating templates like loose examples instead of reusable drafting assets
+- ❌ Asking for more info without specific requests
diff --git a/.squad/skills/humanizer/SKILL.md b/.squad/skills/humanizer/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4dbb854df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.squad/skills/humanizer/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: "humanizer"
+description: "Tone enforcement patterns for external-facing community responses"
+domain: "communication, tone, community"
+confidence: "low"
+source: "manual (RFC #426 — PAO External Communications)"
+---
+
+## Context
+
+Use this skill whenever PAO drafts external-facing responses for issues or discussions.
+
+- Tone must be warm, helpful, and human-sounding — never robotic or corporate.
+- Brady's constraint applies everywhere: **Humanized tone is mandatory**.
+- This applies to **all external-facing content** drafted by PAO in Phase 1 issues/discussions workflows.
+
+## Patterns
+
+1. **Warm opening** — Start with acknowledgment ("Thanks for reporting this", "Great question!")
+2. **Active voice** — "We're looking into this" not "This is being investigated"
+3. **Second person** — Address the person directly ("you" not "the user")
+4. **Conversational connectors** — "That said...", "Here's what we found...", "Quick note:"
+5. **Specific, not vague** — "This affects the casting module in v0.8.x" not "We are aware of issues"
+6. **Empathy markers** — "I can see how that would be frustrating", "Good catch!"
+7. **Action-oriented closes** — "Let us know if that helps!" not "Please advise if further assistance is required"
+8. **Uncertainty is OK** — "We're not 100% sure yet, but here's what we think is happening..." is better than false confidence
+9. **Profanity filter** — Never include profanity, slurs, or aggressive language, even when quoting
+10. **Baseline comparison** — Responses should align with tone of 5-10 "gold standard" responses (>80% similarity threshold)
+11. **Empathetic disagreement** — "We hear you. That's a fair concern." before explaining the reasoning
+12. **Information request** — Ask for specific details, not open-ended "can you provide more info?"
+13. **No link-dumping** — Don't just paste URLs. Provide context: "Check out the [getting started guide](url) — specifically the section on routing" not just a bare link
+
+## Examples
+
+### 1. Welcome
+
+```text
+Hey {author}! Welcome to Squad 👋 Thanks for opening this.
+{substantive response}
+Let us know if you have questions — happy to help!
+```
+
+### 2. Troubleshooting
+
+```text
+Thanks for the detailed report, {author}!
+Here's what we think is happening: {explanation}
+{steps or workaround}
+Let us know if that helps, or if you're seeing something different.
+```
+
+### 3. Feature guidance
+
+```text
+Great question! {context on current state}
+{guidance or workaround}
+We've noted this as a potential improvement — {tracking info if applicable}.
+```
+
+### 4. Redirect
+
+```text
+Thanks for reaching out! This one is actually better suited for {correct location}.
+{brief explanation of why}
+Feel free to open it there — they'll be able to help!
+```
+
+### 5. Acknowledgment
+
+```text
+Good catch, {author}. We've confirmed this is a real issue.
+{what we know so far}
+We'll update this thread when we have a fix. Thanks for flagging it!
+```
+
+### 6. Closing
+
+```text
+This should be resolved in {version/PR}! 🎉
+{brief summary of what changed}
+Thanks for reporting this, {author} — it made Squad better.
+```
+
+### 7. Technical uncertainty
+
+```text
+Interesting find, {author}. We're not 100% sure what's causing this yet.
+Here's what we've ruled out: {list}
+We'd love more context if you have it — {specific ask}.
+We'll dig deeper and update this thread.
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- ❌ Corporate speak: "We appreciate your patience as we investigate this matter"
+- ❌ Marketing hype: "Squad is the BEST way to..." or "This amazing feature..."
+- ❌ Passive voice: "It has been determined that..." or "The issue is being tracked"
+- ❌ Dismissive: "This works as designed" without empathy
+- ❌ Over-promising: "We'll ship this next week" without commitment from the team
+- ❌ Empty acknowledgment: "Thanks for your feedback" with no substance
+- ❌ Robot signatures: "Best regards, PAO" or "Sincerely, The Squad Team"
+- ❌ Excessive emoji: More than 1-2 emoji per response
+- ❌ Quoting profanity: Even when the original issue contains it, paraphrase instead
+- ❌ Link-dumping: Pasting URLs without context ("See: https://...")
+- ❌ Open-ended info requests: "Can you provide more information?" without specifying what information