feat(commands): a write that leaves the repo says so before you approve it (M-BUG-41)

The chain observed configuration across repos but presented every write it then
proposed as though it landed where the session stands. STATE named two arms;
measuring found five, and two of them are worse than the two already known:

- implement — the approval prompt named NO path at all, only a count, so a plan
  editing ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md and one editing ./CLAUDE.md produced byte-identical
  prompts.
- rollback — the file list rendered `.claude/settings.json`, a repo-relative
  FORM, while the restore writes to the absolute original. The other arms were
  silent; this one pointed the wrong way.
- fix — paths were visible but unclassified, and --global mixed machine-wide and
  project rows into one unmarked table.

The gate's strength comes from the target's scope class, never from the command
asking: five command-owned policies would drift apart the way five copies of the
lever table did. SCOPE_CLASSES is one source for class, gate, wording and
predicate; templates render `disclosures[]` from the CLI instead of restating
what a class means.

Two orderings in that table are load-bearing, and both were measured:

- plugin-managed before user-scope. Both ~/.claude/config-audit/ and the legacy
  ~/.config-audit/ are live, and every command writes session state there. The
  other order fires the gate on every write ever made and gets it switched off,
  which is worse than no gate.
- user-scope before cross-repo. ~/.claude/.git EXISTS, so a plain .git-upward
  walk answers "another repo" for ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md and silently downgrades
  the strongest gate on the subtraction axis's primary target to disclosure.

disclose is not require-ok: campaign export is cross-repo by design, so the gate
there says so rather than refusing. Distinct from require-target-dir.mjs, which
asks whether a scan ROOT is readable (exit 3) — a different invariant, left
unmerged along with its four inline copies.

Also structural, both found while building this: the hand-maintained GUARDED
list in the unknown-flag sweep now derives its completeness from the directory
(measured complete at 14 of 14 first, so nothing was hiding — but the 15th CLI
would have been swept by nothing); and prose shape-guards use whitespace-
tolerant patterns, after one went red against a command file that did say the
right thing, line-wrapped.

Gated: implement, fix, rollback, plan, campaign export. Suite 1596 -> 1625/0,
frozen v5.0.0 and default-output baselines 0 changed files. No new GAP dimension,
no lever, no finding code — utilization denominators untouched.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013941cEohSD5Aw56FVAtBgZ

commands/implement.md

@@ -30,17 +30,39 @@ Find the most recent session with a plan (use the **Glob tool** for
 `~/.claude/config-audit/sessions/*/state.yaml`, then Read the newest match — Read
 does not expand `*`). If none: "No action plan found. Run `/config-audit plan` first."
 
-Use the Read tool on the action plan and count actions. Tell the user:
+Use the Read tool on the action plan and count actions.
+
+Now classify where those actions actually write. A plan whose actions target
+`~/.claude/CLAUDE.md` and a plan whose actions target `./CLAUDE.md` are the same
+count of actions — presenting only the count made a machine-wide change look
+identical to a project-local one. Pass one `--target` per distinct file the plan
+touches (absolute paths, as written in the plan):
+
+```bash
+node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scanners/write-scope-cli.mjs --target "<file-1>" --target "<file-2>" --repo "$PWD" --output-file /tmp/config-audit-implement-scope.json 2>/dev/null; echo $?
+```
+
+Exit 0 = classified; 3 = argument error (show the stderr message). Read
+`/tmp/config-audit-implement-scope.json`. Tell the user:
 
 ```
 ## Implementing Action Plan
 
 Found {N} actions to execute across {M} files.
 A backup will be created before any changes are made.
+
+{For each target whose `gate` is not "silent", one line:}
+- `{target}` — {scopeClass}
 ```
 
 ### Step 2: Get user approval
 
+Render each distinct string in `disclosures[]` verbatim before asking — they are
+already plain-language, and the payload carries them so this template never has
+to restate what a scope class means.
+
+When `requiresApproval` is false, ask as before:
+
 ```
 AskUserQuestion:
   question: "Ready to implement {N} actions? Backup created automatically — you can roll back with one command."
@@ -50,6 +72,19 @@ AskUserQuestion:
     - "Cancel"
 ```
 
+When `requiresApproval` is true, the question MUST name the scope, and the
+safe option MUST come first — a plan that edits machine-wide configuration
+affects every project the user opens, so the default must not be "proceed":
+
+```
+AskUserQuestion:
+  question: "This plan changes configuration outside this project ({K} of {M} files). Proceed?"
+  options:
+    - "Review plan first" (then show the plan file path)
+    - "Yes — change files outside this project too"
+    - "Cancel"
+```
+
 ### Step 3: Create backup
 
 Create backup silently, and **print the backup ID** — Step 6 has to tell the user