feat(auto-dev): needs-info questions are decisions, not essays

plugins/auto-dev/skills/auto-dev/SKILL.md

@@ -260,6 +260,10 @@ The plan, question, and park-proposal templates the triage pass posts live in
 format lives in [`references/fallback-review.md`](references/fallback-review.md). Read the relevant
 file before posting. Every comment's first line is `config.autoDev.marker`.
 
+Questions are written to be answered in one read: each names the area, the user-facing impact, the
+problem, the options, and a recommendation — and each stays under 300 words. Long context-dumps
+stall the queue; a maintainer who can answer from their phone doesn't.
+
 ## Exit report
 
 Every tick ends by printing a structured report — the scheduled task surfaces it, an interactive

plugins/auto-dev/skills/auto-dev/references/comment-formats.md

@@ -35,19 +35,52 @@ propose the first slice only.
 
 ## Question comment
 
+Each question is a **decision the maintainer makes in one read** — not a request for an essay in
+reply. Keep every question under **300 words** including its options, and give it exactly these five
+parts:
+
+- **Area** — where the problem shows up (file, command, skill, subsystem).
+- **Impact** — what a user experiences because of it; skip if genuinely user-invisible and say so.
+- **Problem** — the ambiguity itself, 1–2 sentences.
+- **Options** — the real choices, one line each with its tradeoff. Two or three; if there is only
+  one real option this isn't a question, it's a plan.
+- **Recommendation** — which one you'd take and why, one sentence.
+
 ```markdown
 <!-- auto-dev -->
 
-Before this can be planned for implementation, a few things need clarification:
+Before this can be planned for implementation, a few decisions need your call:
+
+### 1. <short title of the decision>
+
+**Area:** <file / command / subsystem>
+**Impact:** <what a user sees or loses>
+**Problem:** <the ambiguity, 1–2 sentences>
+**Options:**
+
+- **A** — <option> (<tradeoff>)
+- **B** — <option> (<tradeoff>)
 
-1. <specific question>
-2. <specific question>
+**Recommendation:** A — <one sentence why>
+
+### 2. <short title of the decision>
+
+<same five parts>
 
 ---
 
 Reply here and the next automation pass will pick it up, or add the Skip label to opt this issue out of automation.
 ```
 
+Cut anything that isn't one of the five parts: no restating the issue back to the maintainer, no
+background they already have, no code excerpts, no "as discussed above". Three questions is the
+practical ceiling for one comment — if there are more, ask the ones that block planning and leave
+the rest.
+
+A question with no genuine options is still a question — a pure missing-fact ("which account does
+this run as?") keeps Area / Impact / Problem and replaces Options / Recommendation with the specific
+fact needed. The word cap applies the same way.
+
 ## Park proposal comment
 
 Use this when an issue can't move forward because it needs a maintainer decision the skill can't

plugins/auto-dev/skills/auto-dev/references/triage.md

@@ -12,9 +12,11 @@ Assess whether the issue contains enough to plan from (clear problem, scoped out
 design fork):
 
 - _Plannable_ → draft an implementation plan, post it as a comment, add the Planned label.
-- _Not plannable, and the gap is missing facts the maintainer can supply_ → post one comment asking
-  the specific missing questions (numbered, concrete — not "please clarify"), add the Needs-info
-  label.
+- _Not plannable, and the gap is missing facts or a call the maintainer can supply_ → post one
+  comment asking the specific missing questions (numbered, concrete — not "please clarify"), add the
+  Needs-info label. Frame each one as a decision the maintainer can make in a single read — area,
+  user impact, problem, options, recommendation — and keep it under 300 words; see the Question
+  comment template in `comment-formats.md`.
 - _Not plannable because it needs a maintainer decision the skill can't make_ — a design fork that's
   theirs to resolve, a dependency on still-open work, or the issue body itself signals deferral
   ("not actionable yet", "revisit once X lands") → post a **park proposal**: name the blocker, offer
@@ -30,9 +32,10 @@ comment?
 - _Yes, and it says to park_ ("park it", "hold", "not now", "park", or a 👍 on a park proposal) →
   swap label to Parked.
 - _Yes, and it resolves the questions_ → draft and post the plan, swap label to Planned.
-- _Yes, but it raises new ambiguity_ → ask the follow-up (stay Needs-info) — but if this would be the
-  third unanswered round-trip, stop asking and either propose parking or leave a final note that the
-  issue needs maintainer attention.
+- _Yes, but it raises new ambiguity_ → ask the follow-up (stay Needs-info), in the same five-part,
+  under-300-words shape as the first ask — but if this would be the third unanswered round-trip,
+  stop asking and either propose parking or leave a final note that the issue needs maintainer
+  attention.
 
 ## Planned