Re-sync agentic workflow guide + add the NetPace "sidekick" delta

.claude/memory/feedback_read_source_before_designing.md

@@ -6,6 +6,6 @@ type: feedback
 
 Before designing a fix that depends on how a subsystem behaves, **read the source that implements that behaviour** — not the docs, not your prior mental model, not the test names, and **not a diagnosis handed to you in an issue, spec, or ticket**. A confident root-cause written by someone else is an assumption to verify against current HEAD, not a fact — especially when the artefact predates recent commits. Reading the actual code upfront routinely avoids multiple rounds of fix proposals that turn out to be solving the wrong problem.
 
-**Why:** first ported from IMS's harness-hardening review (a sibling .NET/spec-kit repo) as a preventive practice, then confirmed by a NetPace incident. In IMS, a subsystem's behaviour was repeatedly guessed at ("the system probably does X") across three iterations of a proposed fix, when reading a single line of the actual implementation would have surfaced the real design gap immediately. In NetPace, a `/ship` road-test began from issue #220's confident "servers are probed concurrently" root-cause; a branch and test edit were made straight off it — but `GetFastestServerByLatencyAsync` is a sequential `for` loop, and the flake had already been fixed by #221's `SynchronousProgress`. Three clean-context reviewers had to catch that the whole branch premise was invalid. One `Read` of `OoklaSpeedtest.cs` before editing would have surfaced it immediately. See [[feedback_docs_no_forward_references]] for the sibling rule that docs (and by extension issues) can drift from current code.
+**Why:** confirmed by a NetPace incident. A `/ship` road-test began from issue #220's confident "servers are probed concurrently" root-cause; a branch and test edit were made straight off it — but `GetFastestServerByLatencyAsync` is a sequential `for` loop, and the flake had already been fixed by #221's `SynchronousProgress`. Three clean-context reviewers had to catch that the whole branch premise was invalid. One `Read` of `OoklaSpeedtest.cs` before editing would have surfaced it immediately. See [[feedback_docs_no_forward_references]] for the related rule that docs (and by extension issues) can drift from current code.
 
 **How to apply:** when a proposed fix rests on "the system does X" / "I believe X happens because..." — or on a root-cause quoted from an issue/spec/ticket — stop and grep or read the exact code that implements X before sketching the fix. When the work *starts* from an issue, treat verifying its diagnosis against HEAD as the first step, before creating a branch or editing. Applies especially to `ISpeedTestService` implementations, provider-specific behaviour in `Clients/{ProviderName}/`, and anywhere a fix is being designed against assumed rather than confirmed behaviour.

.specify/templates/overrides/README.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Resolution order (highest → lowest precedence):
 
 ## Current overrides
 
-| File | Why IMS overrides it |
+| File | Why this repo overrides it |
 |------|----------------------|
 | `spec-template.md` | Bakes in the `**Scenario: [name]**` label convention required by [Constitution principle VIII](../../memory/constitution.md) for AC-to-test traceability. |