In security-issue-fix should Step 0 probe common clone locations, or require explicit config?

[justinmclean]

While looking at security-issue-fix/SKILL.md, I found a contradiction between two sections.

Step 0 (pre-flight check) tells the agent to probe common locations if no path is supplied:
"probe the usual locations (the input path if supplied, else ~/code/airflow, ~/src/airflow, ~/airflow, or a sibling of the current working directory) for a directory whose origin remote points at "

Prerequisites section and Step 3 state the opposite policy explicitly:
"The skill does not guess filesystem layouts — there is no hard-coded search path."
"Do not probe hard-coded paths like ~/code/airflow — filesystem layouts vary per user and a wrong guess masks a misconfigured clone."

Git history confirms both were present from the initial commit.

The possible positions:
A — Keep the probe (Step 3 is too strict): Probing with remote-URL validation is safe enough in practice. If ~/code/airflow exists and its origin points at , it's almost certainly the right clone.
B — Keep the prohibition (Step 0 is the bug): The prohibition exists because a directory can pass remote-URL validation and still be the wrong clone (e.g. an old/stale clone the user no longer uses).
C - This is intentional for reasons I can't work out.

Which approach should the skill take?