lift the skill's question cap, which CLAUDE.md lifted and it did not

SKILL.md said "maximum three" clarifying questions while CLAUDE.md §4 said
"there is no cap" — lifted in 25d7045 and never propagated. The constitution is
always loaded and wins, so the skill was simply wrong, and an agent reading only
the skill would have split a six-fork request across turns to stay under a cap
that no longer exists.

The redundancy between the two files is deliberate: the constitution is always in
context and the skill is not, so both state the loop. HARNESS.md now records that
this deliberate copy has drifted twice — this, and the skill's conflict table
still deferring to `[spec]` markers after they were deleted. No gate can catch
it, because both files are prose and each is internally consistent, so the only
mechanism is grepping the other whenever a rule changes in either.

3 files. No rule changed — one restated correctly.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/skills/feature-loop/SKILL.md

@@ -59,7 +59,10 @@ thing, and everything in the Hard row without exception. One conflict is worth o
 silently reversed decision costs the trust in every other decision.
 
 Then decide what you genuinely do not know. Ask **only** questions whose answer changes the code or
-the bytes on disk. Maximum three, one message, up front, each with a **bold** default.
+the bytes on disk — but ask every one of those. Batched, one message, up front, each with a **bold**
+default so silence answers. **There is no cap** (`CLAUDE.md` §4): a request carrying six real forks gets
+six questions, and splitting them across turns to look brisk wastes more of the human's time than asking
+once. This file said "maximum three" until the cap was lifted in `CLAUDE.md` and not here.
 
 Never ask about: anything `conventions.md`, `content-model.md`, or an ADR already decides; naming,
 formatting, file placement, test style; permission to follow the constitution; "would you like me