Fix the Hub Slug and the Dead Anchor in the Canonical copilot-instructions.md

.github/copilot-instructions.md

@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ gh pr view <N> --json reviews --jq \
 
 **So an unrecognized shape is a blocking outcome, and its remedy is an issue rather than a judgment call.** When any reader here meets a heading, a collapsed section, a metadata line, a coverage wording or a reviewer login it has no vetted spelling for, the review loop **does not close**, whatever else the digest says. Do not read past it, do not infer what the new wording probably means, and do not treat a body that looks clean as a clean review, because "looks clean" is precisely what a misread review looks like. Two things follow, in this order:
 
-1. **File an issue on the hub, `ptr727/ProjectTemplate`**, which hosts `scripts/pr_review.py` and holds the vetted inventory. Name each unrecognized shape and quote the review body it came from, so the fix is made against the real wording rather than a paraphrase. The issue is filed even when the shape turns out to be cosmetic, since "cosmetic" is a conclusion drawn after reading the body and not before.
+1. **File an issue on the hub**, the repository `AGENTS.md` "Fleet Bootstrap" names, which hosts `scripts/pr_review.py` and holds the vetted inventory. Name each unrecognized shape and quote the review body it came from, so the fix is made against the real wording rather than a paraphrase. The issue is filed even when the shape turns out to be cosmetic, since "cosmetic" is a conclusion drawn after reading the body and not before.
 2. **The merge decision is the maintainer's**, not the agent's and not the script's. An unrecognized shape does not mean the pull request is bad, it means nothing here can vouch for the review of it. Report the state, hand it over, and stop.
 
 `scripts/pr_review.py status <N> --repo <owner>/<repo>` reports this as `shapes=UNRECOGNIZED`, lists each shape under a marker naming the remedy, and exits `43`. `wait` carries the same code, so a wait cannot end on a clean zero over output nothing read. The vetted inventory lives in that script and is small on purpose: measured over 332 Copilot review bodies on this repository, with fenced blocks dropped and text reduced to ASCII, the whole corpus is seven headings, six `<summary>` texts and three metadata labels, and every body carries at least one of them. A body carrying none is itself the unrecognized shape, which is what catches a rewrite that changes everything at once, the refusal wording drifting among it.
@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ After the final push, sweep-resolve stale older threads for removed code paths.
 
 ### Disproved Claims
 
-**A disproof is proof about this repository, and the thread it was written in is not where the next round looks.** [GOVERNANCE.md "Every Finding Ends in an Action"](../GOVERNANCE.md#every-finding-ends-in-an-action) closes a false finding by disproving it in the thread, addressed to the reviewer so it does not raise the same thing again, and while the pull request is open that is the right place for it. Afterwards it is the wrong one. The pull request merges, the next round begins with no memory of the last, and the second occurrence reaches a maintainer with no way to tell it from a first. Each entry below is a claim that was tested against this repository and found false, kept so the proof is read rather than built twice.
+**A disproof is proof about this repository, and the thread it was written in is not where the next round looks.** [GOVERNANCE.md "PR Review Etiquette"](../GOVERNANCE.md#pr-review-etiquette), which routes to the `pr-review-conduct` Skill, closes a false finding by disproving it in the thread, addressed to the reviewer so it does not raise the same thing again, and while the pull request is open that is the right place for it. Afterwards it is the wrong one. The pull request merges, the next round begins with no memory of the last, and the second occurrence reaches a maintainer with no way to tell it from a first. Each entry below is a claim that was tested against this repository and found false, kept so the proof is read rather than built twice.
 
 **An entry names the claim, what was run or read to disprove it, the revision it was proved against, and what ends it.** A disproof is true of one tree at one revision, so an entry whose subject moves is deleted by the change that moves it rather than edited to look current, which is the same sweep the [GOVERNANCE.md "Documentation Style Conventions"](../GOVERNANCE.md#documentation-style-conventions) rule already requires of prose asserting a behavior that has changed underneath it. This is deliberately not a list to append to, since an entry outliving the code it was proved against becomes a reason not to check, and that is strictly worse than proving the claim a second time.