choosing-a-comms-channel: drop the history framing, state the guidance plainly

claude-plugins/plugins/base/skills/choosing-a-comms-channel/SKILL.md

@@ -15,17 +15,12 @@ future reader won't think to look).
 - **Pure fire-and-forget notification, no reply expected** - a
   dashboard-visible one-way message is fine. Don't reach for a
   conversational channel just to say something that needs no response.
-- **A specific decision you need recorded, that threads an answer back
+- **A specific decision you need recorded** (a gated approval, a
-  to you** - there's no dedicated generic tool for this shape anymore
+  go/no-go call) - if it's issue-shaped, it's really the next bullet
-  (a prior asker/answerer mechanism that did was removed). Use the
+  (post it where the context lives and it stays that thread's own
-  closest fit instead: if the decision is issue-shaped, it's really the
+  back-and-forth); otherwise use a real conversational channel and
-  next bullet (post it where the context lives and it stays that
+  write the outcome down somewhere a future reader will actually find
-  thread's own back-and-forth); otherwise use a real conversational
+  it - no tool threads that bookkeeping back to you automatically.
-  channel and write the outcome down somewhere a future reader will
-  actually find it - the channel itself won't do that bookkeeping for
-  you. This still matters for anything you'll need to point back to
-  later - a gated approval, a go/no-go call - it just takes one extra,
-  deliberate step now instead of a tool doing it automatically.
 - **An issue-shaped question or decision** - post it where the
   surrounding context already lives (the tracked item itself), not in
   a side channel. A future reader looking at that item should find the