diff --git a/src/resources/extensions/sf/skills/advisory-partner/SKILL.md b/src/resources/extensions/sf/skills/advisory-partner/SKILL.md
index 43a0d2d3b..0531151eb 100644
--- a/src/resources/extensions/sf/skills/advisory-partner/SKILL.md
+++ b/src/resources/extensions/sf/skills/advisory-partner/SKILL.md
@@ -24,6 +24,34 @@ Use `subagent` to dispatch an advisory review (with the `validation` model) when
 - A significant architectural decision needs challenge — dispatch advisory, then write the ADR
 - The planning model is uncertain and needs a second opinion
 
+### Dispatch Pattern
+
+Pass `parentTrace` so the advisory agent reviews the planner's actual
+reasoning trail — not just the artefact that landed. For advisory dispatch,
+the trace shape is *reasoning*, not *tool calls*: alternatives considered,
+assumptions made, what the planner is uncertain about, what was rejected
+and why. The advisory agent uses this to find the gap between what the
+planner *thought* and what the artefact *says*.
+
+```
+subagent({
+  agent: "reviewer",
+  model: "<validation-tier model>",
+  parentTrace: "Reasoning trail (what the planner considered):\n" +
+               "- Alternatives weighed: A vs B vs C; chose B because <reason>\n" +
+               "- Untested assumptions: <assumption 1>, <assumption 2>\n" +
+               "- Where the planner is uncertain: <one or two specifics>\n" +
+               "- What was explicitly out of scope: <items>",
+  task: "Apply the advisory-partner protocol to <artefact path>. " +
+        "Answer Q1-Q5, run the trap scan, end with ADVISORY VERDICT."
+})
+```
+
+The advisory verdict carries more weight when the reviewer can see *what
+the planner thought* and not just *what the planner wrote*. Hidden
+assumptions and waved-away objections are exactly what advisory review
+exists to catch.
+
 ---
 
 ## Advisory Review Protocol