asciidoc-pubkit 0.8.3 → 0.8.4

checksums.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 SHA256:
-  metadata.gz: 1302c0c833ffbfdb14eff663bc8a30c80449ddf6ab065fc440c85e103189a87d
-  data.tar.gz: 47c5bc1c86b79a3130406f562cd099cd4b76cf4e7a6aa95c17122c14835fcee1
+  metadata.gz: 7f629e73e42aa273d3f13a77a917208bf9d54a7c53f024c89c0f7f8fae596934
+  data.tar.gz: fdfd437f9a8c7735b873b3df5da5c55662be58a7871e5c3017f360f09539c382
 SHA512:
-  metadata.gz: bd1665669a9d3de5c4b27218c3886e6c0de4c03410f533de318278644c26a8ac467665af74f9026cc39b3243c05afba6fb98ede1bf9c7e4fa922ca6db0fb941e
-  data.tar.gz: a5090e7e0efbcb464e694f413312e942c6e88bf4d84749763d0e40971ee3b0f4cffe564f174d8c8c5368f81ffd7fa353cbccebf0d84117e81d051c5ff1e44f45
+  metadata.gz: d02a86fc684bed05d233025281de87ecd8adf45ed15ae72b57b6e15c12d3572df48b3697294768a3aab3de5e40e1d02ea0828c5a39efd6c3b8f4d68c75f3f2ee
+  data.tar.gz: 54d8f0862dc0b45f78184613e12098569486541378b0fd72b2e218b0daf94846c3513536620c5a5a6a90197d8f07ef6e1526b153523e3d87e2867dd1c15ac58d

data/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,20 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## 0.8.4 — 2026-10-02
+
+- Require passage-specific review decisions in prose and heading prompts instead
+  of inferring keep/revise from retained strings. Leave unreviewed items pending,
+  reconcile decisions with edits or proposals, and report mechanical verification,
+  candidate handling, and editorial completion separately. Protect session files
+  and baseline snapshots from editing and formatting tools. These instructions
+  do not add automatic decision-record or semantic validation to verification.
+- Detect inflected invocation, interpretation, retrieval, and collection verbs
+  for varied objects through configured MeCab lemmas; retain contextual phrase
+  precedence, allow lists, and explicit literal-mode coverage. Add the exact
+  contextual phrase 木全体 to cover IPADIC surname segmentation.
+- Add regression cases based on investigated manuscript variants and test review
+  instructions in both scopes and modes with session artifacts kept intact.
+
 ## 0.8.3 — 2026-10-02
 
 - Refine shared Japanese writing and review criteria for established technical

data/README.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 
 A toolkit for authoring and reviewing AsciiDoc books.
 
-Version 0.8.3 provides shared Japanese technical writing criteria, an authoring
+Version 0.8.4 provides shared Japanese technical writing criteria, an authoring
 prompt, separate prose and heading review prompts, manuscript scoring, and
 baseline verification for edited manuscripts, plus explicit prose-only mechanical
 replacements using a limited prh-format rule set.
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Japanese text is retained in manuscript excerpts, rule dictionaries, and fixture
 
 ## Available features
 
-The following commands are available in version 0.8.3.
+The following commands are available in version 0.8.4.
 
 | Feature | Commands | Behavior |
 | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ Add the gem to your project's `Gemfile` to manage its version with Bundler:
 
 ```ruby
 source 'https://rubygems.org'
-gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 0.8.3'
+gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 0.8.4'
 ```
 
 Then install dependencies and run the CLI through Bundler:
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ git clone https://github.com/cybergarage/asciidoc-pubkit.git
 cd asciidoc-pubkit
 bundle install
 gem build asciidoc-pubkit.gemspec
-gem install ./asciidoc-pubkit-0.8.3.gem
+gem install ./asciidoc-pubkit-0.8.4.gem
 asciidoc-pubkit --version
 ```
 
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ asciidoc-pubkit writing prompt --lang ja --output writing-prompt.md
 ```
 
 For example, `--lang en` exits with an unsupported-language error. No English
-review or writing criteria are shipped in 0.8.3.
+review or writing criteria are shipped in 0.8.4.
 
 For a small trial, use `examples/book.adoc` as the scan input. Its Japanese
 paragraphs deliberately contain review candidates; its code block must remain
@@ -612,7 +612,21 @@ asciidoc-pubkit review prompt .pubkit/review --mode diagnose
 
 `revise` is the default and asks the agent to edit relevant prose. `diagnose` asks
 for findings and proposed revisions without editing. Both modes require the agent
-to distinguish **revise**, **keep**, and **needs-evidence** decisions.
+to distinguish **revise**, **keep**, and **needs-evidence** decisions. Each decision
+needs a passage-specific reason. Whether a matched string remains or disappears
+cannot determine that decision; unchanged paragraphs and remaining candidates
+must not receive automatic `keep` records. Unreviewed items remain pending.
+
+Version 0.8.4 prompts require the reviewer to reconcile decisions with actual
+edits (or proposed revisions in diagnose mode), review paragraphs or headings
+without candidates, and inspect newly detected or remaining candidates after
+verification. They request separate reports for mechanical preservation,
+candidate decisions, and paragraph or heading quality review, with counts and
+unresolved items. Protected-scope concerns are separate proposals, not evidence
+of editorial approval. Pending items make the review incomplete.
+These are reviewer instructions: the gem does not validate a decision ledger
+or prove that an AI or human followed the instructions. Keep session metadata
+and baseline snapshots immutable; format only authorized manuscript spans.
 
 The single Markdown output includes every selected paragraph once, in document
 order, with the shared criteria saved at scan time, candidates, saved settings,
@@ -649,7 +663,10 @@ Non-prose comparison ignores empty separator lines and trailing whitespace;
 listing, literal, and passthrough block content is additionally compared as parsed
 lines. Inline protection is heuristic, not a complete AsciiDoc inline parser.
 Successful verification does not prove meaning preservation, technical accuracy,
-or release readiness: `meaning_verified` is always `false`.
+or release readiness: `meaning_verified` is always `false`. Verification does
+not read candidate decision records or certify editorial completion. A passing
+mechanical result must be reported separately from the reviewer's quality and
+completion assessment.
 
 | Exit code | Meaning |
 | --- | --- |
@@ -1017,6 +1034,16 @@ requirements, and collecting errors from catching them. Suggested alternatives
 are not automatic replacement rules. Start a new review session to include
 updated rules and criteria; existing sessions retain their saved versions.
 
+Version 0.8.4 also configures `呼ぶ`, `読み取る`, `拾う`, and the sahen predicate
+`回収する` as weak-predicate candidates. MeCab matches their inflections for
+any object, including `指示と宣言を読み取ります` and `最後のdetailsを拾います`.
+This broadens review cues, not mandatory terminology changes; everyday and
+technically valid uses can be retained with a specific reason. Literal mode
+matches only the selected surfaces in the YAML. Longer contextual phrases take
+precedence. `木全体` is an explicit contextual phrase in both modes because
+IPADIC can parse `木全` as a surname; this narrowly addresses that segmentation
+case without treating all names or compounds containing `木` as trees.
+
 Metaphorical-operation candidates include limited exact surfaces of
 `地味に効く`, `静かに壊れる`, `時間を溶かす`, and `側に倒す`, including selected polite,
 past, and connective forms listed in the packaged YAML. They use contextual
@@ -1069,12 +1096,12 @@ reports analyzer changes instead of treating results from different dictionaries
 as directly comparable. Prompt generation uses saved evidence and does not need
 MeCab. Changed rules or dictionary settings require a new scan.
 
-Sessions from earlier tool versions are not compatible with 0.8.3 (session schema 2). Keep the original baseline for
+Sessions from earlier tool versions are not compatible with 0.8.4 (session schema 2). Keep the original baseline for
 an ongoing review and finish it with the original version, or start a new review
 pass in a different directory:
 
 ```sh
-asciidoc-pubkit review scan book.adoc --output .pubkit/review-0.8.3
+asciidoc-pubkit review scan book.adoc --output .pubkit/review-0.8.4
 ```
 
 Severity describes review priority, not proof of an error. There is no AI-authorship

data/data/review-rules.ja.yml

@@ -59,6 +59,17 @@ terms:
     - 確かめます
     - 探します
     - 追えます
+    # Inspect retrieval, interpretation, and invocation for any object.
+    - 呼ぶ
+    - 呼びます
+    - 呼んで
+    - 呼んだ
+    - 読み取る
+    - 読み取ります
+    - 拾う
+    - 拾います
+    - 回収する
+    - 回収します
     # Construction, preparation, and combination.
     - 用意します
     - 作ります
@@ -136,6 +147,7 @@ terms:
     - わけではありません
     - 別です
     # Unusual technical translations; shared criteria own the alternatives.
+    - 木全体
     - 構築入口
     - 実装の読解
     - エラーを回収する
@@ -289,6 +301,12 @@ verbs:
   追う:
   - 追う
   - 追える
+  呼ぶ:
+  - 呼ぶ
+  読み取る:
+  - 読み取る
+  拾う:
+  - 拾う
   ある:
   - ある
 sahen:
@@ -302,6 +320,7 @@ sahen:
 - 区別
 - 解消
 - 混同
+- 回収
 negative_only:
 - 到達する
 - 意味する

data/data/writing/ja/criteria.md

@@ -248,6 +248,15 @@ conditions, negation, numbers, actors, causes, and implementation requirements.
 For example, removing a unique constraint from a duplicate-message check can
 lose a concurrency requirement even when the revised paragraph sounds clearer.
 Record unresolved evidence and keep necessary repetition or qualifications.
+A review decision must come from reading the passage and checking the applicable
+criteria. A retained word does not establish a `keep` decision, and a removed
+word does not establish a satisfactory revision. Give passage-specific reasons
+for retaining terminology, conditions, and distinctions; leave unreviewed items
+pending rather than filling them with generic maintenance reasons. Compare the
+actual revision with the original claim, including paragraphs without machine
+candidates. Keep unresolved evidence and protected-scope proposals visible in
+the completion report.
+
 No candidate count or mechanical verification result proves semantic correctness.
 Sentence length, punctuation, and list density can help locate passages to read;
 they are not fixed acceptance thresholds. Keep lists for parallel items and

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit/session.rb

@@ -184,6 +184,8 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
         After editing, reread each paragraph in context. Report unresolved issues and do not claim publication readiness.
         Mechanical verification does not establish semantic correctness.
 
+        #{review_process('paragraph', mode)}
+
         ## Shared prose criteria
 
         Apply these criteria only within the running-prose edit scope above. Their
@@ -318,6 +320,8 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
         original title, proposed title when applicable, and a short reason.
         Also track each candidate ID and its disposition. Do not claim publication readiness.
 
+        #{review_process('heading', mode)}
+
         ## Shared preservation and writing criteria
 
         The following common criteria provide meaning and terminology guidance.
@@ -372,6 +376,20 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
       text
     end
 
+    def review_process(unit, mode)
+      <<~TEXT
+        ## Review decisions and completion
+
+        Keep manifest.json, document.json, findings.json, and every baseline/ snapshot immutable. Restrict editing and formatting tools to the authorized source spans; never run them over the session directory.
+        Record each reviewed #{unit} ID and each candidate ID with revise, keep, or needs-evidence and a reason grounded in that passage. For keep, identify the concrete referent, operation, condition, necessary distinction, or established terminology that justifies retaining it. A shared generic reason does not establish individual review.
+        Never infer revise or keep from whether the matched string survives, disappears, or changes. Do not bulk-assign keep to unchanged #{unit}s or remaining candidates. An unreviewed item stays pending; use needs-evidence only after review identifies missing evidence.
+        Review #{unit}s without candidates against the shared criteria as well. For concerns outside the editable scope, report the location and a separate out-of-scope proposal; do not count protection as an editorial keep decision or edit protected content.
+        #{mode == 'revise' ? 'Compare the original and edited passages, check both information loss and unsupported additions, and reconcile each recorded decision with the actual diff. After verification, individually inspect newly detected or remaining candidates; retain the original candidate IDs in the review record.' : 'Compare each proposed revision with the original passage for information loss and unsupported additions. A revise decision means a proposed revision, not an applied edit.'}
+        Report mechanical preservation, candidate decisions, and #{unit}-level quality review separately. State selected and reviewed #{unit} counts, candidate decision counts, pending items, needs-evidence items, out-of-scope concerns, and evidence used. If any selected item or candidate remains pending, report the review as incomplete.
+        Mechanical verification does not read or validate these decision records. Its passed result and candidate counts do not establish review completion or writing quality; meaning_verified remains false. Do not claim semantic correctness from those checks.
+      TEXT
+    end
+
     def prompt_data(data, language)
       # Keep arbitrary manuscript text and custom settings inside their data fence.
       fence = '`' * [3, (data.scan(/`+/).map(&:length).max || 0) + 1].max

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit.rb

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ require 'pathname'
 require 'optparse'
 
 module AsciidocPubkit
-  VERSION = '0.8.3'
+  VERSION = '0.8.4'
   class Error < StandardError; end
 
   def self.hash_text(text)

metadata

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 --- !ruby/object:Gem::Specification
 name: asciidoc-pubkit
 version: !ruby/object:Gem::Version
-  version: 0.8.3
+  version: 0.8.4
 platform: ruby
 authors:
 - CyberGarage