asciidoc-pubkit 1.0.1 → 1.0.3

checksums.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 SHA256:
-  metadata.gz: 11ce21a9f9688e6a959a5a4ffbb4479876739d6f901d0b50f383b1742d1bc620
-  data.tar.gz: 407e838b2f9034dc7c1d085331c23a8fd91eeaa87b6f148dc89b8c732a9ff8af
+  metadata.gz: 1ca3e56810daf83687c0758172892f89e2acba8bc0d16c909fa0da8183617179
+  data.tar.gz: 69ba46436e3316058ff76f916325db0d3c6e94ce8a2700915cdd25c20d53e99a
 SHA512:
-  metadata.gz: 69ce04953e4caae4f349bfa9874783588d34b7927fb773f5cd8bf9b1d09980e8ff4bfb66baeb8b02f5e7f2e7d720317d29b21678861ed2ebc2619e069ee03d72
-  data.tar.gz: 3468c4e3b094003f25892d1b5197327df659fe4ea08180e45b93ebdaeedec6ce1a07e832be80526cb0d949219c71f5ccbbf7082c83e765197adf8dae843c45e7
+  metadata.gz: f2d203eec585c19961aab955cf1d3ddd98712569c14e9d85898f810750d24a5f8a3e8db2752503ec74094e58ffcb4ed6a9eb6932e23512dc5a3d688350a95021
+  data.tar.gz: 301e914f2bc66bdfbc2342c7beacda5d8b47ac6a30c50c51afdf3b1695212d45bc948ae73fdf20ea505431f0664e4ebc42c3511f668f54eb98a7f105a1007aad

data/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,28 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## 1.0.3 — 2026-10-07
+
+- Adapt yomiyasu v1.0.8 guidance to preserve comparison axes, completed/current/
+  planned status, event and observation dates, attribution, and known operations
+  despite unclear state descriptions. Keep actual source uncertainty in the
+  manuscript and reviewer questions in the separate report.
+- Expand the original evaluation corpus from 21 to 26 paragraphs as
+  `technical-prose-v3`, and revision calibration from 31 to 43 pairs. Extend the
+  judge rubric for these distinctions; require fresh AI baselines for the changed
+  corpus, calibration, and rubric. Add paragraph-boundary and soft-line-break
+  repetition regressions without changing detector rules or verification semantics.
+
+## 1.0.2 — 2026-10-05
+
+- Add contextual prose candidates for 分かる, 置く, 変える, 発火, 短い, and 長い,
+  including MeCab potential forms of 作る such as 作れます. Preserve inflection,
+  negation, allow lists, and protected inline content; these are review hints,
+  not prohibited words or automatic replacements.
+- Extend development revision calibration from 20 to 31 pairs with operation,
+  capability, comparison, reference, dependency, and responsibility distinctions.
+  Include faithful revisions and unresolved evidence as controls; automated
+  fixture tests do not establish AI editorial accuracy.
+
 ## 1.0.1 — 2026-10-05
 
 - Explain the project's publishing background and link the book catalogs without

data/README.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ and books on health, exercise, and sports science published under
 The experience informs the toolkit's writing criteria, contextual review prompts,
 and checks for preserving manuscript content during revision.
 
-Version 1.0.1 provides document inspection, explicit prose-only mechanical
+Version 1.0.3 provides document inspection, explicit prose-only mechanical
 replacements, and Japanese manuscript review. Inspect a book's outline,
 metadata, and local cross-references; preview and apply your replacement rules;
 then review and verify edits against a saved baseline.
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Japanese manuscript excerpts and rule terms retain their original text.
 
 ## Available features
 
-The following commands are available in version 1.0.1.
+The following commands are available in version 1.0.3.
 
 | Feature | Commands | Behavior |
 | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -44,11 +44,15 @@ The following commands are available in version 1.0.1.
 | [Manuscript scoring](docs/scoring.md#score-an-asciidoc-manuscript) | `review score` | Report a prose candidate-density score; explicit `--agent codex` or `--agent claude` optionally invokes a local AI CLI for readability ratings |
 | [Writing criteria and prompts](docs/writing.md#writing-commands) | `writing criteria`, `writing prompt` | Print Japanese prose criteria or generate a writing prompt without a manuscript or MeCab |
 
-Version 1.0.1 extends the [shared writing criteria](docs/writing.md#writing-commands)
+Version 1.0.1 extended the [shared writing criteria](docs/writing.md#writing-commands)
 with structural comparison before and after revision and preservation of sentence
 functions and plain or polite style. The [development evaluation](docs/prose-evaluation.md)
 includes new cases for these checks.
 
+Version 1.0.3 additionally preserves comparison axes, temporal roles,
+and known actions in unclear passages, separating source uncertainty from editorial
+questions. The evaluation guide describes the expanded corpus and calibration.
+
 ## Requirements and scope
 
 Ruby 3.2 or later is required; RubyGems installs Asciidoctor and the other Ruby
@@ -68,6 +72,9 @@ installed AI CLI, which may use its configured model provider.
 Findings are review candidates; verification checks mechanical preservation and
 keeps `meaning_verified: false`. The CLI does not publish books or provide EPUB,
 image, or book scaffolding commands.
+The packaged prose rules also flag broad operation and degree wording such as
+`分かる`, `置く`, `変える`, `発火`, `短い`, `長い`, and `作れます` for contextual
+review. Precise everyday language may remain; see the [review guide](docs/review-workflow.md).
 
 ## Install
 
@@ -78,7 +85,7 @@ asciidoc-pubkit --help
 ```
 
 To update, run `gem update asciidoc-pubkit`. For Bundler, add
-`gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.1'` to your project's `Gemfile` and run commands
+`gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.3'` to your project's `Gemfile` and run commands
 through `bundle exec`. See [source installation and local checkout usage](docs/installation.md).
 
 ## Quick start
@@ -118,7 +125,7 @@ asciidoc-pubkit writing prompt --lang ja --output writing-prompt.md
 
 Existing review sessions require the exact tool version that created them.
 Before upgrading, finish ongoing reviews with that version or preserve their
-baselines and start a new review in a separate directory with v1.0.1. A new
+baselines and start a new review in a separate directory with v1.0.3. A new
 scan cannot verify preservation relative to an earlier baseline.
 
 ## Documentation

data/data/review-rules.ja.yml

@@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ terms:
     # Review context before choosing a katakana technical term.
     - 木
     - 余白
+    # Event or operation wording requires context, not a fixed synonym.
+    - 発火
     question: Identify the concrete referent, components, role, or measurable work.
       For 入口, apply the shared role-metaphor criteria; a clear referent alone is
       not a sufficient reason to keep vague operation wording. Keep
@@ -51,6 +53,9 @@ terms:
     - 意味しません
     - 把握します
     - 捉えます
+    - 分かる
+    - 分かります
+    - 分かりません
     # Writing, representation, and inspection.
     - 記述します
     - 記述できます
@@ -79,6 +84,9 @@ terms:
     # Construction, preparation, and combination.
     - 用意します
     - 作ります
+    - 作れる
+    - 作れます
+    - 作れません
     - 組み立てられます
     - 組み合わせます
     - 積み重なります
@@ -104,6 +112,12 @@ terms:
     - 決まります
     # Change, transfer, and retention.
     - 変わります
+    - 変える
+    - 変えます
+    - 置く
+    - 置きます
+    - 発火します
+    - 発火させます
     - 書き換える
     - 置き換えます
     - 加えます
@@ -131,6 +145,8 @@ terms:
     terms:
     - 浅い
     - 深い
+    - 短い
+    - 長い
     question: Identify the concrete depth, level, scope, or comparison. Keep literal
       measurements and established technical meanings.
   contextual-phrase:
@@ -241,6 +257,12 @@ verbs:
   - 見落とす
   示す:
   - 示す
+  分かる:
+  - 分かる
+  置く:
+  - 置く
+  変える:
+  - 変える
   変わる:
   - 変わる
   分ける:
@@ -311,6 +333,7 @@ verbs:
   - 調べる
   作る:
   - 作る
+  - 作れる
   抜ける:
   - 抜ける
   捉える:
@@ -331,6 +354,7 @@ verbs:
   ある:
   - ある
 sahen:
+- 発火
 - 利用
 - 整理
 - 把握

data/data/writing/ja/criteria.md

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 - Make relationships explicit
 - Compare structure before and after revision
 - Keep claims within their evidence and purpose
+- Keep source uncertainty separate from editorial questions
 - Remove generated-prose patterns without flattening the meaning
 - Preserve exact technical terminology
 - Revise the complete paragraph
@@ -165,6 +166,13 @@ action, or an evaluation into an implementation goal. Sequence words such as
 behavior. When the function or actor is unresolved, retain the uncertainty and
 record what needs confirmation.
 
+Keep completed changes, current behavior or policy, and future plans distinct.
+`上限を3回へ変更しました` reports a completed change; `最大3回再送します`
+can describe current behavior; `変更する予定です` describes a plan. Do not
+change tense merely to vary endings. Current behavior alone does not establish
+that it was introduced or changed in this revision. Report a change only when
+the source establishes it; do not invent an earlier state or improvement.
+
 Preserve plain or polite style unless the author requests a change or the book's
 explicit style requirements call for one. A technical topic alone does not
 require polite style. Resolve unintended style mixing separately from each
@@ -221,6 +229,13 @@ Use these checks when splitting, joining, or rearranging sentences:
 - Preserve the scope and direction of purpose, reason, contrast, and emphasis.
   A purpose applying to two operations must still apply to both after splitting;
   necessary contrast or priority must not become simple addition or equality.
+- Preserve the comparison axis as well as the alternatives and rank. Calling
+  a problem the most important does not establish that it is the most frequent
+  or easiest to overlook. Keep an unresolved comparison unresolved.
+- Distinguish the time an event occurred from when someone observed, learned,
+  or reported it. `9月2日に、9月1日に障害が発生したと聞きました` must not
+  become `9月2日に障害が発生しました`. Preserve attribution and distinguish
+  reported evidence from direct observation.
 
 Adjust punctuation when it obscures these relationships, not merely to reduce
 comma counts. Keep a colon that maps a label to a value, such as `状態: 正常`,
@@ -242,6 +257,27 @@ affects use, implementation, or verification, state the concrete condition and
 connect it to the relevant action or check. Do not delete a technical boundary
 merely because it uses negative wording.
 
+## Keep source uncertainty separate from editorial questions
+
+Retain an actual undecided or under-investigation state in the reader-facing
+body, including its time and scope. A reviewer not understanding a phrase does
+not establish that the author or implementation is uncertain. Do not add
+`要確認`, questions, or editorial explanations to the manuscript; put reviewer
+questions and proposed alternatives in the separate review report. Report missing
+evidence without weakening an established operation or inventing a new actor.
+
+When a state description is unclear but its associated action is known, preserve
+both the source wording's scope and the known action in the body. For example,
+`破綻したメッセージは隔離します` does not establish a signature failure, nor
+does uncertainty about `破綻` authorize deleting the isolation operation. Retain
+the term when a faithful alternative cannot be established and record the exact
+question separately. Quoting the operation only in a confirmation item does not
+preserve it in the manuscript. Keep source-provided `未定` or `調査中` statements;
+do not turn them into reviewer notes or omit them as editing clutter.
+
+These instructions do not authorize edits to protected content or new manuscript
+annotations. Preserve the selected review scope and keep unreviewed items pending.
+
 ## Remove generated-prose patterns without flattening the meaning
 
 Common patterns that merit paragraph-level review include:

data/docs/document-commands.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Document commands
 
-Version 1.0.1 provides four read-only document commands. They require neither
+Version 1.0.3 provides four read-only document commands. They require neither
 MeCab nor an AI CLI, accept documents in any language, and do not create review
 sessions or change manuscripts.
 

data/docs/installation.md

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Add the gem to your project's `Gemfile` to manage its version with Bundler:
 
 ```ruby
 source 'https://rubygems.org'
-gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.1'
+gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.3'
 ```
 
 Then install dependencies and run the CLI through Bundler:
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ git clone https://github.com/cybergarage/asciidoc-pubkit.git
 cd asciidoc-pubkit
 bundle install
 gem build asciidoc-pubkit.gemspec
-gem install ./asciidoc-pubkit-1.0.1.gem
+gem install ./asciidoc-pubkit-1.0.3.gem
 asciidoc-pubkit --version
 ```
 

data/docs/prose-evaluation.md

@@ -5,8 +5,9 @@ criteria changes against a project-defined baseline. Keep detection performance,
 readability, and meaning preservation separate so that a clearer rewrite cannot
 hide a lost condition or invented fact.
 
-This guide describes the version 1.0.1 development checkout, including the
-`technical-prose-v2` corpus and criteria update. The evaluation runner is not an
+This guide describes the version 1.0.3 development checkout, including the
+`technical-prose-v3` corpus and expanded revision calibration.
+The evaluation runner is not an
 installed gem command. It does not measure Japanese naturalness or AI authorship
 as a single validated score.
 
@@ -39,10 +40,10 @@ of Japanese writing.
 
 | File | Contents and role |
 | --- | --- |
-| [prose_benchmark.ja.adoc](../test/fixtures/prose_benchmark.ja.adoc) | 21 paragraphs used as the actual AsciiDoc input |
+| [prose_benchmark.ja.adoc](../test/fixtures/prose_benchmark.ja.adoc) | 26 paragraphs used as the actual AsciiDoc input |
 | [prose_benchmark.ja.json](../test/fixtures/prose_benchmark.ja.json) | Matching paragraph IDs and text, 11 annotated detector targets, and preservation checklists |
 | [prose_benchmark.yml](../test/fixtures/prose_benchmark.yml) | Fixed empty configuration that isolates the benchmark from discovered manuscript settings |
-| [prose_evaluation.ja.json](../test/fixtures/prose_evaluation.ja.json) | Detection examples and 20 manual revision pairs with expected `accept`, `reject`, or `needs-evidence` dispositions |
+| [prose_evaluation.ja.json](../test/fixtures/prose_evaluation.ja.json) | Detection examples and 43 manual revision pairs with expected `accept`, `reject`, or `needs-evidence` dispositions |
 
 The corpus includes framing such as `重要なのは`, metaphorical operations such
 as `地味に効く`, inflected and negative forms, and repeated endings. Controls
@@ -66,6 +67,27 @@ incorrectly extended to audit logging, independent checks made conditional, and
 an unsolicited change from plain to polite style. Acceptable pairs and unresolved
 cases prevent calibration from treating every change as an error.
 
+Eleven further pairs cover path length changed into performance, capability
+expanded into reuse, reconstruction changed into guaranteed shortening,
+separate operations claimed to be independent, references changed into loaded
+content, optional inheritance made mandatory, user-side storage assumed local,
+and policy definition confused with enforcement. Controls retain precise plain
+verbs or replace relative wording with supported counts and event operations.
+Unsupported details use `needs-evidence`; contradictions and lost explicit
+conditions use `reject`. These are original editorial fixtures, not manuscript
+excerpts. In version 1.0.2, the 21-paragraph corpus and judge rubric were unchanged,
+but the calibration fingerprint changed and required a new AI baseline.
+
+The version 1.0.3 `technical-prose-v3` corpus adds five paragraphs for comparison
+axes, completed/current/planned status, event versus observation dates, known
+actions with unclear state terms, and source uncertainty versus editorial notes.
+Twelve new calibration pairs include faithful revisions, wrong comparisons or
+dates, lost operations, invented change history or failure states, and editing
+markers added to established facts. The five paragraphs add no detector targets
+but do reach the writer and judge. The corpus, calibration, and judge rubric all
+change; establish a fresh AI baseline with those fixed before measuring a review
+criteria change. v1 and v2 results cannot be compared directly with v3.
+
 ## What normal tests check
 
 Run the complete suite from the repository root with MeCab and UTF-8 IPADIC
@@ -128,7 +150,7 @@ original 13-paragraph `technical-prose-v1` corpus. Its precision was 100, recall
 81.818, F1 90, and location accuracy 77.778. Later detector fixes brought the
 11-target MeCab results to 100 for all four metrics; literal recall remained
 81.818. Keep that historical report unchanged. It cannot be compared directly
-with v2: create a new baseline after expanding the corpus.
+with v2 or v3: create a new baseline after expanding the corpus.
 
 ## Compare review criteria with AI trials
 
@@ -242,5 +264,12 @@ location accuracy were all 100, with zero deltas. The suite passed 203 tests and
 External AI rewrite-and-judge trials have not yet been run for this change, so
 its readability and preservation improvement remains unmeasured.
 
+For the version 1.0.3 yomiyasu v1.0.8 adaptation, detector evaluation on v3 before
+and after the criteria change also retained 100 for all four metrics, with zero
+deltas. The suite passed 209 tests and 2,844 assertions with real MeCab/IPADIC,
+including paragraph and excluded-block boundaries and ordinary line wrapping.
+External AI rewrite-and-judge trials remain unexecuted for this change; these
+results establish detector and workflow regression checks only.
+
 [Development](development.md) · [Manuscript scoring](scoring.md) ·
 [Back to README](../README.md)

data/docs/references.md

@@ -21,6 +21,12 @@ structure, and final edits to the reviewer.
   and order before and after revision; preserve sentence function separately
   from plain or polite style. The new examples are original project fixtures.
   Markdown-specific bold fixes and numeric style thresholds are not imported.
+  The 1.0.3 update adapts [v1.0.8, commit 9b9a847](https://github.com/nanaism/yomiyasu/commit/9b9a84757ade524ef9d477f75c6ea13190079f97)
+  for comparison axes, tense and event/report dates, and retaining known actions
+  when state terms are unclear. Source uncertainty remains in the manuscript;
+  editorial questions remain in the separate report. Regression tests preserve
+  paragraph boundaries and ordinary line wrapping. These are project-authored
+  examples; Markdown-specific scanner and updater implementations are not imported.
 - [日本語技術文書の文章規範](https://gist.github.com/k16shikano/fd287c3133457c4fd8f5601d34aa817d):
   informs paragraph logic, evidence scope, and meaningful uncertainty. Applied
   here: the shared criteria start from each paragraph's technical purpose and

data/docs/review-workflow.md

@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ manuscripts. Numeric title changes
 are manual-review notices, and remaining candidates do not fail verification.
 `meaning_verified` remains `false`.
 
-Version 1.0.1 uses session schema 3 and requires the exact tool version saved in
+Version 1.0.3 uses session schema 3 and requires the exact tool version saved in
 the session. Preserve or finish an ongoing review with its original tool before
 establishing a new baseline in a separate directory.
 `review score` continues to support prose only and rejects `--scope`.
@@ -188,6 +188,17 @@ one-based Unicode source columns. MeCab remains the default; only explicit
 
 ### Prompt
 
+Version 1.0.2 adds packaged prose candidates for
+`分かる`, `置く`, `変える`, `発火`, `短い`, `長い`, and potential forms of `作る`
+such as `作れます`. MeCab detects configured lemmas with inflection and negation;
+literal mode matches only the explicitly registered surfaces. `発火` is also a
+noun candidate, for example in a condition description.
+These hints ask for context, not formal synonyms: a short path does not establish
+low resource use, and an available operation does not establish reuse. Keep
+precise plain verbs, literal lengths, and established event terminology when
+appropriate. Allow lists and inline protection still apply. Custom rules replace
+the packaged set, and existing sessions keep their saved rules.
+
 ```sh
 asciidoc-pubkit review prompt .pubkit/review --mode revise --output review-prompt.md
 asciidoc-pubkit review prompt .pubkit/review --mode diagnose

data/docs/rules-and-coverage.md

@@ -131,13 +131,13 @@ 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.
 
-Version 1.0.1 uses session schema 3.
+Version 1.0.3 uses session schema 3.
 Sessions with a different schema or tool version cannot be loaded. 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-1.0.1
+asciidoc-pubkit review scan book.adoc --output .pubkit/review-1.0.3
 ```
 
 Severity describes review priority, not proof of an error. There is no AI-authorship

data/docs/writing.md

@@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ book explicitly requires one. Sentence splitting and punctuation changes must
 retain the original relationships; these are contextual review instructions,
 not automatic semantic checks. Saved sessions retain the criteria from their scan.
 
+The criteria also preserve the comparison axis, completed changes,
+current behavior, future plans, and the distinction between event dates and
+observation or report dates. An unclear state term does not authorize deleting
+its known action. Keep source-provided undecided or investigation status in the
+body; put reviewer doubts and questions in the separate report, without adding
+editing markers to the manuscript.
+
 ```sh
 asciidoc-pubkit writing criteria --lang ja
 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 1.0.1.
+review or writing criteria are shipped in 1.0.3.
 
 For a small trial, use `examples/book.adoc` as the scan input. Its Japanese
 paragraphs deliberately contain review candidates; its code block must remain

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit.rb

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ require 'pathname'
 require 'optparse'
 
 module AsciidocPubkit
-  VERSION = '1.0.1'
+  VERSION = '1.0.3'
   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: 1.0.1
+  version: 1.0.3
 platform: ruby
 authors:
 - CyberGarage