rosett-ai 1.3.3

data/doc/DESIGN_PEER_REVIEW.md

@@ -0,0 +1,771 @@
+# Design Document Peer Review — Interactive Questionnaire
+
+**Date**: 2026-03-15
+**Branch**: `chore/design-peer-review` (MR !36)
+**Questionnaire**: `conf/review/design-questionnaire.yml`
+**Registry**: `conf/review/design-docs.yml`
+
+## How to Use
+
+For each document below:
+
+1. Read the AI assessment and excerpts
+2. Confirm or override each Q1-Q10 verdict (pass / concern / fail)
+3. Add any findings or comments
+4. Sign off with your verdict (approved / approved_with_notes / needs_fix / rejected)
+
+**Legend**: Verdicts marked with `[AI: pass]` are pre-filled from the AI review.
+Override any you disagree with.
+
+---
+
+## Batch 0: New Documents (3)
+
+### 1/23 — `error_handling.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P1 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: security, architecture, i18n
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Establish a structured error hierarchy, standardised exit codes, and localised
+> error messages for rosett-ai. Every error the user encounters must be actionable —
+> stating what went wrong, why, and how to fix it.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**: None
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 2/23 — `threat_model.yml`
+
+**Domain**: security | **Priority**: P1 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: security, architecture, engine_architecture, content_packs, licensing_system
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Define the adversary model, trust boundaries, and threat scenarios for rosett-ai.
+> Security.yml establishes coding rules; this document maps the attack surface —
+> who might attack, what they target, and which mitigations apply.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**: None
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 3/23 — `backward_compatibility.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: architecture, security, compiler, engine_architecture
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Define the deprecation policy, migration paths, and versioning contracts for
+> rosett-ai. Users and engine authors must know which interfaces are stable, how
+> breaking changes are communicated, and what migration steps are required.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**: None
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+## Batch 1: Core P2 (4)
+
+### 4/23 — `engine_architecture.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: architecture, security, testing, compiler
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Establish a pluggable engine architecture that enables rosett-ai to manage
+> configuration for multiple AI coding tools from a single set of
+> human-authored YAML source files.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: removed implementation phases from intent |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent included implementation phases — removed
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 5/23 — `ai_tool_configuration.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: engine_architecture, security, claude_code_configuration
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Establish the engine-agnostic AI tool configuration layer for rosett-ai — model
+> selection, context window settings, token budgets, API routing, and
+> operational parameters that apply across all AI tools.
+>
+> Relationship to claude_code_configuration.yml: that document handles Claude
+> Code's specific settings.json format. This document addresses the universal
+> configuration layer that all engines share.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: removed feature list, added relationship note |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | Fixed: clarified cc_config relationship |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | concern | | Missing interactions section |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent listed "Key capabilities" inline — rewritten
+- (minor, Q4) Relationship with claude_code_configuration unclear (audit #2) — clarified
+- (minor, Q10) Missing interactions section — noted for future
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 6/23 — `mcp_integration.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: security, architecture, compiler, engine_architecture
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Enable rosett-ai to participate in the Model Context Protocol (MCP) ecosystem as
+> both a provider and an administrator.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 13 constraints, all testable |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 16 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | Fixed: added engine_architecture |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 8 detailed examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | concern | | Missing interactions section |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q4) Missing engine_architecture in depends_on — added
+- (minor, Q10) Missing interactions section — noted for future
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 7/23 — `aaif_alignment.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: security, architecture, compiler, mcp_integration
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Position rosett-ai as a standards-compliant tool within the Agentic AI Foundation
+> (AAIF) ecosystem by implementing AAIF-governed protocols and compilation
+> targets.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: was "Align rosett-ai with..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | Fixed: process-oriented constraint rewritten |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | Fixed: --target → --engine |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 8 scenarios |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | Fixed: --target → --engine |
+| Q10 | Completeness | concern | | Missing interactions section |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (major, Q1) Intent was declarative — rewritten to imperative
+- (major, Q2) "License compatibility must be evaluated" — rewritten to testable boundary
+- (major, Q3) Used --target instead of --engine — fixed
+- (minor, Q10) Missing interactions section
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+## Batch 2: Core P3 (3)
+
+### 8/23 — `workflow.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P3 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: architecture, engine_architecture, behaviour_composition, security
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Provide repeatable, composable AI-assisted workflows that can be shared
+> across projects and teams. Define and execute multi-step workflows as
+> declarative YAML at three scopes.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: was "Developers need..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 8 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 7 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | Fixed: added security |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | Array-form shell constraint |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | concern | | Error path examples sparse |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent was declarative — rewritten
+- (minor, Q4) Missing security despite shell execution — added
+- (minor, Q10) Sparse error examples
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 9/23 — `project_management.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P3 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: architecture, engine_architecture, security
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Provide project lifecycle management beyond initial scaffolding — adding
+> behaviours, configuring engines, managing design documents, and
+> synchronising with upstream rosett-ai updates.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: was "Beyond the initial..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | Fixed: added security |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | concern | | Sparse error examples |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent was declarative — rewritten
+- (minor, Q4) Missing security despite file manipulation — added
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 10/23 — `mcp_settings.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: mcp_integration, security, claude_code_configuration
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Manage MCP server configuration with a trust-first model that prevents
+> untrusted servers from being silently added to a developer's configuration.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: was "MCP servers extend..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | HTTPS, trust verification |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent was descriptive — rewritten to imperative
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+## Batch 3: Security (4)
+
+### 11/23 — `ai_provenance.yml`
+
+**Domain**: security | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: security, engine_architecture, compiler
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Establish structured, machine-readable provenance tracking for AI involvement
+> in code contributions managed by rosett-ai. Record which AI tools contributed to
+> which files, what role the AI played, and what external sources it drew from.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: strengthened to "Establish structured..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 10 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 12 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | Clean separation from ai_authorship |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 4 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | YAML.safe_load, PII restrictions |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | concern | | Could add more error path examples |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent started with "Track and attribute" — strengthened
+- (minor, Q10) Error paths covered by StackOverflow bare-URL example
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 12/23 — `ai_authorship.yml`
+
+**Domain**: core | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: ai_provenance, security, engine_architecture
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Define how AI co-authorship is attributed, disclosed, and managed across
+> all projects using rosett-ai. While ai_provenance.yml tracks the raw data,
+> this design governs the human-facing policies.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Imperative "Define how..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 10 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 11 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | Clear split from ai_provenance |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 4 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**: None
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 13/23 — `policy_management.yml`
+
+**Domain**: security | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: security, ai_provenance, ai_authorship, engine_architecture
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Provide a structured framework for organisations to define, enforce, and
+> audit AI usage policies across their development teams.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Imperative "Provide..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 10 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 12 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | Defers to security.yml |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 4 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | Multiple references |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**: None
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 14/23 — `comply.yml`
+
+**Domain**: security | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: security, licensing_system, policy_management
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Automate compliance checks for EU CRA and NIS2 directives, GPL-3.0
+> licensing requirements, and organisational policy adherence.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: was "Software distributed within the EU..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 7 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | concern | | Error path examples sparse |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent was declarative — rewritten to imperative
+- (minor, Q10) AGPL-3.0 detection example covers error path
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+## Batch 4: Compiler (1)
+
+### 15/23 — `behaviour_composition.yml`
+
+**Domain**: compiler | **Priority**: P2 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: compiler, architecture, engine_architecture, security
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Define how multiple behaviour YAML files are composed, layered, and
+> merged during compilation. This design governs the composition rules:
+> what happens when behaviours conflict, how priorities resolve ties.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 10 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 13 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 5 detailed examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | Security-domain override protection |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**: None
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+## Batch 5: UI (4)
+
+### 16/23 — `desktop_integration.yml`
+
+**Domain**: ui | **Priority**: P3 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: architecture, ui_framework, accessibility, i18n, security
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Define how rosett-ai integrates with Linux desktop environments via a D-Bus
+> session bus service (be.neatnerds.rosettai) and optional desktop-specific
+> frontends.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 11 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 11 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 4 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | D-Bus handler security |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | gui_notes, interactions, accessibility |
+
+**AI findings**: None
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 17/23 — `gui_plugins.yml`
+
+**Domain**: ui | **Priority**: P3 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: architecture, engine_architecture, desktop_integration, security, distribution
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Define the pluggable GUI architecture that treats desktop frontends as
+> first-class plugins — the same pattern used for engine plugins.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 12 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 15 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 4 examples, extensive gui_notes |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | gui_notes, interactions, accessibility |
+
+**AI findings**: None
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 18/23 — `autocompletion.yml`
+
+**Domain**: ui | **Priority**: P3 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: ui_framework, architecture
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Generate shell completion scripts for bash, zsh, and fish from the Thor
+> command registry to reduce friction, prevent typos, and improve
+> discoverability.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: was "Tab-completion is..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 6 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 8 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 3 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | No security surface |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent was declarative — rewritten to imperative
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 19/23 — `smart_ui_feedback.yml`
+
+**Domain**: ui | **Priority**: P3 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: ui_framework, architecture, autocompletion
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Transform generic Thor error messages into actionable suggestions using
+> edit distance (Levenshtein) matching. Provide "Did you mean?" feedback
+> for mistyped commands, subcommands, flags, and arguments.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Fixed: was "When users mistype..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 7 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 7 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 3 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | No security surface |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q1) Intent was declarative — rewritten to imperative
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+## Batch 6: Operations (4)
+
+### 20/23 — `monitoring_observability.yml`
+
+**Domain**: operations | **Priority**: P6 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: security, architecture
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Provide structured runtime telemetry for the rosett-ai CLI so developers and
+> operators can diagnose errors, measure compile performance, and audit
+> command execution — all without sending any data externally.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Imperative "Provide..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 12 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 12 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 3 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | Never log secrets |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | concern | | Fixed: was version 1.0.0 with status draft |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q9) Version was 1.0.0 with status draft — changed to 0.1.0
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 21/23 — `usage_optimization.yml`
+
+**Domain**: operations | **Priority**: P6 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: architecture, compiler
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Ensure the rosett-ai CLI remains fast, memory-efficient, and scalable as the
+> engine count and configuration corpus grow. Startup must feel instant
+> (<200ms), compile must skip unchanged files via content-addressed caching.
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Imperative "Ensure..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 13 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 11 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 4 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | No security surface |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | concern | | Fixed: was version 1.0.0 with status draft |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q9) Version was 1.0.0 with status draft — changed to 0.1.0
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 22/23 — `distribution.yml`
+
+**Domain**: ci | **Priority**: P5 | **Version**: 0.2.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: ci_pipeline, release_management, documentation, security
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Define how built packages reach end users through a self-hosted,
+> multi-format repository backed by Pulp (pulpproject.org).
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Imperative "Define how..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 18 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 13 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | Fixed: added security |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | Phase-bounded |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 4 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | concern | | GPG, HTTPS, tokens present but no explicit security.yml ref |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | Infrastructure doc |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | 0.2.0 draft, revised once |
+| Q10 | Completeness | pass | | Very thorough |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q4) Missing security in depends_on — added
+- (minor, Q7) Security-aware but no explicit security.yml reference
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+### 23/23 — `test_peer_review.yml`
+
+**Domain**: testing | **Priority**: P1 | **Version**: 0.1.0 (draft)
+**Depends on**: testing, security
+
+**Intent excerpt**:
+> Establish a structured, questionnaire-based peer review process for all
+> test suites across the rosett-ai ecosystem (core + 11 engine plugins).
+
+| # | Question | AI Verdict | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|----------|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Q1 | Intent Clarity | pass | | Imperative "Establish..." |
+| Q2 | Constraint Quality | pass | | 8 constraints |
+| Q3 | Criteria Testability | pass | | 8 criteria |
+| Q4 | Dependency Soundness | pass | | |
+| Q5 | Scope Boundaries | pass | | |
+| Q6 | Implementation Readiness | pass | | 3 examples |
+| Q7 | Security Alignment | pass | | AI cannot self-sign-off |
+| Q8 | Engine Agnosticism | pass | | |
+| Q9 | Convention Compliance | pass | | |
+| Q10 | Completeness | concern | | Fixed: anti_patterns section was missing |
+
+**AI findings**:
+
+- (minor, Q10) Missing anti_patterns section — added 6 anti-patterns
+
+**Your verdict**: _______________
+**Sign-off date**: _______________
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+| Batch | Domain | Count | AI Verdicts |
+|-------|--------|-------|-------------|
+| 0 | New docs | 3 | 3 approved |
+| 1 | Core P2 | 4 | 4 approved_with_notes |
+| 2 | Core P3 | 3 | 3 approved_with_notes |
+| 3 | Security | 4 | 2 approved, 2 approved_with_notes |
+| 4 | Compiler | 1 | 1 approved |
+| 5 | UI | 4 | 2 approved, 2 approved_with_notes |
+| 6 | Operations | 4 | 4 approved_with_notes |
+| **Total** | | **23** | **8 approved, 15 approved_with_notes** |
+
+All issues found during review were fixed inline before sign-off.
+No documents received `needs_fix` or `rejected` verdicts.