@ai-dev-methodologies/rlp-desk 0.15.4 → 0.15.6

package/docs/rlp-desk/plans/toasty-whistling-diffie-agent-a6814625642e956da.md

@@ -1,201 +0,0 @@
-# Architect Review: v0.6 Refactoring Plan (RALPLAN Consensus)
-
-**Verdict: ITERATE** — The plan is directionally sound but has two concrete issues that must be resolved before execution.
-
----
-
-## Summary
-
-The Planner's Option C (extract `lib_ralph_desk.zsh` as a shared business-logic module) is architecturally correct and the rejection of TeamCreate is well-reasoned. However, the plan underestimates two zsh-specific risks in the extraction and contains a gap in the final-verify-split proposal. I recommend proceeding with Option C after addressing the issues below.
-
----
-
-## Analysis
-
-### 1. Steelman Antithesis: The Strongest Case Against Option C
-
-**The best argument against Option C is not that TeamCreate is better — it is that the extraction creates a maintenance burden for zero immediate user value.**
-
-Consider: Agent() mode (rlp-desk.md) is an LLM template, not a shell script. It does not call `get_next_model()`, `check_model_upgrade()`, `write_worker_trigger()`, or any zsh function. The Agent mode Leader is Claude Code itself, interpreting markdown instructions. There is no code to share between the two modes because one mode is shell and the other is natural language.
-
-The Planner claims "~1,900 lines are business logic" shareable between modes. But examining the actual functions:
-
-- `write_worker_trigger()` (lines 1162-1297): Constructs shell trigger scripts with heredocs embedding `$CLAUDE_BIN`, `$CODEX_BIN`, heartbeat PIDs — entirely tmux-specific.
-- `write_verifier_trigger()` (lines 1299-1389): Same pattern — generates shell trigger scripts for tmux panes.
-- `poll_for_signal()` (lines 1955-2104): Polls tmux panes, monitors heartbeats, nudges idle panes, auto-approves permission prompts via `tmux send-keys` — 100% tmux plumbing.
-- `run_single_verifier()` (lines 2276-2372): Manages tmux pane lifecycle (kill, split, reset), then launches into pane — tmux-specific.
-- `run_consensus_verification()` (lines 2393-2539): Calls `run_single_verifier()` — inherits tmux dependency.
-- `cleanup()` (lines 1807-1948): Kills tmux panes, generates campaign report — tmux lifecycle.
-- `main()` (lines 2561-3126): The entire main loop — creates tmux sessions, polls panes, manages pane lifecycle.
-
-The genuinely **mode-independent** functions are a smaller set than claimed:
-
-| Function | Lines | Truly Shareable? |
-|----------|-------|-----------------|
-| `log()` / `log_debug()` / `log_error()` | 152-165 | Yes |
-| `parse_model_flag()` | 173-192 | Yes |
-| `get_model_string()` | 219-229 | Yes |
-| `get_next_model()` | 440-469 | Yes |
-| `check_model_upgrade()` | 475-527 | Yes |
-| `atomic_write()` | 531-536 | Yes |
-| `validate_scaffold()` | 635-669 | Yes |
-| `update_status()` | 1391-1432 | Yes |
-| `write_result_log()` | 1435-1471 | Yes |
-| `archive_iter_artifacts()` | 1474-1484 | Yes |
-| `write_cost_log()` | 1487-1524 | Yes |
-| `write_campaign_jsonl()` | 1527-1558 | Yes |
-| `generate_campaign_report()` | 1561-1706 | Yes |
-| `generate_sv_report()` | 1708-1779 | Yes |
-| `compute_prd_hash()` | 2111-2121 | Yes |
-| `count_prd_us()` | 2123-2133 | Yes |
-| `split_prd_by_us()` | 2135-2158 | Yes |
-| `split_test_spec_by_us()` | 2160-2193 | Yes |
-| `check_prd_update()` | 2195-2232 | Yes |
-| `compute_context_hash()` | 2234-2250 | Yes |
-| `check_stale_context()` | 2252-2274 | Yes |
-| `inject_per_us_prd()` | 1144-1157 | Yes |
-
-This is roughly 700-800 lines of genuinely shareable logic, not 1,900. The rest is deeply intertwined with tmux pane management. The "~1,100 lines of business logic" claim needs recalibration.
-
-**But here is why the antithesis ultimately fails:** Even if Agent() mode cannot directly `source` these functions (it is an LLM, not a shell), extracting them still has value:
-1. **Testing**: The `extract_fn()` test pattern (used across all 35 test files) extracts functions from `run_ralph_desk.zsh` by awk-ing function boundaries. A dedicated `lib_ralph_desk.zsh` would make tests cleaner — `source lib_ralph_desk.zsh` instead of fragile awk extraction.
-2. **Readability**: 3,184 lines in one file is objectively hard to navigate.
-3. **Future extensibility**: If a third orchestration mode appears (e.g., Docker, SSH), the shared lib is ready.
-
-**Synthesis**: Option C is correct, but the extraction scope should be the ~800 lines of genuinely mode-independent logic, not the inflated ~1,900 line estimate. The tmux-entangled functions stay in `run_ralph_desk.zsh`.
-
-### 2. Tradeoff Tension: "Simplify" vs. "Preserve"
-
-The plan says it preserves both Agent() and tmux modes while "simplifying" via extraction. But there is a fundamental tension:
-
-**Agent() mode is an LLM interpreting markdown. Tmux mode is a shell script.** They do not share code. They share *concepts* (the governance protocol). The governance.md document IS the shared abstraction — it already serves as the "lib" for Agent mode.
-
-Extracting shell functions into `lib_ralph_desk.zsh` simplifies tmux mode's file organization, but does nothing to reduce the conceptual duplication between the modes. Every governance rule appears in three places:
-1. `governance.md` (the canonical spec)
-2. `rlp-desk.md` (Agent mode instructions, lines 296-555)
-3. `run_ralph_desk.zsh` (tmux mode implementation)
-
-The lib extraction does not reduce this triple-statement problem. If the user later changes the circuit breaker threshold logic, they must still update all three files.
-
-**This is not a blocking issue** — it is a tension to acknowledge in documentation. The plan should explicitly state: "lib extraction reduces file-level complexity but does not reduce specification duplication. governance.md remains the single source of truth; both modes implement it independently."
-
-### 3. Architecture Soundness: zsh-specific `source` Pitfalls
-
-The plan calls the extraction "purely mechanical (move functions, add source statement)." This is dangerously optimistic for zsh. Two concrete risks:
-
-**Risk A: Global variable scoping across `source` boundaries.**
-
-`run_ralph_desk.zsh` uses three `typeset -A` associative arrays at file scope (line 118-120):
-```
-typeset -A LAST_PANE_CONTENT
-typeset -A PANE_IDLE_SINCE
-typeset -A WORKER_RESTARTS
-```
-
-These are tmux-specific and would stay in `run_ralph_desk.zsh`. But 30+ other global variables (lines 47-143) — `SLUG`, `WORKER_MODEL`, `ITERATION`, `VERIFIED_US`, `CONSECUTIVE_FAILURES`, etc. — are read and mutated by functions throughout the file. After extraction:
-
-- `lib_ralph_desk.zsh` functions (e.g., `check_model_upgrade()` at line 475) mutate globals like `_SAME_US_FAIL_COUNT`, `_LAST_FAILED_US`, `_MODEL_UPGRADED`, `WORKER_MODEL`, `WORKER_CODEX_MODEL`, `WORKER_CODEX_REASONING`.
-- These globals are defined in `run_ralph_desk.zsh` before `source lib_ralph_desk.zsh`.
-- In zsh, `source` shares the caller's scope — globals survive across source boundaries. **This works.**
-- But `typeset` inside a function creates a **local** variable in zsh (unlike bash where `declare` in a function is local but at top-level is global). If any extracted function uses `typeset` internally, it creates a local shadow, not a global mutation. This is already the case in the current code so it is not a new problem, but the extractor must verify no `typeset` statements are accidentally introduced during the move.
-
-**Risk B: `local` vs. global mutation in extracted functions.**
-
-`check_model_upgrade()` (line 475-527) directly mutates globals: `_SAME_US_FAIL_COUNT`, `_LAST_FAILED_US`, `_MODEL_UPGRADED`, `_ORIGINAL_WORKER_MODEL`, `WORKER_MODEL`, `WORKER_CODEX_MODEL`, `WORKER_CODEX_REASONING`. After moving to `lib_ralph_desk.zsh`, these mutations will still work because zsh functions see the calling scope's globals. **But**: if someone later wraps the `source` call inside a function (e.g., `load_lib()`), the scoping changes — `typeset -A` in the sourced file would become local to `load_lib()`. The source statement must remain at the file's top level.
-
-**Mitigation**: Add a comment in `run_ralph_desk.zsh` line 1 area: `# IMPORTANT: source lib_ralph_desk.zsh at file scope, NOT inside a function.`
-
-### 4. Risk the Planner Missed: Test Breakage Pattern
-
-All 35 test files use the `extract_fn()` pattern (confirmed at `tests/test_engine_refactor.sh:12-14`, `tests/test_us009_api_retry_guard.sh:11-31`, `tests/test_us004_progressive_upgrade.sh:17-20`):
-
-```bash
-RUN="${RUN:-src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh}"
-extract_fn() {
-  awk -v fn="$1" '$0 ~ "^"fn"\\(\\)" { p=1 } p { print } p && /^}/ { p=0 }' "$RUN"
-}
-```
-
-After extraction, functions that move to `lib_ralph_desk.zsh` will no longer be found by `extract_fn()` because `$RUN` still points to `run_ralph_desk.zsh`. The plan says "171 tests continue working with updated paths" — this requires either:
-
-**Option 1**: Update `$RUN` in each test to `$LIB` for functions in the lib (changes to 35 files).
-**Option 2**: Have `run_ralph_desk.zsh` physically `source` the lib, so extracting from the combined output works. But `extract_fn()` runs awk on a **file**, not on the runtime-sourced combination.
-**Option 3**: Add a `LIB="${LIB:-src/scripts/lib_ralph_desk.zsh}"` variable in each test and update `extract_fn()` to search both files.
-
-The Planner did not specify which approach. This is a concrete implementation detail that affects all test files and must be decided before execution. Option 3 is recommended — it is backward-compatible and minimal.
-
-### 5. Final Verify Split: Sequential Per-US
-
-The proposal to split the final ALL verify into sequential per-US checks is sound in principle — it reuses the proven per-US mechanism and avoids the monolithic timeout problem. However:
-
-**Gap: Cross-US integration is the entire point of the final verify.**
-
-The governance spec (`governance.md` lines 184-187) explicitly states:
-> Checkpoint 2: Release Readiness (us_id=ALL) — Scope: all AC + L2 integration (if applicable) + L3 E2E Simulation + L4 deploy (if applicable)
-
-The final ALL verify exists to catch **cross-US regressions** — e.g., US-003's changes broke US-001's tests. Sequential per-US re-verification catches per-US regressions but may miss **system-level integration** issues that only manifest when all changes interact.
-
-**Mitigation**: The sequential per-US checks should be followed by a lightweight integration check: run the full test suite once (not per-US scoped). If the full suite passes, COMPLETE. If it fails, the failure is already scoped to specific tests that can be debugged. This is cheap (one test run) and preserves the cross-US safety net.
-
-### 6. Merge Strategy: Squash Merge of 77 Commits
-
-Squash merge is correct for this case:
-- 77 commits include campaign iteration artifacts (iter01, iter02, ..., iter14), done-claim corrections, and verification handoffs — these are process noise, not meaningful history.
-- The feature branch is `feature/v0.4.1-tmux-sv-report` — a single feature.
-- Squash produces one clean commit on main with a clear message.
-
-**One caution**: Verify that `git diff main...HEAD` shows only the intended changes before squashing. Campaign-generated test artifacts or temporary files should not be included.
-
----
-
-## Root Cause
-
-The plan's core weakness is not its direction (Option C is correct) but its estimation of extraction scope. The "1,900 lines of business logic" figure conflates tmux-entangled orchestration logic with genuinely mode-independent utility functions. This overestimate could lead to an extraction that either (a) tries to extract tmux-dependent code and breaks it, or (b) discovers mid-implementation that the extraction is smaller than planned and loses momentum.
-
----
-
-## Recommendations
-
-1. **Recalibrate extraction scope** — LOW effort, HIGH impact. The lib should contain ~800 lines of genuinely mode-independent functions (logging, model management, scaffold validation, reporting, PRD/context utilities), not the full 1,900 claimed. Functions that call `tmux` commands or reference pane IDs stay in `run_ralph_desk.zsh`.
-
-2. **Decide test migration strategy** — LOW effort, HIGH impact. Before extraction, decide on Option 3 (dual-file `extract_fn`) and document it. This prevents 35 test files from breaking.
-
-3. **Add a source-scope guard comment** — TRIVIAL effort, MEDIUM impact. `# IMPORTANT: source at file scope, NOT inside a function` at the top of both files. Prevents future scoping bugs.
-
-4. **Add integration check to final verify split** — LOW effort, HIGH impact. After sequential per-US re-checks, run the full test suite once as a cross-US safety net.
-
-5. **Proceed with Phase 0 (npm publish v0.5) first** — as planned. Ship what exists before refactoring.
-
----
-
-## Consensus Addendum
-
-### Antithesis (steelman)
-The strongest argument against Option C: Agent() mode is an LLM interpreting markdown — it will never `source lib_ralph_desk.zsh`. The extraction creates a cleaner tmux codebase but does NOT create a "shared module used by both modes." The "hybrid" framing is misleading. What this actually is: a tmux-mode-internal refactoring that splits one 3,184-line file into two files. That is still valuable, but the value proposition should be stated honestly.
-
-### Tradeoff tension
-**File organization simplicity vs. specification duplication**: Extracting a lib simplifies the file structure but does nothing about the triple-statement problem (governance.md + rlp-desk.md + run_ralph_desk.zsh). Every governance change still requires updating three artifacts. The real "shared module" is governance.md itself — both modes implement it from the spec. Until the architecture evolves to make governance.md machine-executable (not just human-readable), this duplication persists regardless of how many .zsh files exist.
-
-### Synthesis
-Accept Option C but reframe it: "tmux-mode internal refactoring" rather than "hybrid shared module." This honest framing prevents scope creep (trying to make Agent mode consume the lib) and focuses the extraction on the right ~800 lines. The long-term path to true mode unification would be making governance.md a structured schema that both modes consume programmatically — but that is v0.7+ territory, not v0.6.
-
-### Principle violations
-- **Estimation accuracy**: The 1,900-line extraction claim does not survive code inspection. The real shareable set is ~800 lines. This is a planning accuracy issue, not a direction issue.
-- **Test impact omission**: The plan claims "171 tests continue working with updated paths" but does not specify the mechanism. The `extract_fn()` pattern hardcodes `$RUN` pointing to one file; extraction breaks this.
-
----
-
-## References
-
-- `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh:118-120` — `typeset -A` associative arrays (tmux-specific global state)
-- `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh:440-469` — `get_next_model()` (genuinely shareable business logic)
-- `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh:475-527` — `check_model_upgrade()` (shareable but mutates 7 globals)
-- `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh:1162-1297` — `write_worker_trigger()` (tmux-entangled, NOT shareable)
-- `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh:1955-2104` — `poll_for_signal()` (100% tmux plumbing)
-- `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh:2276-2372` — `run_single_verifier()` (tmux pane lifecycle)
-- `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh:2561-3126` — `main()` (tmux session management + main loop)
-- `src/governance.md:184-187` — Checkpoint 2 Release Readiness scope (cross-US integration)
-- `src/governance.md:300-374` — Agent mode (§5a) and Tmux mode (§5b) architecture
-- `src/commands/rlp-desk.md:296-460` — Agent mode Leader loop (LLM instructions, not shell code)
-- `tests/test_engine_refactor.sh:6-14` — `extract_fn()` pattern with `$RUN` hardcoded
-- `tests/test_us009_api_retry_guard.sh:4-31` — Same pattern with more complex harness

package/docs/rlp-desk/plans/toasty-whistling-diffie.md

@@ -1,117 +0,0 @@
-# Hotfix: Revert keybinding changes from init_ralph_desk.zsh
-
-**Created**: 2026-03-30
-**Updated**: 2026-03-30 (Phase 1-4 구현 완료, 커밋 대기)
-**Branch**: main (v0.5.0, 커밋 대기 변경 +89 lines)
-
----
-
-## Context
-
-v0.5.0 코드는 main에 머지 + push 완료. npm publish와 gh release만 남음. lib_ralph_desk.zsh 추출 완료 (internal refactoring, semver 변경 불필요). 이 계획은 master issue list의 미해결 항목 전체를 다룸.
-
----
-
-## Phase 0: npm publish v0.5.0 (보류 — 유저 요청 시)
-
-1. `gh release create v0.5.0` (user-facing release notes)
-2. `npm publish`
-3. Local file sync 확인
-
----
-
-## Phase 1: 검증 필요 항목 (구현됨, 실전 테스트 미완)
-
-### A14/A15: init --mode improve (test-spec 보존 + sentinel 정리)
-- **상태**: v05 캠페인에서 구현, test_a14a15_init_improve.sh 존재
-- **필요**: 실제 `--mode improve` 시나리오 수동 테스트로 동작 확인
-- **파일**: `src/scripts/init_ralph_desk.zsh`
-
-### A18: zombie runner lockfile
-- **상태**: lockfile 로직 구현됨 (8 references in run_ralph_desk.zsh)
-- **필요**: 실전 캠페인에서 중복 실행 방지 검증
-- **파일**: `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh`
-
----
-
-## Phase 2: HIGH 우선순위 이슈
-
-### A10: "edit its own settings" permission prompt 블로킹
-- **문제**: Claude Code가 자체 settings 수정 시 permission 프롬프트 발생 → Worker 블로킹
-- **근본 원인**: `--dangerously-skip-permissions`로도 우회 불가
-- **접근**: Claude Code 측 해결 대기 or Worker prompt에 settings 수정 금지 규칙 강화
-- **파일**: `src/commands/rlp-desk.md` (Worker prompt), `src/governance.md`
-- **크기**: SMALL (prompt 변경만)
-
-### C4: /rlp-desk status 상세 보고
-- **문제**: 현재 status가 빈약 — 현재 US, 시도 횟수, 실패 원인, 실패 주체 미표시
-- **접근**: status.json에 이미 필드 존재 → rlp-desk.md status 서브커맨드에서 파싱 + 표시
-- **파일**: `src/commands/rlp-desk.md` (status 섹션)
-- **TDD**: `tests/test_status_detail.sh` 신규
-- **크기**: MEDIUM
-
-### B3/B4: 런타임 per-US document splitting
-- **문제**: init에서 PRD/test-spec 분할은 완료됐지만, run 중 Worker prompt에 해당 US만 주입하는 로직 미완
-- **접근**: write_worker_trigger()에서 per-US PRD/test-spec 파일 존재 시 해당 파일만 inject
-- **파일**: `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh` (write_worker_trigger), `src/scripts/lib_ralph_desk.zsh` (inject_per_us_prd 이미 존재 확인 필요)
-- **TDD**: 기존 test_us002_perus_inject.sh 확장
-- **크기**: MEDIUM
-
----
-
-## Phase 3: MEDIUM 우선순위 이슈
-
-### A16: tmux foreground 실행 충돌
-- **문제**: run_ralph_desk.zsh를 foreground로 실행하면 Claude Code pane과 충돌
-- **접근**: rlp-desk.md에서 run_in_background 필수 명시 + foreground 감지 시 경고
-- **파일**: `src/commands/rlp-desk.md`, `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh`
-- **크기**: SMALL
-
-### D1/D2: rlp-desk resume 서브커맨드
-- **문제**: 캠페인 중단 후 재시작 시 verified_us 복원 안 됨
-- **접근**: status.json에서 verified_us 읽어 복원 + resume 서브커맨드 추가
-- **파일**: `src/commands/rlp-desk.md` (resume 섹션), `src/scripts/run_ralph_desk.zsh` (--resume 플래그)
-- **TDD**: `tests/test_resume.sh` 신규
-- **크기**: MEDIUM
-
----
-
-## Phase 4: LOW 우선순위 / Backlog
-
-### A5: Rate limit 후 pane 오염 — ✅ 구현됨 (미커밋)
-- poll_for_signal에서 "queued messages" 감지 시 pane C-c + /exit 자동 실행
-
-### C3: Agent mode campaign.jsonl — ✅ 구현됨 (미커밋)
-- rlp-desk.md ⑧ 섹션에 campaign.jsonl APPEND 지시 추가
-
-### F8: --consensus-fail-fast — ✅ 구현됨 (미커밋)
-- CONSENSUS_FAIL_FAST 환경변수 + claude fail 시 codex skip 로직
-
-### F9: rlp-desk analytics 서브커맨드 — ✅ 스텁 추가 (미커밋)
-- rlp-desk.md에 analytics 서브커맨드 문서화 (실제 구현은 Agent mode LLM이 해석)
-
-### A17: logs/ 디렉토리 구조 리팩토링 — ❌ 미착수
-- **크기**: LARGE (경로 참조 수십 곳 변경)
-- **다음 세션으로 보류**
-
----
-
-## 실행 순서 (권장)
-
-```
-Phase 0: npm publish (유저 요청 시)
-Phase 1: A14/A15 + A18 실전 검증 (수동 테스트, 코드 변경 없음)
-Phase 2: C4 → B3/B4 → A10 (순서대로, 각각 독립)
-Phase 3: A16 → D1/D2
-Phase 4: Backlog (필요 시)
-```
-
-Phase 2의 C4, B3/B4, A10은 독립적이므로 병렬 가능.
-
----
-
-## Verification
-
-- 각 Phase 완료 후: `for f in tests/test_*.sh; do bash "$f" || exit 1; done`
-- 신규 기능: TDD (test 먼저, RED 확인, 구현, GREEN 확인)
-- CLAUDE.md 규칙: 커밋 전 유저 승인, npm publish 전 유저 승인

package/docs/rlp-desk/plans/validated-snacking-crayon.md

@@ -1,204 +0,0 @@
-# Plan: Flywheel Phase 1 — SV Report Generation + Brainstorm Feedback Loop
-
-## Context
-
-rlp-desk의 flywheel 아키텍처(governance §8½ + brainstorm step 0)가 설계되어 있지만 구현이 끊겨 있다.
-`--with-self-verification` 플래그가 파싱되지만 실제 SV 리포트 생성 코드가 없고, brainstorm step 0도 SV 리포트를 읽는 로직이 없다.
-
-**목표:** 캠페인 A → SV 리포트 생성 → 캠페인 B brainstorm이 A의 패턴 참조 — 최소한의 피드백 루프 완성.
-
-**브랜치:** `feature/flywheel-sv-report`
-
----
-
-## Current State (Gap Analysis)
-
-| 구성요소 | 상태 | 위치 |
-|----------|------|------|
-| `--with-self-verification` 플래그 파싱 | ✅ | run.mjs:142-144 |
-| 10섹션 SV 리포트 템플릿 정의 | ✅ | rlp-desk.md:522-573 |
-| §8½ 피드백 루프 정의 | ✅ | governance.md:629-635 |
-| Brainstorm step 0 정의 | ✅ | rlp-desk.md:115 |
-| `generateSVReport()` 함수 | ❌ | 존재하지 않음 |
-| campaign-main-loop.mjs에서 SV 호출 | ❌ | svSummary 파라미터 안 전달 (465, 568, 590) |
-| analytics 디렉토리 생성 | ❌ | 코드 없음 |
-| SV 리포트 테스트 | ❌ | us007에 없음 |
-
----
-
-## Changes
-
-### Change 1: `generateSVReport()` 함수 구현
-**File:** `src/node/reporting/campaign-reporting.mjs` (확장)
-
-기존 `generateCampaignReport()` (line 159) 옆에 `generateSVReport()` 추가.
-
-**Input:**
-- `slug` — campaign slug
-- `logsDir` — `.claude/ralph-desk/logs/<slug>/` (done-claim, verify-verdict 파일 위치)
-- `prdFile` — PRD 경로
-- `testSpecFile` — test-spec 경로
-- `analyticsFile` — campaign.jsonl 경로
-- `outputDir` — `~/.claude/ralph-desk/analytics/<slug>/` (SV 리포트 출력)
-
-**로직:**
-1. `logsDir`에서 `iter-*-done-claim.json`, `iter-*-verify-verdict.json` 파일 수집
-2. done-claim에서 execution_steps 파싱 → Worker Process Quality 집계
-3. verify-verdict에서 reasoning 파싱 → Verifier Judgment Quality 집계
-4. campaign.jsonl에서 per-iteration 요약 → Automated Validation Summary
-5. AC lifecycle 추적 (first claimed, first verified, reopen count)
-6. 10섹션 마크다운 생성
-7. `outputDir/self-verification-report-NNN.md`에 버전드 파일 쓰기
-8. `outputDir/self-verification-data.json`에 구조화 데이터 쓰기
-
-**10섹션 구현 우선순위:**
-- 필수 (핵심 피드백): §1 Automated Validation, §3 Worker Process Quality, §7 Patterns, §8 Recommendations
-- 중요 (진단): §2 Failure Deep Dive, §4 Verifier Quality, §5 AC Lifecycle
-- 보조 (참고): §6 Test-Spec Adherence, §9 Cost, §10 Blind Spots
-
-**Return:** `{ reportPath, version, summary }` — summary는 generateCampaignReport()의 svSummary 파라미터로 전달
-
-### Change 2: campaign-main-loop.mjs에 SV 생성 연결
-**File:** `src/node/runner/campaign-main-loop.mjs` lines 465, 568, 590
-
-현재 `generateCampaignReport()` 호출 3곳에서:
-1. `options.withSelfVerification` 체크
-2. true면 `generateSVReport()` 호출
-3. 결과의 summary를 `svSummary` 파라미터로 전달
-
-**Before (현재):**
-```javascript
-await generateCampaignReport({
-  slug, reportFile, prdFile, statusFile, analyticsFile, now
-});
-```
-
-**After:**
-```javascript
-let svSummary = 'N/A — --with-self-verification not enabled';
-if (options.withSelfVerification) {
-  const sv = await generateSVReport({
-    slug, logsDir: paths.logsDir, prdFile: paths.prdFile,
-    testSpecFile: paths.testSpecFile, analyticsFile: paths.analyticsFile,
-    outputDir: paths.analyticsDir,
-  });
-  svSummary = sv.summary;
-}
-await generateCampaignReport({
-  slug, reportFile, prdFile, statusFile, analyticsFile, now, svSummary
-});
-```
-
-### Change 3: analytics 디렉토리 생성
-**File:** `src/node/runner/campaign-main-loop.mjs` (초기화 단계)
-
-캠페인 시작 시 `~/.claude/ralph-desk/analytics/<slug>/` 디렉토리 생성.
-- slug에 `--<root_hash>` 접미사 추가 (cross-project 충돌 방지, rlp-desk.md:248 스펙)
-- metadata.json 초기 작성
-
-**paths 객체에 추가:**
-```javascript
-analyticsDir: join(homeDir, '.claude/ralph-desk/analytics', `${slug}--${rootHash}`),
-```
-
-### Change 4: Brainstorm Step 0 SV Report Feedback 구현
-**File:** `src/commands/rlp-desk.md` brainstorm section (line 115 area)
-
-현재 step 0은 한 줄 설명만 있음. 구체적 실행 절차 추가:
-
-```markdown
-0. **SV Report Feedback** — If a prior campaign's self-verification report exists:
-   a. Scan `~/.claude/ralph-desk/analytics/` for directories matching this project root
-   b. Read the latest `self-verification-report-*.md` from each matching directory
-   c. Extract from §7 (Patterns) and §8 (Recommendations):
-      - Which US types/sizes failed most frequently
-      - Which AC quality dimensions scored lowest
-      - Which model tiers underperformed for this project's complexity
-      - Specific brainstorm/PRD/test-spec recommendations from prior campaigns
-   d. Present findings to user: "Prior campaign analysis found: [patterns]. Recommendations: [suggestions]."
-   e. If no prior reports exist, skip and note "No prior campaign data available."
-```
-
----
-
-## Implementation Sequence
-
-| Wave | Changes | Files | Dependency |
-|------|---------|-------|------------|
-| 1 | Change 1 (generateSVReport) | campaign-reporting.mjs | None |
-| 1 | Change 3 (analytics dir) | campaign-main-loop.mjs + paths.mjs | None |
-| 2 | Change 2 (SV 호출 연결) | campaign-main-loop.mjs | Change 1, 3 |
-| 3 | Change 4 (brainstorm step 0) | rlp-desk.md | Change 1 (reports exist) |
-
-Wave 1은 병렬 가능 (서로 독립).
-Wave 2는 Wave 1 완료 후.
-Wave 3는 별도 — rlp-desk.md만 수정.
-
----
-
-## TDD Plan
-
-### 테스트 파일: `tests/node/test-sv-report.mjs` (새로 생성)
-
-**Change 1 테스트:**
-- T1.1: done-claim + verify-verdict 파일에서 10섹션 리포트 생성
-- T1.2: 빈 logs 디렉토리 → graceful 처리 (빈 리포트)
-- T1.3: Worker Process Quality §3 — TDD compliance % 정확성
-- T1.4: Verifier Judgment Quality §4 — reasoning completeness % 정확성
-- T1.5: AC Lifecycle §5 — reopen count 추적
-- T1.6: Patterns §7 + Recommendations §8 — 패턴 추출
-- T1.7: 버전드 파일 쓰기 (NNN 증가)
-- T1.8: self-verification-data.json 구조 검증
-
-**Change 2 테스트:**
-- T2.1: withSelfVerification=false → svSummary 기본값
-- T2.2: withSelfVerification=true → generateSVReport 호출됨
-
-**Change 3 테스트:**
-- T3.1: analytics 디렉토리 생성 확인
-- T3.2: metadata.json 구조 검증
-
-**Change 4 테스트:**
-- T4.1: rlp-desk.md에 step 0 실행 절차 존재 (grep)
-
----
-
-## Verification
-
-### TDD Flow
-1. 테스트 작성 → RED (generateSVReport 없으므로)
-2. Change 1 구현 → 테스트 GREEN
-3. Change 3 구현 → analytics dir 테스트 GREEN
-4. Change 2 구현 → 연결 테스트 GREEN
-5. Change 4 구현 → grep 테스트 GREEN
-
-### E2E Verification
-1. 테스트 프로젝트에서 campaign 실행 (with-self-verification 플래그)
-2. `~/.claude/ralph-desk/analytics/<slug>/self-verification-report-001.md` 생성 확인
-3. 리포트에 10섹션 존재 확인
-4. 두 번째 campaign brainstorm에서 첫 캠페인 패턴 참조 확인
-
-### Self-Verification Gate
-governance.md 변경 없음 (§8½는 이미 정의됨). rlp-desk.md만 변경.
-init_ralph_desk.zsh 변경 없으면 2시나리오만 필요:
-- LOW: SV 리포트 없는 상태에서 brainstorm → "No prior data" 스킵
-- MEDIUM: SV 리포트 있는 상태에서 brainstorm → 패턴 참조
-
----
-
-## Critical Files
-
-| File | Changes |
-|------|---------|
-| `src/node/reporting/campaign-reporting.mjs` | Change 1: generateSVReport() 추가 |
-| `src/node/runner/campaign-main-loop.mjs` | Change 2: SV 호출 연결, Change 3: analytics dir |
-| `src/node/shared/paths.mjs` | Change 3: analyticsDir path 추가 |
-| `src/commands/rlp-desk.md` | Change 4: brainstorm step 0 절차 확장 |
-| `tests/node/test-sv-report.mjs` | 새로 생성 — SV 리포트 테스트 |
-
-### Reuse 가능한 기존 코드
-- `versionFile()` (campaign-reporting.mjs:47-60) — 버전드 파일 쓰기
-- `readAnalytics()` (campaign-reporting.mjs:70-80) — campaign.jsonl 파싱
-- `readJsonIfExists()` (campaign-reporting.mjs:62-68) — JSON 안전 읽기
-- `summarizeUsStatus()` (campaign-reporting.mjs:91-96) — US 상태 집계
-- `summarizeVerificationResults()` (campaign-reporting.mjs:98-102) — 검증 결과 집계

package/examples/calculator/.claude/ralph-desk/logs/loop-test/iter-001.worker-prompt.md

@@ -1,38 +0,0 @@
-Execute the plan for loop-test.
-
-Required reads every iteration:
-- PRD: .claude/ralph-desk/plans/prd-loop-test.md
-- Test Spec: .claude/ralph-desk/plans/test-spec-loop-test.md
-- Campaign Memory: .claude/ralph-desk/memos/loop-test-memory.md
-- Latest Context: .claude/ralph-desk/context/loop-test-latest.md
-
-CRITICAL RULE: Work on only ONE User Story per iteration.
-- Check campaign memory's "Next Iteration Contract" first and do that.
-- Do not touch already-completed stories.
-
-Iteration rules:
-- Use fresh context only; do NOT depend on prior chat history.
-- Execute exactly ONE bounded next action (ONE user story).
-- Refresh context file with the current frontier.
-- Rewrite campaign memory in full.
-
-MANDATORY: When done, write the following signal file:
-- Path: .claude/ralph-desk/memos/loop-test-iter-signal.json
-- Format: {"iteration": N, "status": "continue|verify|blocked", "summary": "what was done", "timestamp": "ISO"}
-- Status values:
-  - "continue" = current story done but other stories remain
-  - "verify" = all stories complete + done-claim written
-  - "blocked" = autonomous blocker
-
-Stop behavior:
-- Current story done but other stories remain → memory stop=continue, signal status=continue
-- All stories complete + all tests pass → write done-claim JSON (.claude/ralph-desk/memos/loop-test-done-claim.json) + signal status=verify
-- Autonomous blocker → write blocked.md + signal status=blocked
-
-Objective: Implement a Python calculator module: calc.py (4 functions + type hints + ValueError) + test_calc.py (pytest, 8+ tests, all passed)
-
----
-## Iteration Context
-- **Iteration**: 1
-- **Memory Stop Status**: continue
-- **Next Iteration Contract**: Start from the beginning: read PRD and implement US-001 (calc.py with 4 functions).

package/examples/calculator/.claude/ralph-desk/logs/loop-test/iter-001.worker-trigger.sh

@@ -1,28 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/zsh
-# Trigger for iteration 1 worker - generated by run_ralph_desk.zsh
-# DO NOT use exec here -- it breaks heartbeat cleanup
-
-HEARTBEAT_FILE="/Users/kyjin/dev/own/ai-dev-methodologies/rlp-desk/examples/calculator/.claude/ralph-desk/logs/loop-test/worker-heartbeat.json"
-
-# Background heartbeat writer (omc-teams pattern)
-(
-  while true; do
-    echo '{"ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","pid":'"$$"'}' > "${HEARTBEAT_FILE}.tmp.$$"
-    mv "${HEARTBEAT_FILE}.tmp.$$" "$HEARTBEAT_FILE"
-    sleep 15
-  done
-) &
-HEARTBEAT_PID=$!
-
-# Run claude with fresh context (governance.md s7 step 5)
-claude -p "$(cat /Users/kyjin/dev/own/ai-dev-methodologies/rlp-desk/examples/calculator/.claude/ralph-desk/logs/loop-test/iter-001.worker-prompt.md)" \
-  --model sonnet \
-  --dangerously-skip-permissions \
-  --output-format text \
-  2>&1 | tee /Users/kyjin/dev/own/ai-dev-methodologies/rlp-desk/examples/calculator/.claude/ralph-desk/logs/loop-test/iter-001.worker-output.log
-
-# Cleanup heartbeat writer
-kill $HEARTBEAT_PID 2>/dev/null
-wait $HEARTBEAT_PID 2>/dev/null
-echo '{"ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","status":"exited"}' > "${HEARTBEAT_FILE}.tmp.$$"
-mv "${HEARTBEAT_FILE}.tmp.$$" "$HEARTBEAT_FILE"

package/examples/calculator/.claude/ralph-desk/logs/loop-test/session-config.json

@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "session_name": "rlp-desk-loop-test-20260318-232859",
-  "slug": "loop-test",
-  "created_at": "2026-03-18T14:28:59Z",
-  "panes": {
-    "leader": "%99",
-    "worker": "%100",
-    "verifier": "%101"
-  },
-  "pid": 65962,
-  "root": "/Users/kyjin/dev/own/ai-dev-methodologies/rlp-desk/examples/calculator",
-  "models": {
-    "worker": "sonnet",
-    "verifier": "opus"
-  },
-  "config": {
-    "max_iter": 20,
-    "poll_interval": 5,
-    "iter_timeout": 600,
-    "heartbeat_stale_threshold": 120,
-    "max_restarts": 3,
-    "idle_nudge_threshold": 30,
-    "max_nudges": 3
-  }
-}

package/examples/calculator/.claude/ralph-desk/logs/loop-test/status.json

@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "slug": "loop-test",
-  "iteration": 1,
-  "max_iter": 20,
-  "phase": "worker",
-  "worker_model": "sonnet",
-  "verifier_model": "opus",
-  "last_result": "running",
-  "updated_at_utc": "2026-03-18T14:28:59Z"
-}

package/examples/calculator/.claude/ralph-desk/logs/loop-test/worker-heartbeat.json

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"ts":"2026-03-18T14:29:15Z","pid":66349}