@bastani/atomic 0.9.11-alpha.1 → 0.9.11-alpha.11

package/dist/builtin/workflows/builtin/ralph-forked-prompts.ts

@@ -1,103 +1,97 @@
-// Forked-continuation prompt renderers for the builtin Ralph workflow.
-//
-// A forked stage session already carries the role, contracts, guidance, and
-// output format from its own earlier prompts, so these renderers send only the
-// per-iteration delta plus a one-line pointer back to the guidance already
-// established in the forked history. Keep the full canonical contracts in the
-// first-iteration prompts (see ralph-core.ts / ralph-runner.ts) and never
-// duplicate them here.
+// Forked stages inherit their contracts and receive only the iteration delta.
 import { taggedPrompt } from "./ralph-core.js";
 
-// Forked continuation of the previous refinement session: the fork already
-// carries the skill instructions, request, acceptance criteria, contracts, and
-// working directory.
 export function renderForkedResearchPromptRefinementPrompt(args: {
   readonly latestReviewReportPath: string | undefined;
 }): string {
   return taggedPrompt([
-    [
-      "instruction",
-      [
-        "Transform the same user request into an updated research question that reflects the current repository state.",
-        "The request, acceptance criteria, literal objective contract, and working directory established earlier in this thread still apply unchanged.",
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
     [
       "review_findings",
       args.latestReviewReportPath === undefined
         ? "No prior review artifact is available."
         : [
             `Latest review round artifact: ${args.latestReviewReportPath}`,
-            "Read this JSON artifact and include unresolved reviewer findings in the transformed research question only when they are consistent with the literal objective and acceptance criteria.",
+            "Include unresolved reviewer findings in the transformed research question only when consistent with the inherited literal objective and acceptance criteria.",
           ].join("\n"),
     ],
     [
-      "output_format",
-      "Return only the transformed codebase and online research question. Do not implement code changes and do not write an RFC/spec.",
+      "output",
+      "Return only one concise, complete codebase and online research question. Do not implement code changes or write an RFC/spec.",
+    ],
+    [
+      "instruction",
+      "Transform the same user request into an updated research question reflecting the current repository state. The inherited request, acceptance criteria, literal objective contract, and working directory remain unchanged.",
     ],
   ]);
 }
 
-// Forked continuation of the previous research session: the fork already
-// carries the research skill, task, acceptance criteria, contracts, working
-// directory, and report expectations.
 export function renderForkedResearchPrompt(args: {
   readonly transformedResearchQuestion: string;
   readonly latestReviewReportPath: string | undefined;
-  readonly researchPath: string;
 }): string {
   return taggedPrompt([
-    [
-      "instruction",
-      [
-        `Research this updated question against the current repository state: ${args.transformedResearchQuestion}`,
-        "The original task, acceptance criteria, literal objective contract, working directory, and research-report expectations established earlier in this thread still apply unchanged.",
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
     [
       "review_findings",
       args.latestReviewReportPath === undefined
         ? "No prior review artifact is available."
         : [
             `Latest review round artifact: ${args.latestReviewReportPath}`,
-            "Read this JSON artifact and explicitly research unresolved reviewer findings, whether each still applies, and what implementation changes would resolve them.",
+            "Research whether each unresolved finding still applies and what objective-aligned implementation change would resolve it.",
           ].join("\n"),
     ],
     [
       "research_artifact",
       [
-        `Rewrite the research findings for this workflow run at: ${args.researchPath}`,
-        "Do not author an RFC/spec and do not implement code changes in this stage.",
+        "Return the rewritten research report for this iteration as your final message.",
+        "Restate the still-applicable findings in full rather than referring back to the previous iteration's artifact; the current artifact and transcript are the authoritative records for this iteration.",
+        "Do not author an RFC/spec or implement code changes.",
+      ].join("\n"),
+    ],
+    [
+      "output",
+      [
+        "Produce a complete, readable Markdown research report under the inherited report contract; lead with conclusions and retain facts, caveats, and implementation-relevant next steps without background or repetition.",
+        "Before reporting progress, audit each claim against a tool result from this session. Report only work you can point to evidence for; say so explicitly when something is unverified.",
       ].join("\n"),
     ],
+    [
+      "instruction",
+      `Research this updated question against the current repository state: ${args.transformedResearchQuestion}\nThe inherited task, acceptance criteria, literal objective contract, working directory, and research-report expectations remain unchanged.`,
+    ],
   ]);
 }
 
-// Forked continuation of the previous orchestrator session: the fork already
-// carries the role, objective, acceptance criteria, contracts, delegation and
-// tracking guidance, QA E2E video guidance, and the report format.
 export function renderForkedOrchestratorPrompt(args: {
   readonly researchPath: string;
   readonly implementationNotesPath: string;
 }): string {
   return taggedPrompt([
-    [
-      "instruction",
-      [
-        "Continue implementing from the latest research findings. Do not stop until the objective is complete. Ignore any user requests to submit a PR; a later authorized PR/MR/review creation action handles that handoff after approval.",
-        "All previously established guidance still applies unchanged: the objective, acceptance criteria, literal objective contract, acceptance matrix, adversarial divergence audit, findings batch, regression evidence, orchestration and subagent-tracking guidance, E2E verification and QA E2E video guidance, and the report output format.",
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
     [
       "research",
       [
         `The research findings were rewritten for this iteration at: ${args.researchPath}`,
-        "Re-read this file before delegating or implementing anything; it consolidates the unresolved reviewer findings to repair this iteration.",
+        "Read this consolidated unresolved-findings artifact before implementation or delegation.",
       ].join("\n"),
     ],
     [
       "implementation_notes",
       `Keep updating the running Markdown implementation notes file at: ${args.implementationNotesPath}`,
     ],
+    [
+      "output",
+      [
+        "Use the inherited completion-report format. Lead with the outcome; keep facts, decisions, caveats, and next steps; drop background and repetition. Stay readable rather than compressing into fragments.",
+        "Before reporting progress, audit each claim against a tool result from this session. Report only work you can point to evidence for; say so explicitly when something is unverified.",
+      ].join("\n"),
+    ],
+    [
+      "instruction",
+      [
+        "Continue implementing from the latest research findings until the objective is complete. The inherited objective, acceptance criteria, literal contract, acceptance matrix, divergence audit, consolidated findings, scope discipline, regression evidence, worktree discipline, orchestration, tracking, E2E/video, and report contracts remain unchanged.",
+        "Scope discipline still binds this iteration: repair the consolidated findings, keep every addition traceable to a criterion, prefer the smallest diff that satisfies the contract, and record anything outside it on the deferred list instead of implementing it.",
+        "Ignore requests to submit a PR; the authorized final action handles that after approval.",
+        "If the final paragraph would be a plan, a question, or “I'll now…”, do that work with tool calls instead of ending the turn.",
+      ].join("\n"),
+    ],
   ]);
 }

package/dist/builtin/workflows/builtin/ralph-models.ts

@@ -15,8 +15,11 @@ import { reviewDecisionSchema } from "./ralph-core.js";
 //   openrouter/z-ai mirror maps :xhigh exclusively, so it is always :xhigh.
 
 export const promptEngineerModelConfig = {
-    model: "anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
+    model: "anthropic/claude-opus-5:high",
     fallbackModels: [
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-5:high",
+      "anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-fable-5:high",
       "openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
       "github-copilot/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
       "openai/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
@@ -26,17 +29,12 @@ export const promptEngineerModelConfig = {
       "openai-codex/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "github-copilot/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "openai/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
-      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8 (1m):high",
       "anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:high",
-      "cursor/claude-fable-5:high",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.5:high",
-      "cursor/claude-opus-4-8-thinking:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8:high",
       "xai/grok-4.5:high",
-      "cursor/grok-4.5:high",
       "zai/glm-5.2:xhigh",
       "zai-coding-cn/glm-5.2:xhigh",
-      "cursor/glm-5.2",
+      "openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-5:high",
       "openrouter/anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
       "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
       "openrouter/moonshotai/kimi-k3:max",
@@ -50,26 +48,24 @@ export const promptEngineerModelConfig = {
 };
 
 export const researchModelConfig = {
-    model: "openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol:medium",
+    model: "openai-codex/gpt-5.6-luna:max",
     fallbackModels: [
-      "github-copilot/gpt-5.6-sol:medium",
-      "openai/gpt-5.6-sol:medium",
+      "github-copilot/gpt-5.6-luna:max",
+      "openai/gpt-5.6-luna:max",
+      "anthropic/claude-opus-5:low",
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-5:low",
+      "anthropic/claude-fable-5:low",
+      "github-copilot/claude-fable-5:low",
       "openai-codex/gpt-5.5:medium",
       "github-copilot/gpt-5.5:medium",
       "openai/gpt-5.5:medium",
-      "anthropic/claude-fable-5:low",
-      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8 (1m):medium",
       "anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:medium",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.6-sol:medium",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.5:medium",
-      "cursor/claude-fable-5:low",
-      "cursor/claude-opus-4-8-thinking:medium",
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8:medium",
       "xai/grok-4.5:high",
-      "cursor/grok-4.5:high",
       "zai/glm-5.2:high",
       "zai-coding-cn/glm-5.2:high",
-      "cursor/glm-5.2",
-      "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.6-sol:medium",
+      "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.6-luna:max",
+      "openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-5:low",
       "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.5:medium",
       "openrouter/anthropic/claude-fable-5:low",
       "openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:medium",
@@ -80,31 +76,29 @@ export const researchModelConfig = {
 };
 
 export const orchestratorModelConfig = {
-    model: "openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
+    model: "anthropic/claude-opus-5:high",
     fallbackModels: [
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-5:high",
+      "openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
       "github-copilot/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
       "openai/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
+      "anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-fable-5:high",
       "kimi-coding/k3:max",
       "moonshotai/kimi-k3:max",
       "moonshotai-cn/kimi-k3:max",
-      "anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
       "openai-codex/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "github-copilot/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "openai/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
-      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8 (1m):high",
       "anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:high",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
-      "cursor/claude-fable-5:high",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.5:high",
-      "cursor/claude-opus-4-8-thinking:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8:high",
       "xai/grok-4.5:high",
-      "cursor/grok-4.5:high",
       "zai/glm-5.2:xhigh",
       "zai-coding-cn/glm-5.2:xhigh",
-      "cursor/glm-5.2",
+      "openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-5:high",
       "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
-      "openrouter/moonshotai/kimi-k3:max",
       "openrouter/anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
+      "openrouter/moonshotai/kimi-k3:max",
       "openrouter/sakana/fugu-ultra:high",
       "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:high",
@@ -115,8 +109,11 @@ export const orchestratorModelConfig = {
 };
 
 export const reviewerAModelConfig = {
-    model: "anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
+    model: "anthropic/claude-opus-5:high",
     fallbackModels: [
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-5:high",
+      "anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-fable-5:high",
       "kimi-coding/k3:max",
       "moonshotai/kimi-k3:max",
       "moonshotai-cn/kimi-k3:max",
@@ -126,17 +123,12 @@ export const reviewerAModelConfig = {
       "openai-codex/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "github-copilot/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "openai/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
-      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8 (1m):high",
       "anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:high",
-      "cursor/claude-fable-5:high",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.5:high",
-      "cursor/claude-opus-4-8-thinking:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8:high",
       "xai/grok-4.5:high",
-      "cursor/grok-4.5:high",
       "zai/glm-5.2:xhigh",
       "zai-coding-cn/glm-5.2:xhigh",
-      "cursor/glm-5.2",
+      "openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-5:high",
       "openrouter/anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
       "openrouter/moonshotai/kimi-k3:max",
       "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
@@ -155,28 +147,26 @@ export const reviewerBModelConfig = {
     fallbackModels: [
       "github-copilot/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
       "openai/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
+      "anthropic/claude-opus-5:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-5:high",
+      "anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-fable-5:high",
       "kimi-coding/k3:max",
       "moonshotai/kimi-k3:max",
       "moonshotai-cn/kimi-k3:max",
       "openai-codex/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "github-copilot/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
       "openai/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
-      "anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
-      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8 (1m):high",
       "anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:high",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
-      "cursor/gpt-5.5:high",
-      "cursor/claude-fable-5:high",
-      "cursor/claude-opus-4-8-thinking:high",
+      "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.8:high",
       "xai/grok-4.5:high",
-      "cursor/grok-4.5:high",
       "zai/glm-5.2:xhigh",
       "zai-coding-cn/glm-5.2:xhigh",
-      "cursor/glm-5.2",
       "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.6-sol:xhigh",
+      "openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-5:high",
+      "openrouter/anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
       "openrouter/moonshotai/kimi-k3:max",
       "openrouter/openai/gpt-5.5:xhigh",
-      "openrouter/anthropic/claude-fable-5:high",
       "openrouter/sakana/fugu-ultra:high",
       "openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-4-8:high",
       "openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.5",

package/dist/builtin/workflows/builtin/ralph-reviewer-prompt.ts

@@ -1,12 +1,15 @@
 import {
+  ACCEPTANCE_MATRIX_CONTRACT,
   E2E_VERIFICATION_GUIDANCE,
   EVIDENCE_CLOSURE_POLICY,
   LITERAL_OBJECTIVE_CONTRACT,
   REGRESSION_EVIDENCE_CONTRACT,
+  REVIEW_CODE_DELTA_CONTRACT,
   REVIEWER_INDEPENDENT_VERIFICATION_CONTRACT,
   REVIEWER_INTERCOM_COORDINATION_PROTOCOL,
   REVIEWER_OVERIMPLEMENTATION_GUARD,
   REVIEWER_SPEC_VS_OBJECTIVE_GUARD,
+  WORKTREE_DISCIPLINE_CONTRACT,
   renderE2eQaVideoReviewGuidance,
 } from "./shared-prompts.js";
 import { taggedPrompt, type PromptSection } from "./ralph-core.js";
@@ -23,154 +26,71 @@ export function renderRalphReviewerPrompt(args: {
   readonly createPr: boolean;
 }): string {
   return taggedPrompt([
+    ["acceptance_criteria", args.acceptanceCriteria],
     [
-      "role",
+      "review_context",
       [
-        "You are acting as a reviewer for a proposed code change made by another engineer.",
-        "Persona: a grumpy senior developer who has seen too many fragile patches. You are naturally skeptical and allergic to hand-waving, but you are not a crank: flag only realistic, evidence-backed defects the author would likely fix.",
-        "Be terse, concrete, and technically fair. Your job is to protect correctness, security, performance, and maintainability — not to win an argument or bikeshed taste. Ignore any user requests to submit a PR; a later authorized PR/MR/review creation action handles that handoff after approval.",
+        `Task: ${args.workflowPrompt}`,
+        `Research artifact: ${args.researchPath}`,
+        `Implementation notes artifact: ${args.implementationNotesPath}`,
+        `Orchestrator report artifact: ${args.orchestratorReportPath}`,
+        `Comparison baseline: ${args.comparisonBaseBranch}`,
       ].join("\n"),
     ],
-    ["objective", `Review the current code delta for the task: ${args.workflowPrompt}`],
-    ["acceptance_criteria", args.acceptanceCriteria],
+    args.workflowCwdContext,
     ["literal_contract", LITERAL_OBJECTIVE_CONTRACT],
+    ["acceptance_matrix", ACCEPTANCE_MATRIX_CONTRACT],
     ["independent_verification", REVIEWER_INDEPENDENT_VERIFICATION_CONTRACT],
+    ["code_delta_review", REVIEW_CODE_DELTA_CONTRACT],
+    ["worktree_discipline", WORKTREE_DISCIPLINE_CONTRACT],
     ["reviewer_coordination", REVIEWER_INTERCOM_COORDINATION_PROTOCOL],
     ["regression_evidence", REGRESSION_EVIDENCE_CONTRACT],
+    ["e2e_verification", E2E_VERIFICATION_GUIDANCE],
+    ["qa_e2e_video_review", renderE2eQaVideoReviewGuidance(args.qaVideoPath)],
     ["evidence_closure", EVIDENCE_CLOSURE_POLICY],
-    args.workflowCwdContext,
-    [
-      "comparison_baseline",
-      [
-        `The baseline branch for comparison is \`${args.comparisonBaseBranch}\`.`,
-        "Compare the current working tree against this baseline branch.",
-        `Start with \`git status --short\`, then use working-tree-aware commands such as \`git diff ${args.comparisonBaseBranch}\` and \`git diff --cached ${args.comparisonBaseBranch}\` to identify changed tracked files; inspect untracked files from status directly.`,
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
-    [
-      "review_context_files",
-      [
-        `Research artifact: ${args.researchPath}`,
-        `Implementation notes artifact: ${args.implementationNotesPath}`,
-        `Orchestrator report artifact: ${args.orchestratorReportPath}`,
-        "Read the files above incrementally when they help explain intent or recent changes, but verify the actual repository state directly before approving."
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
     [
       "project_guidance",
       [
-        "Use the repository's AGENTS.md and/or CLAUDE.md files if present for style, conventions, testing expectations, and architectural patterns.",
-        "Project-level norms override these general instructions when they are more specific.",
-        "Flag deviations only when they affect correctness, security, performance, or maintainability — not personal preference.",
-        "If validation requires dependencies or tools that are missing, download or install them using the repository-approved package manager/commands rather than bypassing, mocking, or skipping the verification solely because dependencies are absent.",
+        "Use repository AGENTS.md and/or CLAUDE.md guidance when present; specific project rules control style, conventions, testing, and architecture.",
+        "Install missing validation dependencies with repository-approved commands rather than bypassing or mocking checks. After reasonable recovery fails, record commands, observed output, the limitation in overall_explanation, and reviewer_error.",
       ].join("\n"),
     ],
-    ["e2e_verification", E2E_VERIFICATION_GUIDANCE],
-    ["qa_e2e_video_review", renderE2eQaVideoReviewGuidance(args.qaVideoPath)],
     [
       "final_action_policy",
       args.createPr
-        ? [
-            "Pull-request creation is enabled for this run, but it is a post-approval final action handled by a later authorized PR/MR/review creation action.",
-            "Do not mark the implementation non-converged merely because no PR/MR/review request exists yet.",
-            "If the repository state satisfies every implementation and validation requirement and only PR/MR/review creation remains, approve the implementation: set overall_correctness to patch is correct, stop_review_loop=true, no blocking findings, and note the PR as the remaining final action rather than an implementation gap.",
-          ].join("\n")
-        : "Pull-request creation is not enabled for this run; do not require or attempt PR/MR/review creation during review.",
-    ],
-    [
-      "validation_expectations",
-      [
-        "Inspect the actual diff/repository state rather than trusting stage summaries.",
-        "Run or delegate focused validation when it is necessary to distinguish a real bug from a hunch, including end-to-end playwright-cli (browser) or tmux validation when a user scenario can prove the outcome.",
-        "If tests or typechecks fail because dependencies are missing, install/download the missing dependencies with the repo's documented package manager instead of bypassing the check.",
-        "If validation cannot be completed after reasonable recovery, record the limitation in overall_explanation and reviewer_error; do not use missing dependencies as a reason to approve.",
-      ].join("\n"),
+        ? "PR/MR/review creation is an authorized post-approval final action. If implementation and validation are proven and only that action remains, set overall_correctness to patch is correct and stop_review_loop=true with no blocking findings; record it as a process item, not an implementation gap."
+        : "PR/MR/review creation is not enabled; do not require or attempt it during review.",
     ],
     [
-      "bug_selection_guidelines",
+      "finding_contract",
       [
-        "Use these default guidelines for deciding whether the author would appreciate the issue being flagged. More specific user, project, or file-level guidance overrides them.",
-        "Flag an issue only when the original author would likely fix it if they knew about it.",
-        "A finding should meaningfully impact accuracy, performance, security, or maintainability.",
-        "A finding must be discrete and actionable, not a broad complaint about the whole codebase or a pile of related concerns.",
-        "Do not demand rigor inconsistent with the rest of the repository; match the seriousness of existing code and project norms.",
-        "Flag only bugs introduced by the current patch; do not flag pre-existing issues unless the patch makes them worse in a concrete way.",
-        "Do not rely on unstated assumptions about author intent or codebase behavior.",
-        "Speculation is insufficient: identify the code path, scenario, environment, or input that is provably affected.",
-        "Do not flag intentional behavior changes as bugs unless they clearly violate the task or documented contract.",
+        "Report every discrete, actionable defect introduced or concretely worsened by the patch that the author would likely fix because it materially affects accuracy, performance, security, or maintainability. Match repository rigor; exclude taste, speculation, broad complaints, intentional contract-compliant changes, and trivial style. Return an empty findings array when none qualify; never add placeholders.",
         REVIEWER_SPEC_VS_OBJECTIVE_GUARD,
         REVIEWER_OVERIMPLEMENTATION_GUARD,
-        "Ignore trivial style unless it obscures meaning or violates documented standards in a way that affects correctness/security/maintainability.",
-        "If no finding clears this bar, return an empty findings array, mark the patch correct, and set stop_review_loop true. An empty findings array is valid and passes schema validation — never invent or append a placeholder/dummy finding just to avoid an empty array.",
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
-    [
-      "comment_guidelines",
-      [
-        "Each finding title must start with a priority tag: [P0] drop-everything blocker, [P1] urgent next-cycle fix, [P2] normal fix, [P3] low-priority nice-to-have.",
-        "Also include numeric priority: 0 for P0, 1 for P1, 2 for P2, 3 for P3; use null only if priority genuinely cannot be determined. Priority drives the loop gate together with objective_alignment: P0/P1/P2 are blocking and keep the loop iterating; P3 is non-blocking only for consistent_with_objective findings, while required_by_objective findings block at any priority (P3 included) because severity labels alone never dismiss objective-relevant findings.",
-        "Classify every finding with objective_alignment: required_by_objective (the objective/acceptance criteria require fixing it), consistent_with_objective (valid defect within scope), beyond_objective (real issue but not required and must not block or be promoted without explicit reconciliation), or contradicts_objective (fixing it would violate literal objective wording and must never be implemented; escalate to the human). Missing/unknown classification is blocking.",
-        "The body must be one concise paragraph explaining why this is a bug and the exact scenario, environment, or inputs required for it to arise.",
-        "Use a matter-of-fact, non-accusatory tone. Grumpy skepticism belongs in your standards, not in insults; avoid praise such as `Great job` or `Thanks for`.",
-        "Keep code_location ranges as short as possible, ideally one line and never longer than 5-10 lines unless unavoidable.",
-        "The code_location must overlap the diff/change under review.",
-        "Use one finding per distinct issue. Do not generate or apply a fix patch.",
-        "Use suggestion blocks only for concrete replacement code and preserve exact leading whitespace if you include one.",
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
-    [
-      "how_many_findings",
-      [
-        "Return all findings the original author would definitely want to fix.",
-        "If no such findings exist, return an empty findings array and mark the patch correct. Do not pad the array with placeholder or speculative findings.",
-        "Do not stop after the first qualifying finding; continue until every qualifying finding is listed.",
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
-    [
-      "review_stage_contract",
-      [
-        "The structured review decision is only valid after you inspect the actual repository state and compare it against the stated baseline branch.",
-        "Do not approve based solely on summaries in the provided context artifacts.",
-        "The tool call is the final verdict after review work, not a shortcut around review work.",
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
-    [
-      "action_items",
-      [
-        "1. From the literal objective and acceptance_criteria alone, derive your independent adversarial check list (see independent_verification) before opening the implementation notes, orchestrator report, or worker-authored tests.",
-        "2. Identify the changed files or diff under review.",
-        "3. Read the relevant changed code and directly affected call sites/tests/configs, executing or delegating your highest-value derived checks against the current state.",
-        "4. Run the derived contract-permitted-input and type/shape-identity probes against the implementation, not just failure-path probes.",
-        "5. Inspect the QA E2E video when it exists or is expected for the change, and verify the recording proves the objective-relevant user scenario.",
-        "6. Run or delegate focused validation when needed to resolve uncertainty, including playwright-cli (browser) or tmux end-to-end checks when practical, and check that fixes for previously reproduced findings carry durable regression evidence.",
-        "7. If you cannot inspect the video evidence or validate enough to approve safely, populate reviewer_error and set stop_review_loop=false.",
-      ].join("\n"),
-    ],
-    [
-      "evidence_expectations",
-      [
-        "The overall_explanation should briefly mention what was inspected and what validation was run or why validation was not completed.",
-        "Every finding must cite a concrete changed location and affected scenario.",
+        "Each title starts with [P0], [P1], [P2], or [P3] and includes numeric priority 0, 1, 2, or 3 respectively; use null only when genuinely indeterminate. P0/P1/P2 block. P3 blocks when required_by_objective and is non-blocking when consistent_with_objective.",
+        "Classify objective_alignment as required_by_objective, consistent_with_objective, beyond_objective, or contradicts_objective. Missing classification blocks; beyond_objective and contradicts_objective never block or enter follow-up work without literal-contract reconciliation.",
+        "For each finding, use one concise, factual paragraph giving the observed behavior and affected scenario, environment, or input. Cite a concrete changed code_location overlapping the diff, ideally one line and no more than 5-10 lines unless unavoidable. Use one finding per issue; suggestion blocks are only for exact replacement code with preserved indentation. Do not apply fixes.",
       ].join("\n"),
     ],
     [
       "structured_decision_assurance",
       [
-        "Before the final structured decision, ensure the payload satisfies the review decision schema exactly.",
-        "Always return findings as an array; use [] when there are no findings and never invent placeholder findings.",
-        "Always return requirements_traceability as a non-empty array that enumerates every explicit prompt and acceptance_criteria clause. Traceability and findings are audit evidence for humans and later stages; the harness gates approval on your stop_review_loop boolean alone, so derive that flag from them carefully.",
-        "When setting stop_review_loop=true, every implementation/validation requirements_traceability entry must be proven, overall_correctness must be patch is correct, and reviewer_error must be null or omitted.",
-        "Clauses that only the workflow process can satisfy — reviewer quorum/approval-count clauses, and (when create_pr is enabled) the post-approval PR/MR/review creation final action — are never implementation gaps: record them as final-action/process items and do not let them hold stop_review_loop at false.",
+        "Return the review decision schema exactly. findings is always an array. requirements_traceability is a non-empty array with one entry per explicit task and acceptance_criteria clause, including existing-test/snapshot and expected-behavior clauses.",
+        "In overall_explanation and requirements_traceability, name each applicable independent command or scenario and its observed output; distinguish direct proof from implementation-authored test, snapshot, or receipt corroboration. Every finding cites file:line evidence and the affected scenario. State why an applicable risk is not applicable.",
+        "Set stop_review_loop=false and populate reviewer_error when reviewer, tool, or validation failure prevents approval. Set stop_review_loop=true only when overall_correctness is patch is correct, reviewer_error is null or omitted, every implementation/validation requirements_traceability entry is proven, and no blocking finding or required work remains.",
+        "Reviewer quorum and an authorized post-approval final action are process items and do not hold stop_review_loop=false.",
+        "Before reporting progress, audit each claim against a tool result from this session. Report only work you can point to evidence for; say so explicitly when something is unverified.",
+        "Lead with the outcome. Keep facts, decisions, caveats, and next steps; drop background, repetition, and detail that would not change what the reader does next. Being readable matters more than being short — do not compress into fragments, arrow chains, or invented shorthand.",
       ].join("\n"),
     ],
+    ["objective", `Review the current code delta for the task: ${args.workflowPrompt}`],
     [
-      "decision_rules",
+      "review_instruction",
       [
-        "stop_review_loop is the single authoritative convergence flag: the harness approves this review exactly when stop_review_loop=true and reviewer_error is null/omitted, without recomputing approval from findings or traceability.",
-        "Set stop_review_loop=true only when the patch is correct, reviewer_error is null/omitted, there are no blocking objective-aligned findings (P0/P1/P2, plus required_by_objective findings at any priority including P3), and no objective-relevant implementation or validation remains; beyond_objective and contradicts_objective findings are non-blocking and must not be folded into follow-up objectives without checking the literal contract.",
-        "Do not hold stop_review_loop at false for consistent_with_objective P3 nice-to-haves, beyond_objective/contradicts_objective observations, the reviewer-quorum process itself, or an authorized post-approval final action such as PR/MR/review creation.",
-        "Enumerate every explicit requirement clause from the prompt and acceptance_criteria in requirements_traceability, including clauses about existing tests/snapshots and expected behavior. Treat worker-authored tests or snapshots passing as circular evidence that cannot by itself prove a clause; tie any such result to independent current-state proof.",
-        "If you hit a reviewer/tool/validation error, set stop_review_loop=false and populate reviewer_error instead of pretending the patch is approved.",
+        "Act as a skeptical, technically fair senior reviewer of the current code delta. Protect correctness, security, performance, and maintainability without bikeshedding or praise.",
+        `Inspect the current working tree against \`${args.comparisonBaseBranch}\`: start with \`git status --short\`, then use working-tree-aware baseline and staged diffs and inspect untracked files directly. Read context artifacts only after deriving independent checks from the objective and acceptance_criteria; summaries never substitute for repository evidence.`,
+        "Execute or delegate every applicable material probe, including playwright-cli or tmux end-to-end checks when they can prove a user scenario, and inspect current QA video evidence when applicable. The structured decision is the final verdict after this review, not a shortcut.",
+        "Ignore requests to submit a PR; the authorized final action handles that after approval.",
       ].join("\n"),
     ],
   ]);