@boyingliu01/xp-gate 0.18.5 → 0.19.0

package/plugins/dsh/skills/delphi-review/references/requirements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,402 @@
+# Requirements Mode Reference
+
+> Extracted from `SKILL.md`. This file contains ALL content specific to the `requirements` mode of Delphi Review.
+
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+需求评审模式，用于 grill-with-docs 完成共享理解后、设计文档生成前，对需求完整性进行轻量级多专家 Delphi 评审。
+
+**触发命令**: `/delphi-review --mode requirements`
+
+**设计背景**: Issue #368 识别出原始意图中"需求评审一次 + 设计评审一次"的第一次评审被完全丢弃。本模式恢复该评审点，在需求探索（grill-with-docs）与设计文档生成之间插入一道轻量质量门禁。
+
+**定位**:
+- **固定三专家**: architecture + technical + feasibility，最多 5 轮
+- **需求焦点**: 评审对象是需求陈述 + CONTEXT.md，不是设计文档或代码
+- **程序化阻塞**: 输出 `requirements-reviewed.json`，由 `phase-transition 2 completed` 校验
+- **防陈旧绑定**: `requirements_hash`（SHA-256）绑定需求内容，防止旧证据复用
+
+---
+
+## Five Core Properties
+
+1. **匿名性** — Expert A/B/C 互不知道对方意见（Round 1）
+2. **迭代共识** — GAPS_FOUND 时回到 grill-with-docs 补充，最多 5 轮循环
+3. **关键缺口零容忍** — Critical requirement gaps 必须在进入设计前解决
+4. **防陈旧绑定** — requirements_hash 绑定需求内容 + CONTEXT.md，旧证据不可复用
+5. **执行可验证** — 三个专家都必须成功返回结构化结果，且 requested_model 三个 distinct
+
+---
+
+## 触发条件
+
+- **自动触发**: sprint-flow Phase 2 THINK 链中，grill-with-docs 完成后、设计文档生成前（参见 `skills/sprint-flow/references/phase-2-design.md` Step 2）
+- **手动触发**: `/delphi-review --mode requirements`
+
+**⚠️ 重要调用方式说明**:
+
+- ✅ **正确**: sprint-flow 编排层在 Phase 2 Step 2 自动调用
+- ✅ **正确**: 在 Agent session 中执行 `/delphi-review --mode requirements`
+- ❌ **错误**: 在设计文档已生成后调用（应在设计前）
+- ❌ **错误**: 用 requirements 模式评审设计文档或代码（那是 design / code-walkthrough 模式的职责）
+
+**与 sprint-flow 的集成**:
+
+```
+sprint-flow Phase 2 THINK:
+  Step 0: CONTEXT.md 预检
+  Step 1: grill-with-docs（需求访谈）
+  Step 2: delphi-review --mode requirements  ← 本模式
+  Step 3: 原生设计文档生成
+  Step 4: HARD-GATE（用户审批设计文档）
+```
+
+所有 Sprint 路径都执行 R1。Force level 只调整上下文深度和后续迭代预算，不跳过需求评审，也不减少三位专家执行。
+
+---
+
+## 流程概览
+
+```
+grill-with-docs (completed)
+    │
+    ▼
+delphi-review --mode requirements
+    │
+    ├─→ Context gather: CONTEXT.md + grill session summary + user requirements statement
+    │
+    ├─→ Expert A (architecture) anonymous review — focus: requirements completeness,
+    │                                              requirement→AC coverage, scenario coverage
+    │
+   ├─→ Expert B (technical) anonymous review — focus: technical clarity and edge cases
+   │
+   ├─→ Expert C (feasibility) anonymous review — focus: testability of acceptance criteria,
+    │                                              user persona clarity, scope boundaries
+    │
+    ├─→ Consensus check
+    │      │
+    │      ├─→ All three APPROVED → write requirements-reviewed.json verdict=APPROVED
+    │      │
+    │      └─→ Any GAPS_FOUND → record gaps, set verdict=GAPS_FOUND
+    │
+    └─→ Return to sprint-flow orchestrator
+         │
+         ├─→ APPROVED → proceed to design doc generation
+         └─→ GAPS_FOUND → loop back to grill-with-docs (up to 5 total rounds)
+```
+
+---
+
+## 专家角色
+
+| 专家 | 视角 | 配置 |
+|------|------|------|
+| Expert A (architecture) | 需求完整性 + 需求→AC 映射 + 场景覆盖 | `.delphi-config.json` → `experts.architecture` |
+| Expert B (technical) | 技术清晰度 + 边界条件 + 实现约束 | `.delphi-config.json` → `experts.technical` |
+| Expert C (feasibility) | AC 可测试性 + 用户画像 + 范围边界 | `.delphi-config.json` → `experts.feasibility` |
+
+> 三个角色必须使用三个 distinct trimmed executable model IDs。Provider、vendor、gateway 和模型国籍均不受限制；一个 provider 和 token plan 可以服务全部三个角色。
+
+**专家选择理由**:
+- **architecture 专家**: 天然映射范围/覆盖到需求层面——需求完整性、需求→AC 映射、场景覆盖、领域术语一致性
+- **feasibility 专家**: 天然映射可测试性/假设到验收标准——AC 可测试性、用户画像清晰度、范围边界、隐含假设
+- **technical 专家**: 检查需求中的技术清晰度、边界条件和实现约束
+
+---
+
+## 评审焦点（模式切换指令）
+
+### Expert A (architecture) — 需求模式焦点
+
+| 维度 | 检查内容 |
+|------|---------|
+| **需求完整性** | 所有用户场景是否已覆盖，是否有遗漏的用例路径 |
+| **需求→AC 映射** | 每个需求是否有对应的验收标准，映射是否完整 |
+| **场景覆盖** | 正常流、异常流、边界场景是否均已识别 |
+| **领域术语一致性** | 需求陈述中的术语是否与 CONTEXT.md 领域模型一致（交叉引用） |
+| **AC 精确度** | 验收标准是否具体、可度量、无歧义 |
+
+### Expert C (feasibility) — 需求模式焦点
+
+| 维度 | 检查内容 |
+|------|---------|
+| **AC 可测试性** | 每个验收标准是否可被自动化或手动测试验证 |
+| **用户画像清晰度** | 目标用户/角色是否明确定义，场景是否贴合真实使用 |
+| **范围边界清晰度** | 需求边界（in-scope vs out-of-scope）是否明确划定 |
+| **需求间依赖** | 需求之间是否存在隐含依赖或冲突 |
+| **隐含假设** | 是否存在未明确声明的假设（技术、业务、环境） |
+
+---
+
+## 共识标准
+
+| 条件 | 结果 |
+|------|------|
+| 3/3 successful APPROVED + 无 Critical gaps | ✅ verdict=APPROVED，进入设计文档生成 |
+| 3/3 successful APPROVED + 有 Minor gaps | ✅ verdict=APPROVED（记录 gaps 供参考） |
+| 任一专家失败或缺失 | ❌ BLOCK，不能聚合或降级 |
+| 任一专家 GAPS_FOUND | ❌ verdict=GAPS_FOUND，记录 gaps |
+| 有 Critical requirement gaps | ❌ verdict=GAPS_FOUND |
+
+**共识要求**: 三个成功结果全部参与聚合，达到 >=90% 且最终 APPROVED。单个专家结果不能代表全局批准。
+
+---
+
+## 循环控制（Loop Semantics）
+
+```
+Round 1: delphi-review --mode requirements
+    │
+    ├─→ APPROVED → 完成，进入设计文档生成
+    │
+    └─→ GAPS_FOUND
+          │
+          ├─→ gaps 记录到 requirements-reviewed.json
+          ├─→ 返回 sprint-flow → grill-with-docs 补充访谈
+          │
+          ▼
+Round 2: delphi-review --mode requirements（带 Round 1 gaps 上下文）
+    │
+    ├─→ APPROVED → 完成，进入设计文档生成
+    │
+    └─→ GAPS_FOUND
+          │
+          └─→ escalation_needed: true
+              → sprint-flow Phase 2 处理升级 UX（交用户决策）
+```
+
+**硬性限制**:
+- **最多 5 轮**（Round 1 + 可选后续轮次）
+- **禁止无界循环** — Round 5 后仍 GAPS_FOUND 必须升级
+- **Round 2 上下文**: 专家看到 Round 1 的 gaps 列表，评估是否已修复
+- **升级语义**: `escalation_needed: true` 写入 requirements-reviewed.json，sprint-flow 负责 UX
+
+---
+
+## 输出格式
+
+### 证据文件: `.sprint-state/phase-outputs/requirements-reviewed.json`
+
+```json
+{
+  "mode": "requirements",
+  "verdict": "APPROVED",
+  "timestamp": "2026-07-25T10:30:00Z",
+  "consensus_ratio": 1.0,
+  "requirements_hash": "7f650ddf715ebe75ca0317efa1e8618ae39d2c0bafea7a6f85aacfdbf3735a5f",
+  "head_commit": "abc123def456789...",
+  "context_file_used": null,
+  "round": 1,
+   "expert_verdicts": [
+     { "role": "architecture", "verdict": "APPROVED", "confidence": 9, "result_type": "delphi_expert_result", "requested_model": "bailian-tp/qwen-plus" },
+     { "role": "technical", "verdict": "APPROVED", "confidence": 8, "result_type": "delphi_expert_result", "requested_model": "bailian-tp/deepseek-v3" },
+     { "role": "feasibility", "verdict": "APPROVED", "confidence": 8, "result_type": "delphi_expert_result", "requested_model": "bailian-tp/glm-4.5" }
+   ],
+  "requirements_statement": "实现用户注册流程，支持邮箱验证和密码重置",
+  "gaps_found": [],
+  "rounds_used": 1,
+  "escalation_needed": false
+}
+```
+
+### GAPS_FOUND 示例
+
+```json
+{
+  "mode": "requirements",
+  "verdict": "GAPS_FOUND",
+  "timestamp": "2026-07-25T10:30:00Z",
+  "consensus_ratio": 0.67,
+  "requirements_hash": "7f650ddf715ebe75ca0317efa1e8618ae39d2c0bafea7a6f85aacfdbf3735a5f",
+  "head_commit": "abc123def456789...",
+  "context_file_used": null,
+  "round": 1,
+  "expert_verdicts": [
+    { "role": "architecture", "verdict": "APPROVED", "confidence": 8, "result_type": "delphi_expert_result", "requested_model": "provider/model-a" },
+    { "role": "technical", "verdict": "GAPS_FOUND", "confidence": 7, "result_type": "delphi_expert_result", "requested_model": "provider/model-b" },
+    { "role": "feasibility", "verdict": "APPROVED", "confidence": 8, "result_type": "delphi_expert_result", "requested_model": "provider/model-c" }
+  ],
+  "requirements_statement": "实现用户注册流程，支持邮箱验证和密码重置",
+  "gaps_found": [
+    "密码重置的过期时间未定义",
+    "邮箱验证失败的重试策略缺失",
+    "AC-003 不可测试：'系统应快速响应' 无量化指标"
+  ],
+  "rounds_used": 1,
+  "escalation_needed": false
+}
+```
+
+### 字段说明
+
+| 字段 | 类型 | 说明 |
+|------|------|------|
+| `mode` | string | 固定值 `"requirements"` |
+| `verdict` | string | `APPROVED` 或 `GAPS_FOUND` |
+| `timestamp` | string | 评审完成时间 (ISO 8601 UTC) |
+| `consensus_ratio` | number | 三位专家的共识比例；APPROVED 必须为 `0.90` 至 `1.0` |
+| `requirements_hash` | string | SHA-256 hex digest（防陈旧绑定，见下文） |
+| `head_commit` | string | 当前 `git rev-parse HEAD` |
+| `context_file_used` | string \| null | 项目根目录内引用的 context 文件相对路径；未使用时为 `null` 或空字符串 |
+| `round` | number | 当前轮次（1 至 5） |
+| `expert_verdicts` | array | 三位专家的成功结构化结果，包含 `result_type` 和 `requested_model` |
+| `requirements_statement` | string | 被评审需求的简短摘要 |
+| `gaps_found` | array | GAPS_FOUND 时的缺口列表（APPROVED 时为空数组） |
+| `rounds_used` | number | 实际使用的轮次数 |
+| `escalation_needed` | boolean | Round 5 后仍 GAPS_FOUND 时为 `true` |
+
+### 状态文件: `.sprint-state/delphi-reviewed.json`
+
+APPROVED 时同步写入状态文件（与 design / code-walkthrough 模式一致）:
+
+```json
+{
+  "mode": "requirements",
+  "timestamp": "2026-07-25T10:30:00Z",
+  "verdict": "APPROVED",
+  "consensus_ratio": 1.0
+}
+```
+
+> 此文件供 `verify-consensus.sh` 校验。GAPS_FOUND 时**不写入**此文件（评审未完成）。
+
+---
+
+## Hash 绑定（防陈旧绑定 — §8.4）
+
+`requirements_hash` = SHA-256 of:
+
+```
+requirements_statement + CONTEXT.md content + ISO timestamp prefix (YYYY-MM-DD)
+```
+
+**计算规则**:
+1. 从 evidence `timestamp` 解析严格有效的 ISO 8601 UTC 时间，并取其 `YYYY-MM-DD` 前缀
+2. 若 `context_file_used` 非空，只允许项目根目录内的相对路径；拒绝绝对路径、`..` 穿越、缺失/非普通文件，以及 realpath 逃出项目根目录的符号链接
+3. 按 UTF-8 原样读取 context 文件，不添加分隔符或换行；拼接精确字符串 `requirements_statement + context content + YYYY-MM-DD`
+4. 对拼接结果计算 SHA-256；生成值使用 64 位小写 hex，校验时大小写不敏感
+5. 未使用 context 时，精确拼接 `requirements_statement + YYYY-MM-DD`
+
+**目的**: 防止旧证据复用。`phase-transition 2 completed` 校验时：
+- 文件必须存在
+- `verdict` 必须为 `APPROVED`
+- `requirements_hash` 必须为 64 位 hex，并与运行时重新计算值匹配
+- 若 hash 与当前需求内容不匹配 → BLOCK（防陈旧绑定）
+
+**与 phase-transition.js 的集成**:
+
+```javascript
+// EVIDENCE_FILES[2] — 已存在于 phase-transition.js
+{
+  path: '.sprint-state/phase-outputs/requirements-reviewed.json',
+  requiredFields: [
+    'verdict', 'requirements_statement', 'timestamp', 'consensus_ratio',
+    'expert_verdicts', 'head_commit', 'requirements_hash'
+  ],
+  blockingCheck: (data) => data.verdict === 'APPROVED',
+  blockingMessage: 'Requirements review verdict is not APPROVED',
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## 证据文件路径
+
+| 文件 | 路径 | 校验时机 | 校验方 |
+|------|------|----------|--------|
+| requirements-reviewed.json | `.sprint-state/phase-outputs/` | `phase-transition 2 completed` | phase-transition.js Layer 2 |
+| delphi-reviewed.json | `.sprint-state/` | verify-consensus.sh | verify-consensus.sh |
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+**只在 `--mode requirements` 时适用：**
+
+| ❌ Don't | ✅ Do | Why |
+|----------|------|-----|
+| 使用少于 3 个专家 | 必须使用 architecture + technical + feasibility | 三个角色共同构成全局证据 |
+| 无界循环评审 | 最多 5 轮，之后升级 | 防止无限循环 |
+| 跳过 CONTEXT.md 交叉引用 | 始终交叉引用领域术语 | 需求应使用 CONTEXT.md 中的规范术语 |
+| 输出泛化批准 | 输出 hash 绑定的需求陈述 | 防陈旧绑定（§8.4，Round 1 设计反馈 #14） |
+| 接受单个专家批准 | 要求三份成功结果参与聚合，并达到 >=90% 共识 | 单个结果不能代表全局批准 |
+| Round 2 中复用 Round 1 gaps 作为新发现 | Round 2 专家获得 Round 1 gaps 上下文 | 迭代改进，避免重复劳动 |
+| 评审设计文档或代码 | 仅评审需求陈述 + CONTEXT.md | 设计/代码评审是 design / code-walkthrough 模式的职责 |
+| GAPS_FOUND 时写入 delphi-reviewed.json | 仅 APPROVED 时写入状态文件 | GAPS_FOUND 表示评审未完成 |
+| 在 lightweight sprint 中减少或跳过 R1 | 所有路径都执行三专家 R1，仅缩短上下文 | Force level 不改变专家数或批准证据 |
+
+---
+
+## Security Notes
+
+- **只读评审**: requirements 模式不修改任何源文件，仅写入证据文件到 `.sprint-state/`
+- **Hash 完整性**: `requirements_hash` 使用 SHA-256，防止需求内容被篡改后复用旧证据
+- **Commit 绑定**: `head_commit` 记录评审时的 git HEAD，提供时间线追溯
+- **调用边界**: 评审内容只传递给用户配置的 callable provider；provider、vendor、gateway 和模型国籍不作额外限制
+- **证据不可伪造**: phase-transition.js 程序化校验证据文件，LLM 无法绕过
+
+---
+
+## Triggers / Negative Triggers
+
+**触发（requirements 模式特有）**:
+- `/delphi-review --mode requirements`
+- "review the requirements"
+- "评审需求"
+- "requirements review"
+- "/requirements-review"
+
+**不触发**:
+- "review my requirements document"（教育性讨论，非执行评审）
+- "requirements template"（询问模板格式）
+- "how to write requirements"（教育性）
+- "check my requirements"（模糊，可能是 Casual 检查）
+
+---
+
+## Terminal State Checklist (requirements mode)
+
+**Pre-requisites (MANDATORY - BLOCK if missing):**
+- [ ] grill-with-docs 已完成（或 CONTEXT.md 快速路径）
+- [ ] 需求陈述可用（非空）
+- [ ] Expert A (architecture)、Expert B (technical)、Expert C (feasibility) 均成功执行
+- [ ] 三个 `requested_model` trimmed 后 distinct
+- [ ] 三份结果均为 `result_type=delphi_expert_result`
+
+**CRITICAL - 共识验证 (requirements):**
+- [ ] 聚合共识 >=90%，且所有 Critical gaps 已处理
+- [ ] 无 Critical requirement gaps 未解决
+- [ ] requirements_hash 已计算并写入
+
+**Final Requirements (requirements):**
+- [ ] `.sprint-state/phase-outputs/requirements-reviewed.json` 已写入
+- [ ] JSON 格式有效，包含所有必需字段
+- [ ] verdict 为 APPROVED 或 GAPS_FOUND
+- [ ] IF APPROVED: `.sprint-state/delphi-reviewed.json` 已写入（mode=requirements）
+- [ ] IF GAPS_FOUND: gaps_found 数组非空，escalation_needed 正确设置
+- [ ] IF Round 5 后仍 GAPS_FOUND: escalation_needed = true
+
+**IF 任何 Pre-requisite 缺失:**
+- **CANNOT 完成评审**
+- **MUST BLOCK 并通知用户**
+
+**IF GAPS_FOUND (Round 1):**
+- 返回 sprint-flow → grill-with-docs 补充
+- 重新执行 requirements 评审（Round 2）
+
+**IF GAPS_FOUND (Round 5):**
+- **escalation_needed = true**
+- **MUST 升级给用户决策**
+- **CANNOT 自动继续**
+
+**⭐ APPROVED 后必做 (requirements mode)：写入证据文件**
+
+IF mode == `requirements` AND 最终裁决是 APPROVED，评审完成后必须：
+
+1. 写入 `.sprint-state/phase-outputs/requirements-reviewed.json`
+2. 写入 `.sprint-state/delphi-reviewed.json`（状态文件）
+3. 验证 JSON 格式有效
+4. 验证 requirements_hash 为 64 位 hex 且运行时重新计算匹配
+5. 验证 head_commit 匹配当前 HEAD

package/plugins/dsh/skills/delphi-review/references/round-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+# Delphi Round Templates
+
+## Round 1: 匿名独立评审
+
+### 为什么必须匿名
+
+匿名防止 anchoring bias（锚定偏差）—— 知道其他专家意见后倾向于同意"权威"，不敢提出相反观点。
+
+### 执行方式
+
+每位专家独立收到：原始文档 + 评审模板 + "独立评审，不知道其他专家意见"。
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## 独立评审 - Expert [A/B/C]
+### 优点
+1. [具体优点 + 文档位置]
+### 问题清单
+#### Critical Issues (必须修复才能批准)
+1. [问题] - 位置: [...] - 修复建议: [...]
+#### Major Concerns (必须处理)
+1. [...]
+#### Minor Concerns (需要说明)
+1. [...]
+### 裁决: [APPROVED / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECTED]
+### 置信度: [X/10]
+### 关键理由
+1. [...]
+```
+
+## Round 2: 交换意见
+
+### 执行方式
+
+每位专家看到：原始文档 + 其他专家的评审 + "响应其他专家的关切，是否调整立场？"
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## Round 2 Response - Expert [A/B/C]
+### 响应其他专家关切
+**Expert [X] 提到: [问题]**
+- 我的立场: [同意/部分同意/不同意] - 理由: [...]
+### 更新后问题清单 / 裁决 / 置信度 / 立场变化说明
+```
+
+## Round 3: 最终立场（如需要）
+
+触发条件：Round 2 后仍无共识。所有专家提交最终绑定立场。必须基于三份成功结果聚合达到 ≥90% 共识，不能以多数票或单个专家结果替代全局批准。
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## Round 3 Final Position - Expert [A/B/C]
+### 最终裁决: [APPROVED / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECTED]
+### 最终置信度: [X/10]
+### 关键理由 + 与其他专家的差异
+```
+
+## 修复报告格式
+
+```markdown
+## 修复报告
+### Critical Issues 修复 | ### Major Concerns 处理 | ### Minor Concerns 说明
+### 请求重新评审
+```
+
+---
+
+## Requirements Mode: Round 1（匿名独立需求评审）
+
+### 执行方式
+
+architecture、technical、feasibility 三位专家分别独立收到：需求陈述 + CONTEXT.md + grill session 摘要 + "独立评审需求完整性，不知道其他专家意见"。三次执行必须全部成功，且每份结果都记录 `result_type=delphi_expert_result` 和实际请求的 `requested_model`；模型 ID、provider、vendor、gateway 和国籍不受限制。
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## Requirements Review - Expert [A(architecture)/B(technical)/C(feasibility)]
+
+### 需求摘要
+[被评审需求的简短概括]
+
+### 评审焦点
+- 需求完整性: [评估]
+- 需求→AC 映射: [评估]
+- 场景覆盖: [评估]
+- AC 可测试性: [评估]
+- 用户画像清晰度: [评估]
+- 范围边界: [评估]
+
+### 缺口清单 (Gaps)
+#### Critical Gaps (必须解决才能进入设计)
+1. [缺口描述] - 影响: [...] - 补充建议: [...]
+#### Minor Gaps (建议补充但不阻塞)
+1. [...]
+
+### 裁决: [APPROVED / GAPS_FOUND]
+### 置信度: [X/10]
+### 关键理由
+1. [...]
+```
+
+## Requirements Mode: Round 2（带上下文的补充评审，如需要）
+
+### 触发条件
+
+前一轮裁决为 GAPS_FOUND，grill-with-docs 补充访谈后重新评审。最多执行 5 轮。
+
+### 执行方式
+
+三位专家分别收到：更新后的需求陈述 + CONTEXT.md + **前一轮 gaps 列表** + "评估已有缺口是否已修复，是否有新缺口"。每轮仍需三份成功、可验证的独立结果，不得减少专家数。
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## Requirements Review Round [2-5] - Expert [A(architecture)/B(technical)/C(feasibility)]
+
+### Round 1 缺口修复验证
+| Round 1 Gap | 状态 | 说明 |
+|-------------|------|------|
+| [gap 描述] | ✅ 已修复 / ❌ 仍存在 | [验证说明] |
+
+### 新发现缺口（如有）
+1. [新缺口描述]
+
+### 裁决: [APPROVED / GAPS_FOUND]
+### 置信度: [X/10]
+### 立场变化说明
+[与 Round 1 相比的立场变化]
+```
+
+> ⚠️ Round 5 后仍 GAPS_FOUND → `escalation_needed: true`，升级给用户决策。任何较早轮次都不能以两位专家、多数票或单个结果产生 APPROVED 证据。

package/plugins/dsh/skills/delphi-review/scripts/verify-consensus.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# delphi-review: Verify consensus report integrity
+# Checks that delphi-reviewed.json is valid JSON and contains expected verdict field.
+#
+# Usage: bash verify-consensus.sh [state-dir]
+
+set -euo pipefail
+
+STATE_DIR="${1:-.sprint-state}"
+STATE_FILE="$STATE_DIR/delphi-reviewed.json"
+
+if [ ! -f "$STATE_FILE" ]; then
+    echo "SKIP: No delphi-reviewed.json found at $STATE_FILE"
+    exit 0
+fi
+
+# Validate JSON
+if ! command -v node &>/dev/null; then
+    echo "WARN: node not available, skipping JSON validation"
+    exit 0
+fi
+
+node -e "
+const fs = require('fs');
+try {
+    const data = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('$STATE_FILE', 'utf8'));
+    const requiredKeys = ['mode', 'timestamp', 'verdict', 'consensus_ratio'];
+    const missing = requiredKeys.filter(k => !(k in data));
+    if (missing.length > 0) {
+        console.error('ERROR: Missing required keys in delphi-reviewed.json:', missing.join(', '));
+        process.exit(1);
+    }
+    const validVerdicts = ['APPROVED', 'PASS_WITH_CAVEATS', 'REQUEST_CHANGES', 'BLOCKED'];
+    if (!validVerdicts.includes(data.verdict)) {
+        console.error('ERROR: Invalid verdict:', data.verdict, '(expected one of:', validVerdicts.join(', '), ')');
+        process.exit(1);
+    }
+    console.log('OK: delphi-reviewed.json is valid with verdict:', data.verdict);
+} catch (e) {
+    console.error('ERROR: delphi-reviewed.json is not valid JSON:', e.message);
+    process.exit(1);
+}
+"

package/plugins/dsh/skills/delphi-review/tools.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# Tools Whitelist — Delphi Review
+
+Delphi Review is a **read-only review skill** that dispatches expert subagents
+and synthesizes their verdicts. It does NOT implement code changes.
+
+## Allowed Tools
+
+| Tool | Usage | Rationale |
+|------|-------|-----------|
+| `Read` | Read design docs, code, configs, specification.yaml | Required for review input analysis |
+| `Glob` | Find files by pattern | Required for context discovery |
+| `Grep` | Search code content | Required for codebase understanding |
+| `Bash` | Read-only: git diff, git log, file stats | Required for change analysis |
+| `Task(subagent_type=oracle)` | Dispatch oracle for deep analysis | Required for complex review questions |
+| `Task(subagent_type=delphi-reviewer-architecture)` | Dispatch architecture expert | Core Delphi expert dispatch |
+| `Task(subagent_type=delphi-reviewer-technical)` | Dispatch technical expert | Core Delphi expert dispatch |
+| `Task(subagent_type=delphi-reviewer-feasibility)` | Dispatch feasibility expert | Core Delphi expert dispatch |
+| `Write(specification.yaml, .code-walkthrough-result.json, delphi-reviewed.json)` | Write output artifacts only | Required for review output persistence |
+| `Skill` | Invoke related skills for context | Required for cross-skill integration |
+| `Question` | Ask user at decision points | Required for user interaction |
+
+## Denied Tools
+
+| Tool | Rationale |
+|------|-----------|
+| `Edit(source code)` | Delphi review NEVER edits implementation code during review |
+| `Write(source code)` | Delphi review NEVER writes implementation code |
+| `Bash(git commit, git push)` | Delphi review NEVER commits or pushes during review |
+| `Task(category=*, subagent_type=build)` | Delphi review NEVER delegates build/implementation tasks |

package/plugins/dsh/skills/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# ADR Format
+
+## Filename convention
+
+`docs/adr/{NNNN}-{kebab-case-title}.md`
+
+Where `{NNNN}` is a zero-padded incrementing number (e.g., `0001`, `0002`).
+
+## Structure
+
+```md
+# {NNNN}. {Title}
+
+## Status
+
+Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXXX
+
+## Context
+
+{The issue(s) or situation(s) motivating this decision. What forces are at play? What is the problem?}
+
+## Decision
+
+{The decision made. Stated in full sentences, in the present tense. What did we decide to do?}
+
+## Consequences
+
+### Positive
+- {Benefit 1}
+- {Benefit 2}
+
+### Negative
+- {Trade-off 1}
+- {Trade-off 2}
+
+### Neutral
+- {Neutral observation 1}
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### {Alternative 1 title}
+{Brief description and why it was rejected.}
+
+### {Alternative 2 title}
+{Brief description and why it was rejected.}
+```
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Write for future readers, not present participants.** Future readers won't have the conversation context.
+- **Be honest about trade-offs.** Every decision has costs. Name them.
+- **One decision per ADR.** If you're writing "we decided X AND Y", split them.
+- **Keep the decision short.** 1-3 sentences. The context section is where the complexity lives.
+- **Superseded decisions are not deleted.** When a decision is overturned, create a new ADR that supersedes it. Update the old one's status to "Superseded by ADR-XXXX". This preserves history.
+- **Don't document trivial choices.** If the answer is obvious or easily reversible, skip the ADR.
+
+## When NOT to write an ADR
+
+- The decision is easily reversible.
+- The decision is a personal preference with no team impact.
+- The decision is well-documented elsewhere (e.g., in the project's CONTRIBUTING.md).
+- The decision follows an obvious path with no real alternatives.
+
+When in doubt, skip it. An ADR that shouldn't exist creates more noise than value.