@codyswann/lisa 2.285.1 → 2.286.0

package/plugins/lisa-copilot/rules/reference/dependency-internalization-kit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+# Dependency Internalization Kit
+
+Taking a dependency is a decision about trust: we believe someone else's code
+works. Dropping one reverses that decision without reversing the obligation —
+the capability still has to work, and now it is ours. The risk does not
+disappear at the moment the package is uninstalled; it **changes shape**, from
+"is upstream trustworthy?" to "did we actually rebuild what upstream did?"
+
+The confidence-rebuild kit is the standing answer to that second question. It is
+a reusable set of acceptance criteria that any removal, replacement, or
+internalization work item inherits, so the evidence bar is decided once instead
+of guessed at per ticket by whoever happens to write the tests.
+
+The kit pairs with the other two dependency surfaces:
+`.lisa/DEPENDENCY_DECISIONS.md` records *what we decided*, the
+[dependency-trust-classes](dependency-trust-classes.md) rule says *what bar the
+dependency had to clear to be there*, and this kit says *what proof we owe when
+we take the capability back*.
+
+## The seven required evidence types
+
+Each is stated as the plain question it answers, because the person deciding
+whether a removal is safe to ship is often not the person who wrote the code.
+
+### 1. Real corpus — did we test it on real inputs, not toy examples?
+
+The replacement must be exercised against **representative real inputs** drawn
+from actual usage: production samples, recorded fixtures, historical files, real
+config, the actual shapes the old dependency saw. Hand-written happy-path
+examples are not a corpus. They are written by the same person who wrote the
+implementation, from the same mental model, so they agree with the bug.
+
+The acceptance criterion names where the corpus came from and roughly how big it
+is. "We ran it on the 400 config files already in the repo" is a corpus. "We
+tested it with `{a: 1}`" is not.
+
+If real inputs cannot be obtained — because they are sensitive, or the capability
+is new-shaped — say so explicitly and name what stands in for them. An unstated
+absence reads as coverage that does not exist.
+
+### 2. Conformance fixtures — does the new code do what the dependency did?
+
+The replacement must be shown to **match the old dependency's behavior** on the
+behavior we actually rely on. The strongest form is a differential test: run both
+implementations over the corpus and assert the outputs agree, while the
+dependency is still installed. That is why the kit belongs on the *removal*
+ticket and not a follow-up — once the dependency is gone, the oracle is gone too.
+
+Where a differential run is impossible, conformance fixtures are captured from
+the old dependency's output *before* removal and asserted against afterwards.
+
+Deliberate divergences are allowed and must be **written down** as divergences.
+An intentional behavior change that nobody recorded is indistinguishable from a
+regression six months later.
+
+### 3. Negative fixtures — does it still reject what it should reject?
+
+Most dependencies do half their work by **refusing** things: rejecting malformed
+input, erroring on out-of-range values, failing closed on bad credentials.
+Conformance fixtures over valid input never test that half, and a replacement
+that accepts everything passes them all.
+
+Negative fixtures assert the replacement still fails on what the dependency
+failed on — and fails the same *way* where callers depend on the error type or
+message. This is the criterion most often dropped, and its absence is how a
+validation library gets internalized into a function that returns `true`.
+
+### 4. Coverage as a gap detector — what behavior is still untested?
+
+Coverage on internalization work is used to **find untested behavior**, not to
+report a number. The criterion is a review of the uncovered lines and branches
+with a stated disposition for each: tested, deliberately untested with a reason,
+or a gap to close before shipping.
+
+A coverage percentage on its own proves nothing here — new code written
+alongside its own tests reaches a high number trivially while the branch that
+matters is the one nobody thought of. The evidence is the *gap list*, and it is
+acceptable for that list to end with "none".
+
+### 5. Provenance and license review — where did this code come from, and are we allowed to use it?
+
+Internalized code has a source: written from scratch against a spec, adapted
+from the dependency's implementation, vendored wholesale, or copied from docs or
+an answer online. The work item must **say which**, because that is what
+determines our license obligation.
+
+Adapting or vendoring carries the upstream license with it — attribution,
+notice files, and copyleft terms follow the code even when the package does not.
+A permissive license is not "no obligation"; it is usually an attribution
+obligation.
+
+The criterion states the origin, the license, and what we have to do about it. If
+the answer is "written from scratch without reading their source," say that too —
+it is the cleanest provenance available and worth recording.
+
+### 6. Migration and update plan — how do existing call sites move, and how does the new code stay current?
+
+Two halves, both required:
+
+- **Migration**: every existing call site is enumerated and moved, in this change
+  or on a named schedule. A replacement nobody calls is not an internalization —
+  it is a second implementation, and the dependency is still installed.
+- **Staying current**: the capability the dependency tracked usually keeps
+  moving — a spec revises, a format gains a version, a platform changes. Name
+  who watches for that and what triggers an update. "Upstream did this for us"
+  was a real service, and dropping the dependency dropped it.
+
+### 7. Rollback or replacement criteria — what would make us go back, and to what?
+
+Written **before** the removal ships, while it is still a technical judgment
+rather than an argument during an incident. The criterion names:
+
+- the observable conditions that mean the internalization failed — defect rate,
+  a class of input we cannot handle, maintenance cost we are not paying;
+- what we do when they are met — reinstall the dependency, or pick a different
+  one, named;
+- how long the rollback stays cheap, and what makes it expensive.
+
+"We will fix forward" is a valid answer only if someone wrote it down on purpose.
+
+## Applying the kit — and not over-applying it
+
+The distinction the kit turns on is **whether ownership moves in-house**.
+
+**Inherits the kit** — ownership moves:
+
+- removing a material dependency and doing the work ourselves;
+- replacing it with our own implementation;
+- vendoring its source into the repo;
+- forking it and maintaining the fork.
+
+Each of those lands the capability in the
+`thin wrapper suitable for in-house ownership` trust class or removes it from
+the dependency set entirely, and either way we now own the behavior.
+
+**Does not inherit the kit** — ownership does not move:
+
+- a routine version bump of a trusted dependency **within its existing trust
+  class**, major or minor. The version-bump bar is the trust class's own
+  detection evidence and cadence, which already exist;
+- swapping one third-party dependency for another third-party dependency, where
+  trust simply moves to a different upstream. That is a trust-class decision and
+  a decision-record update, not an internalization;
+- adding a new dependency, which is covered by the trust-class rule.
+
+Over-applying the kit is a real failure, not a harmless excess of caution. A
+version bump forced to produce a corpus, conformance fixtures, and rollback
+criteria costs days for evidence that proves nothing — nobody rebuilt anything —
+and it teaches planners that the kit is boilerplate to be dispensed with, which
+is exactly how it stops being applied when it matters.
+
+The one exception: a version bump that **reclassifies** the dependency into
+in-house ownership — a bump taken as a fork, or an upgrade we decline in favor of
+owning the code — is an internalization wearing a bump's clothing, and it
+inherits the kit.
+
+## The non-material escape hatch
+
+A work item that removes a dependency inherits the kit **unless it explicitly
+justifies why the dependency is non-material**. A dependency is non-material when
+its failure or disappearance would not break anything a user can see and would
+not cost real time to replace — a one-line utility, a dev-only convenience, a
+package nothing imports anymore.
+
+The justification is written in the work item, in one sentence, and it is
+reviewable. What is not acceptable is silence: a removal ticket with no kit and
+no stated reason is not ready to build. That is the whole enforcement mechanism —
+the planner must either carry the criteria or say on the record why they do not
+apply.
+
+## For the operator at the gate
+
+The kit exists so that a removal ticket **explains how confidence will be rebuilt
+before the dependency is dropped**, in language that does not require reading the
+code. The seven questions are the readable form: did we test it on real inputs,
+does it do what the old one did, does it still reject bad input, what is still
+untested, where did the code come from and may we use it, how do callers move and
+how does it stay current, and what would make us go back.
+
+An operator who can read answers to those seven can judge the removal without
+being an engineer. A removal ticket that cannot answer them is not a plan — it is
+an intention.
+
+## Agent parity
+
+The kit is a governed markdown rule plus a decomposition-time expectation, not a
+runtime behavior, so Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode, Antigravity, and
+Copilot all reach it identically through the shared rules mirror and the same
+`lisa-task-decomposition` skill. Cursor receives the pair flattened into two
+`.mdc` rules; Antigravity has no separate rules tree of its own and inherits the
+same content through the shared mirror — no runtime is missing the kit.
+
+The documented gap, uniform across all six runtimes: nothing enforces that a
+removal ticket actually carries the kit. No hook or lint gate fails a build when
+a dependency is deleted from a manifest with no corpus, no conformance fixtures,
+and no rollback criteria. Inheritance is carried by this rule, the decomposition
+skill, and review — the same posture as the trust-class rule it extends.

package/plugins/lisa-copilot/skills/lisa-task-decomposition/SKILL.md

@@ -99,6 +99,43 @@ unit proposes adding one, the work unit must, before it is buildable:
 If nobody can pick a class, that is the finding — resolve it before accepting
 the work unit, not after the package is installed.
 
+### 4.6. Inherit the Confidence-Rebuild Kit When Ownership Moves In-House
+
+Step 4.5 covers dependencies a task proposes to **add**. This step covers
+dependencies a task proposes to **remove, replace, or internalize** — vendor,
+fork-and-maintain, or reimplement ourselves.
+
+When ownership moves in-house, the risk stops being "do we trust upstream" and
+becomes "did we prove we rebuilt the capability." A work unit that moves a
+material dependency in-house **inherits all seven acceptance criteria** of the
+`dependency-internalization-kit` rule, each written as an acceptance criterion
+of the work unit:
+
+1. **Real corpus** — did we test it on real inputs, not toy examples?
+2. **Conformance fixtures** — does the new code do what the dependency did?
+3. **Negative fixtures** — does it still reject what it should reject?
+4. **Coverage as a gap detector** — what behavior is still untested?
+5. **Provenance and license review** — where did this code come from, and are we
+   allowed to use it?
+6. **Migration and update plan** — how do existing call sites move, and how does
+   the new code stay current?
+7. **Rollback or replacement criteria** — what would make us go back, and to
+   what?
+
+The only way out is an **explicit non-material justification** written into the
+work unit — one reviewable sentence saying why this dependency's failure or
+disappearance breaks nothing a user can see and costs no real time to replace.
+Silence is not a justification.
+
+**Do not over-apply the kit.** A routine version bump of a trusted dependency
+**within its existing trust class** does not move ownership, so it does not
+inherit the kit — its bar is that trust class's own detection evidence and
+cadence. The same is true of swapping one third-party dependency for another,
+which moves trust to a different upstream rather than in-house. Add the kit only
+when ownership moves in-house; the exception is a bump taken *as* a fork or
+declined *in favor of* owning the code, which is an internalization regardless of
+how the ticket is titled.
+
 ### 5. Determine Execution Order
 
 - Place foundational tasks first (types, schemas, interfaces, shared utilities)
@@ -147,6 +184,7 @@ Map each task to the skills needed to complete it. This enables delegation to sp
 - Do not create tasks that cannot be verified -- if you cannot define how to prove it is done, the task is not well-scoped
 - Every Task / Bug / Sub-task / Improvement is scoped to exactly one repo -- if the work spans repos, split into per-repo work units under a shared parent Story (see step 1.5)
 - Any task proposing a new material dependency names its trust class, states that class's required evidence and whether human ratification is needed, and updates `.lisa/DEPENDENCY_DECISIONS.md` in the same change (see step 4.5) -- a proposed material dependency with no named class is not ready to build
+- Any task removing, replacing, or internalizing a material dependency carries all seven confidence-rebuild kit criteria -- corpus, conformance, negative fixtures, coverage-as-gap-detector, provenance/license, migration/update plan, and rollback criteria (see step 4.6) -- unless it explicitly justifies why the dependency is non-material; a within-trust-class version bump does not carry the kit
 - Keep tasks ordered so that no task references work that has not been completed by a prior task
 - Flag any task that requires access, permissions, or external input not yet available
 - Prefer more small tasks over fewer large tasks -- smaller tasks are easier to verify and less risky to fail

package/plugins/lisa-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Universal governance — agents, skills, commands, hooks, and rules for all projects",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-cursor/rules/dependency-internalization-kit-reference.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+---
+description: "Dependency Internalization Kit"
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Dependency Internalization Kit
+
+Taking a dependency is a decision about trust: we believe someone else's code
+works. Dropping one reverses that decision without reversing the obligation —
+the capability still has to work, and now it is ours. The risk does not
+disappear at the moment the package is uninstalled; it **changes shape**, from
+"is upstream trustworthy?" to "did we actually rebuild what upstream did?"
+
+The confidence-rebuild kit is the standing answer to that second question. It is
+a reusable set of acceptance criteria that any removal, replacement, or
+internalization work item inherits, so the evidence bar is decided once instead
+of guessed at per ticket by whoever happens to write the tests.
+
+The kit pairs with the other two dependency surfaces:
+`.lisa/DEPENDENCY_DECISIONS.md` records *what we decided*, the
+[dependency-trust-classes](dependency-trust-classes.mdc) rule says *what bar the
+dependency had to clear to be there*, and this kit says *what proof we owe when
+we take the capability back*.
+
+## The seven required evidence types
+
+Each is stated as the plain question it answers, because the person deciding
+whether a removal is safe to ship is often not the person who wrote the code.
+
+### 1. Real corpus — did we test it on real inputs, not toy examples?
+
+The replacement must be exercised against **representative real inputs** drawn
+from actual usage: production samples, recorded fixtures, historical files, real
+config, the actual shapes the old dependency saw. Hand-written happy-path
+examples are not a corpus. They are written by the same person who wrote the
+implementation, from the same mental model, so they agree with the bug.
+
+The acceptance criterion names where the corpus came from and roughly how big it
+is. "We ran it on the 400 config files already in the repo" is a corpus. "We
+tested it with `{a: 1}`" is not.
+
+If real inputs cannot be obtained — because they are sensitive, or the capability
+is new-shaped — say so explicitly and name what stands in for them. An unstated
+absence reads as coverage that does not exist.
+
+### 2. Conformance fixtures — does the new code do what the dependency did?
+
+The replacement must be shown to **match the old dependency's behavior** on the
+behavior we actually rely on. The strongest form is a differential test: run both
+implementations over the corpus and assert the outputs agree, while the
+dependency is still installed. That is why the kit belongs on the *removal*
+ticket and not a follow-up — once the dependency is gone, the oracle is gone too.
+
+Where a differential run is impossible, conformance fixtures are captured from
+the old dependency's output *before* removal and asserted against afterwards.
+
+Deliberate divergences are allowed and must be **written down** as divergences.
+An intentional behavior change that nobody recorded is indistinguishable from a
+regression six months later.
+
+### 3. Negative fixtures — does it still reject what it should reject?
+
+Most dependencies do half their work by **refusing** things: rejecting malformed
+input, erroring on out-of-range values, failing closed on bad credentials.
+Conformance fixtures over valid input never test that half, and a replacement
+that accepts everything passes them all.
+
+Negative fixtures assert the replacement still fails on what the dependency
+failed on — and fails the same *way* where callers depend on the error type or
+message. This is the criterion most often dropped, and its absence is how a
+validation library gets internalized into a function that returns `true`.
+
+### 4. Coverage as a gap detector — what behavior is still untested?
+
+Coverage on internalization work is used to **find untested behavior**, not to
+report a number. The criterion is a review of the uncovered lines and branches
+with a stated disposition for each: tested, deliberately untested with a reason,
+or a gap to close before shipping.
+
+A coverage percentage on its own proves nothing here — new code written
+alongside its own tests reaches a high number trivially while the branch that
+matters is the one nobody thought of. The evidence is the *gap list*, and it is
+acceptable for that list to end with "none".
+
+### 5. Provenance and license review — where did this code come from, and are we allowed to use it?
+
+Internalized code has a source: written from scratch against a spec, adapted
+from the dependency's implementation, vendored wholesale, or copied from docs or
+an answer online. The work item must **say which**, because that is what
+determines our license obligation.
+
+Adapting or vendoring carries the upstream license with it — attribution,
+notice files, and copyleft terms follow the code even when the package does not.
+A permissive license is not "no obligation"; it is usually an attribution
+obligation.
+
+The criterion states the origin, the license, and what we have to do about it. If
+the answer is "written from scratch without reading their source," say that too —
+it is the cleanest provenance available and worth recording.
+
+### 6. Migration and update plan — how do existing call sites move, and how does the new code stay current?
+
+Two halves, both required:
+
+- **Migration**: every existing call site is enumerated and moved, in this change
+  or on a named schedule. A replacement nobody calls is not an internalization —
+  it is a second implementation, and the dependency is still installed.
+- **Staying current**: the capability the dependency tracked usually keeps
+  moving — a spec revises, a format gains a version, a platform changes. Name
+  who watches for that and what triggers an update. "Upstream did this for us"
+  was a real service, and dropping the dependency dropped it.
+
+### 7. Rollback or replacement criteria — what would make us go back, and to what?
+
+Written **before** the removal ships, while it is still a technical judgment
+rather than an argument during an incident. The criterion names:
+
+- the observable conditions that mean the internalization failed — defect rate,
+  a class of input we cannot handle, maintenance cost we are not paying;
+- what we do when they are met — reinstall the dependency, or pick a different
+  one, named;
+- how long the rollback stays cheap, and what makes it expensive.
+
+"We will fix forward" is a valid answer only if someone wrote it down on purpose.
+
+## Applying the kit — and not over-applying it
+
+The distinction the kit turns on is **whether ownership moves in-house**.
+
+**Inherits the kit** — ownership moves:
+
+- removing a material dependency and doing the work ourselves;
+- replacing it with our own implementation;
+- vendoring its source into the repo;
+- forking it and maintaining the fork.
+
+Each of those lands the capability in the
+`thin wrapper suitable for in-house ownership` trust class or removes it from
+the dependency set entirely, and either way we now own the behavior.
+
+**Does not inherit the kit** — ownership does not move:
+
+- a routine version bump of a trusted dependency **within its existing trust
+  class**, major or minor. The version-bump bar is the trust class's own
+  detection evidence and cadence, which already exist;
+- swapping one third-party dependency for another third-party dependency, where
+  trust simply moves to a different upstream. That is a trust-class decision and
+  a decision-record update, not an internalization;
+- adding a new dependency, which is covered by the trust-class rule.
+
+Over-applying the kit is a real failure, not a harmless excess of caution. A
+version bump forced to produce a corpus, conformance fixtures, and rollback
+criteria costs days for evidence that proves nothing — nobody rebuilt anything —
+and it teaches planners that the kit is boilerplate to be dispensed with, which
+is exactly how it stops being applied when it matters.
+
+The one exception: a version bump that **reclassifies** the dependency into
+in-house ownership — a bump taken as a fork, or an upgrade we decline in favor of
+owning the code — is an internalization wearing a bump's clothing, and it
+inherits the kit.
+
+## The non-material escape hatch
+
+A work item that removes a dependency inherits the kit **unless it explicitly
+justifies why the dependency is non-material**. A dependency is non-material when
+its failure or disappearance would not break anything a user can see and would
+not cost real time to replace — a one-line utility, a dev-only convenience, a
+package nothing imports anymore.
+
+The justification is written in the work item, in one sentence, and it is
+reviewable. What is not acceptable is silence: a removal ticket with no kit and
+no stated reason is not ready to build. That is the whole enforcement mechanism —
+the planner must either carry the criteria or say on the record why they do not
+apply.
+
+## For the operator at the gate
+
+The kit exists so that a removal ticket **explains how confidence will be rebuilt
+before the dependency is dropped**, in language that does not require reading the
+code. The seven questions are the readable form: did we test it on real inputs,
+does it do what the old one did, does it still reject bad input, what is still
+untested, where did the code come from and may we use it, how do callers move and
+how does it stay current, and what would make us go back.
+
+An operator who can read answers to those seven can judge the removal without
+being an engineer. A removal ticket that cannot answer them is not a plan — it is
+an intention.
+
+## Agent parity
+
+The kit is a governed markdown rule plus a decomposition-time expectation, not a
+runtime behavior, so Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode, Antigravity, and
+Copilot all reach it identically through the shared rules mirror and the same
+`lisa-task-decomposition` skill. Cursor receives the pair flattened into two
+`.mdc` rules; Antigravity has no separate rules tree of its own and inherits the
+same content through the shared mirror — no runtime is missing the kit.
+
+The documented gap, uniform across all six runtimes: nothing enforces that a
+removal ticket actually carries the kit. No hook or lint gate fails a build when
+a dependency is deleted from a manifest with no corpus, no conformance fixtures,
+and no rollback criteria. Inheritance is carried by this rule, the decomposition
+skill, and review — the same posture as the trust-class rule it extends.

package/plugins/lisa-cursor/rules/dependency-internalization-kit.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+description: "Dependency Internalization Kit (load-bearing)"
+alwaysApply: true
+---
+
+# Dependency Internalization Kit (load-bearing)
+
+When a work item **removes, replaces, or internalizes** a material dependency,
+ownership of that capability moves in-house. The risk moves with it: we stop
+trusting an upstream project and start having to **prove we rebuilt the
+capability correctly**. The confidence-rebuild kit is the standing acceptance
+bar for that proof, so internalization work never has to guess at its own tests.
+
+The kit is seven required evidence types. Each leads with the plain question it
+answers:
+
+1. **Real corpus** — did we test it on real inputs, not toy examples?
+2. **Conformance fixtures** — does the new code do what the dependency did?
+3. **Negative fixtures** — does it still reject what it should reject?
+4. **Coverage as a gap detector** — what behavior is still untested?
+5. **Provenance and license review** — where did this code come from, and are we
+   allowed to use it?
+6. **Migration and update plan** — how do existing call sites move, and how does
+   the new code stay current?
+7. **Rollback or replacement criteria** — what would make us go back, and to
+   what?
+
+All seven are required. A partial kit is the finding: dropping the corpus leaves
+a toy-example pass, dropping negative fixtures leaves code that accepts garbage,
+and dropping rollback criteria leaves nobody able to say the internalization
+failed.
+
+**When the kit applies:** ownership moves in-house — the dependency is removed,
+replaced with our own code, vendored, or forked and maintained by us. That is
+usually a move into the `thin wrapper suitable for in-house ownership` trust
+class, or out of the dependency set entirely.
+
+**When the kit does NOT apply:** a routine version bump of a trusted dependency
+**within its existing trust class**. Ownership does not move, so there is no
+rebuilt capability to prove. Applying the kit there is over-application — it
+buys no confidence and makes ordinary upkeep expensive.
+
+A work item that removes, replaces, or internalizes a material dependency
+inherits all seven criteria unless it explicitly justifies why the dependency is
+**non-material**. Silence is not a justification.
+
+Full prose: [reference/dependency-internalization-kit.md](dependency-internalization-kit-reference.mdc).

package/plugins/lisa-cursor/skills/lisa-task-decomposition/SKILL.md

@@ -99,6 +99,43 @@ unit proposes adding one, the work unit must, before it is buildable:
 If nobody can pick a class, that is the finding — resolve it before accepting
 the work unit, not after the package is installed.
 
+### 4.6. Inherit the Confidence-Rebuild Kit When Ownership Moves In-House
+
+Step 4.5 covers dependencies a task proposes to **add**. This step covers
+dependencies a task proposes to **remove, replace, or internalize** — vendor,
+fork-and-maintain, or reimplement ourselves.
+
+When ownership moves in-house, the risk stops being "do we trust upstream" and
+becomes "did we prove we rebuilt the capability." A work unit that moves a
+material dependency in-house **inherits all seven acceptance criteria** of the
+`dependency-internalization-kit` rule, each written as an acceptance criterion
+of the work unit:
+
+1. **Real corpus** — did we test it on real inputs, not toy examples?
+2. **Conformance fixtures** — does the new code do what the dependency did?
+3. **Negative fixtures** — does it still reject what it should reject?
+4. **Coverage as a gap detector** — what behavior is still untested?
+5. **Provenance and license review** — where did this code come from, and are we
+   allowed to use it?
+6. **Migration and update plan** — how do existing call sites move, and how does
+   the new code stay current?
+7. **Rollback or replacement criteria** — what would make us go back, and to
+   what?
+
+The only way out is an **explicit non-material justification** written into the
+work unit — one reviewable sentence saying why this dependency's failure or
+disappearance breaks nothing a user can see and costs no real time to replace.
+Silence is not a justification.
+
+**Do not over-apply the kit.** A routine version bump of a trusted dependency
+**within its existing trust class** does not move ownership, so it does not
+inherit the kit — its bar is that trust class's own detection evidence and
+cadence. The same is true of swapping one third-party dependency for another,
+which moves trust to a different upstream rather than in-house. Add the kit only
+when ownership moves in-house; the exception is a bump taken *as* a fork or
+declined *in favor of* owning the code, which is an internalization regardless of
+how the ticket is titled.
+
 ### 5. Determine Execution Order
 
 - Place foundational tasks first (types, schemas, interfaces, shared utilities)
@@ -147,6 +184,7 @@ Map each task to the skills needed to complete it. This enables delegation to sp
 - Do not create tasks that cannot be verified -- if you cannot define how to prove it is done, the task is not well-scoped
 - Every Task / Bug / Sub-task / Improvement is scoped to exactly one repo -- if the work spans repos, split into per-repo work units under a shared parent Story (see step 1.5)
 - Any task proposing a new material dependency names its trust class, states that class's required evidence and whether human ratification is needed, and updates `.lisa/DEPENDENCY_DECISIONS.md` in the same change (see step 4.5) -- a proposed material dependency with no named class is not ready to build
+- Any task removing, replacing, or internalizing a material dependency carries all seven confidence-rebuild kit criteria -- corpus, conformance, negative fixtures, coverage-as-gap-detector, provenance/license, migration/update plan, and rollback criteria (see step 4.6) -- unless it explicitly justifies why the dependency is non-material; a within-trust-class version bump does not carry the kit
 - Keep tasks ordered so that no task references work that has not been completed by a prior task
 - Flag any task that requires access, permissions, or external input not yet available
 - Prefer more small tasks over fewer large tasks -- smaller tasks are easier to verify and less risky to fail

package/plugins/lisa-expo/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-expo",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Expo/React Native-specific skills, agents, rules, and MCP servers",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-expo/.codex-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-expo",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Expo and React Native-specific skills, agents, rules, and MCP servers.",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-expo-agy/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-expo",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Expo/React Native-specific skills, agents, rules, and MCP servers",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-expo-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-expo",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Expo/React Native-specific skills, agents, rules, and MCP servers",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-expo-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-expo",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Expo/React Native-specific skills, agents, rules, and MCP servers",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-harper-fabric",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Harper/Fabric-specific rules for TypeScript component apps",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric/.codex-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-harper-fabric",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Harper/Fabric-specific Lisa rules for TypeScript component apps.",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric-agy/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-harper-fabric",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Harper/Fabric-specific rules for TypeScript component apps",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric-copilot/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-harper-fabric",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Harper/Fabric-specific rules for TypeScript component apps",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"

package/plugins/lisa-harper-fabric-cursor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "lisa-harper-fabric",
-  "version": "2.285.1",
+  "version": "2.286.0",
   "description": "Harper/Fabric-specific rules for TypeScript component apps",
   "author": {
     "name": "Cody Swann"