@dzhechkov/skills-feature-adr 1.5.3 → 1.5.4

package/.dz-manifest.json

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
       },
       {
         "path": "README.md",
-        "sha256": "1e3c1a4ed97981b70a3a5099f6355556fc987e493bf478b82cabe552888d2583"
+        "sha256": "eb5998619673f928f02b6b462278acfc4871387e1f6495ab0b613a965611cda7"
       },
       {
         "path": "bin/cli.js",
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
       },
       {
         "path": "package.json",
-        "sha256": "2224692687da750844ef25096d1fc41fc86d7e79743ac7a8f42bf51ba9018750"
+        "sha256": "8e082526415c4ce4427c51dff222c248e29ef5fbdcd17f0d957c28d621738513"
       },
       {
         "path": "src/cli.js",
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@
       },
       {
         "path": "templates/.claude/skills/feature-adr/modules/05-architecture.md",
-        "sha256": "2ef7cf316903f0cbb1fabe1f0e1770c22b2cb3a11a4118cac0529c25074b5e8a"
+        "sha256": "4d20dbc85ea5bb93ca90fd8cd089255bab9c76a912ca3ad954f3a4bb670f3c45"
       },
       {
         "path": "templates/.claude/skills/feature-adr/modules/06-implementation-plan.md",
@@ -313,7 +313,7 @@
       },
       {
         "path": "templates/.claude/workflows/feature-adr.js",
-        "sha256": "a4e277040b42646d9bc1b06f78e32aa11f118a924f1626be67640f87ede8b292"
+        "sha256": "a6ff055d50f4eb5790dab36deee188e880eec1362188ec16a5504710294d87c3"
       },
       {
         "path": "templates/lib/memory-protocol.md",
@@ -325,5 +325,5 @@
       }
     ]
   },
-  "signature": "uUN7yuKgSOed/hE0xooh1K788NcAFhnvsh92AHcu4oHn/uMZurn0VnktfhsUDHUv3jR8F6bMoKgrb/F6dHrvCQ=="
+  "signature": "4u6AmuuLsokLePBMiy6Gg9ETVwszE2NVE2fArT62nFcJSWPEd06QhKu4eb2/awzNjH4bhY3HXbacMZsS7B7gBA=="
 }

package/README.md

@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ refused BY NAME: `path traversal ('..' segment)`, `degenerate path segment`, `em
 `illegal character '<c>'`, `empty stem after the leading dot`. The old substring traversal test also
 rejected the ordinary filename `foo..bar.ts`; it is a segment test now.
 
-### The Step-8 amendment gate runs a command instead of judging (v1.5.3)
+### The Step-8 amendment gate runs a command instead of judging (v1.5.4)
 
 Every `AM-N` row must resolve to a test found INSIDE the file the row names, and the check is
 `dz amendment-check --slug <slug> --json` rather than a paragraph asking the reviewer to confirm it.
@@ -1113,7 +1113,27 @@ deliberately excluded — "skeleton first" is nonsense there.
 
 ## Status
 
-`1.5.3` — **the workflow stops crashing on the way into Step 7.** `1.5.3` shipped a workflow that
+`1.5.4` — **Step 5 now asks how the shipped feature will be watched.** The architecture artifact must
+carry a section headed exactly `Observability` answering what the feature logs, what it counts, what a
+failure looks like from outside, and who would notice. **"Nothing to observe" is a complete answer** —
+a pure refactor or a CI-only gate genuinely emits nothing, and a check that cannot express a true fact
+gets switched off. What is not acceptable is leaving the question unanswered. MEASURED before the
+change: the word appeared nowhere in the pipeline's prompts, and ZERO of 107 architecture artifacts
+carried such a section, while two fully-written observability skills (818 and 946 lines) sat
+unreachable because nothing called them. `dz score` reports the answer as a discipline — descriptive,
+never a gate, because the whole existing corpus predates the requirement.
+
+Also in the bundled workflow: the K2 gate stops GUESSING the workspace. When it was not pinned, the
+workspace candidate was taken from the gate agent's own working directory, which against an external
+target repo resolved to that repo — so the candidate silently became a duplicate of the repo
+candidate and a skill installed in the workspace was never found (`NOT-ESTABLISHED`, exit 3, the
+coding step never ran). New `args.workspace` pins it, the shipped call site passes it, each candidate
+is labelled in the audit line, and a `K2_GATE_NOTE` fires when two collapse onto one path. And a
+pre-code probe that returns nothing no longer becomes an all-null baseline that later reads as
+"every target changed".
+
+
+`1.5.4` — **the workflow stops crashing on the way into Step 7.** `1.5.4` shipped a workflow that
 CALLED three helpers it never defined — `changeSetProbeCmd`, `parseHashProbe`, `changedFromHashes`
 (5 call sites, 0 definitions). `QE_SCOPE` defaults to `uncommitted`, so the guarded branch was true
 by default and every ultracode run that reached the coding step died with a `ReferenceError` while

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@dzhechkov/skills-feature-adr",
-  "version": "1.5.3",
+  "version": "1.5.4",
   "description": "Adaptive Feature Development skill pack for Claude Code — 11-step pipeline with Complexity Router (S/M/L/XL), ADR-driven architecture, 15 agentic-qe skills, multi-agent fleet QE. Supports --full-qe, --full-qe-extended, --with-learning, and --knowledge-extractor modes.",
   "bin": {
     "skills-feature-adr": "./bin/cli.js"

package/sbom.json

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
       "hashes": [
         {
           "alg": "SHA-256",
-          "content": "1e3c1a4ed97981b70a3a5099f6355556fc987e493bf478b82cabe552888d2583"
+          "content": "eb5998619673f928f02b6b462278acfc4871387e1f6495ab0b613a965611cda7"
         }
       ]
     },
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
       "hashes": [
         {
           "alg": "SHA-256",
-          "content": "2224692687da750844ef25096d1fc41fc86d7e79743ac7a8f42bf51ba9018750"
+          "content": "8e082526415c4ce4427c51dff222c248e29ef5fbdcd17f0d957c28d621738513"
         }
       ]
     },
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@
       "hashes": [
         {
           "alg": "SHA-256",
-          "content": "2ef7cf316903f0cbb1fabe1f0e1770c22b2cb3a11a4118cac0529c25074b5e8a"
+          "content": "4d20dbc85ea5bb93ca90fd8cd089255bab9c76a912ca3ad954f3a4bb670f3c45"
         }
       ]
     },
@@ -785,7 +785,7 @@
       "hashes": [
         {
           "alg": "SHA-256",
-          "content": "a4e277040b42646d9bc1b06f78e32aa11f118a924f1626be67640f87ede8b292"
+          "content": "a6ff055d50f4eb5790dab36deee188e880eec1362188ec16a5504710294d87c3"
         }
       ]
     },

package/templates/.claude/skills/feature-adr/modules/05-architecture.md

@@ -118,6 +118,32 @@ GET /api/v1/{resource}/:id
   Errors: 401, 404
 ```
 
+## Observability — a MANDATORY section of `05_architecture.md`
+
+The artifact must carry a section headed exactly **`Observability`**, answering how anyone would
+know this feature is working once it ships:
+
+- what it **logs**, and at what level;
+- what it **counts** — the one or two numbers that would move if it broke;
+- what a **failure looks like from outside** — the symptom, not the stack trace;
+- **who would notice**, and how.
+
+If the feature genuinely emits nothing at runtime — a pure refactor, a doc change, a gate that only
+runs in CI — write **"nothing to observe"** and say why. That is a complete answer, not a gap. What
+is not acceptable is leaving the question unanswered.
+
+The heading is read by a machine (`dz score` reports it as a discipline), so it is spelled exactly
+`Observability` — the prompt above and the check derive that word from one shared constant, because
+a prompt asking for one heading while a check greps another produces a gate that fails every honest
+run.
+
+**Why this section exists.** MEASURED 2026-08-25: across 107 existing `05_architecture.md` files,
+ZERO carried such a section, and the word `observability` appeared nowhere in the pipeline's own
+prompts. The pipeline kept five telemetry stores about itself and asked for none about what it
+built. The two capable skills — `observability` (818 lines) and `observability-testing-patterns`
+(946 lines) — were fully written and unreachable, because nothing called them. This section is the
+call site.
+
 ## Write discipline (the 180-second rule)
 
 An executor that returns from a tool call and then thinks in silence past **180 seconds** is killed by the

package/templates/.claude/workflows/feature-adr.js

@@ -2125,7 +2125,7 @@ if (isMplus) {
   designThunks.push(() => subCheckpoint('qcsd', qcsdPromptText, qcsdOpts, ['03.5_ideation_report.md'], () => designStage(qcsdPromptText, qcsdOpts, FDIR + '/03.5_ideation_report.md', 'qcsd')))
   designPairMeta.push({ role: 'design:qcsd', prompt: qcsdPromptText, model: modelLabel(qcsdOpts), lessons: [] })
   const archExtra = isLplus ? ' Also ' + FDIR + '/04_domain_model.md (DDD).' : ''
-  const archPromptText = (isLplus ? 'Step 4 (DDD) + ' : '') + 'Step 5 (Architecture) of /feature-adr for "' + DESC + '" (' + SLUG + '). READ the code. Write ' + FDIR + '/05_architecture.md (components, data flow, integration points, the emit/merge/wiring shape).' + archExtra + ' Return wrote[] + summary.' + WRITE_DISCIPLINE
+  const archPromptText = (isLplus ? 'Step 4 (DDD) + ' : '') + 'Step 5 (Architecture) of /feature-adr for "' + DESC + '" (' + SLUG + '). READ the code. Write ' + FDIR + '/05_architecture.md (components, data flow, integration points, the emit/merge/wiring shape). It MUST carry a section headed exactly "Observability" answering how anyone would know this feature is working once it ships: what it logs, what it counts, what a failure looks like from outside, and who would notice. If the feature genuinely emits nothing at runtime — a pure refactor, a CI-only gate — say "nothing to observe" and why; that is a complete answer, not a gap. What is not acceptable is leaving the question unanswered.' + archExtra + ' Return wrote[] + summary.' + WRITE_DISCIPLINE
   designThunks.push(() => subCheckpoint('architecture', archPromptText, archOpts, ['05_architecture.md'].concat(isLplus ? ['04_domain_model.md'] : []), () => designStage(archPromptText, archOpts, FDIR + '/05_architecture.md', 'architecture')))
   designPairMeta.push({ role: 'design:architecture', prompt: archPromptText, model: modelLabel(archOpts), lessons: [] })
 }