@event4u/agent-config 6.1.0 → 7.0.1

package/src/scripts/ai_council/prompts.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,600 @@
+/**
+ * Neutrality system prompts for the council.
+ *
+ * TypeScript twin of `src/scripts/ai_council/prompts.py` (ADR-200 —
+ * Python→TS migration, Phase 1). Council members must NOT see the host
+ * agent's reasoning, internal state, or framing language. Each prompt asks
+ * for an independent critique on the artefact's own merits.
+ *
+ * Anti-patterns guarded against in tests (test_prompts.py):
+ * - No leak of host-agent identity ("Augment", "Claude Code", etc.).
+ * - No "the agent thinks X" framing.
+ * - No instructions that bias toward agreement.
+ *
+ * Parity notes:
+ * - The Python module's string constants are triple-quoted literals run
+ *   through `.strip()` (or `.rstrip()` for one). Each constant below is the
+ *   byte-exact post-strip value — the `_dedent`/`.strip()` step is folded in
+ *   at authoring time so the runtime value matches `str.strip()` output.
+ * - `"\n".join` / `"\n\n".join` mirror Python `str.join`.
+ * - `str.splitlines()` is mirrored by `_splitlines` (drops the trailing
+ *   empty element a final newline would produce; full universal-newline set).
+ * - `sorted(...)` for error messages mirrors Python `sorted()` (code-point
+ *   ascending) via `[...].sort()` on ASCII keys.
+ */
+import type { ProjectContext } from './project_context.js';
+
+// Python: NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE = """\...""".strip()
+export const NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE = `You are an independent reviewer. You have NOT seen any prior reasoning,
+agent output, or commentary on the artefact below. Critique it on its
+own merits. Disagree if warranted. Cite specific lines or sections.
+Do not assume the artefact is correct just because it was sent to you.`;
+
+// Host-agent identity strings that must never leak into a council member's
+// view. Lines containing any of these (case-insensitive substring) are
+// dropped before assembly. See `ai-council` skill § Neutrality.
+export const HOST_AGENT_IDENTITY_PATTERNS = [
+    'augment',
+    'claude code',
+    'cursor agent',
+    'cursor ide',
+    'cline',
+    'windsurf',
+    'copilot agent',
+] as const;
+
+// Per-mode addenda — appended after the preamble.
+
+export const PROMPT_MODE = `The artefact is a free-form question or proposal from a developer.
+Respond with:
+1. Your honest assessment (agree / disagree / mixed).
+2. The single strongest argument for your position.
+3. The single strongest counter-argument the developer should consider.
+4. Concrete next steps if you agree, or concrete alternatives if you disagree.`;
+
+export const ROADMAP_MODE = `The artefact is a proposed implementation roadmap. Critique it as if
+you were a senior engineer asked to greenlight it. Focus on:
+1. Hidden coupling between phases that the roadmap glosses over.
+2. Steps that are too coarse to verify ("implement X" vs "X with Y test").
+3. Missing rollback or kill-switch criteria.
+4. Sequencing risks — does step N really not block step N+1?
+5. Open questions disguised as decisions, or vice versa.`;
+
+export const DIFF_MODE = `The artefact is a code diff. Review it for:
+1. Correctness — bugs, off-by-one, null-safety, type drift.
+2. Security — injection, secrets, unsafe deserialization, authZ gaps.
+3. Test coverage — uncovered branches, missing regression tests.
+4. Maintainability — surprise dependencies, naming drift, dead code.
+End with: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT and one sentence why.`;
+
+export const FILES_MODE = `The artefact is a set of source files for an architectural review.
+Map out:
+1. The boundaries you see (modules, layers, trust zones).
+2. The strongest design decision present.
+3. The weakest design decision present.
+4. The single change that would most reduce future maintenance cost.`;
+
+// Specialised modes — used by /council-pr, /council-design,
+// /council-optimize. Selected via `mode_override=` in `/council` so the
+// base modes (`prompt`, `roadmap`, `diff`, `files`) keep their v2 byte
+// shape for back-compat with existing callers.
+
+export const PR_MODE = `The artefact is a code diff from a pull request. Review with both a
+correctness lens AND a shipping-risk lens:
+1. Correctness — bugs, off-by-one, null-safety, type drift.
+2. Security — injection, secrets, unsafe deserialization, authZ gaps.
+3. Test coverage — uncovered branches, missing regression tests.
+4. Shipping risk — does this PR mix concerns that should be split?
+   Is the blast radius bigger than the title implies?
+5. Reviewer fatigue — is anything in the diff that a tired reviewer
+   would rubber-stamp but should not?
+End with: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT, one sentence why, and
+the single highest-leverage change the PR author should make before
+merge.`;
+
+export const DESIGN_MODE = `The artefact is a design document, ADR, or architecture proposal.
+Critique it as if you were greenlighting it as a senior engineer.
+Focus on:
+1. Trust boundaries and module coupling the design glosses over.
+2. Rollback / kill-switch criteria the design omits.
+3. Sequencing risk — does step N really not block step N+1?
+4. Open questions disguised as decisions, or decisions disguised as
+   open questions.
+5. The single architectural call you would push back on the hardest,
+   and what evidence would change your mind.`;
+
+export const OPTIMIZE_MODE = `The artefact is an optimization target — code, a query, a profile,
+or an existing optimization report. Produce ranked, evidence-based
+suggestions for the metric stated in the user's original ask. You
+MUST:
+1. Rank suggestions by expected impact on the stated metric, not by
+   effort or cleverness.
+2. Cite the evidence (line, query plan, profile entry) for every
+   suggestion. No hand-wave "this is probably slow".
+3. State at least one suggestion you explicitly REJECT as
+   low-leverage, so the user does not over-engineer.
+4. Mark at least one suggestion as hypothesis (requires measurement
+   before committing) versus confirmed (already supported by the
+   evidence in the artefact).`;
+
+export const ANALYSIS_MODE = `The artefact is a local analysis output (from a project analyzer,
+audit script, or codebase scan). Critique the **analysis itself**, not
+the underlying codebase. You MUST:
+1. Flag findings that are restated under different headings —
+   deduplicate aggressively. The downstream consumer wants a unique
+   Top-N, not a long list with overlap.
+2. Score the evidence quality of each finding: confirmed (the
+   analysis cites file:line / metric), inferred (plausible from
+   stated context), or speculative (no citation, vibes-only).
+   Speculative findings must be called out by name.
+3. Identify findings that are roadmap-ready (concrete enough to land
+   as a phase step) vs ones that need a discovery loop first.
+4. Propose 3–5 follow-up actions ranked by leverage — what the next
+   roadmap should attack first. Cite the supporting finding(s) by id
+   or heading.
+End with: a Top-N consensus list (one bullet per finding the
+analysis surfaces) plus a single sentence on the strongest blind
+spot the analysis itself has.`;
+
+export const DEBATE_MODE = `The artefact is the topic of a structured multi-round debate. You are
+one of several independent reviewers. Round-specific instructions:
+1. Round 1 — state your strongest, most defensible position on the
+   topic. Argue from evidence and first principles. Do not hedge.
+2. Round 2+ — read the anonymised positions from the previous round.
+   Identify the SINGLE strongest opposing position and write a
+   rebuttal addressed at its strongest steel-manned form. Your task
+   is to find the load-bearing flaw the opposing reviewer missed —
+   do NOT search for common ground.
+End each round with: a one-line position summary and the single
+piece of evidence that would change your mind.`;
+
+const _MODE_TABLE: Record<string, string> = {
+    prompt: PROMPT_MODE,
+    roadmap: ROADMAP_MODE,
+    diff: DIFF_MODE,
+    files: FILES_MODE,
+    pr: PR_MODE,
+    design: DESIGN_MODE,
+    optimize: OPTIMIZE_MODE,
+    analysis: ANALYSIS_MODE,
+    debate: DEBATE_MODE,
+};
+
+// ── Consensus-scoring prompts (Phase 4 / F3) ──────────────────────────
+//
+// Two-step extraction + scoring round used by the analysis lens. The
+// extraction pass asks each member to surface its own top findings in
+// a strict JSON shape; the scoring pass asks each member to rate
+// anonymised findings produced by the *other* members.
+//
+// Iron Law of Neutrality applies to both: the extraction prompt never
+// names other reviewers, and the scoring prompt strips the source
+// author by using `Finding-A` / `Finding-B` labels (see
+// `consensus.anonymize_findings`).
+
+export const FINDING_EXTRACTION_PROMPT = `You have just produced an analysis. Re-emit your top findings as a
+strict JSON array suitable for downstream tooling. Each item MUST
+have:
+
+    {"id": "<short-slug>", "text": "<one-sentence finding>"}
+
+Rules:
+- 3-7 findings, ordered by importance (most important first).
+- \`id\` is a 1-3 word kebab-case slug, unique within your array.
+- \`text\` is a single sentence, no markdown, no reviewer self-reference.
+- Wrap the array in a \`\`\`json\`\`\` fenced block. No commentary outside it.`;
+
+export const FINDING_SCORING_PROMPT = `Below are findings from other independent reviewers, presented with
+neutral labels (Finding-A, Finding-B, …). Score each one on its
+merits. You MUST emit a strict JSON array, one entry per finding,
+in this shape:
+
+    {"finding_id": "Finding-A", "score": 1-10, "agree": true|false,
+     "reason": "<one-sentence justification>"}
+
+Rules:
+- \`score\` is an integer 1 (weak / irrelevant) to 10 (load-bearing /
+  must-address).
+- \`agree=true\` means you would surface this same finding yourself;
+  \`agree=false\` means you think it is wrong, overstated, or off-topic.
+- \`reason\` is a single sentence, no markdown.
+- Wrap the array in a \`\`\`json\`\`\` fenced block. No commentary outside it.
+
+You may not see your own findings in the list — that is by design.`;
+
+// ── Synthesis templates (Phase 3 / F2) ────────────────────────────────
+//
+// Lens-aware synthesis prompts. Each entry maps a lens key onto the
+// block the host agent should produce when summarising member responses.
+// R4 Q4 split: decision lenses get a Karpathy-structured template;
+// creative lenses (design / optimize) stay open-ended prose (empty
+// string → renderer falls back to the bare "Convergence / Divergence"
+// slot). Input modes (prompt / roadmap / diff / files) map onto the
+// `default` decision template via `synthesis_template()`.
+
+export const DEFAULT_SYNTHESIS = `Summarise the council using the structured shape below. Be terse,
+cite reviewers by label, and refuse to invent agreement that is not
+in the responses.
+
+### Agreement
+Points that two or more reviewers converged on, each as a single line.
+
+### Clashes
+Points where reviewers disagreed. State both sides with a one-line
+reviewer-label citation per side.
+
+### Blind spots
+Items that none of the reviewers raised but that the artefact's
+context suggests are load-bearing. Maximum three. Mark each as
+\`needs-verification\` when the host agent inferred it rather than
+read it directly from a response.
+
+### Recommendation
+A single sentence: which course the host agent should advise the
+user to take, grounded in the strongest converged point.
+
+### Next step
+One concrete next action the user can take in their current turn.`;
+
+export const PR_SYNTHESIS = `Summarise the council with the PR-review shape below.
+
+### Consensus
+Findings where two or more reviewers agreed, each one a single line.
+
+### Conflicts
+Findings where reviewers disagreed. State both sides with reviewer
+labels; do not pick a winner here — that lives in the recommendation.
+
+### Must-fix before merge
+Items at least one reviewer marked \`REQUEST_CHANGES\` or \`REJECT\`
+and the host agent confirms are load-bearing. Maximum five.
+
+### Recommendation
+APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT and a single sentence justifying
+the verdict, anchored on the strongest consensus or must-fix line.`;
+
+export const ANALYSIS_SYNTHESIS = `Summarise the council with the analysis-lens shape below.
+
+### Top-10 by consensus
+Findings ranked by how many reviewers surfaced them. Format each
+line as: \`N. <finding> — cited by <reviewer labels> · evidence:
+confirmed | inferred | speculative · roadmap-ready: yes | needs-discovery\`.
+Stop at ten or when only single-reviewer items remain, whichever
+comes first.
+
+### Supporting
+Findings that one reviewer raised and at least one other treated as
+plausible but did not independently surface. One line each, same
+metadata shape as Top-10.
+
+### Outliers
+Single-reviewer findings the others did not engage with. Keep them
+— they are signal for a future deeper analysis pass — but mark each
+as \`unverified-by-council\`.`;
+
+// Creative lenses — open-ended prose, no template. The renderer keeps
+// the bare "Convergence / Divergence" slot so the host agent can write
+// free-form synthesis.
+const _CREATIVE_PASSTHROUGH = '';
+
+const _SYNTHESIS_TABLE: Record<string, string> = {
+    default: DEFAULT_SYNTHESIS,
+    pr: PR_SYNTHESIS,
+    analysis: ANALYSIS_SYNTHESIS,
+    design: _CREATIVE_PASSTHROUGH,
+    optimize: _CREATIVE_PASSTHROUGH,
+};
+
+// Input modes inherit the `default` decision template. Lens overrides
+// (`pr`/`design`/`optimize`/`analysis`) pick their own row.
+const _INPUT_MODE_TO_SYNTHESIS_KEY: Record<string, string> = {
+    prompt: 'default',
+    roadmap: 'default',
+    diff: 'default',
+    files: 'default',
+};
+
+/** Mirror Python `key in dict` (own-enumerable string key present). */
+function _hasKey(table: Record<string, string>, key: string): boolean {
+    return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(table, key);
+}
+
+/** Mirror Python `sorted(set(a) | set(b))` — ascending code-point order, deduped. */
+function _sortedUnion(a: string[], b: string[]): string[] {
+    const set = new Set<string>([...a, ...b]);
+    return Array.from(set).sort();
+}
+
+/** Mirror Python `repr()` for a string scalar (single-quoted). */
+function _pyReprStr(s: string): string {
+    const hasSingle = s.includes("'");
+    const hasDouble = s.includes('"');
+    const quote = hasSingle && !hasDouble ? '"' : "'";
+    let body = s
+        .replace(/\\/g, '\\\\')
+        .replace(/\n/g, '\\n')
+        .replace(/\r/g, '\\r')
+        .replace(/\t/g, '\\t');
+    if (quote === "'") {
+        body = body.replace(/'/g, "\\'");
+    } else {
+        body = body.replace(/"/g, '\\"');
+    }
+    return `${quote}${body}${quote}`;
+}
+
+/** Mirror Python `repr()` for `None`. */
+function _pyRepr(value: string | null): string {
+    return value === null ? 'None' : _pyReprStr(value);
+}
+
+/** Mirror Python `str.splitlines()` — universal newline set, no trailing empty. */
+function _splitlines(text: string): string[] {
+    if (text === '') {
+        return [];
+    }
+    // Python splitlines() boundaries: LF CR CRLF VT FF FS GS RS NEL LS PS.
+    const parts = text.split(/\r\n|[\n\r\v\f\x1c\x1d\x1e\x85\u2028\u2029]/u);
+    if (parts.length > 0 && parts[parts.length - 1] === '') {
+        parts.pop();
+    }
+    return parts;
+}
+
+/** Mirror Python `str.strip()` — strip whitespace both ends. */
+function _pyStrip(s: string): string {
+    return s.trim();
+}
+
+export function synthesis_template(mode: string | null): string {
+    if (mode === null) {
+        return _SYNTHESIS_TABLE['default'] as string;
+    }
+    if (_hasKey(_SYNTHESIS_TABLE, mode)) {
+        return _SYNTHESIS_TABLE[mode] as string;
+    }
+    if (_hasKey(_INPUT_MODE_TO_SYNTHESIS_KEY, mode)) {
+        const key = _INPUT_MODE_TO_SYNTHESIS_KEY[mode] as string;
+        return _SYNTHESIS_TABLE[key] as string;
+    }
+    const expected = _sortedUnion(
+        Object.keys(_SYNTHESIS_TABLE),
+        Object.keys(_INPUT_MODE_TO_SYNTHESIS_KEY),
+    );
+    throw new Error(
+        `Unknown synthesis mode ${_pyRepr(mode)}. ` +
+            `Expected one of: [${expected.map((m) => _pyReprStr(m)).join(', ')}]`,
+    );
+}
+
+export function all_synthesis_modes(): string[] {
+    return Object.keys(_SYNTHESIS_TABLE).sort();
+}
+
+/**
+ * Drop any *whole line* containing a host-agent identity substring.
+ *
+ * Strategy (locked by council review, 2026-05-02): a line is dropped
+ * in full as soon as any host-identity needle (Augment / Claude Code
+ * / Cursor / Cline / Windsurf, etc.) appears anywhere on it. We err
+ * toward false-positive — slightly less context — over false-negative
+ * — a neutrality leak. Substring-only stripping was rejected because
+ * it can leave dangling clauses that still hint at the host.
+ */
+function _strip_host_identity(text: string): string {
+    if (!text) {
+        return text;
+    }
+    const kept: string[] = [];
+    for (const line of _splitlines(text)) {
+        const low = line.toLowerCase();
+        if (HOST_AGENT_IDENTITY_PATTERNS.some((needle) => low.includes(needle))) {
+            continue;
+        }
+        kept.push(line);
+    }
+    return kept.join('\n');
+}
+
+/**
+ * Neutral context-handoff for council members.
+ *
+ * `project=null` and/or `original_ask=""` collapses the output to
+ * `NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE` alone (back-compat with v1 callers).
+ */
+export function handoff_preamble(
+    project: ProjectContext | null,
+    original_ask: string,
+): string {
+    const blocks: string[] = [];
+
+    if (project !== null && !project.is_empty()) {
+        const ctx_lines: string[] = [];
+        if (project.name) {
+            ctx_lines.push(`Project: ${project.name}`);
+        }
+        if (project.stack) {
+            ctx_lines.push(`Stack: ${project.stack}`);
+        }
+        if (project.repo_purpose) {
+            ctx_lines.push(`Purpose: ${project.repo_purpose}`);
+        }
+        const ctx = _pyStrip(_strip_host_identity(ctx_lines.join('\n')));
+        if (ctx) {
+            blocks.push(ctx);
+        }
+    }
+
+    const cleaned_ask = _pyStrip(_strip_host_identity(original_ask || ''));
+    if (cleaned_ask) {
+        const quoted = _splitlines(cleaned_ask)
+            .map((ln) => `> ${ln}`)
+            .join('\n');
+        blocks.push(`The user originally asked:\n${quoted}`);
+    }
+
+    blocks.push(NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE);
+    return blocks.join('\n\n');
+}
+
+export interface SystemPromptOptions {
+    project?: ProjectContext | null;
+    original_ask?: string;
+}
+
+/**
+ * Build the full system prompt for one of the four input modes.
+ *
+ * Raises (throws) on an unknown mode — callers must use one of
+ * `prompt`, `roadmap`, `diff`, `files`.
+ */
+export function system_prompt_for(mode: string, opts: SystemPromptOptions = {}): string {
+    const project = opts.project ?? null;
+    const original_ask = opts.original_ask ?? '';
+    if (!_hasKey(_MODE_TABLE, mode)) {
+        const expected = Object.keys(_MODE_TABLE).sort();
+        throw new Error(
+            `Unknown council mode ${_pyRepr(mode)}. ` +
+                `Expected one of: [${expected.map((m) => _pyReprStr(m)).join(', ')}]`,
+        );
+    }
+    const head = handoff_preamble(project, original_ask);
+    return `${head}\n\n${_MODE_TABLE[mode] as string}`;
+}
+
+export function all_modes(): string[] {
+    return Object.keys(_MODE_TABLE).sort();
+}
+
+export interface AdvisorSystemPromptOptions {
+    project?: ProjectContext | null;
+    original_ask?: string;
+}
+
+/**
+ * Build the system prompt for an advisor-mode call (Phase 6).
+ *
+ * Layout: neutral handoff preamble (same shape every council member
+ * sees, regardless of mode) + the advisor's persona body. The
+ * mode-specific addendum from `_MODE_TABLE` is intentionally
+ * replaced — the persona file owns the full instructional surface
+ * for an advisor call.
+ */
+export function advisor_system_prompt(
+    persona_text: string,
+    opts: AdvisorSystemPromptOptions = {},
+): string {
+    const project = opts.project ?? null;
+    const original_ask = opts.original_ask ?? '';
+    const head = handoff_preamble(project, original_ask);
+    const body = _pyStrip(persona_text || '');
+    if (!body) {
+        throw new Error('advisor_system_prompt: persona_text is empty.');
+    }
+    return `${head}\n\n${body}`;
+}
+
+/**
+ * User-message body for the finding-extraction pass.
+ *
+ * Pairs the prior analysis text with the extraction-prompt rules so
+ * the member re-emits its own findings in machine-readable form.
+ */
+export function build_extraction_user_prompt(original_analysis: string): string {
+    const cleaned = _pyStrip(_strip_host_identity(original_analysis || ''));
+    return `${FINDING_EXTRACTION_PROMPT}\n\n---\n\n${cleaned}`;
+}
+
+/**
+ * User-message body for the scoring pass.
+ *
+ * `anonymised` maps `Finding-A`/`Finding-B`/… → finding text. Author
+ * identities MUST already be stripped — this function does NOT
+ * re-anonymise, it just renders.
+ */
+export function build_scoring_user_prompt(anonymised: Map<string, string>): string {
+    const lines: string[] = [FINDING_SCORING_PROMPT, '', '---', ''];
+    for (const [label, text] of anonymised) {
+        lines.push(`### ${label}\n\n${text}`);
+    }
+    return lines.join('\n\n');
+}
+
+// ── Peer-review (Phase 5 / F1, Karpathy anonymous review) ────────────
+//
+// After the final deliberation round, each member sees the OTHER
+// members' deliberation outputs under neutral `Response-A` / `Response-B`
+// labels and produces a Karpathy-style critique: strongest response,
+// weakest blind spot, what all of them missed. Provider identity is
+// stripped (Iron Law of Neutrality § peer-review); advisor persona
+// labels (Phase 6) are preserved by the caller via `anonymize_responses`.
+//
+// Reviewers never see their own response — that is by design (the
+// orchestrator filters self before calling `build_peer_review_user_prompt`).
+
+export const PEER_REVIEW_PROMPT = `Below are responses from other independent reviewers to the same
+artefact you just reviewed. Each is labelled with a neutral identifier
+(\`Response-A\`, \`Response-B\`, …). You do NOT know which model produced
+which response. Critique them as a peer — your goal is to surface
+signal the round-1 deliberation may have missed.
+
+Respond in plain prose under exactly these four headings:
+
+### Strongest response
+Name the single response whose argument or evidence is most
+load-bearing. Cite the label. One paragraph.
+
+### Weakest blind spot
+The single most important thing one specific response missed,
+glossed over, or got wrong. Cite the label. One paragraph.
+
+### What everyone missed
+A point none of the responses raised but that the artefact's context
+suggests is load-bearing. One paragraph. Mark as \`needs-verification\`
+when you inferred it rather than read it directly from the artefact.
+
+### Refinement
+One sentence: which course the synthesizer should prefer in light of
+the above, grounded in the strongest converged signal.
+
+Rules:
+- Cite labels exactly as given (\`Response-A\`, not \`A\` or \`the first one\`).
+- Do not invent agreement or disagreement that is not visible in the
+  responses themselves.
+- You may NOT see your own response in the list — that is by design.`;
+
+// Python: PEER_REVIEW_SYNTHESIS_ADDENDUM = """\n...""".rstrip()
+// The literal begins with a leading newline (after the """\ continuation the
+// first char is "\n"), then the body, then .rstrip() removes trailing ws.
+export const PEER_REVIEW_SYNTHESIS_ADDENDUM = `
+### Peer-Review-Surfaced Blind Spots
+Items the peer-review round surfaced that the round-1 responses did
+not. Cite the peer-reviewer label and the targeted response label
+(\`Reviewer A on Response-B: <one-line summary>\`). Maximum three.`;
+
+/**
+ * User-message body for the peer-review pass.
+ *
+ * `anonymised` maps `Response-A` / `Response-B` / … → response text.
+ * Provider identities MUST already be stripped by the caller (see
+ * `consensus.anonymize_responses`); this function does NOT re-anonymise,
+ * it just renders.
+ */
+export function build_peer_review_user_prompt(anonymised: Map<string, string>): string {
+    const lines: string[] = [PEER_REVIEW_PROMPT, '', '---', ''];
+    for (const [label, text] of anonymised) {
+        lines.push(`### ${label}\n\n${text}`);
+    }
+    return lines.join('\n\n');
+}
+
+/**
+ * Return the synthesis-template addendum used when peer-review fired.
+ *
+ * Appended to the lens-specific synthesis template by the renderer.
+ * Creative-lens (prose) runs receive only the bare section header so
+ * the host agent can write free-form synthesis underneath it.
+ */
+export function peer_review_synthesis_addendum(): string {
+    return PEER_REVIEW_SYNTHESIS_ADDENDUM;
+}