@exaudeus/workrail 1.15.0 → 1.15.1

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@exaudeus/workrail",
-  "version": "1.15.0",
+  "version": "1.15.1",
   "description": "Step-by-step workflow enforcement for AI agents via MCP",
   "license": "MIT",
   "repository": {

package/workflows/coding-task-workflow-agentic.json

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
     "DECISION LOG: Entry includes Decision, Why (1-3 bullets), Impacted files (≤5), User feedback, Surprises. Cap 8 bullets.",
     "VARIABLE TYPES: Strings: taskComplexity, rigorMode, prStrategy, selectedApproach, runnerUpApproach, leadingCandidate, architectureRationale, keyRiskToMonitor, selectedSliceStrategy.",
     "VARIABLE TYPES: Strings (cont): pivotSeverity (none/MINOR/MODERATE/MAJOR), pivotReturnPhase, cleanSlateDivergence (None/Minor/Major).",
-    "VARIABLE TYPES: Arrays: approaches, pivotTriggers, preMortemFindings, sliceStrategies, planningGaps, integrationGaps, integrationVerificationFindings, invariantViolations. Numbers: planConfidence, sliceIndex.",
+    "VARIABLE TYPES: Arrays: approaches, pivotTriggers, preMortemFindings, sliceStrategies, planningGaps, integrationGaps, integrationVerificationFindings, invariantViolations, resolvedFindings. Numbers: planConfidence, sliceIndex.",
     "VARIABLE TYPES: Booleans: continuePlanning, pivotTriggered, planningComplete, validationFailed, slicePlanStale, majorConcernsRaised.",
     "VARIABLE TYPES: Booleans (cont): spikeFailure, assumptionsValidated, planningGapsFound, integrationGapsFound, integrationVerificationPassed, integrationVerificationFailed, regressionDetected."
   ],
@@ -311,19 +311,19 @@
         {
           "id": "phase-5a-draft-implementation-plan",
           "title": "Plan Artifact Draft/Update",
-          "prompt": "Create or update the **Plan Artifact** (deterministic schema).\n\n**Write-or-paste rule:** attempt to write/update `implementation_plan.md`. If file writing fails, output full content in chat (canonical).\n\n**Plan Artifact headings (concise, complete):**\n\n1) Problem statement\n2) Acceptance criteria (bullets)\n3) Non-goals (bullets)\n4) **User rules/preferences applied:**\n   - Relevant `userRules` + how plan respects them.\n   - Deviations: rationale + mitigation + user decision (counts toward `maxQuestions`).\n5) Invariants (reference `invariants`)\n6) Proposed approach (1–2 paragraphs)\n7) Architecture decision (reference Phase 3/3b outputs):\n   - Selected approach: reference `selectedApproach`\n   - Rationale: reference `architectureRationale`\n   - Runner-up (Plan B): reference `runnerUpApproach`\n   - Key risk: reference `keyRiskToMonitor`\n   - Full alternatives: see CONTEXT.md Approaches section\n8) **Vertical slices** (match `slices`: scope, done-definition, files, verification)\n\n   **Work Packages inside each slice (mode-dependent):**\n   - QUICK: skip work packages\n   - STANDARD: optional; recommended when slice is high-risk or multi-layer\n   - THOROUGH: required for non-trivial slices\n\n   Each work package (WP):\n   - ID: `S<sliceIndex>-WP<k>` (e.g., S1-WP1)\n   - Goal: one coherent outcome\n   - Targets (allowlist): dirs/files (+ allowed new files)\n   - Forbidden (denylist): files/dirs not to touch\n   - Budget: maxModified (5 STANDARD/8 THOROUGH), maxNew (2/3)\n   - Done-definition: 2–5 bullets\n   - Verification: 1–3 commands/tests\n   - Dependencies: contracts/types from other WPs (if parallel)\n\n   **Parallelism rule:** parallelize only if Targets don't overlap. Final WP must be \"Hook-up/Integration\" when parallel was used.\n\n9) Test plan (unit/integration/e2e; cite repo patterns)\n10) Risk register (risks + mitigation + rollback/flag)\n11) PR packaging (Single/Multi + rule)\n\n**Set context variables:**\n- `planArtifact`\n- `implementationPlan`\n\n**VERIFY:** concrete enough for another engineer to implement without guessing.",
+          "prompt": "Create or update the **Plan Artifact** (deterministic schema).\n\n**Write-or-paste rule:** attempt to write/update `implementation_plan.md`. If file writing fails, output full content in chat (canonical).\n\n**Plan Artifact headings (concise, complete):**\n\n1) Problem statement\n2) Acceptance criteria (bullets)\n3) Non-goals (bullets)\n4) **User rules/preferences applied:**\n   - Relevant `userRules` + how plan respects them.\n   - Deviations: rationale + mitigation + user decision (counts toward `maxQuestions`).\n5) Invariants (reference `invariants`)\n6) Proposed approach (1–2 paragraphs)\n7) Architecture decision (reference Phase 3/3b outputs):\n   - Selected approach: reference `selectedApproach`\n   - Rationale: reference `architectureRationale`\n   - Runner-up (Plan B): reference `runnerUpApproach`\n   - Key risk: reference `keyRiskToMonitor`\n   - Full alternatives: see CONTEXT.md Approaches section\n8) **Vertical slices** (match `slices`: scope, done-definition, files, verification)\n\n   **Work Packages inside each slice (mode-dependent):**\n   - QUICK: skip work packages\n   - STANDARD: optional; recommended when slice is high-risk or multi-layer\n   - THOROUGH: required for non-trivial slices\n\n   Each work package (WP):\n   - ID: `S<sliceIndex>-WP<k>` (e.g., S1-WP1)\n   - Goal: one coherent outcome\n   - Targets (allowlist): dirs/files (+ allowed new files)\n   - Forbidden (denylist): files/dirs not to touch\n   - Budget: maxModified (5 STANDARD/8 THOROUGH), maxNew (2/3)\n   - Done-definition: 2–5 bullets\n   - Verification: 1–3 commands/tests\n   - Dependencies: contracts/types from other WPs (if parallel)\n\n   **Parallelism rule:** parallelize only if Targets don't overlap. Final WP must be \"Hook-up/Integration\" when parallel was used.\n\n9) Test plan (unit/integration/e2e; cite repo patterns)\n10) Risk register (risks + mitigation + rollback/flag)\n11) PR packaging (Single/Multi + rule)\n12) **Philosophy alignment per slice** (for each slice, include):\n   - For each design principle touched by this slice: [principle] → [satisfied / tension / violated + 1-line why]\n   - The audit step will independently verify these self-assessments. Be honest — violations caught early are cheaper than violations caught in review.\n\n**Set context variables:**\n- `planArtifact`\n- `implementationPlan`\n\n**VERIFY:** concrete enough for another engineer to implement without guessing.",
           "requireConfirmation": false
         },
         {
           "id": "phase-5b-plan-audit-mode-adaptive",
           "title": "Plan Audit (Subagent-Friendly)",
-          "prompt": "**Mission: Find gaps, issues, and inconsistencies in this plan.**\n\nActively look for:\n- **Gaps**: What's missing? What's not covered?\n- **Weak assumptions**: What could be wrong? What are we taking for granted?\n- **Inconsistencies**: Do parts contradict each other? Does the plan match the invariants?\n- **Risks**: What could go wrong? What hasn't been stress-tested?\n\n---\n\n**Mode behavior:**\n- QUICK: self-audit only\n- STANDARD: self-audit; delegate once if subagents exist\n- THOROUGH: parallel delegation if subagents exist\n\n**If subagents + `rigorMode=THOROUGH`:**\n\nYou have permission to spawn THREE subagents SIMULTANEOUSLY for parallel plan validation.\n\nDelegate to WorkRail Executor THREE TIMES with scoped context:\n\n**Delegation 1 — Plan Analysis:**\n- routine: routine-plan-analysis\n- plan: implementation_plan.md\n- requirements: [From Phase 2 invariants + acceptance criteria]\n- constraints: [Filtered userRules: architecture, testing, patterns]\n- context (file-reference-first, max 500 words if pasting):\n  - Read: CONTEXT.md (userRules section), implementation_plan.md\n  - Read: spec.md, design.md (if exist)\n  - Invariants + locks (if locksMatrix exists)\n  - Feature brief: problem statement + architecture decision + key constraints\n- deliverable: plan-analysis.md\n\n**Delegation 2 — Hypothesis Challenge:**\n- routine: routine-hypothesis-challenge\n- rigor: 3\n- hypotheses: [Plan's key assumptions about architecture, dependencies, invariant satisfaction]\n- evidence: implementation_plan.md\n- context:\n  - Read: implementation_plan.md\n  - Filtered userRules: error handling, edge cases, validation rules\n  - Invariants (especially high-risk ones)\n  - Feature brief: problem + acceptance criteria + non-goals\n- deliverable: plan-challenges.md\n\n**Delegation 3 — Execution Simulation:**\n- routine: routine-execution-simulation\n- entry_point: [Riskiest slice entry function]\n- inputs: [Expected inputs and state]\n- trace_depth: 3 (follow calls to understand failure modes)\n- context:\n  - Read: implementation_plan.md (riskiest slice section)\n  - Filtered userRules: performance, data flow, state management\n  - Invariants touched by risky slice\n  - Feature brief: architecture decision + risk register\n- deliverable: simulation-results.md\n\n**Self-check before delegating (required):**\n✅ Each delegation includes filtered userRules (not full list)\n✅ Each includes invariants + locks (if applicable)\n✅ Each includes feature brief (file refs or <500 word excerpt)\n✅ Each has specific focus/lens\n\n**If subagents + `rigorMode=STANDARD`:**\nDelegate ONCE using Plan Analysis with full context (not filtered).\n\n\n**Note:** delegationMode was detected in phase-0c and cached in CONTEXT.md\n**Else:** self-audit (same three lenses).\n\n**Output:**\n- Findings: Critical / Major / Minor\n- Plan amendments\n\n---\n\n**CLEAN-SLATE CHECK (STANDARD+, if findings exist):**\n\nBefore applying amendments, briefly answer:\n\n> \"If I started fresh right now, knowing everything I've learned, would I choose the same approach?\"\n\n1. Without looking at current plan, sketch in 1 sentence what approach you'd take\n2. Compare to `selectedApproach`:\n   - **Same**: Proceed with amendments\n   - **Minor variation**: Note the insight; consider incorporating\n   - **Fundamentally different**: STOP. Set `cleanSlateDivergence = Major`\n\n**If fundamentally different:**\n- Document why fresh thinking differs\n- Return to Phase 3b with fresh approach as new candidate, OR\n- Document why current approach is still better despite fresh thinking\n\n**Set:** `planFindings`, `planAmendments`, `planConfidence` (1–10), `cleanSlateDivergence` (None/Minor/Major)",
+          "prompt": "**Mission: Find gaps, issues, and inconsistencies in this plan.**\n\nActively look for:\n- **Gaps**: What's missing? What's not covered?\n- **Weak assumptions**: What could be wrong? What are we taking for granted?\n- **Inconsistencies**: Do parts contradict each other? Does the plan match the invariants?\n- **Risks**: What could go wrong? What hasn't been stress-tested?\n\n---\n\n**Mode behavior:**\n- QUICK: self-audit only\n- STANDARD: self-audit; delegate once if subagents exist\n- THOROUGH: parallel delegation if subagents exist\n\n**If subagents + `rigorMode=THOROUGH`:**\n\nYou have permission to spawn THREE subagents SIMULTANEOUSLY for parallel plan validation.\n\nDelegate to WorkRail Executor THREE TIMES with scoped context:\n\n**Delegation 1 — Plan Analysis:**\n- routine: routine-plan-analysis\n- plan: implementation_plan.md\n- requirements: [From Phase 2 invariants + acceptance criteria]\n- constraints: [Filtered userRules: architecture, testing, patterns]\n- context (file-reference-first, max 500 words if pasting):\n  - Read: CONTEXT.md (userRules section), implementation_plan.md\n  - Read: spec.md, design.md (if exist)\n  - Invariants + locks (if locksMatrix exists)\n  - Feature brief: problem statement + architecture decision + key constraints\n- deliverable: plan-analysis.md\n\n**Delegation 2 — Hypothesis Challenge:**\n- routine: routine-hypothesis-challenge\n- rigor: 3\n- hypotheses: [Plan's key assumptions about architecture, dependencies, invariant satisfaction]\n- evidence: implementation_plan.md\n- context:\n  - Read: implementation_plan.md\n  - Filtered userRules: error handling, edge cases, validation rules\n  - Invariants (especially high-risk ones)\n  - Feature brief: problem + acceptance criteria + non-goals\n- deliverable: plan-challenges.md\n\n**Delegation 3 — Execution Simulation:**\n- routine: routine-execution-simulation\n- entry_point: [Riskiest slice entry function]\n- inputs: [Expected inputs and state]\n- trace_depth: 3 (follow calls to understand failure modes)\n- context:\n  - Read: implementation_plan.md (riskiest slice section)\n  - Filtered userRules: performance, data flow, state management\n  - Invariants touched by risky slice\n  - Feature brief: architecture decision + risk register\n- deliverable: simulation-results.md\n\n**Self-check before delegating (required):**\n✅ Each delegation includes filtered userRules (not full list)\n✅ Each includes invariants + locks (if applicable)\n✅ Each includes feature brief (file refs or <500 word excerpt)\n✅ Each has specific focus/lens\n\n**If subagents + `rigorMode=STANDARD`:**\nDelegate ONCE using Plan Analysis with full context (not filtered).\n\n\n**Note:** delegationMode was detected in phase-0c and cached in CONTEXT.md\n**Else:** self-audit (same three lenses).\n\n**Output:**\n- Findings: Critical / Major / Minor\n- Plan amendments\n\n---\n\n**CLEAN-SLATE CHECK (STANDARD+, if findings exist):**\n\nBefore applying amendments, briefly answer:\n\n> \"If I started fresh right now, knowing everything I've learned, would I choose the same approach?\"\n\n1. Without looking at current plan, sketch in 1 sentence what approach you'd take\n2. Compare to `selectedApproach`:\n   - **Same**: Proceed with amendments\n   - **Minor variation**: Note the insight; consider incorporating\n   - **Fundamentally different**: STOP. Set `cleanSlateDivergence = Major`\n\n**If fundamentally different:**\n- Document why fresh thinking differs\n- Return to Phase 3b with fresh approach as new candidate, OR\n- Document why current approach is still better despite fresh thinking\n\n---\n\n**REGRESSION CHECK (iteration 2+, if `resolvedFindings` is non-empty):**\n\nBefore running the forward-looking audit, verify each item in `resolvedFindings`:\n- Is the resolution still valid in the current plan?\n- Has the amendment been reverted or contradicted by subsequent changes?\n\nIf ANY regression found: add to `planFindings` with severity Critical and prefix \"REGRESSION: previously resolved finding reverted.\"\n\n---\n\n**PHILOSOPHY ALIGNMENT CHECK (mandatory, all modes):**\n\nReview the plan against the user's coding philosophy and design principles from `userRules`.\n\nThis evaluates DESIGN QUALITY — not plan consistency. Stale acceptance criteria, missing requirements, and coverage gaps are covered by the completeness audit above.\n\nIf no philosophy or design principles are found in `userRules`, skip this section and note \"No philosophy principles configured.\"\n\n**Required output format** (structured table):\nFor each violation or tension found:\n\n| Principle | Violation | Severity | Action |\n|-----------|-----------|----------|--------|\n| [Principle name from userRules] | [What violates it and why] | Red / Orange / Yellow | [Specific fix or justification needed] |\n\nSeverity guide:\n- **Red** (blocking) = must fix before implementation. Add to `planFindings`.\n- **Orange** (design quality) = should fix; document if intentionally accepted. Add to `planFindings`.\n- **Yellow** (tension) = tension between principles; document the tradeoff. Do NOT add to `planFindings` — these are informational only.\n\nChecklist — actively check: immutability, error handling model (Result/sealed vs exceptions), test doubles strategy (fakes vs mocks), dead code, naming clarity, abstraction level, type safety, exhaustiveness.\n\nIf NO violations found: explicitly state \"Philosophy check: no violations found\" with brief evidence (e.g., \"error handling uses Result<T> per philosophy; test doubles are fakes not mocks\"). Do NOT rubber-stamp. If you find zero violations on a non-trivial plan, double-check naming, dead code, and abstraction choices.\n\n**Set:** `planFindings`, `planAmendments`, `planConfidence` (1–10), `cleanSlateDivergence` (None/Minor/Major)",
           "requireConfirmation": false
         },
         {
           "id": "phase-5c-refocus-and-ticket-extraction",
           "title": "Refocus: Amendments + Tickets + Drift Detection",
-          "prompt": "Apply amendments and refocus.\n\n**Do:**\n- Update `planArtifact` + `implementationPlan` to incorporate `planAmendments`.\n- Extract out-of-scope work into `followUpTickets`.\n- Ensure plan follows `invariants` and stays slice-oriented.\n\n**Drift detection:**\n- If user introduced new constraints/preferences, update `userRules` and log in `CONTEXT.md`.\n\n**CONTEXT LOGGING:** Update CONTEXT.md Decision Log (follow format from metaGuidance) - record amendments accepted/rejected and why, user pushback, and scope/rules/verification drift\n\n**Set:** `followUpTickets`\n\n**VERIFY:** plan is coherent and PR-sized by slice.",
+          "prompt": "Apply amendments and refocus.\n\n**Do:**\n- Update `planArtifact` + `implementationPlan` to incorporate `planAmendments`.\n- Extract out-of-scope work into `followUpTickets`.\n- Ensure plan follows `invariants` and stays slice-oriented.\n\n**RESOLVED FINDINGS LEDGER (required):**\n\nWhen applying amendments, maintain the `resolvedFindings` context variable:\n- For each finding resolved in this iteration, add an entry: { finding: \"...\", resolution: \"...\", iteration: N }\n- Cap at 10 entries (if exceeded, drop oldest entries first)\n- This ledger carries forward to the next audit pass for regression checking\n\n**Set:** `resolvedFindings` (array, append new resolutions)\n\n**Drift detection:**\n- If user introduced new constraints/preferences, update `userRules` and log in `CONTEXT.md`.\n\n**CONTEXT LOGGING:** Update CONTEXT.md Decision Log (follow format from metaGuidance) - record amendments accepted/rejected and why, user pushback, and scope/rules/verification drift\n\n**Set:** `followUpTickets`\n\n**VERIFY:** plan is coherent and PR-sized by slice.",
           "requireConfirmation": {
             "or": [
               {