@fitlab-ai/agent-infra 0.9.1 → 0.9.2

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/config/verify.en.json

@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@
       "file_pattern": "review-code.md|review-code-r{N}.md",
       "required_sections": [
         "Review Summary",
+        "Review Coverage Declaration",
+        "Code Implementation Coverage",
+        "Traceability Matrix",
         "Findings",
         "Non-blocking Advisories",
         "Manual Validation Items",
@@ -33,10 +36,14 @@
         "^\\$ ",
         "^- \\*\\*Overall Verdict\\*\\*[:：]\\s*(?:通过|需要修改|拒绝|Approved|Changes Requested|Rejected)\\s*$",
         "^- \\*\\*Review Baseline Commit\\*\\*[:：]\\s*\\S",
+        "^- \\*\\*Reviewed Diff Base\\*\\*[:：]\\s*[0-9a-f]{40,64}\\s*$",
         "^- \\*\\*Reviewed Diff Fingerprint\\*\\*[:：]\\s*sha256:[0-9a-f]{64}\\s*$",
         "^- \\*\\*Reviewed Snapshot Tree\\*\\*[:：]\\s*[0-9a-f]{40,64}\\s*$"
       ]
     },
+    "review-summary": {
+      "stage": "code"
+    },
     "review-fact": {},
     "activity-log": {
       "expected_action_pattern": "(Review Code|Code Review) \\(Round \\d+\\)"

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/config/verify.zh-CN.json

@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@
       "file_pattern": "review-code.md|review-code-r{N}.md",
       "required_sections": [
         "审查摘要",
+        "检视覆盖声明",
+        "代码实现专项覆盖",
+        "追踪矩阵",
         "问题清单",
         "非阻塞建议",
         "人工校验项",
@@ -33,10 +36,14 @@
         "^\\$ ",
         "^- \\*\\*总体结论\\*\\*[:：]\\s*(?:通过|需要修改|拒绝|Approved|Changes Requested|Rejected)\\s*$",
         "^- \\*\\*审查基线提交\\*\\*[:：]\\s*\\S",
+        "^- \\*\\*审查差异基线\\*\\*[:：]\\s*[0-9a-f]{40,64}\\s*$",
         "^- \\*\\*审查差异指纹\\*\\*[:：]\\s*sha256:[0-9a-f]{64}\\s*$",
         "^- \\*\\*审查快照树\\*\\*[:：]\\s*[0-9a-f]{40,64}\\s*$"
       ]
     },
+    "review-summary": {
+      "stage": "code"
+    },
     "review-fact": {},
     "activity-log": {
       "expected_action_pattern": "(Review Code|Code Review) \\(Round \\d+\\)"

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/concurrency-risks.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Concurrency Risk Review
+
+## Scope
+
+Use when changes touch asynchronous coordination, shared state, locks, retries, idempotency, races, cancellation, or timeouts.
+
+## Review Questions
+
+- Are shared-state ownership, atomic boundaries, and visibility explicit?
+- Do retries, timeouts, cancellation, and duplicate delivery remain idempotent and resource-safe?
+- Can competing order or failure interleavings cause lost updates, duplicate side effects, or deadlocks?
+
+## Evidence Requirements
+
+Record key state transitions, event order, and synchronization boundaries. Support conclusions with deterministic concurrency tests, call chains, or data flows.
+
+## Common Counterexamples
+
+- Inferring concurrency safety from one successful sequential execution.
+- Checking only that a lock exists without its granularity, ordering, and release paths.
+- Replacing explainable evidence with one successful randomized stress run.
+
+## When Closure Is Not Possible
+
+Record reproducible races or leaks as findings, checks requiring a real scheduler or load environment as manual-validation, and uncovered interleavings as a gap.

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/concurrency-risks.zh-CN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# 并发风险检视
+
+## 适用范围
+
+当变更触及异步协调、共享状态、锁、重试、幂等、竞态、取消或超时时使用。
+
+## 检视问题
+
+- 共享状态的所有权、原子边界和可见性是否明确。
+- 重试、超时、取消和重复交付是否保持幂等且不会泄漏资源。
+- 竞争顺序和失败交错是否会产生丢失更新、重复副作用或死锁。
+
+## 证据要求
+
+记录关键状态转换、事件顺序和同步边界；使用确定性并发测试、调用链或数据流支撑结论。
+
+## 常见反例
+
+- 单次顺序执行通过就推断并发安全。
+- 只检查加锁存在，不检查锁粒度、顺序和释放路径。
+- 用随机压力测试的单次成功替代可解释证据。
+
+## 无法闭环时
+
+可重现的竞态或资源泄漏形成 finding；需要真实调度器或负载环境的检查进入 manual-validation；未覆盖交错记录为 gap。

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/cross-platform-risks.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Cross-platform Risk Review
+
+## Scope
+
+Use when changes touch OS branches, path or case behavior, shells and commands, permissions, symlinks, newlines or encodings, signals and processes, or platform fallbacks.
+
+When the change also touches test files and must express real platform guards or test execution scope, read `.agents/rules/cross-platform-tests.md` in full. That second-level rule governs test scope only; this file governs implementation semantics. Do not load the second level when tests are unchanged.
+
+## Review Questions
+
+- Do paths, shells, permissions, and process behavior use the real semantics of each target platform?
+- Do platform fallbacks preserve consistent outcomes and distinguish unsupported behavior from runtime failure?
+- Do tests execute on genuinely supported platforms instead of simulating coverage with early returns?
+
+## Evidence Requirements
+
+Record affected platforms, implementation branches, and fallback paths. When test scope is involved, also record second-level rule readiness and `onPlatforms()` guards.
+
+## Common Counterexamples
+
+- Inferring equivalence across platforms from success on the development platform.
+- Simulating path or shell behavior with string concatenation.
+- Loading the test-guard rule unconditionally for formal completeness.
+
+## When Closure Is Not Possible
+
+Record reproducible platform defects as findings, checks that only a specific real platform can close as manual-validation, and actual platform risks left uncovered by missing, unloaded, or insufficient rules as a gap. A structural gate cannot replace semantic judgment.

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/cross-platform-risks.zh-CN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# 跨平台风险检视
+
+## 适用范围
+
+当变更触及 OS 分支、路径与大小写、shell/命令、权限、符号链接、换行/编码、信号/进程或平台回退时使用。
+
+若变更同时触及测试文件，且需要表达真实平台守卫或测试运行范围，继续完整读取 `.agents/rules/cross-platform-tests.md`。该二级规则只约束测试运行范围；本文件负责实现层的平台语义。没有测试变更时不加载二级规则。
+
+## 检视问题
+
+- 路径、shell、权限和进程行为是否使用目标平台真实语义。
+- 平台回退是否保留一致结果，并区分不支持与运行失败。
+- 测试是否在真实支持平台执行，而非用测试体内早返回伪装覆盖。
+
+## 证据要求
+
+记录受影响平台、实现分支和回退路径；涉及测试范围时同时记录二级规则加载证据和 `onPlatforms()` 守卫。
+
+## 常见反例
+
+- 用当前开发平台成功推断所有平台等价。
+- 以字符串拼接模拟路径或 shell 行为。
+- 为形式完整无条件加载测试守卫规则。
+
+## 无法闭环时
+
+可复现的平台缺陷形成 finding；只能在特定真实平台闭环的事项进入 manual-validation；规则缺失、未加载或未覆盖的实际平台风险记录为 gap，不得用结构 gate 替代语义判断。

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/documentation-antipatterns.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Documentation Anti-patterns
+
+When reviewing new or changed documentation, require it to describe the current behavior after the change instead of using historical differences as a substitute for current facts.
+
+## Backward-looking Descriptions of Removed Functionality
+
+When functionality has been removed, current-behavior documentation should not keep saying that the functionality "no longer exists" or "was removed." Such wording keeps a deleted concept in the set of current knowledge that readers must understand.
+
+Terms such as `不再`, `no longer`, `已被移除`, `removed`, and `used to` can locate candidate text, but a match is not a finding by itself. Judge the documentation's purpose and change context:
+
+- Current reference documentation, rules, and usage instructions should directly describe supported behavior.
+- Migration guides, changelogs, and historical records may preserve necessary before-and-after differences when their historical or migration context is explicit.
+- Record a finding only when backward-looking wording preserves a deleted concept as current knowledge, and cite the exact file and line.

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/documentation-antipatterns.zh-CN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# 文档反模式
+
+审查新增或修改的文档时，文档应描述变更后的当前行为，而不是用历史差异替代当前事实。
+
+## 已删除功能的反向描述
+
+当功能已经删除时，面向当前行为的文档不应继续写“该功能不再存在”或“该能力已被移除”。这类反向描述会让已删除概念继续成为读者必须理解的现行知识。
+
+`不再`、`no longer`、`已被移除`、`removed` 和 `used to` 等词可用于定位候选文本，但命中本身不是 finding。审查者必须结合文档用途和变更上下文判断：
+
+- 当前参考文档、规则和使用说明应直接描述现在支持的行为。
+- 迁移指南、变更日志和历史记录可以保留必要的前后差异，但应明确其历史或迁移语境。
+- 只有当反向措辞把已删除概念保留为现行知识时，才应登记 finding，并引用准确的文件和行号。

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/migration-risks.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Migration and Compatibility Risk Review
+
+## Scope
+
+Use when changes touch persistent formats, schemas, configuration/frontmatter, compatibility reads, migrations, or rollback behavior.
+
+## Review Questions
+
+- Can old data or configuration be read safely, and is the post-write version boundary explicit?
+- Is migration repeatable, and can execution recover or continue after partial failure?
+- Does the rollback path match the compatibility window between old and new formats?
+
+## Evidence Requirements
+
+Record the transition from old input to new state, version decisions, and failure states. Prefer migration tests, fixtures, state transitions, or specification conflicts.
+
+## Common Counterexamples
+
+- Testing only fresh installation and ignoring existing state.
+- Assuming migration succeeds once while ignoring retries and partial writes.
+- Replacing data-semantic validation with format-existence checks.
+
+## When Closure Is Not Possible
+
+Record reproducible corruption or compatibility failures as findings, checks requiring real historical data as manual-validation, and missing samples or rollback evidence as a gap.

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/migration-risks.zh-CN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# 迁移与兼容风险检视
+
+## 适用范围
+
+当变更触及持久化格式、schema、配置/frontmatter、兼容读取、迁移或回滚行为时使用。
+
+## 检视问题
+
+- 旧数据或旧配置能否被安全读取，写入后的版本边界是否明确。
+- 迁移是否可重复执行，部分失败后能否恢复或继续。
+- 回滚路径是否与新旧格式的兼容窗口一致。
+
+## 证据要求
+
+记录旧输入到新状态的转换、版本判定和失败状态；优先使用迁移测试、fixture、状态转换或规范冲突。
+
+## 常见反例
+
+- 只验证全新安装，不验证已有状态。
+- 假设迁移一次成功，忽略重试和部分写入。
+- 用格式存在性测试替代数据语义验证。
+
+## 无法闭环时
+
+可复现的数据损坏或兼容失败形成 finding；需要真实历史数据的验证进入 manual-validation；缺少样本或回滚证据时记录 gap。

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/output-templates.en.md

@@ -17,11 +17,9 @@ Prohibitions:
 - never mix text from different branches
 - if `Blocker > 0`, never output an approval template
 - never count manual-validation findings as blockers / major issues / minor issues, and never use them to trigger Branch B/C/D
-- always include every TUI command format in the selected branch
+- generate `{next-step-commands}` for the selected branch through the shared helper
 - The count line shows 5 numbers. Manual-validation (`{e}`) does not affect selection. `Human-decision` (`{h}`) counts this stage's `needs-human-decision` rows; because those rows are unresolved, `{h} > 0` means `canAdvance=false`. Expand the "Pending human-decision pre-block" from `.agents/rules/next-step-output.md` and show revision and re-review paths only.
 
-For Branches B/C/D, follow the revision commands with re-review commands: `/review-code {task-ref}`, `/{{project}}:review-code {task-ref}`, and `$review-code {task-ref}`.
-
 ### Branch A: Approved with No Findings
 
 Do not route by review round. Compare reviewed snapshot tree `T` with the tree of baseline `R`, then read `prFlow` / `pr_number`; when a PR exists, call `agent-infra-internal platform-checks inspect {task-id}`. Select exactly one mutually exclusive exit:
@@ -45,51 +43,51 @@ Reminder: manual-validation findings must be carried in the PR description as a
 
 #### Branch A1: Commit or Push
 
+Populate `{next-step-commands}` for this scenario by running `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill commit --task-ref {task-ref}`.
+
 ```text
 Next step - commit or push the code:
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode: /commit {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI: /{{project}}:commit {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI: $commit {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 ```
 
 #### Branch A2: Create a Pull Request
 
+Populate `{next-step-commands}` for this scenario by running `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill create-pr --task-ref {task-ref}`.
+
 ```text
 Next step - create a Pull Request:
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode: /create-pr {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI: /{{project}}:create-pr {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI: $create-pr {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 ```
 
 #### Branch A3: Watch Required Checks
 
+Populate `{next-step-commands}` for this scenario by running `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill watch-pr --task-ref {task-ref}`.
+
 ```text
 Next step - watch PR checks:
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode: /watch-pr {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI: /{{project}}:watch-pr {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI: $watch-pr {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 ```
 
 #### Branch A4: Complete and Archive
 
+Populate `{next-step-commands}` for this scenario by running `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill complete-task --task-ref {task-ref}`.
+
 ```text
 Next step - complete and archive the task:
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode: /complete-task {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI: /{{project}}:complete-task {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI: $complete-task {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 ```
 
 ### Branch B: Changes Requested (Major / Minor)
 
+Populate `{next-step-commands}` for this scenario by running `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill code-task --task-ref {task-ref}`.
+
 ```text
 Task {task-id} review completed. Verdict: changes requested.
 - Blockers: 0 | Major: {n} | Minor: {n} | Manual-validation: {e} | Human-decision: {h}
 - Review report: .agents/workspace/active/{task-id}/{review-artifact}
 
 Next step - fix the findings:
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode: /code-task {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI: /{{project}}:code-task {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI: $code-task {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 
 [When manual-validation > 0, append this final line:]
 Reminder: manual-validation findings must be carried in the PR description as a "manual verification required" checklist and should not trigger /code-task.
@@ -97,15 +95,15 @@ Reminder: manual-validation findings must be carried in the PR description as a
 
 ### Branch C: Changes Requested
 
+Populate `{next-step-commands}` for this scenario by running `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill code-task --task-ref {task-ref}`.
+
 ```text
 Task {task-id} review completed. Verdict: changes requested.
 - Blockers: {n} | Major: {n} | Minor: {n} | Manual-validation: {e} | Human-decision: {h}
 - Review report: .agents/workspace/active/{task-id}/{review-artifact}
 
 Next step - fix the findings:
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode: /code-task {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI: /{{project}}:code-task {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI: $code-task {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 
 [When manual-validation > 0, append this final line:]
 Reminder: manual-validation findings must be carried in the PR description as a "manual verification required" checklist and should not trigger /code-task.
@@ -113,15 +111,15 @@ Reminder: manual-validation findings must be carried in the PR description as a
 
 ### Branch D: Rejected
 
+Populate `{next-step-commands}` for this scenario by running `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill plan-task --task-ref {task-ref}`.
+
 ```text
 Task {task-id} review completed. Verdict: rejected, re-design the technical plan.
 - Blockers: {n} | Major: {n} | Minor: {n} | Manual-validation: {e} | Human-decision: {h}
 - Review report: .agents/workspace/active/{task-id}/{review-artifact}
 
 Next step - re-design the technical plan:
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode: /plan-task {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI: /{{project}}:plan-task {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI: $plan-task {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 
 > Note: Rejected means the implementation direction needs to be reworked end-to-end, not patched locally. Core artifact lifecycle branch #7 refuses a direct `/code-task` and requires a fresh plan first.
 

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/output-templates.zh-CN.md

@@ -17,11 +17,9 @@
 - 不要混用不同场景的文案
 - 只要 `Blocker > 0`，就绝对不能输出通过模板
 - manual-validation 项绝对不能被计入 blocker / major / minor 计数，也不能用作触发场景 B/C/D 的依据
-- 所选场景中必须包含所有 TUI 命令格式
+- 所选场景必须通过统一 helper 生成 `{next-step-commands}`
 - 计数行固定显示 5 个数字。manual-validation（`{e}`）不影响分支；`人工裁决`（`{h}`）是本阶段 `needs-human-decision` 行数，属于未闭环账本状态，因此 `{h} > 0` 时 `canAdvance=false`，必须按 `.agents/rules/next-step-output.md` 的「人工裁决待办前置块」展开详情，并只输出修订与复审路径。
 
-场景 B/C/D 在修订命令后继续列出复审命令：`/review-code {task-ref}`、`/{{project}}:review-code {task-ref}`、`$review-code {task-ref}`。
-
 ### 场景 A：通过且无问题
 
 通过后不得按轮次路由。先比较审查快照树 `T` 与基线 `R` 的树，再读取任务的 `prFlow` / `pr_number`；存在 PR 时调用 `agent-infra-internal platform-checks inspect {task-id}`。只选择以下一个互斥出口：
@@ -45,51 +43,51 @@
 
 #### 场景 A1：提交或推送
 
+使用 `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill commit --task-ref {task-ref}` 生成本场景的 `{next-step-commands}`。
+
 ```text
 下一步 - 提交或推送代码：
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode：/commit {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI：/{{project}}:commit {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI：$commit {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 ```
 
 #### 场景 A2：创建 Pull Request
 
+使用 `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill create-pr --task-ref {task-ref}` 生成本场景的 `{next-step-commands}`。
+
 ```text
 下一步 - 创建 Pull Request：
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode：/create-pr {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI：/{{project}}:create-pr {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI：$create-pr {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 ```
 
 #### 场景 A3：监控 required checks
 
+使用 `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill watch-pr --task-ref {task-ref}` 生成本场景的 `{next-step-commands}`。
+
 ```text
 下一步 - 监控 PR 检查：
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode：/watch-pr {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI：/{{project}}:watch-pr {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI：$watch-pr {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 ```
 
 #### 场景 A4：完成并归档
 
+使用 `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill complete-task --task-ref {task-ref}` 生成本场景的 `{next-step-commands}`。
+
 ```text
 下一步 - 完成并归档任务：
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode：/complete-task {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI：/{{project}}:complete-task {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI：$complete-task {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 ```
 
 ### 场景 B：需要修改（major / minor）
 
+使用 `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill code-task --task-ref {task-ref}` 生成本场景的 `{next-step-commands}`。
+
 ```text
 任务 {task-id} 代码审查完成。结论：需要修改。
 - 阻塞项：0 | 主要问题：{n} | 次要问题：{n} | 人工校验点：{e} | 人工裁决：{h}
 - 审查报告：.agents/workspace/active/{task-id}/{review-artifact}
 
 下一步 - 修复问题：
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode：/code-task {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI：/{{project}}:code-task {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI：$code-task {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 
 [当 manual-validation > 0 时，在最后附加一行：]
 提醒：manual-validation 项需在 PR description 的「待人工验证」清单中承接，不应触发 /code-task。
@@ -97,15 +95,15 @@
 
 ### 场景 C：需要修改
 
+使用 `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill code-task --task-ref {task-ref}` 生成本场景的 `{next-step-commands}`。
+
 ```text
 任务 {task-id} 代码审查完成。结论：需要修改。
 - 阻塞项：{n} | 主要问题：{n} | 次要问题：{n} | 人工校验点：{e} | 人工裁决：{h}
 - 审查报告：.agents/workspace/active/{task-id}/{review-artifact}
 
 下一步 - 修复问题：
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode：/code-task {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI：/{{project}}:code-task {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI：$code-task {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 
 [当 manual-validation > 0 时，在最后附加一行：]
 提醒：manual-validation 项需在 PR description 的「待人工验证」清单中承接，不应触发 /code-task。
@@ -113,15 +111,15 @@
 
 ### 场景 D：拒绝
 
+使用 `agent-infra-internal agent-client next-steps --skill plan-task --task-ref {task-ref}` 生成本场景的 `{next-step-commands}`。
+
 ```text
 任务 {task-id} 代码审查完成。结论：拒绝，需要重新设计方案。
 - 阻塞项：{n} | 主要问题：{n} | 次要问题：{n} | 人工校验点：{e} | 人工裁决：{h}
 - 审查报告：.agents/workspace/active/{task-id}/{review-artifact}
 
 下一步 - 重新设计技术方案：
-  - Claude Code / OpenCode：/plan-task {task-ref}
-  - Gemini CLI：/{{project}}:plan-task {task-ref}
-  - Codex CLI：$plan-task {task-ref}
+{next-step-commands}
 
 > 注意：Rejected 表示实现方向需要整体重做，不是局部修复。核心 artifact lifecycle 的分支 #7 会拒绝直接 `/code-task`，要求先重新方案设计。
 

package/templates/.agents/skills/review-code/reference/report-template.en.md

@@ -21,11 +21,50 @@ Use this template when writing `review-code.md` or `review-code-r{N}.md`.
 - **Reviewer**: {reviewer-name}
 - **Review Time**: {timestamp}
 - **Scope**: {file-count and major modules}
-- **Review Baseline Commit**: {raw R captured once for this round} (diff base only; see `.agents/rules/review-handshake.md`)
+- **Review Baseline Commit**: {raw reviewed commit R captured once for this round; must equal this round's HEAD}
+- **Reviewed Diff Base**: {raw D used for the complete diff/fingerprint; the merge-base of R and the PR base SHA when a PR is bound, otherwise R}
 - **Reviewed Diff Fingerprint**: {fingerprint field from git-workflow snapshot}
 - **Reviewed Snapshot Tree**: {tree field from git-workflow snapshot}
 - **Overall Verdict**: {Approved / Changes Requested / Rejected} (pick exactly one; combined phrases will fail the verify gate)
-- **Findings (AI-actionable)**: 0 blockers, 0 majors, 0 minors / **Manual validation**: 0
+- **Findings (AI-actionable)**: {unresolved-blockers} blockers, {unresolved-major} majors, {unresolved-minor} minors / **Manual validation**: 0
+
+## Review Coverage Declaration
+
+| pass_id | scope | evidence | result | gaps_or_assumptions |
+|---------|-------|----------|--------|---------------------|
+| pass-1..5 | {scope actually reviewed} | {artifact / diff / file:line / command} | {finding or conclusion} | {gap or assumption} |
+
+| lens_id | trigger_evidence | loaded | result |
+|---------|------------------|--------|--------|
+| {registry token} | {trigger or non-trigger evidence} | {yes / no / not-applicable} | {lens result} |
+
+## Code Implementation Coverage
+
+| context_id | changed_lines | related_context | uncovered_area | result_or_gap |
+|------------|---------------|-----------------|----------------|---------------|
+| {file/module} | {changed line ranges} | {callers/callees/state/data flow} | {not reviewed or none} | {result / gap} |
+
+| quality_id | applicability | evidence | result_or_gap |
+|------------|---------------|----------|---------------|
+| responsibility | {applicable / not-applicable} | {code or call evidence} | {result / gap} |
+| cohesion | {applicable / not-applicable} | {code or call evidence} | {result / gap} |
+| coupling | {applicable / not-applicable} | {dependency evidence} | {result / gap} |
+| dependency-direction | {applicable / not-applicable} | {dependency evidence} | {result / gap} |
+| abstraction-fit | {applicable / not-applicable} | {variation evidence} | {result / gap} |
+| pattern-cost | {applicable / not-applicable} | {problem, conditions, cost, simpler alternative} | {result / gap} |
+| change-locality | {applicable / not-applicable} | {change propagation evidence} | {result / gap} |
+| testability | {applicable / not-applicable} | {test seam or behavior evidence} | {result / gap} |
+| architecture-boundary | {applicable / not-applicable} | {approved plan boundary} | {result / gap} |
+
+| acceptance_id | plan_source | implementation_location | test_or_validation_evidence | status_or_gap |
+|---------------|-------------|-------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------|
+| {acceptance token} | {approved requirement/plan} | {file:line or diff} | {automated test / manual-validation / explicit gap} | {covered / gap} |
+
+## Traceability Matrix
+
+| source_id | upstream | reviewed_target | verification | status_or_gap |
+|-----------|----------|-----------------|--------------|---------------|
+| {requirement/plan step} | {approved requirement or design} | {code diff} | {automated test or manual validation} | {covered / gap} |
 
 ## Findings
 
@@ -33,15 +72,23 @@ Use this template when writing `review-code.md` or `review-code-r{N}.md`.
 
 #### 1. {Issue title}
 **File**: `{file-path}:{line-number}`
-**Description**: {details}
-**Suggested Fix**: {fix suggestion}
+**Scenario**: {scenario}
+**Impact**: {impact}
+**Evidence**: {evidence_type: test / call-chain / state-transition / data-flow / specification-conflict / file-location} — {reproducible evidence}
+**Confidence**: {high / medium / low}
+**Unverified Assumptions**: {assumptions or none}
+**Fix Direction**: {fix direction}
 
 ### Major Issues (should fix)
 
 #### 1. {Issue title}
 **File**: `{file-path}:{line-number}`
-**Description**: {details}
-**Suggested Fix**: {fix suggestion}
+**Scenario**: {scenario}
+**Impact**: {impact}
+**Evidence**: {evidence_type: test / call-chain / state-transition / data-flow / specification-conflict / file-location} — {reproducible evidence}
+**Confidence**: {high / medium / low}
+**Unverified Assumptions**: {assumptions or none}
+**Fix Direction**: {fix direction}
 
 ### Minor Issues (low impact, closure required)
 
@@ -75,7 +122,7 @@ Use this template when writing `review-code.md` or `review-code-r{N}.md`.
 
 ## Evidence
 
-> Pair each "I verified X" claim with the corresponding raw tool output; the gate only checks that this section exists and at least one `$ ` line is present. Every Blocker must be backed by a reproducible command (rg/grep/sed/nl) and its raw output; a judgment that cannot be reproduced must be downgraded or moved to Self-Doubt.
+> Pair each "I verified X" claim with the corresponding raw tool output; the gate only checks that this section exists and at least one `$ ` line is present. Every Blocker must use reproducible test, call-chain, state-transition, data-flow, specification-conflict, or accurate-location evidence; a judgment that cannot be reproduced must be downgraded or moved to Self-Doubt.
 
 - Claim: {verified claim}
 ```text