@geraldmaron/construct 1.1.1 → 1.2.0

package/specialists/registry.json

@@ -54,15 +54,45 @@
         "operating/change-management",
         "operating/unstructured-triage"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Over-routing to cx-engineer, false simplicity, plans where every task runs in parallel",
-        "tension": "cx-product-manager",
-        "openingQuestion": "What is actually being asked for, and who owns the answer?",
-        "failureMode": "If every task routes to cx-engineer, you're relaying, not orchestrating."
-      },
       "wordCapOverride": 4200,
       "canEdit": false
     },
+    {
+      "internal": true,
+      "name": "oracle",
+      "description": "Meta-controller — synthesizes fleet health gaps from the Oracle read model and routes remediation to owning specialists.",
+      "modelTier": "reasoning",
+      "reasoningEffort": "high",
+      "codexSandbox": "read-only",
+      "claudeTools": "Read,Grep,Glob,LS,list_skills,get_skill,search_skills,list_teams,get_team,memory_search,memory_add_observations,cx_trace,cx_score",
+      "promptFile": "specialists/prompts/cx-oracle.md",
+      "embedOrientation": {
+        "focusAreas": [
+          "parity drift",
+          "contract violations",
+          "doctor escalations",
+          "alignment census staleness",
+          "outcomes degradation"
+        ],
+        "riskSignals": [
+          "unrouted systemic gaps",
+          "auto actions needing approval",
+          "stale alignment census",
+          "missing read-model signals"
+        ],
+        "artifactBias": [
+          "notes",
+          "memos",
+          "adrs"
+        ]
+      },
+      "skills": [
+        "ai/orchestration-workflow",
+        "exploration/dependency-graph-reading",
+        "roles/reviewer.trace"
+      ],
+      "canEdit": false
+    },
     {
       "internal": true,
       "name": "rd-lead",
@@ -92,14 +122,9 @@
       },
       "skills": [
         "ai/agent-dev",
-        "ai/prompt-and-eval"
+        "ai/prompt-and-eval",
+        "docs/research-workflow"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "High-confidence requirements with no evidence, premature hardening, timelines with no room to be wrong",
-        "tension": "cx-architect",
-        "openingQuestion": "What are we trying to learn, and how will we know when we've learned it?",
-        "failureMode": "If you can't write a falsifiable hypothesis, this is a planning task, not R&D."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "subscriptions": [
         "research.gate.required"
@@ -141,14 +166,9 @@
         "docs/prd-workflow",
         "docs/prfaq-workflow",
         "docs/backlog-proposal-workflow",
-        "docs/product-intelligence-review"
+        "docs/product-intelligence-review",
+        "docs/strategy-workflow"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Untestable acceptance criteria, post-hoc success metrics, requirements from internal opinion",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "Who is this for, what are they trying to do, and how will we know they succeeded?",
-        "failureMode": "If all acceptance criteria are subjective, the requirements aren't done."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "collaborators": [
         "ux-researcher"
@@ -202,15 +222,10 @@
         ]
       },
       "skills": [
-        "docs/research-workflow",
+        "docs/user-research-workflow",
+        "docs/evidence-ingest-workflow",
         "strategy/jobs-to-be-done"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Ideal-user personas, invisible friction, 'users will figure it out'",
-        "tension": "cx-designer",
-        "openingQuestion": "Who specifically is the user, and what would success feel like to them — not to us?",
-        "failureMode": "If your brief has no friction points, you haven't talked to users."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "collaborators": [
         "architect",
@@ -254,12 +269,6 @@
         "operating/oncall-rotation",
         "operating/change-management"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Plans where every task runs in parallel, tasks that sound atomic but aren't, work starting before blockers clear",
-        "tension": "cx-architect",
-        "openingQuestion": "What must be done first, what blocks what, and who owns each deliverable?",
-        "failureMode": "If every task can run in parallel, the dependency graph wasn't drawn."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "subscriptions": [
         "plan.requested"
@@ -297,12 +306,6 @@
         "devops/dependency-management",
         "docs/transcript-synthesis"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Undated sources, version-specific claims without citation, blog posts treated as authoritative",
-        "tension": "cx-rd-lead",
-        "openingQuestion": "What is the version, the publication date, and the primary source?",
-        "failureMode": "If all sources are secondhand or undated, the research isn't done."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "subscriptions": [
         "evidence.requested",
@@ -348,12 +351,6 @@
         "strategy/pricing-positioning",
         "strategy/narrative-arc"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Tactical decisions dressed as strategy, ignoring competitive dynamics, 'build it and they will come'",
-        "tension": "cx-product-manager",
-        "openingQuestion": "What changes if we do this — who wins, who loses, and why does now matter?",
-        "failureMode": "If the brief doesn't name a specific market moment, it's not a strategy — it's a plan."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "collaborators": [
         "data-analyst",
@@ -396,12 +393,6 @@
         "devops/database",
         "operating/raw-data-structuring"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Vanity metrics, post-hoc success definitions, averages that hide distributions",
-        "tension": "cx-product-manager",
-        "openingQuestion": "What specific behavior change in users would prove this worked?",
-        "failureMode": "If the success metric can be hit without solving the problem, the metric is wrong."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "collaborators": [
         "evaluator",
@@ -442,12 +433,6 @@
         "ai/prompt-and-eval",
         "quality-gates/verify-quality"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Evals designed to match known outputs, cherry-picked baselines, promotion decisions on too few traces",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "What would a regression look like, and can we detect it before shipping?",
-        "failureMode": "If you can't define a failing case before seeing results, you're rationalizing, not evaluating."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "collaborators": [
         "product-manager",
@@ -493,12 +478,6 @@
         "ai/prompt-optimizer",
         "ai/ml-ops"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Prompts optimized for known inputs, hallucination risk dismissed as edge cases, eval sets without failure cases",
-        "tension": "cx-evaluator",
-        "openingQuestion": "What does failure look like at scale, and does the eval set actually cover it?",
-        "failureMode": "If you haven't written a test case where the model should fail gracefully, you haven't tested the model."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "collaborators": [
         "architect",
@@ -542,12 +521,6 @@
         "architecture/message-queue",
         "architecture/security-arch"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Designs that emerged from code, missing ADRs, data models that encode assumptions that will change",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "What are the invariants, and what breaks if they're violated?",
-        "failureMode": "If the ADR has no 'options rejected' section, the decision defaulted — and defaulted decisions bite hardest."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "collaborators": [
         "ai-engineer",
@@ -614,12 +587,6 @@
         "exploration/tracer-bullet-method",
         "exploration/dependency-graph-reading"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Implementations that ignore existing conventions, abstractions that complicate the simple case",
-        "tension": "cx-reviewer",
-        "openingQuestion": "What does the existing pattern look like, and where does my change fit?",
-        "failureMode": "If you haven't read every file you're about to touch, you don't know what you're changing."
-      },
       "canEdit": true
     },
     {
@@ -653,12 +620,6 @@
         "quality-gates/review-work",
         "quality-gates/premortem"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Plans that are too elegant, 'unlikely' failure modes, scope drift with stable acceptance criteria",
-        "tension": "cx-architect",
-        "openingQuestion": "What's the simplest reason this fails?",
-        "failureMode": "If you find no CRITICAL challenges, you looked at the happy path. Dig into the error paths."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "watchConditions": [
         {
@@ -698,12 +659,6 @@
         "quality-gates/review-work",
         "quality-gates/verify-module"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Edge cases under conditions the author didn't consider, missing error handling, tests that mock too much",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "Does this do what it's supposed to do under the conditions it wasn't designed for?",
-        "failureMode": "If your review only covered the happy path, you haven't reviewed."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "subscriptions": [
         "pr.opened",
@@ -747,12 +702,6 @@
         "quality-gates/verify-security",
         "architecture/security-arch"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "'Internal only' as a security boundary, trust relationships never made explicit, unaudited dependencies",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "What does an attacker see when they look at this?",
-        "failureMode": "If the only finding is 'no hardcoded secrets,' you checked one category out of eight."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "subscriptions": [
         "config.protection.violation",
@@ -801,12 +750,6 @@
         "quality-gates/verify-change",
         "quality-gates/verify-module"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Tests that mock too much, coverage metrics over behavior metrics, E2E suites that only test the happy path",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "For each acceptance criterion — how does the test fail when the criterion is violated?",
-        "failureMode": "If every test passes on the first run with no debugging, the tests weren't hard enough."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "subscriptions": [
         "coverage.drop",
@@ -849,12 +792,6 @@
         "devops/observability",
         "devops/performance"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Symptom fixes, confirmation bias toward familiar failure patterns, 'it probably works now'",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "Can I reproduce this deterministically, and what is the exact state at the point of failure?",
-        "failureMode": "If you can't state the invariant that was violated, you haven't found root cause."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "subscriptions": [
         "hang.detected",
@@ -894,12 +831,6 @@
         "devops/performance",
         "devops/incident-response"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Observability added as afterthought, untested rollback procedures, SLOs defined after the first incident",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "How will we know when this is failing in production, and what do we do first?",
-        "failureMode": "If there's no alert definition before deployment, nobody planned for failure."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "collaborators": [
         "architect",
@@ -962,12 +893,6 @@
         "devops/devsecops",
         "devops/cost-optimization"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Hypothetical future problems solved with real present complexity, build systems only the author understands",
-        "tension": "cx-architect",
-        "openingQuestion": "What does the path from idea to verified change look like right now, and where is the real friction?",
-        "failureMode": "If the improvement adds more configuration than it removes friction, it's not an improvement."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "collaborators": [
         "docs-keeper",
@@ -1014,12 +939,6 @@
         "compliance/ai-disclosure",
         "compliance/regulatory-review"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "'Just logging' as a data review bypass, first-layer-only license checks, AI features without disclosure strategy",
-        "tension": "cx-product-manager",
-        "openingQuestion": "What data is being collected, stored, or processed, and do we have documented legal basis for each?",
-        "failureMode": "If the risk list is empty, you didn't check AI processing obligations or dependency licenses past layer one."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "subscriptions": [
         "dep.license",
@@ -1055,14 +974,9 @@
       },
       "skills": [
         "devops/git-workflow",
-        "quality-gates/verify-change"
+        "quality-gates/verify-change",
+        "docs/memo-and-decision-capture"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Untested rollback procedures, migrations that can't be reversed, canary deployments without rollback triggers",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "If this goes wrong 30 minutes after full rollout, what exactly do we do?",
-        "failureMode": "If the rollback procedure isn't tested, it doesn't exist. You'll find out during an incident."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "subscriptions": [
         "release.candidate",
@@ -1101,14 +1015,9 @@
         "docs/adr-workflow",
         "docs/runbook-workflow",
         "docs/init-docs",
-        "docs/memo-and-decision-capture"
+        "docs/memo-and-decision-capture",
+        "docs/document-ingest-workflow"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Completed work with no context update, decisions 'everyone understands' but nobody wrote down",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "What did we decide, why did we decide it, and where will the next person find it?",
-        "failureMode": "If the project context file hasn't been updated since the work started, something important wasn't captured."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "subscriptions": [
         "changelog.missing",
@@ -1156,12 +1065,6 @@
         "frontend-design/engineering",
         "frontend-design/accessibility"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Designs with no error or empty states, templates passed as design decisions, no hover/focus/active states",
-        "tension": "cx-ux-researcher",
-        "openingQuestion": "What is the user doing, what are they feeling, and what should the interface show them?",
-        "failureMode": "If you don't have designed error and empty states, you have an incomplete design."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "subscriptions": [
         "design.requested"
@@ -1203,12 +1106,6 @@
         "frontend-design/accessibility",
         "frontend-design/screen-reader-testing"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "ARIA added to pass audits, keyboard navigation never tested, contrast that 'looks fine' but fails the spec",
-        "tension": "cx-designer",
-        "openingQuestion": "Can a user with no mouse, no vision, or slow internet complete this flow end to end?",
-        "failureMode": "If every finding is LOW severity, you're reading the spec without using the product."
-      },
       "canEdit": false,
       "collaborators": [
         "designer",
@@ -1248,17 +1145,12 @@
         ]
       },
       "skills": [
+        "docs/codebase-research-workflow",
         "exploration/repo-map",
         "exploration/unknown-codebase-onboarding",
         "exploration/tracer-bullet-method",
         "exploration/dependency-graph-reading"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "'I know where this is' without verifying, grep results without context, 5-minute investigations",
-        "tension": "cx-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "What is actually here, and how does it actually work — not how it was intended to work?",
-        "failureMode": "If the investigation took less than 15 minutes and you feel confident, you probably missed something."
-      },
       "canEdit": false
     },
     {
@@ -1291,12 +1183,6 @@
         "ai/prompt-optimizer",
         "ai/trace-triage"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Stable-looking medians hiding variance, trace analyses looking only at successes, promotions on too few traces",
-        "tension": "cx-ai-engineer",
-        "openingQuestion": "Which agents have degraded since the last cycle, and what does the trace evidence say about why?",
-        "failureMode": "If all agents look stable, you haven't checked variance and trend. Median hides deterioration."
-      },
       "canEdit": true,
       "subscriptions": [
         "trace.anomaly"
@@ -1334,12 +1220,6 @@
         "devops/observability",
         "operating/raw-data-structuring"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Non-idempotent pipelines, unwritten data contracts, quality gates added after the first corruption incident",
-        "tension": "cx-data-analyst",
-        "openingQuestion": "Is this pipeline idempotent, observable, and does it have a contract for its output schema?",
-        "failureMode": "If there are no data quality tests, the pipeline is running on faith."
-      },
       "canEdit": true
     },
     {
@@ -1372,12 +1252,6 @@
         "quality-gates/verify-change",
         "quality-gates/verify-module"
       ],
-      "perspective": {
-        "bias": "Intermittent tests dismissed as infrastructure, coverage numbers over behavioral coverage, arbitrary sleeps",
-        "tension": "cx-qa",
-        "openingQuestion": "Is this test deterministic, and does it actually fail when the behavior it's testing breaks?",
-        "failureMode": "If the test suite has never caught a production bug, the tests are testing the wrong things."
-      },
       "canEdit": true
     }
   ],
@@ -1528,6 +1402,11 @@
     ],
     "copilot": [
       "Copilot has no spawnable subagents. Use the Construct prompt/profile for normal use; internal role-specific profiles are contributor-facing implementation details."
+    ],
+    "cursor": [
+      "You are running inside Cursor. Construct is the single front door — route work through the `construct` persona and MCP tools (`orchestration_run`, `get_skill`, `orchestration_policy`).",
+      "Start `construct dashboard` before multi-specialist orchestration. Project adapters live in `.cursor/mcp.json` and `.cursor/rules/construct.mdc` (regenerated by `npm run adapters` or `construct sync --project`).",
+      "Skills are not copied into Cursor's skills UI — load playbooks via MCP `get_skill` with slash paths like `docs/adr-workflow` or `roles/engineer`."
     ]
   }
 }

package/specialists/tone-profiles.json

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+{
+  "version": 1,
+  "description": "Shipped tone profiles for Construct document and agent output. Projects override via .cx/brand-voice.json.",
+  "profiles": {
+    "direct": {
+      "formality": 3,
+      "sentenceLength": "short to medium",
+      "whenToUse": ["runbooks", "internal memos", "research briefs", "technical ADRs"],
+      "constraints": "Lead with the answer. Plain language. Never contradict rules/common/neurodivergent-output.md."
+    },
+    "friendly": {
+      "formality": 2,
+      "sentenceLength": "medium",
+      "whenToUse": ["onboarding", "customer-facing FAQs", "PRFAQs", "docs-keeper memos"],
+      "constraints": "Warm but not casual. No idioms. Define terms on first use."
+    },
+    "executive-concise": {
+      "formality": 4,
+      "sentenceLength": "short",
+      "whenToUse": ["one-pagers", "strategy summaries", "business PRDs", "product intelligence readouts"],
+      "constraints": "TL;DR first. One idea per paragraph. Tables for numbers."
+    },
+    "decision-forcing-direct": {
+      "formality": 4,
+      "sentenceLength": "medium",
+      "whenToUse": ["PRDs", "ADRs", "RFCs", "meta-PRDs", "backlog proposals"],
+      "constraints": "Every section drives a decision or acceptance criterion. Rejected alternatives required where applicable."
+    },
+    "blameless": {
+      "formality": 3,
+      "sentenceLength": "medium",
+      "whenToUse": ["incident reports", "postmortems", "runbooks", "SRE comms"],
+      "constraints": "Corrective actions target systems, not people. No shame language."
+    },
+    "pedagogical": {
+      "formality": 2,
+      "sentenceLength": "medium",
+      "whenToUse": ["onboarding guides", "explorer maps", "UX research summaries", "architecture overviews"],
+      "constraints": "Teach the reader. Progressive disclosure. Examples before abstractions."
+    }
+  }
+}

package/templates/demos/playwright/demo-recording.config.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+/**
+ * templates/demos/playwright/demo-recording.config.mjs — Playwright config scaffold.
+ *
+ * Copied to .cx/demos/playwright.config.mjs on `construct demo init`. webServer
+ * command/url come from DEMO_WEB_SERVER_* env injected by recordPlaywrightDemo.
+ */
+
+import { defineConfig, devices } from '@playwright/test';
+import path from 'node:path';
+import { fileURLToPath } from 'node:url';
+
+const DEMO_ROOT = path.resolve(path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)), '..');
+const DEMO_OUTPUT = process.env.DEMO_OUTPUT_DIR || path.join(DEMO_ROOT, '.cx', 'demos');
+
+const webServerCommand = process.env.DEMO_WEB_SERVER_COMMAND;
+const webServerUrl = process.env.DEMO_WEB_SERVER_URL;
+
+export default defineConfig({
+  testDir: path.join(DEMO_ROOT, '.cx', 'demos', 'specs'),
+  timeout: 180_000,
+  fullyParallel: false,
+  workers: 1,
+  reporter: 'list',
+  use: {
+    baseURL: process.env.BASE_URL || webServerUrl || 'http://127.0.0.1:3456',
+    trace: 'off',
+    screenshot: 'off',
+    video: 'on',
+    viewport: { width: 1280, height: 720 },
+  },
+  projects: [
+    {
+      name: 'demo-recording',
+      use: { ...devices['Desktop Chrome'] },
+    },
+  ],
+  outputDir: DEMO_OUTPUT,
+  webServer: process.env.SKIP_WEBSERVER || process.env.CHECKLY || !webServerCommand
+    ? undefined
+    : {
+        command: webServerCommand,
+        url: webServerUrl || process.env.BASE_URL || 'http://127.0.0.1:3456',
+        reuseExistingServer: !process.env.CI,
+        timeout: Number(process.env.DEMO_WEB_SERVER_TIMEOUT || 120_000),
+        cwd: process.env.DEMO_WEB_SERVER_CWD || DEMO_ROOT,
+      },
+});

package/templates/demos/recordings/agentic-platforms-prd.json

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+{
+  "name": "agentic-platforms-prd",
+  "title": "Publish guardrails — agentic platforms PRD",
+  "engine": "playwright",
+  "workspace": "apps/dashboard",
+  "spec": "apps/dashboard/e2e/demo/agentic-platforms-prd.spec.ts",
+  "baseUrl": "http://127.0.0.1:4242",
+  "project": "demo-recording",
+  "artifactReveal": {
+    "mode": "constructPreview",
+    "staticDir": ".",
+    "file": "prd-platform.pdf",
+    "scroll": true
+  },
+  "output": {
+    "format": "mp4",
+    "path": ".cx/demos/dashboard/agentic-platforms-prd.mp4"
+  }
+}

package/templates/demos/scripts/agentic-platforms-prd.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "name": "agentic-platforms-prd",
+  "title": "Publish guardrails — agentic platforms PRD",
+  "summary": "Prove Construct's path: workflow invoke returns a plan only, validate and publish fail on the thin stub, then pass on the golden fixture with styled PDF export.",
+  "systemOverlay": "Demo mode for publish guardrails. Run the exact construct CLI commands from each step using shell or construct_tool. Do not hand-author production PRD markdown in chat — the passing artifact is tests/fixtures/publish/golden-prd-platform.md. The stub is tests/fixtures/publish/agentic-platforms-stub.md.",
+  "tape": "agentic-platforms-prd",
+  "dashboardDemo": "agentic-platforms-prd",
+  "fallbackSurface": "tape",
+  "artifactReveal": {
+    "path": "prd-platform.pdf",
+    "scroll": true
+  },
+  "fixtures": {
+    "stub": "tests/fixtures/publish/agentic-platforms-stub.md",
+    "golden": "tests/fixtures/publish/golden-prd-platform.md"
+  },
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "title": "Plan only — workflow invoke",
+      "prompt": "Run construct workflow invoke for prd-draft and show the specialist chain. This is plan-only — it does not draft the PRD.",
+      "command": "node bin/construct workflow invoke --json --workflow-type prd-draft --approval-mode proposal-only --text 'Enterprise agentic platform PRD'"
+    },
+    {
+      "title": "Release gate FAIL — thin stub",
+      "prompt": "Run artifact validate on the stub fixture with type prd-platform. It must fail (structure, visuals, citations).",
+      "command": "node bin/construct artifact validate tests/fixtures/publish/agentic-platforms-stub.md --type=prd-platform"
+    },
+    {
+      "title": "Publish FAIL — gate blocks distribution",
+      "prompt": "Run construct publish on the stub with --figures. Publish must exit 2 and block at the release gate.",
+      "command": "node bin/construct publish tests/fixtures/publish/agentic-platforms-stub.md --figures"
+    },
+    {
+      "title": "Golden fixture PASS — validate",
+      "prompt": "Run artifact validate on the golden prd-platform fixture. It must pass the release gate.",
+      "command": "node bin/construct artifact validate tests/fixtures/publish/golden-prd-platform.md --type=prd-platform"
+    },
+    {
+      "title": "Publish PASS — styled PDF",
+      "prompt": "Publish the golden fixture with --type=prd-platform --figures to .cx/publish/golden-prd-platform.pdf, then confirm the file exists.",
+      "command": "node bin/construct publish tests/fixtures/publish/golden-prd-platform.md --type=prd-platform --figures --output .cx/publish/golden-prd-platform.pdf"
+    }
+  ]
+}