@mycodemap/mycodemap 0.5.2-beta.1 → 2.0.0

package/docs/ideation/2026-04-15-executable-architecture-constitution-ideation.md

@@ -1,11 +1,14 @@
 ---
 date: 2026-04-15
+updated: 2026-04-29
 topic: executable-architecture-constitution
 focus: Pivot CodeMap to an "Executable Architecture Constitution" — making design.md a diff-aware, git-history-risk-weighted, CI-enforceable gate
 ---
 
 # Ideation: Executable Architecture Constitution
 
+> **状态更新（2026-04-29）**：本文档原始包含 7 个想法，其中 #1（Diff-Aware Contract Enforcement）与 #3（Revive Git History Risk Scoring）已实现并归档至 `docs/archive/ideation/2026-04-15-executable-architecture-constitution-ideation-archive.md`。本文档保留剩余 5 项。
+
 ## Codebase Context
 
 **Project**: CodeMap — TypeScript CLI tool that generates structured code context for AI/Agents (dependency graphs, symbol maps, etc.). Currently pivoting from "AI code map tool" to "Executable Architecture Constitution" — an architecture contract governance engine.
@@ -28,31 +31,15 @@ focus: Pivot CodeMap to an "Executable Architecture Constitution" — making des
 
 ## Ranked Ideas
 
-### 1. Diff-Aware Contract Enforcement
-**Description:** Upgrade `mycodemap verify` into a true contract enforcer that scans `src/` code. By default, only validate files touched by `git diff` and their dependency chains. Return non-zero exit codes when `layer_direction`, `forbidden_imports`, or `module_public_api_only` rules are violated.
-**Rationale:** This is the core product soul of the pivot. Today `design verify` only checks handoff drift and never touches source code — creating a dangerous false sense of security for users.
-**Downsides:** Bridging design.md's text constraints with tree-sitter symbol extraction requires careful engineering for the first rule.
-**Confidence:** 90%
-**Complexity:** Medium
-**Status:** Unexplored
-
-### 2. SQLite + In-Memory Graph Storage Migration
+### 1. SQLite + In-Memory Graph Storage Migration
 **Description:** Remove the KùzuDB adapter and replace it with `better-sqlite3` for persisting symbol relationships, plus a lightweight in-memory directed graph (Map/Set adjacency list) loaded at startup. The same storage layer should handle code graphs, git blame history, and contract metadata.
 **Rationale:** KùzuDB installation failures are the top onboarding friction. SQLite's single-file nature turns CodeMap into a version-controllable CLI tool rather than a system requiring database ops.
 **Downsides:** Must validate startup time and memory footprint against large codebases (target: <1s for 10K files, <200MB RAM).
 **Confidence:** 85%
 **Complexity:** Medium-High
-**Status:** Unexplored
-
-### 3. Revive Git History Risk Scoring (GRAVITY/HEAT/IMPACT)
-**Description:** Harden the existing but dormant `calculateRiskScore` in `src/orchestrator/workflow/git-analyzer.ts` and rewire the GRAVITY/HEAT/IMPACT three-dimensional model into `verify` and `impact` outputs.
-**Rationale:** Competitors cannot replicate the causal narrative of "who changed this block, what regressions this dependency chain caused before." The formula is already designed — it just needs to be wired up.
-**Downsides:** Requires high-quality historical data (rollbacks, incident correlations); young codebases may have weak signal.
-**Confidence:** 80%
-**Complexity:** Medium
-**Status:** Unexplored
+**Status:** Partially Implemented (`better-sqlite3` added to `package.json`, but KùzuDB adapter not yet removed)
 
-### 4. Auto-Generate design.md from Existing Codebase
+### 2. Auto-Generate design.md from Existing Codebase
 **Description:** Instead of asking humans to write `design.md` from scratch, use the existing tree-sitter parser to scan `src/` for module boundaries and public APIs, then generate a baseline contract. Users only review and lock it.
 **Rationale:** Eliminates the root cause of "docs vs code divergence." If contract generation cost approaches zero, maintenance cost collapses too.
 **Downsides:** Auto-generated rules may be too permissive or capture too many implementation details; needs smart UX to "lock" which rules matter.
@@ -60,7 +47,7 @@ focus: Pivot CodeMap to an "Executable Architecture Constitution" — making des
 **Complexity:** Medium
 **Status:** Unexplored
 
-### 5. Auto-Generate Architecture Remediation Patches
+### 3. Auto-Generate Architecture Remediation Patches
 **Description:** When `verify` finds a module boundary violation, don't just report it — generate a concrete refactoring patch (e.g., "move this import down to the adapter layer").
 **Rationale:** In the AI era, "errors without fixes" is a half-measure. This was also highlighted in Codex's second opinion as a core element of the coolest version.
 **Downsides:** Requires semantic understanding beyond import graphs; fully automated fixes risk introducing bugs.
@@ -68,7 +55,7 @@ focus: Pivot CodeMap to an "Executable Architecture Constitution" — making des
 **Complexity:** High
 **Status:** Unexplored
 
-### 6. Self-Healing Design Contract (Drift Approval)
+### 4. Self-Healing Design Contract (Drift Approval)
 **Description:** Allow `design.md` to evolve with the code through an approval workflow. When drift is detected, provide `codemap design evolve --approve` to snapshot current code boundaries back into the contract as the new baseline.
 **Rationale:** Architecture decay is an organizational norm. If contracts forever forbid drift, they get abandoned. A reviewable, approvable evolution mechanism is the only way they survive long-term.
 **Downsides:** Requires strict versioning and multi-level approval, otherwise it becomes a channel for "legitimizing tech debt."
@@ -76,7 +63,7 @@ focus: Pivot CodeMap to an "Executable Architecture Constitution" — making des
 **Complexity:** Medium
 **Status:** Unexplored
 
-### 7. MCP `verify_contract` Tool
+### 5. MCP `verify_contract` Tool
 **Description:** Wrap the `design verify` JSON output contract as an MCP Server tool for Claude Code / Cursor to call before every code modification.
 **Rationale:** Minimal engineering investment for maximum ecosystem leverage. Transforms CodeMap from "a CLI developers remember to run" into "infrastructure AI calls by default."
 **Downsides:** The MCP ecosystem is still early; interface standardization may shift.
@@ -100,3 +87,4 @@ focus: Pivot CodeMap to an "Executable Architecture Constitution" — making des
 ## Session Log
 
 - 2026-04-15: Initial ideation — ~40 candidates generated across 4 frames, 7 survived after adversarial filtering
+- 2026-04-29: #1 and #3 verified as fully implemented and archived

package/docs/ideation/2026-04-20-mycodemap-init-enhancements-ideation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+date: 2026-04-20
+updated: 2026-04-29
+topic: mycodemap-init-enhancements
+focus: 把 mycodemap init 从"创建根目录配置文件"升级为"项目级 AI 助手基础设施初始化器"
+mode: repo-grounded
+---
+
+# Ideation: mycodemap init enhancements
+
+> **状态更新（2026-04-29）**：本文档原始包含 6 个想法，其中 #1–#5 已实现并归档至 `docs/archive/ideation/2026-04-20-mycodemap-init-enhancements-ideation-archive.md`。本文档仅保留未实现项 #6 及其相关上下文。
+
+## Grounding Context
+
+### Codebase Context
+
+- [证据] `src/cli/first-run-guide.ts` 已把 marker 放进 `.mycodemap/`，但欢迎语仍把 init 叙述成"初始化配置"而不是"初始化 AI 工作区"。
+- [证据] 仓库已经拥有可复用的 `.githooks/`、规则校验脚本、first-run guide、chalk + emoji + 中文 CLI 风格。
+
+### Past Learnings
+
+- [推论] 当前最大的产品问题不是"功能不存在"，而是"看起来成功但其实只做了一部分"。
+- [推论] 半迁移状态应该被显式解释、对账和修复，而不是继续依赖隐式 fallback。
+- [证据] 本 phase 已锁定：不自动修改用户 `CLAUDE.md` / `AGENTS.md`，并要求在 `.mycodemap/` 中集中化 config、rules、workflow、logs 等资产。
+
+### External Context
+
+- [推论] 2024–2026 的主流 AI / dev tooling 明显收敛到"双层结构"：隐藏目录存放 tool-owned 资产，显式文件存放 team-owned / shared rules。
+- [推论] 最贴近市场共识的做法不是自动改用户上下文文件，而是生成 tool-owned bundle + 明确的人工接入片段。
+
+## Ranked Ideas
+
+### 1. First-Run Concierge + Bootstrap Profiles
+**Description:** [推论] 把 first-run guide 重写成状态驱动的 remediation concierge，并用少量 profile（如 Minimal / Guardrails / Team Ready）承载交互式一键选择。
+**Rationale:** [推论] 这是最低成本修复 mental model 的方法：既改善第一分钟体验，也避免 init 变成一长串低层开关。
+**Downsides:** [观点] profile 设计如果过粗，会掩盖复杂边界；如果过细，又会退化回问卷。
+**Confidence:** 84%
+**Complexity:** Low-Medium
+**Status:** Unexplored
+
+## Rejection Summary
+
+| # | Idea | Reason Rejected |
+|---|------|-----------------|
+| 1 | `Project Safety Contracts` framing | [观点] 叙事强但产品增量弱，更适合后续命名或定位文案 |
+| 2 | `Board Game Setup Tray` | [推论] 是 Profiles 的隐喻版，没有新增结构价值 |
+
+## Session Log
+
+- 2026-04-20: 初始 ideation，6 个候选想法
+- 2026-04-29: #1–#5 已实现并归档；本文档收缩为仅保留未实现项 #6

package/docs/ideation/2026-04-22-rules-entry-docs-optimization-consolidated-ideation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+date: 2026-04-22
+updated: 2026-04-29
+topic: rules-entry-docs-optimization-consolidated
+focus: 融合两份 2026-04-22 ideation 的最佳部分，形成更强的 rules / AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md 终稿提案
+mode: repo-grounded
+sources:
+  - docs/archive/ideation/2026-04-22-harness-rules-entry-docs-optimization-ideation.md
+  - docs/archive/ideation/2026-04-22-rules-claude-agents-optimization-ideation.md
+---
+
+# Ideation: Consolidated rules / AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md optimization
+
+> **状态更新（2026-04-29）**：本文档原始包含 6 个想法，其中 #1（One Constitution, Two Thin Adapters）已实现并归档至 `docs/archive/ideation/2026-04-22-rules-entry-docs-optimization-consolidated-ideation-archive.md`。本文档保留剩余 5 项。
+
+## Grounding Context
+
+### Codebase Context
+
+- [证据] 仓库自我定义已经很清楚：`AGENTS.md` 应是"强约束 + 路由"，`CLAUDE.md` 应是"启动清单、检索顺序、最小操作手册"；而且入口文档应该保持短小：`AGENTS.md:3`、`AGENTS.md:14`、`AGENTS.md:15`、`AGENTS.md:329`。
+- [证据] 但当前根 `CLAUDE.md` 同时承载了 post-edit 默认验证、路径路由、rule-system 默认值、CLI dogfood、交付清单，已经超过"薄入口"定位：`CLAUDE.md:25`、`CLAUDE.md:43`、`CLAUDE.md:57`、`CLAUDE.md:65`、`CLAUDE.md:80`。
+- [证据] `.claude/CLAUDE.md` 又额外定义了任务开始前/结束后清单、TDD 流程、禁止行为、commit 策略和 `npm run check:all`，与根 `CLAUDE.md` 形成双入口：`.claude/CLAUDE.md:1`、`.claude/CLAUDE.md:7`、`.claude/CLAUDE.md:33`、`.claude/CLAUDE.md:51`。
+- [证据] 文档已经主张"先路由、再按需下钻"和"按改动类型做最小验证"，但根 `CLAUDE.md` 仍保留一套统一 post-edit 命令与固定 checklist，存在叙事冲突：`docs/rules/README.md:19`、`docs/rules/validation.md:5`、`docs/rules/validation.md:29`、`docs/rules/validation.md:31`、`CLAUDE.md:25`。
+- [证据] 当前部分验证命令存在"文档真、脚本假"的信任问题：`docs/rules/architecture-guardrails.md` 把 `npm run check:architecture` 列为快速验证，但 `package.json` 中它仍是 `echo` stub；`check:unused` 也是同样情况：`docs/rules/architecture-guardrails.md:24`、`docs/rules/architecture-guardrails.md:29`、`package.json:45`、`package.json:46`、`package.json:48`。
+- [证据] 仓库处于过渡态，文档体系与执行面并存新旧结构；历史归档仍在，少量指南仍在根层，官方要求"以实际存在的文件为准"：`AGENTS.md:324`、`AGENTS.md:327`、`AGENTS.md:329`。
+- [推论] 因此当前核心问题不是"规则数量不足"，而是"shared truth source 不够清晰 + 入口过载 + 某些执行约束与真实自动化不一致"。
+
+### External Context
+
+- [证据] OpenAI Codex 官方 `AGENTS.md` 指南强调：写长期稳定、项目特有、可快速扫读的指令；复杂说明应拆到配套 markdown，而不是把一切都塞进根入口。来源：https://developers.openai.com/codex/guides/agents-md
+- [证据] OpenAI Codex best practices 还强调：应通过 retrospective 把重复失败模式沉淀为更专门的技能或流程，而不是继续膨胀通用指令文件。来源：https://developers.openai.com/codex/learn/best-practices
+- [证据] Claude Code 官方 memory 文档建议共享 memory 维持在约 200 行以内；需要更长时，应拆文件并用 `@path` 导入，同时支持在 `CLAUDE.md` 中导入 `AGENTS.md` 与用 `.claude/rules/` 的 `paths:` 做路径作用域加载。来源：https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory
+- [证据] Claude Code 官方 best practices / hooks 文档强调：`CLAUDE.md` 更适合行为指导，hooks 与 settings 更适合确定性 enforcement；长会话和超长上下文会拖垮效果。来源：https://code.claude.com/docs/en/best-practices 、https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/hooks
+- [证据] 2026 社区与研究信号都在同一方向上收敛：instruction 文件过长、过泛、缺少可执行细节时会显著掉质；保留最小必要要求比堆叠规则更有效。来源：https://dev.to/reporails/the-state-of-ai-instruction-quality-35mn 、https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11988
+
+### Synthesis
+
+- [推论] 文档一的强项是"战略方向正确、外部 grounding 充分、结构完整"，文档二的强项是"repo-specific 问题抓得具体、能直接落实施工项"。
+- [推论] 更强的终稿不应在两者之间二选一，而应采用"文档一的治理框架 + 文档二的具体问题卡片"。
+
+## Ranked Ideas
+
+### 1. Validation Router + No Ghost Commands
+**Description:** [推论] 把根 `CLAUDE.md` 中"修改后必须执行"改写为 1 屏验证决策树：按改动类型跳转到 `docs/rules/validation.md`；同时禁止在入口与规则文档中引用 `echo` stub 命令，所有写进 quick-start 的命令都必须是真实可运行命令。
+**Rationale:** [推论] 这是把 harness 的"最小必要验证"从口号变成真正可信的路由；它还顺手修掉最伤信任的"跑了命令但其实没验证"的问题。
+**Repo-Specific Leverage:** [证据] `docs/rules/architecture-guardrails.md:29` 当前推荐 `npm run check:architecture`，但 `package.json:46` 仍是提示安装 dependency-cruiser 的 `echo`；`check:unused` 在 `package.json:48` 也是同类问题。
+**Downsides:** [观点] 若短期内不想落地真实检查，就必须先从入口与规则文档中移除这些命令，否则只会继续制造假安全感。
+**Confidence:** 96%
+**Complexity:** Medium
+**Status:** Partially Implemented（根 `CLAUDE.md` 已改为纯路由，但 `package.json` 与 `docs/rules/architecture-guardrails.md` 中的 ghost commands 仍在）
+
+### 2. Behavior / Enforcement Split
+**Description:** [推论] 明确分层：`AGENTS.md` / `CLAUDE.md` 负责行为与路由；`.claude/settings*.json`、hooks、`scripts/validate-rules.py`、CI 负责确定性 enforcement；`docs/rules/*` 只解释何时触发、如何恢复、失败后果是什么。
+**Rationale:** [推论] 这既符合 Claude 官方"behavioral guidance vs technical enforcement"的划分，也与本仓库已有 `report-only` / `soft_gate` / `hard_gate` 设计天然一致。
+**Repo-Specific Leverage:** [证据] 根 `CLAUDE.md` 现在同时扮演"行为协议""默认 gate 配置""交付 checklist"三种角色：`CLAUDE.md:57`、`CLAUDE.md:61`、`CLAUDE.md:62`、`CLAUDE.md:63`、`CLAUDE.md:80`。
+**Downsides:** [观点] 需要重写措辞，让"默认路由/默认验证"与"真正 blocker"区分得非常清楚，否则用户会误会规则被放松。
+**Confidence:** 93%
+**Complexity:** Medium
+**Status:** Partially Implemented（行为路由已分离，但缺少 `scripts/validate-rules.py` 等专门 enforcement 工具，部分 enforcement 仍由 `validate-docs.js` 兼任）
+
+### 3. Path-Scoped Governance for a Transitional Repo
+**Description:** [推论] 根入口只维护"如何选规则"的导航，细节继续下沉到按路径加载的文档：Codex 依赖更近的 `AGENTS.md`，Claude 依赖 `.claude/rules/**` 的 `paths:`；同时在根入口显式声明"当前是迁移仓库，MVP3 层级优先，但历史目录仍可能存在"。
+**Rationale:** [推论] 这把文档二的"路由覆盖不足"问题与文档一的"progressive disclosure"主张合并起来：根文件不需要越来越长，但路径规则必须覆盖真实项目形态。
+**Repo-Specific Leverage:** [证据] 仓库已明确"过渡说明"和"入口文档应保持短小"：`AGENTS.md:324`、`AGENTS.md:327`、`AGENTS.md:329`；根 `CLAUDE.md` 当前路由表仍是高度 layer-centric：`CLAUDE.md:43` 到 `CLAUDE.md:55`。
+**Downsides:** [观点] 若没有命名约定和 archive discipline，路径化后会把问题从"根太长"转移成"子规则散落"。
+**Confidence:** 91%
+**Complexity:** Medium-High
+**Status:** Unexplored（不存在 `.claude/rules/` 目录，无 `paths:` 配置）
+
+### 4. Live Rulebook + Archive Demotion
+**Description:** [推论] 明确标注 live governance surface：只认 `AGENTS.md`、根 `CLAUDE.md`、`.claude/CLAUDE.md`、`docs/rules/README.md` 与活跃规则文档；历史 rollout、模板母本、迁移提案要统一降级为 reference/archive，并在文件头写明"不可作为当前执行真相"。
+**Rationale:** [推论] 对 agent 来说，最贵的不是少一条规则，而是不知道哪份文档才是现在真的生效。
+**Repo-Specific Leverage:** [证据] 仓库已承认"历史归档仍保留、少量操作指南仍在根层、执行时以实际存在文件为准"：`AGENTS.md:327`。
+**Downsides:** [观点] 这是文档身份治理，不是炫目的功能增强；但如果不做，后续所有瘦身都会被旧文档重新污染。
+**Confidence:** 92%
+**Complexity:** Low-Medium
+**Status:** Partially Implemented（`docs/archive/` 目录存在，但并非所有历史文档都被显式标注"不可作为当前执行真相"；`docs/ideation/` 中仍有未归档的历史文档）
+
+### 5. Governance Self-Audit + Generated Shared Tables
+**Description:** [推论] 把"规则重复"和"规则自身腐烂"合并成一个治理能力：高频重复表格（如代码红线、职责映射、验证入口）应由单一结构化源生成；并定期审计链接、命令存在性、路径路由覆盖和 live/reference 身份是否一致。
+**Rationale:** [推论] 文档二抓住了 repo 的真实维护痛点，而文档一提供了更高层的约束原则；把两者合并后，能防止"今天瘦身，明天重新 drift"。
+**Repo-Specific Leverage:** [证据] 当前重复与漂移已在多处出现：`AGENTS.md:127`、`docs/rules/engineering-with-codex-openai.md:89`；而命令存在性问题已被 `package.json:46`、`package.json:48` 证明。
+**Downsides:** [观点] 这已经逼近"小型文档治理系统"了；若一次做太大，容易反向过度工程化。
+**Confidence:** 88%
+**Complexity:** Medium
+**Status:** Partially Implemented（`scripts/validate-docs.js` 已实现入口文档自动化审计，但无"从单一结构化源生成重复表格"的机制，也无定期审计 package.json stub 命令的能力）
+
+## Recommended Final Direction
+
+- [观点] **当前首选主轴**：`#2 Validation Router + No Ghost Commands`
+  在 #1 已完成后，这是最强的信任修复：把"文档说一套、命令做一套"的错位消掉。
+- [观点] **第二优先级**：`#3 Behavior / Enforcement Split`
+  这是最强的长期维护修复，防止入口文件再次被确定性流程污染。
+- [观点] **第三优先级**：`#4 Path-Scoped Governance`
+  把路由从根文件进一步下沉到路径作用域，是 progressive disclosure 的下一步。
+- [推论] 若只允许保留一个总原则，应是：**根入口只负责"让 agent 知道去哪读、何时验证、谁在阻断"，不负责承载全部细节、全部命令、全部历史。**
+
+## Rejection Summary
+
+| # | Idea | Reason Rejected |
+|---|------|-----------------|
+| 1 | `Universal Mega Entry File` | [推论] 与 Codex / Claude 官方"短入口 + 路由 + 作用域加载"方向完全相反。 |
+| 2 | `Per-Tool Twin Rulebooks` | [推论] 会把多 agent 共享规则重新复制成两套真相，长期必漂移。 |
+| 3 | `Everything as Structured YAML First` | [观点] 对重复表格很有价值，但若把全部治理文档都数据化，会过早走向工具化治理。 |
+| 4 | `Only Fix Ghost Commands` | [推论] 只能修补信任问题，不能解决入口过载与 shared truth source 不清晰。 |
+| 5 | `Only Merge the Two CLAUDE Files` | [推论] 不触及 `AGENTS.md` / `docs/rules/*` 的职责划分，仍会留下多真相竞争。 |
+| 6 | `Archive Nothing, Just Add More Cross Links` | [观点] 交叉链接能缓解迷路，不能解决"哪份文档是 live contract"的根问题。 |
+
+## Session Log
+
+- [证据] 2026-04-22：对比 `docs/archive/ideation/2026-04-22-harness-rules-entry-docs-optimization-ideation.md` 与 `docs/archive/ideation/2026-04-22-rules-claude-agents-optimization-ideation.md`，确认前者更强在治理框架与外部 grounding，后者更强在 repo-specific 问题识别。
+- [证据] 2026-04-22：补充校验根 `CLAUDE.md`、`.claude/CLAUDE.md`、`package.json`、`docs/rules/architecture-guardrails.md`，把"双入口""ghost commands""迁移仓库"三个具体问题收敛进统一提案。
+- [推论] 2026-04-22：最终终稿选择"保留文档一的骨架，吸收文档二最具体的实施抓手"，而不是继续保留两份并行 ideation。
+- 2026-04-29：验证 #1 完全实现并归档；更新剩余项状态为 Partially Implemented / Unexplored

package/docs/ideation/2026-04-29-ux-install-agent-experience-ideation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
+# Ideation: CodeMap User Experience, Installation/Configuration, and Human vs AI Agent Experience
+
+**Date:** 2026-04-29  
+**Focus:** User experience, installation and configuration experience, human vs AI agent experience  
+**Run ID:** 9e3b69d4496d7cc8  
+**Agents dispatched:** 9 (codebase scan + learnings + web research + 6 ideation frames)
+
+---
+
+## Grounding Summary
+
+### Codebase Context
+CodeMap is a TypeScript/Node.js ESM CLI tool generating structured code maps (`AI_MAP.md`, `codemap.json`) for AI/Agent consumption. Uses `commander`, `tree-sitter`, `better-sqlite3`, `hono`. Layered architecture with `src/cli-new/` coexisting alongside `src/cli/`, signaling migration in progress. Heavy AI-agent governance docs (`AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `.claude/`, `.kimi/`, `.agents/`).
+
+### Key Pain Points
+- **Native dependency install friction** (`better-sqlite3`, `tree-sitter` often fail without build tools) — #1 drop-off point
+- **Broken promises in `package.json`** (`check:architecture`, `check:unused` are no-ops)
+- **Dual CLI confusion** (`cli/` + `cli-new/`)
+- **MCP underpowered** (only 2 tools: `codemap_query`, `codemap_impact`)
+- **Agent interface inconsistency** (`--json` not uniform, silent failures, low confidence on explicit paths)
+- **Onboarding overload** — manual skill copying from `examples/`
+- **Agent dogfood rated 6/10** agent-friendly (2026-04-17)
+
+### Past Learnings
+- `init` redesigned as "project state reconciler" with `.mycodemap/` workspace (v1.7 shipped)
+- v0.5.1 install bug: `devDependencies` used at runtime caused global install crashes
+- CLI surface cleanup (v1.0): removed commands with explicit failure + migration messages
+- Three-layer readiness gate (`hard`/`warn-only`/`fallback`) from v1.11
+
+### External Context
+- CLI is beating MCP for coding agents in 2025-2026 due to token efficiency
+- Agent-native patterns: JSON-first, structured errors, predictable exit codes, field filtering, `--help-json`, progress on stderr
+- Prior art: `hubspot-cli` (dual entry point), `gdelt-cli` (machine-readable help), `discord-cli` (YAML structured output)
+- Snyk praised for smoothest onboarding (`snyk test` = seconds)
+- Research pain points: false positives up to 60%, lack of meaningful messages, configuration effort
+
+---
+
+## Raw Candidate Pool
+
+52 candidates generated across 6 ideation frames + 4 cross-cutting combinations. Full list preserved in checkpoint:
+`/tmp/compound-engineering/ce-ideate/9e3b69d4496d7cc8/raw-candidates.md`
+
+### Frame Summary
+| Frame | Count | Key Themes |
+|-------|-------|------------|
+| Pain and friction | 8 | Graceful degradation, presumptive onboarding, unified CLI, agent handshake, streaming MCP, confidence metadata, pre-install check, doctor |
+| Inversion/removal/automation | 8 | Zero-command install, config-as-cache, honest CLI, intent router, JSON-RPC daemon, auto-provisioned skills, failure-to-action, CLI-as-MCP gateway |
+| Assumption-breaking | 8 | Zero-install runtime, split human/agent interface, self-healing init, SDK mode, confidence-first output, progressive disclosure, git-native maps, declarative contract |
+| Leverage/compounding | 8 | WASM-first build, auto-reconciling state, interface contract architecture, zero-config preview, structured errors, skill ecosystem, agent-native mode, uncertainty budget |
+| Cross-domain analogy | 8 | Auto-mode installer, RPG onboarding, Netflix recommendations, language server daemon, tasting menu presets, accessibility profiles, pairing mode, confidence routing |
+| Constraint-flipping | 8 | 100ms install, self-teaching CLI, AI-first default, fingerprint config, unconfigurable tool, MCP-primary, concierge daemon, self-healing promise |
+
+---
+
+## Explicit Rejections (Why These Did Not Survive)
+
+### Rejected: Incremental / Already In Progress
+- **Unified CLI Surface with Subcommand Shadows** — Addresses real pain but is essentially "finish the cli-new migration," already in progress. Not an ideation breakthrough.
+- **Presumptive Onboarding / Config Proposed Not Asked** — Overlaps with existing v1.7 init reconciler design; less precise than Zero-Config Preview.
+- **Streaming MCP with Progress Tokens** — Good but naturally follows from CLI-as-MCP Gateway; not a standalone priority.
+
+### Rejected: Over-Engineered / Heavy Solutions to Simple Problems
+- **Agent Handshake Protocol** — Over-engineered for the actual problem: inconsistent `--json` and silent failures. A formal pre-command negotiation adds complexity; explicit flags/env vars are simpler.
+- **Smart Home "Pairing Mode" Auto-Negotiation** — Auto-detecting agent vs human is fragile (env vars, parent process names). Explicit `--agent` or `CODEMAP_MACHINE=1` is more reliable.
+- **Intent-Based Unified Router / Natural Language** — "Map my backend API surface" is cool but adds NLP complexity for marginal gain over good subcommand naming.
+
+### Rejected: Too Speculative / Missing Prerequisites
+- **100ms Install Mandate: Pure-JS Mode** — More extreme than WASM-first. Node 22+ `node:sqlite` is not universally available. Pure-JS tree-sitter grammar pack doesn't exist yet.
+- **The Embedded CodeMap / SDK Mode** — Powerful but scope explosion. If WASM-first happens, SDK mode becomes natural. Doing both simultaneously is too much.
+- **10x Budget: Agent Concierge Mode / Daemon + IDE Extension** — Visionary but the project already deferred viz/TUI/API (MVP3 PRD). A daemon is an architectural commitment for a future milestone.
+- **No Users, Only Agents: MCP as Primary Interface** — Inverts reality: the CLI exists and works. Making MCP primary would discard human UX investment.
+
+### Rejected: Provocative but Not Actionable
+- **Team of One: The Unconfigurable Tool** — Radical convention-over-configuration that would alienate power users and non-standard projects.
+- **Self-Correcting CLI Surface / Honest CLI** — "CLI audits itself on startup" is harder to implement and explain than a `doctor` command. Overlaps with #7 survivor.
+- **The Declarative Project Contract / codemap.yaml** — Overlaps with existing `.mycodemap/config.json` approach. YAML doesn't add enough value to justify migration.
+
+### Rejected: Framing Devices, Not Technical Directions
+- **Video Game Accessibility Profiles** — Good analogy but essentially combines "split interface" + "AI-first default" into a framing device.
+- **RPG "First Quest" Tutorial Onboarding** — UX polish framing of Zero-Config Preview. The tutorial aspect is surface, not architecture.
+- **Fine Dining "Tasting Menu" Presets** — Same as accessibility profiles; a UX framing of modes that already exist in other forms.
+- **Airport Customs "Green Lane / Red Lane"** — Clever analogy but confidence routing is already captured by Confidence-First Output.
+
+### Rejected: Overlap with Stronger Survivors
+- **Pre-Install Environment Contract Check** — Narrower than WASM-first; solves same problem less completely.
+- **The Self-Healing Init** — Covered by existing init reconciler + doctor command.
+- **Auto-Reconciling Project State** — Extension of existing v1.7 init reconciler; incremental, not breakthrough.
+- **Netflix "Because You Watched" Config Recommendations** — Incremental enhancement to init; not a distinct direction.
+- **Structured Error Recovery Protocol** — Overlaps heavily with Failure-to-Action Protocol.
+- **Configuration as a Cache, Not a Contract** — Interesting reframing but risks making configuration opaque and hard to debug.
+- **Agent-Native Streaming Protocol / JSON-RPC Daemon** — High complexity; daemon mode deferred per project scope.
+- **No Docs Allowed: The Self-Teaching CLI** — Framing device; interactive help is a feature, not a strategic direction.
+- **1M Users, Zero Support: Auto-Configured by Fingerprint** — Overlaps with Zero-Config Preview + existing init reconciler.
+
+---
+
+## Top Survivors (Ranked)
+
+### 1. Machine-Readable Interface Contract as Core Architecture
+**Source:** Leverage frame  
+**Idea:** Define the entire CLI surface as a formal schema (commands, args, flags, output shapes, error codes) in a single source-of-truth file. Generate the human CLI parser, the MCP server, `--help-json`, shell completions, and documentation from this schema. Never hand-write argument parsing or output formatting again.
+
+**Why it survived:**
+- **Highest leverage:** Every new command automatically gets full agent support, MCP exposure, and perfect consistency.
+- **Addresses root cause:** `--json` inconsistency, MCP underpoweredness, and agent-friendly 6/10 rating all stem from hand-maintained dual surfaces.
+- **Compounding:** As the CLI grows, the benefit multiplies. Adding one schema entry creates CLI flag, MCP tool, help text, and completion in one shot.
+- **Grounded:** Agent-native patterns from external research explicitly demand JSON-first, structured errors, and `--help-json`. This makes them free.
+
+**Risks:** Upfront schema design effort; migration of existing commands. Mitigation: incremental adoption, one command at a time.
+
+---
+
+### 2. WASM-First Build, Native-Opt-In Runtime
+**Source:** Leverage frame / Constraint-flip frame  
+**Idea:** Ship `tree-sitter` and `better-sqlite3` as WASM modules by default; detect and opportunistically upgrade to native binaries only when the environment supports it and the user opts in. `npm install codemap` works on every platform, every CI image, every fresh laptop with zero build tools.
+
+**Why it survived:**
+- **#1 pain point killer:** Native dependency install friction is the top drop-off point. This eliminates it entirely.
+- **Proven pattern:** esbuild's WASM fallback mode works in the same ecosystem. `web-tree-sitter` exists. Node 22 ships `node:sqlite` built-in.
+- **Platform coverage:** Reaches 100% of users instead of 70% who have build tools installed.
+- **Agent value:** Eliminates environment-dependent failures that break automated workflows.
+
+**Risks:** Performance regression for very large repos. Mitigation: native opt-in for performance-sensitive users; benchmark WASM vs native.
+
+---
+
+### 3. CLI-as-MCP Automatic Gateway
+**Source:** Inversion frame  
+**Idea:** Implement a generic `--mcp-stdio` adapter that dynamically exposes every CodeMap CLI subcommand as an MCP tool with auto-generated JSON schemas derived from TypeScript types (or the Interface Contract schema). Adding a new CLI command instantly creates a new MCP tool with zero extra work. The entire CLI surface becomes the MCP surface.
+
+**Why it survived:**
+- **Closes the integration gap:** MCP is currently underpowered (2 tools) while CLI has 20+ commands. Agents route around MCP to CLI because of this.
+- **Eliminates drift:** No more hand-maintained MCP server that lags behind CLI features.
+- **Depends on #1:** Best paired with Interface Contract architecture, but can start with TypeScript type reflection.
+- **High agent impact:** Transforms MCP from a second-class citizen into a first-class, complete interface.
+
+**Risks:** MCP schema generation must handle complex nested types. Mitigation: start with simple commands, iterate.
+
+---
+
+### 4. AI-First Default, Human-Pretty Optional
+**Source:** Constraint-flip frame / Assumption-breaking frame  
+**Idea:** Flip the output paradigm. All commands emit structured JSON/NDJSON on stdout by default. A `--human` flag (or auto-detected TTY) pipes through a built-in renderer for tables, spinners, and color. Progress goes to stderr as structured events. This makes the CLI natively composable for agents without special flags.
+
+**Why it survived:**
+- **Directly fixes agent inconsistency:** The current `--json` bolt-on is inconsistent across commands. Making structured output the default forces consistency.
+- **External evidence:** Research confirms CLI beats MCP for token efficiency when structured. This maximizes that advantage.
+- **Low implementation risk:** TTY detection is standard; renderers can be built incrementally.
+- **Composable:** `codemap analyze | jq '.findings[] | select(.severity=="high")'` works out of the box.
+
+**Risks:** Breaking change for existing human users who expect pretty output. Mitigation: major version bump; TTY auto-detection preserves current behavior for interactive use.
+
+---
+
+### 5. Zero-Config Preview / Progressive Commitment Model
+**Source:** Leverage frame / Cross-domain analogy  
+**Idea:** `npx codemap` with no config, no init, no flags performs a full analysis and emits a rich preview (top-level summary, detected project type, sample map). It then offers: "Looks good? Run `codemap --persist` to save configuration and generate full artifacts." No setup, no decisions, no config files until the user sees value.
+
+**Why it survived:**
+- **Snyk-inspired:** Snyk is praised for smoothest onboarding because `snyk test` demonstrates value in seconds.
+- **Low implementation cost:** Can be built on top of existing init reconciler and analysis pipeline.
+- **High conversion impact:** Removes the fear of side effects from trying the tool.
+- **Dual audience:** Humans see a preview and decide; agents can run `--persist` non-interactively.
+
+**Risks:** Preview must be fast (<5 seconds) or it backfires. Mitigation: default to shallow/symbolic scan for preview; deep analysis on demand.
+
+---
+
+### 6. Failure-to-Action Protocol
+**Source:** Inversion frame / Leverage frame  
+**Idea:** Every error returns a structured document containing: what was attempted, the root cause, a machine-readable remediation plan, and a confidence score. For native dep failures: auto-suggest `--wasm-fallback` or a prebuilt binary URL. For agents, errors include the exact next command to try. Errors become state transitions, not dead ends.
+
+**Why it survived:**
+- **Addresses silent failures:** The dogfood report explicitly found `analyze -i find` failing silently with near-empty JSON. This makes every failure explicit and actionable.
+- **Research-backed:** Studies cite "lack of meaningful messages" as a top pain point for code analysis tools.
+- **Agent self-healing:** Agents can attempt remediation without human intervention.
+- **Incremental:** Can be adopted command by command; doesn't require a big-bang rewrite.
+
+**Risks:** Remediation suggestions can be wrong, creating cascading failures. Mitigation: confidence scoring on suggestions; never auto-execute without `--apply-suggestion`.
+
+---
+
+### 7. codemap doctor as Continuous Health Monitor
+**Source:** Pain frame / Constraint-flip frame  
+**Idea:** A living diagnostics command that audits the entire CodeMap ecosystem: detects no-op scripts in `package.json` (`check:architecture`, `check:unused`), verifies native dep health, checks `.mycodemap/` workspace drift, validates CLI vs MCP version skew, and runs agent interface regression checks. Emits both human-readable reports and machine-readable diagnostics. Can run in CI as a health gate.
+
+**Why it survived:**
+- **Familiar pattern:** `npm doctor`, `brew doctor`, `flutter doctor` — users know what to expect.
+- **Addresses broken promises directly:** Surfaces the no-op scripts and other latent brokenness that erodes trust.
+- **CI-friendly:** Machine-readable output enables automated health checks in CI pipelines.
+- **Incremental:** Each diagnostic is a small addition; the command grows over time.
+
+**Risks:** Can become a dumping ground for random checks. Mitigation: categorize diagnostics (install, config, runtime, agent); require evidence tags for each check.
+
+---
+
+### 8. Auto-Provisioned Agent Skills / Self-Distributing Integration
+**Source:** Inversion frame  
+**Idea:** When CodeMap detects it is being invoked by an AI agent (via `KIMI_`, `CLAUDE_`, or `CODEX_` env vars), it automatically writes or updates the appropriate skill files into the agent's skill directory (`.claude/skills/codemap/`, `.kimi/skills/codemap/`). The tool maintains its own bindings, ensuring agents always use the latest integration layer.
+
+**Why it survived:**
+- **Directly solves onboarding overload:** "Manual skill copying from `examples/`" is explicitly cited as a pain point.
+- **Self-describing:** CodeMap knows its own CLI schema better than any human; it should generate its own agent integration.
+- **Version safety:** Skills stay in sync with the installed CodeMap version.
+- **Low cost if paired with #1 and #3:** If we have an interface contract and auto-generated MCP, skill generation is a thin layer on top.
+
+**Risks:** Overwriting user-customized skill files. Mitigation: write to `.mycodemap/skills/` and symlink/copy to agent dirs; never modify existing files without `--force`.
+
+---
+
+## Cross-Cutting Synthesis
+
+Three meta-patterns emerge from the survivors:
+
+### A. Self-Describing Universal API (#1 + #3 + #8)
+If the CLI surface is defined as a machine-readable contract, then:
+- The MCP server generates automatically (#3)
+- Agent skills generate automatically (#8)
+- `--help-json`, shell completions, and docs generate automatically (#1)
+- Every new CLI command is instantly agent-ready
+
+This is the **highest-compounding architectural bet** in the entire ideation set.
+
+### B. Zero-Friction Installation & Onboarding (#2 + #5)
+WASM-first eliminates install failures (#2). Zero-config preview eliminates configuration anxiety (#5). Together they create a "Snyk-class" onboarding where a new user goes from "heard about it" to "seeing value" in under 10 seconds with zero prerequisites.
+
+### C. Trust Architecture (#6 + #7 + confidence implications of #1)
+Failure-to-action protocol makes errors recoverable (#6). Doctor command continuously audits health (#7). Interface contract ensures output schemas are predictable (#1). Together they address the agent-friendly 6/10 rating by making the tool transparent, honest, and self-healing.
+
+---
+
+## Ideas by Dimension
+
+| Dimension | Top Idea |
+|-----------|----------|
+| **Workflow / DX** | Zero-Config Preview (#5) — demonstrates value before asking commitment |
+| **Reliability** | WASM-First Build (#2) — eliminates #1 source of install failures |
+| **Extensibility** | Interface Contract Architecture (#1) — every new feature is agent-ready by construction |
+| **Missing capabilities** | CLI-as-MCP Gateway (#3) — closes the 2-tool gap |
+| **Docs / Knowledge compounding** | Auto-Provisioned Skills (#8) — self-generating agent integration |
+| **Quality / Maintenance** | codemap doctor (#7) — continuous health monitoring |
+| **Agent experience** | AI-First Default (#4) — JSON-first, consistent, composable |
+| **Error handling** | Failure-to-Action Protocol (#6) — structured, recoverable errors |
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps Menu
+
+This ideation artifact identifies promising directions. The next step depends on what you want to do with these ideas:
+
+1. **Refine** — Deep-dive into one or more survivors, exploring edge cases, implementation approaches, and interdependencies.
+2. **Brainstorm** — Select one survivor and define it precisely enough for planning (requirements, boundaries, acceptance criteria). This hands off to `ce:brainstorm`.
+3. **Save and end** — Archive this ideation and return to it later when priorities shift.
+
+> **Routing note:** `ce:ideate` answers "What are the strongest ideas worth exploring?" `ce:brainstorm` answers "What exactly should one chosen idea mean?" `ce:plan` answers "How should it be built?" Do not skip to planning from ideation output.

package/docs/lesson-learn/2026-04-19-prerelease-trusted-publishing-fix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# 预发布自动发布故障修复记录
+
+> 日期：2026-04-19  
+> 状态：已修复  
+> 范围：npm Trusted Publishing / GitHub Actions 发布链路 / 发布前版本校验
+
+## 问题摘要
+
+- [证据] `v0.5.2-beta.0` 首次真实自动发布失败，失败 run 为 `24632519866`。
+- [证据] 失败并不是 npm Trusted Publisher 配置缺失，而是发布链路中有两个代码层问题：
+  1. `scripts/pre-release-check.js:112` 的 YAML 版本提取正则不支持 prerelease 版本；
+  2. `.github/workflows/publish.yml:124` 在发布 prerelease 版本时没有显式传 `npm publish --tag <preid>`。
+- [证据] 修复后，`v0.5.2-beta.1` 的真实自动发布成功，成功 run 为 `24632744587`。
+- [证据] 发布完成后，npm dist-tag 状态为：
+  - `latest -> 0.5.1`
+  - `beta -> 0.5.2-beta.1`
+
+## 现象
+
+### 现象 1：发布前检查误判版本不一致
+
+- [证据] `package.json`、`llms.txt`、`AI_GUIDE.md`、`AI_DISCOVERY.md` 都是 `0.5.2-beta.0`。
+- [证据] 但 `scripts/pre-release-check.js` 把 `ai-document-index.yaml` 的版本解析成了 `0.5.2`，导致 prerelease 版本无法被完整识别。
+- [推论] 这会让发布前检查在 beta/rc 版本上产生错误噪音，阻断或误导发布判断。
+
+### 现象 2：GitHub Actions 在 npm publish 阶段失败
+
+- [证据] `v0.5.2-beta.0` 的发布 run `24632519866` 在 `Publish to NPM` 步骤失败。
+- [证据] 关键报错是：`You must specify a tag using --tag when publishing a prerelease version.`
+- [推论] 这说明 Trusted Publishing 本身已经工作，问题不在 npm 仓库授权，而在 workflow 对 prerelease 版本没有传 dist-tag。
+
+## 根因分析
+
+### 根因 1：YAML prerelease 解析规则过窄
+
+- [证据] `scripts/pre-release-check.js:114` 之前只匹配 `x.y.z`，不匹配 `x.y.z-beta.0` 这类版本。
+- [证据] 修复提交：`73cf296 [BUGFIX] release: support prerelease YAML version checks`
+- [推论] 只要版本同步文件里存在 prerelease，旧逻辑都会把它截断，导致版本一致性检查不可靠。
+
+### 根因 2：npm@11 对 prerelease 发布要求显式 dist-tag
+
+- [证据] `.github/workflows/publish.yml:83` 现在新增 `Determine npm dist-tag` 步骤，从版本号推导 npm tag。
+- [证据] `.github/workflows/publish.yml:128` 现在会在 OIDC 与 `NPM_TOKEN` fallback 两条路径上统一传 `--tag "$DIST_TAG"`。
+- [证据] 修复提交：`93a1a7a [BUGFIX] release: publish prereleases with dist-tags`
+- [推论] 升级到 `npm@11.5.1` 以后，prerelease 发布必须显式指定 `--tag beta` / `--tag rc` 等，否则 registry 会拒绝发布。
+
+## 修复方案
+
+### 修复 1：放宽 prerelease 版本匹配
+
+- [证据] 在 `scripts/pre-release-check.js:112` 附近，把 YAML 版本提取规则改为支持 `(\d+\.\d+\.\d+(?:-[\w.]+)?)`。
+- [结果] `npm run docs:check:pre-release` 现在可以正确识别 `0.5.2-beta.1`。
+
+### 修复 2：在 workflow 中显式推导并传递 npm dist-tag
+
+- [证据] 在 `.github/workflows/publish.yml:83` 新增 `Determine npm dist-tag`：
+  - 稳定版默认 `latest`
+  - prerelease 从 preid 推导，例如 `beta`、`rc`
+- [证据] 在 `.github/workflows/publish.yml:124` 的发布步骤中：
+  - OIDC 路径使用 `npx npm@11.5.1 publish --tag "$DIST_TAG"`
+  - Token fallback 路径使用 `npx npm@11.5.1 publish --tag "$DIST_TAG" --provenance`
+- [结果] `v0.5.2-beta.1` 成功发布到 npm 的 `beta` dist-tag。
+
+### 修复 3：同步发布说明与验证规则
+
+- [证据] 文档已同步到以下位置：
+  - `docs/PUBLISHING.md`
+  - `docs/rules/validation.md`
+  - `docs/rules/pre-release-checklist.md`
+- [推论] 这一步是为了把“prerelease 必须显式传 dist-tag”的真实约束写回文档，避免下次再次按旧认知排障。
+
+## 处理过程
+
+1. [证据] 先完成 `0.5.2-beta.0` 版本准备并推送 tag，触发首次真实发布。
+2. [证据] 发现本地 `docs:check:pre-release` 被 YAML prerelease 解析问题阻断。
+3. [证据] 修复 `scripts/pre-release-check.js` 后，本地预检查、测试、构建、打包验证全部通过。
+4. [证据] 首次远端 run `24632519866` 仍在 `Publish to NPM` 失败，暴露 `npm publish --tag` 缺失问题。
+5. [证据] 修复 workflow 和文档后，准备 `0.5.2-beta.1` 并重新推送。
+6. [证据] 第二次远端 run `24632744587` 成功完成 `Publish to NPM`、`Generate Release Notes`、`Create GitHub Release`。
+
+## 验证结果
+
+### 本地验证
+
+- [证据] `npm run docs:check:pre-release` 通过
+- [证据] `npm test` 通过，`916/916` 测试通过
+- [证据] `npm run build` 通过
+- [证据] `npm run validate-pack` 通过
+
+### 远端验证
+
+- [证据] GitHub Actions 成功 run：`24632744587`
+- [证据] GitHub Release 已创建：`v0.5.2-beta.1`
+- [证据] npm registry 已更新 `beta` dist-tag 到 `0.5.2-beta.1`
+
+## 相关提交
+
+- [证据] `73cf296 [BUGFIX] release: support prerelease YAML version checks`
+- [证据] `93a1a7a [BUGFIX] release: publish prereleases with dist-tags`
+- [证据] `0d7e8c0 [CONFIG] release: prepare v0.5.2-beta.1`
+
+## 残留事项
+
+- [证据] workflow 仍有非阻断告警：
+  - `actions/create-release@v1` 使用 Node 20，将来需要升级
+  - `set-output` 已废弃，后续应替换为环境文件方式
+  - 存在一个 `git exit code 128` 注解噪音，但不影响发布成功
+- [观点] 这些问题不影响当前发布结果，但建议作为下一轮 release-infra 清理项集中处理。
+
+## 下次发布的最小检查清单
+
+- [证据] 若版本是 prerelease，确认版本号包含 preid，例如 `0.5.2-beta.2`
+- [证据] 先运行 `npm run docs:check:pre-release`
+- [证据] 再运行 `npm test`、`npm run build`、`npm run validate-pack`
+- [证据] 推送匹配版本的 tag，观察 `Publish to NPM` workflow
+- [证据] 发布后检查：
+  - `npm view @mycodemap/mycodemap version dist-tags --json`
+  - `gh release view v<version>`
+