@openwop/openwop-conformance 1.152.0 → 1.154.0

package/src/scenarios/pack-manifest-extensions.test.ts

@@ -1,203 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * Pack-manifest vendor extensions — RFC 0138.
- *
- * `host-extensions.md` §"Vendor-prefixed namespaces" carries a normative MUST:
- * *"A client receiving an unknown vendor-prefixed field MUST treat it as
- * opaque."* Every pack manifest, however, set `additionalProperties: false`
- * with no pattern escape — so a vendor-prefixed field could not legally exist
- * on a pack manifest at all. **The corpus mandated a behavior for a case it
- * structurally forbade**, and a host with a working extension had to choose
- * between shipping it and publishing a conformant pack. RFC 0138 adds an
- * `^(x-|vendor\.)` escape hatch on each manifest root and each kind's per-item
- * entry object.
- *
- * Always-on + server-free. Three parts:
- *
- *   PART 1 — every pack manifest admits the hatch, INCLUDING the registry
- *   publication contract. Without the hatch on `registry-version-manifest`, a
- *   pack carrying a root-level extension validates against its source manifest
- *   and is then rejected at registry `PUT` — the same split-brain, one layer
- *   down. Enumerated by an explicit in-scope count, not a naming glob, so a new
- *   pack kind that forgets the hatch fails rather than being skipped.
- *
- *   PART 2 — the hatch is NARROW. A misspelled canonical field
- *   (`dispalyName`) is still rejected. This is the regression guard that keeps
- *   `additionalProperties: false` doing its real job: the hatch admits
- *   DECLARED extensions, not arbitrary keys. A change that widened the pattern
- *   to `^.*` would pass PART 1 and fail here.
- *
- *   PART 3 — the corpus states the opacity + trust rules normatively. The
- *   schema alone cannot express "MUST ignore"; without the prose the hatch is
- *   just a hole. Guards the `pack-manifest-extension-opaque` invariant text.
- *
- * @see spec/v1/node-packs.md §"Vendor extensions on pack manifests"
- * @see spec/v1/host-extensions.md §"Vendor-prefixed namespaces"
- * @see RFCS/0138-pack-manifest-vendor-extensions.md
- * @see SECURITY/invariants.yaml `pack-manifest-extension-opaque`
- */
-
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-import { readdirSync, readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
-import { join } from 'node:path';
-import Ajv2020 from 'ajv/dist/2020.js';
-import addFormats from 'ajv-formats';
-import { SCHEMAS_DIR, V1_DIR } from '../lib/paths.js';
-
-const why = (specRef: string, requirement: string): string => `${specRef} — ${requirement}`;
-
-/** The canonical hatch pattern. Kept as a literal so a drift in any schema is caught. */
-const HATCH = '^(x-|vendor\\.)';
-
-/**
- * Manifest schemas RFC 0138 deliberately does NOT cover. Anything else matching
- * `*manifest*.schema.json` MUST carry the hatch — so a new pack kind is caught
- * rather than silently omitted.
- *
- * The first draft of this file globbed `*-pack-manifest.schema.json`, which
- * silently skipped `frontend-plugin-manifest.schema.json` (RFC 0117,
- * `kind: "frontend-plugin"`) purely because it does not carry `-pack-` in its
- * name. Enumerating by naming convention is how a coverage hole hides; the
- * exclusions below are a stated list, not an accident of a glob.
- */
-const OUT_OF_SCOPE: Record<string, string> = {
-  // Not pack-manifest structure — their own contracts with their own
-  // compatibility surface. Stated in node-packs.md §Vendor extensions.
-  'agent-manifest.schema.json': "a node pack's agents[] entries — separate contract",
-};
-
-const manifestFiles = readdirSync(SCHEMAS_DIR)
-  .filter((f) => f.includes('manifest') && f.endsWith('.schema.json'))
-  .filter((f) => !(f in OUT_OF_SCOPE))
-  .sort();
-
-const load = (f: string): Record<string, unknown> =>
-  JSON.parse(readFileSync(join(SCHEMAS_DIR, f), 'utf8'));
-
-/** Walks a schema and returns every object node that declares `additionalProperties: false`. */
-function closedObjects(root: unknown): Array<Record<string, unknown>> {
-  const out: Array<Record<string, unknown>> = [];
-  (function walk(node: unknown): void {
-    if (node === null || typeof node !== 'object') return;
-    const o = node as Record<string, unknown>;
-    if (o['additionalProperties'] === false) out.push(o);
-    for (const k of Object.keys(o)) walk(o[k]);
-  })(root);
-  return out;
-}
-
-describe('pack-manifest-extensions: every manifest admits the hatch (RFC 0138, server-free)', () => {
-  it('every pack kind is covered — the enumeration is not a naming-convention glob', () => {
-    // 8 source manifests (node, workflow-chain, prompt, artifact-type, card,
-    // connection, form-content, frontend-plugin) + the registry publication contract.
-    expect(
-      manifestFiles.length,
-      why('RFC 0138', `expected 9 in-scope manifests, found ${manifestFiles.length}: ${manifestFiles.join(', ')}. A new pack kind MUST be added here, or listed in OUT_OF_SCOPE with a reason.`),
-    ).toBe(9);
-  });
-
-  for (const f of manifestFiles) {
-    it(`${f.replace(/-?(pack-)?manifest\.schema\.json$/, '')} — manifest ROOT carries the extension hatch`, () => {
-      const s = load(f);
-      const pp = s['patternProperties'] as Record<string, unknown> | undefined;
-      expect(
-        pp !== undefined && Object.keys(pp).includes(HATCH),
-        why('node-packs.md §Vendor extensions on pack manifests', `${f} root MUST admit ^(x-|vendor\\.) so the host-extensions.md opacity MUST is satisfiable`),
-      ).toBe(true);
-    });
-  }
-});
-
-describe('pack-manifest-extensions: the hatch is NARROW — typos still rejected (RFC 0138)', () => {
-  const ajv = new Ajv2020({ allErrors: true, strict: false });
-  addFormats(ajv);
-
-  // artifact-type is the motivating kind (a real host carried `x-openwop-app.canvas`
-  // on an artifactTypes[] entry and could not publish the pack).
-  const validate = ajv.compile(load('artifact-type-pack-manifest.schema.json'));
-  const pack = (extra: Record<string, unknown>): Record<string, unknown> => ({
-    name: 'community.openwop.canvas-checklist',
-    version: '1.0.0',
-    kind: 'artifact-type',
-    engines: { openwop: '>=1.1.0 <2.0.0' },
-    artifactTypes: [
-      { artifactTypeId: 'community.openwop.doc.checklist', schemaRef: 'schemas/checklist.json', ...extra },
-    ],
-  });
-
-  it('an `x-` extension on an entry VALIDATES (the motivating case)', () => {
-    expect(
-      validate(pack({ 'x-openwop-app.canvas': { components: ['checklist'] } })),
-      why('node-packs.md §Vendor extensions on pack manifests', 'a host extension MUST NOT make the pack unpublishable'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a `vendor.` extension on an entry VALIDATES', () => {
-    expect(
-      validate(pack({ 'vendor.acme.rating': 5 })),
-      why('host-extensions.md §Vendor-prefixed namespaces', 'vendor-prefixed fields are legitimate'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a MISSPELLED canonical field is STILL REJECTED', () => {
-    expect(
-      validate(pack({ dispalyName: 'Checklist' })),
-      why(
-        'node-packs.md §Vendor extensions on pack manifests',
-        'the hatch admits DECLARED extensions, not arbitrary keys — additionalProperties:false still catches typos. A pattern widened to ^.* would pass the other legs and fail here.',
-      ),
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('an unextended pack still validates (RFC 0138 is additive)', () => {
-    expect(validate(pack({})), why('COMPATIBILITY.md §2.1', 'existing manifests validate unchanged')).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('the hatch pattern is not accidentally permissive', () => {
-    for (const f of manifestFiles) {
-      for (const node of closedObjects(load(f))) {
-        for (const pat of Object.keys((node['patternProperties'] as Record<string, unknown>) ?? {})) {
-          const re = new RegExp(pat);
-          expect(re.test('dispalyName'), why('RFC 0138', `${f}: pattern ${pat} MUST NOT match a bare canonical-looking key`)).toBe(false);
-          expect(re.test('x-anything'), why('RFC 0138', `${f}: pattern ${pat} admits x- extensions`)).toBe(true);
-        }
-      }
-    }
-  });
-});
-
-describe('pack-manifest-extensions: the corpus states opacity + trust normatively (RFC 0138)', () => {
-  const packsDoc = V1_DIR ? readFileSync(join(V1_DIR, 'node-packs.md'), 'utf8') : '';
-  const extDoc = V1_DIR ? readFileSync(join(V1_DIR, 'host-extensions.md'), 'utf8') : '';
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('an unrecognized extension MUST be ignored, not rejected', () => {
-    expect(
-      /MUST ignore it\W{0,4}\s*and\W{0,4}\s*MUST NOT\W{0,4}\s*reject the pack/i.test(packsDoc),
-      why('node-packs.md §Vendor extensions on pack manifests', 'unrecognized extensions MUST be ignored, never a rejection reason'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('"ignore" is defined — not render, execute, interpret, or persist-for-later', () => {
-    expect(
-      /MUST NOT render it, execute it, interpret it as markup/i.test(packsDoc),
-      why('node-packs.md §Vendor extensions on pack manifests', '"ignore" means ignore — the hatch MUST NOT become a rendering or execution channel'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-    expect(
-      /pack-authored content/i.test(packsDoc) && /untrusted/i.test(packsDoc),
-      why('node-packs.md §Vendor extensions on pack manifests', 'an extension value is pack-authored, therefore untrusted'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('extensions are NOT a capability-negotiation channel', () => {
-    expect(
-      /NOT\W{0,4}\s*a versioning or capability-negotiation channel/i.test(packsDoc),
-      why('node-packs.md §Vendor extensions on pack manifests', 'a host MUST NOT infer support from an extension property'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('host-extensions.md still carries the opacity MUST the hatch exists to satisfy', () => {
-    expect(
-      /unknown vendor-prefixed field MUST treat it as opaque/i.test(extDoc),
-      why('host-extensions.md §Vendor-prefixed namespaces', 'the MUST that motivated RFC 0138 is still present'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-});

package/src/scenarios/protocol-version-grammar.test.ts

@@ -1,119 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * RFC 0149 §C — `protocolVersion` is `<major>.<minor>`, and the corpus enforces it.
- *
- * The field was specified three incompatible ways at once. `capabilities.schema.json`
- * constrained it to `minLength: 1` — so `"v1.0"`, `"1.0.0"`, `"01.0"`, and `"banana"` all
- * validated. `profiles.ts` derived core-ness from `startsWith('1.')`, which admits
- * `"1.0.0"` and `"1.banana"` while rejecting a legitimate future `"2.0"` for the right
- * reason and `"1"` for the wrong one. Prose described it as semver while every example
- * showed two components.
- *
- * The consequence is a negotiation the wire cannot decide. Version comparison needs an
- * integer major as the hard compatibility boundary and an integer minor as the additive
- * contract level. Neither can be extracted from a string the schema never constrained, so
- * two hosts could advertise `"1.0"` and `"1.0.0"` and no consumer could tell whether it
- * was looking at a patch convention, a typo, or a different protocol.
- *
- * RFC 0149 §C: ASCII `<major>.<minor>`, no leading zero except zero itself. Patch belongs
- * to suite and SDK versions, not the spec version. This also closes gap V2 in
- * `version-negotiation.md` §"Open spec gaps" — "concrete `protocolVersion` semver
- * semantics" — which had sat open with owner `future`.
- *
- * Server-free. The schema ships in both the repository and the published tarball; the
- * prose leg self-skips under the published layout.
- */
-
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
-import { join, resolve as pathResolve } from 'node:path';
-import { V1_DIR } from '../lib/paths.js';
-import { isCore } from '../lib/profiles.js';
-
-/** RFC 0149 §C. */
-const GRAMMAR = /^(0|[1-9][0-9]*)\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*)$/;
-
-const SCHEMA_PATH =
-  V1_DIR === null ? null : pathResolve(V1_DIR, '..', '..', 'schemas', 'capabilities.schema.json');
-
-function protocolVersionSchema(): { pattern?: string } | null {
-  if (SCHEMA_PATH === null) return null;
-  const schema = JSON.parse(readFileSync(SCHEMA_PATH, 'utf8')) as {
-    properties?: Record<string, { pattern?: string }>;
-  };
-  return schema.properties?.['protocolVersion'] ?? null;
-}
-
-/** A discovery payload that is core-valid except for the version under test. */
-function payload(protocolVersion: unknown) {
-  return {
-    protocolVersion,
-    supportedEnvelopes: ['plan'],
-    schemaVersions: {},
-    limits: { clarificationRounds: 1, schemaRounds: 1, envelopesPerTurn: 1 },
-  };
-}
-
-const VALID = ['1.0', '1.12', '0.0', '2.0', '10.3'];
-const INVALID = ['1', '1.0.0', 'v1.0', '01.0', '1.', '.0', '1.0-rc1', '', ' 1.0', '1.0 '];
-
-describe.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('RFC 0149 §C — protocolVersion grammar', () => {
-  it('the schema declares protocolVersion at all', () => {
-    // Guard: a lookup returning null would make the pattern leg vacuous.
-    expect(protocolVersionSchema(), 'capabilities.schema.json MUST declare `protocolVersion`').not.toBeNull();
-  });
-
-  it('the schema constrains protocolVersion by pattern, not merely by length', () => {
-    const node = protocolVersionSchema();
-    expect(
-      node?.pattern,
-      'RFC 0149 §C: `minLength: 1` admits `"v1.0"`, `"1.0.0"`, and `"banana"`. Compatibility ' +
-        'comparison needs an integer major and an integer minor, which cannot be extracted from ' +
-        'an unconstrained string.',
-    ).toBe(GRAMMAR.source);
-  });
-
-  it.each(VALID)('accepts %s', (v) => {
-    expect(GRAMMAR.test(v), `RFC 0149 §C: ${v} is a legal major.minor`).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.each(INVALID)('rejects %s', (v) => {
-    expect(
-      GRAMMAR.test(v),
-      `RFC 0149 §C: ${JSON.stringify(v)} is not major.minor — patch belongs to suite and SDK ` +
-        'versions, and a leading zero is forbidden except for zero itself',
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('core derivation applies the grammar rather than a prefix test', () => {
-    // `startsWith('1.')` admitted `1.0.0` and `1.banana` and rejected `1`. The
-    // predicate that decides whether a host is openwop-compatible at all must
-    // not be looser than the schema every host validates against.
-    expect(isCore(payload('1.0')), '`1.0` is core-valid').toBe(true);
-    for (const bad of ['1.0.0', '1.banana', '1', 'v1.0', '01.0']) {
-      expect(
-        isCore(payload(bad)),
-        `RFC 0149 §C: \`${bad}\` MUST NOT derive \`openwop-core\` — the predicate cannot be ` +
-          'more permissive than the grammar',
-      ).toBe(false);
-    }
-  });
-
-  it('a different major is not core; a higher minor is', () => {
-    // §C: consumers MUST reject a different unsupported major and MUST tolerate a
-    // higher minor under v1 additive rules. The predicate is the v1 suite's, so a
-    // v2 host is correctly not-core here — that is a major boundary, not a defect.
-    expect(isCore(payload('2.0')), 'a different major is outside this suite').toBe(false);
-    expect(isCore(payload('1.99')), 'a higher minor stays core under v1 additive rules').toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('the spec states the grammar normatively', () => {
-    // Searched raw: the grammar contains `*` and `_`-adjacent metacharacters, so
-    // the usual markdown-emphasis strip would eat its own quantifiers.
-    const doc = readFileSync(join(V1_DIR as string, 'version-negotiation.md'), 'utf8');
-    expect(
-      doc.includes(GRAMMAR.source),
-      'RFC 0149 §C: `version-negotiation.md` MUST carry the grammar, so the schema pattern has ' +
-        'a normative source rather than being the only place the rule exists.',
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-});

package/src/scenarios/registry-declarative-kinds.test.ts

@@ -1,121 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * Publishable declarative pack kinds (RFC 0107, `Active`).
- *
- * OpenWOP defines declarative pack kinds at the SOURCE level — artifact-type
- * (RFC 0075, `kind: "artifact-type"`) and connection (RFC 0095,
- * `kind: "connection"`). RFC 0107 extends the PUBLISHED contract,
- * `registry-version-manifest.schema.json`, so those kinds can be published to a
- * registry: it adds a `kind` discriminator (absent ≡ `node`), the per-kind
- * declarative payload (`artifactTypes[]` / `provider` / `chains[]` / …), and
- * makes `runtime` required only for executable kinds.
- *
- * Always-on + server-free. Two parts (mirrors the project's other
- * schema-contract scenarios):
- *
- *   PART 1 — contract present. `registry-operations.md` §"Validation flow"
- *   carries the kind-aware manifest-schema selection (#3) and the
- *   skip-runtime-check-for-declarative-kinds rule (#7); the version-manifest
- *   schema carries the `kind` enum + declarative payload + conditional runtime.
- *   Guards against the requirement being silently dropped.
- *
- *   PART 2 — schema admits declarative kinds and still rejects malformed ones.
- *   A published artifact-type and a published connection version manifest
- *   validate; a node manifest is unchanged; a declarative manifest carrying
- *   `runtime` (forbidden) and a node manifest missing `runtime` are rejected.
- *
- * @see spec/v1/registry-operations.md §"Validation flow"
- * @see schemas/registry-version-manifest.schema.json
- * @see RFCS/0107-publishable-declarative-pack-kinds.md
- * @see RFCS/0075-artifact-type-packs-realworld-amendment.md, RFCS/0095-connection-packs-portable-provider-definitions.md
- */
-
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
-import { join } from 'node:path';
-import Ajv2020 from 'ajv/dist/2020.js';
-import addFormats from 'ajv-formats';
-import { SCHEMAS_DIR, V1_DIR } from '../lib/paths.js';
-
-const why = (specRef: string, requirement: string): string => `${specRef} — ${requirement}`;
-
-describe('registry-declarative-kinds: contract present in the corpus (RFC 0107, server-free)', () => {
-  const registryDoc = V1_DIR ? readFileSync(join(V1_DIR, 'registry-operations.md'), 'utf8') : '';
-  const versionManifestSchema = JSON.parse(
-    readFileSync(join(SCHEMAS_DIR, 'registry-version-manifest.schema.json'), 'utf8'),
-  );
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('registry-operations.md §Validation flow selects the manifest schema by `kind`', () => {
-    expect(
-      /kind[\s\S]{0,120}artifact-type-pack-manifest\.schema\.json/.test(registryDoc),
-      why('registry-operations.md §Validation flow #3', 'pack.json validates against the per-`kind` source schema (RFC 0107)'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('registry-operations.md §Validation flow skips the runtime check for declarative kinds', () => {
-    expect(
-      /declarative[\s\S]{0,160}(skipped|MUST NOT)/i.test(registryDoc) && /runtime/i.test(registryDoc),
-      why('registry-operations.md §Validation flow #7', 'runtime-support check is skipped for declarative kinds (RFC 0107)'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('registry-version-manifest.schema.json carries the `kind` discriminator + declarative payload + conditional runtime', () => {
-    const props = versionManifestSchema.properties ?? {};
-    expect(props.kind?.enum, why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', '`kind` enum present')).toEqual(
-      expect.arrayContaining(['node', 'artifact-type', 'connection']),
-    );
-    expect(!!props.artifactTypes && !!props.provider, why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', 'declarative payload props present')).toBe(true);
-    expect(
-      (versionManifestSchema.required ?? []).includes('runtime'),
-      why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', '`runtime` is NOT top-level required (conditional on kind)'),
-    ).toBe(false);
-    expect(
-      JSON.stringify(versionManifestSchema.allOf ?? []).includes('runtime'),
-      why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', '`allOf` if/then/else makes runtime conditional on kind'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-});
-
-describe('registry-declarative-kinds: version-manifest schema admits declarative kinds (RFC 0107, server-free)', () => {
-  const ajv = new Ajv2020({ allErrors: true, strict: false });
-  addFormats(ajv);
-  const validate = ajv.compile(
-    JSON.parse(readFileSync(join(SCHEMAS_DIR, 'registry-version-manifest.schema.json'), 'utf8')),
-  );
-
-  const base = { name: 'core.openwop.x', version: '1.0.0', engines: { openwop: '>=1.0.0' }, integrity: 'sha256-abc=' };
-
-  it('a published artifact-type version manifest validates (kind + artifactTypes, no runtime)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, kind: 'artifact-type', artifactTypes: [{ artifactTypeId: 'doc.one-pager', title: 'One-Pager', schema: { type: 'object' } }] });
-    expect(ok, why('registry-operations.md §Validation flow', 'artifact-type manifest publishes (RFC 0107)')).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a published connection version manifest validates (kind + provider, no runtime)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, kind: 'connection', provider: { id: 'github', category: 'dev' } });
-    expect(ok, why('registry-operations.md §Validation flow', 'connection manifest publishes (RFC 0107)')).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a published chat-card version manifest validates (kind: "card" per RFC 0071, + cards, no runtime)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, kind: 'card', cards: [{ cardTypeId: 'core.openwop.card.summarize', prompt: { template: 'Summarize: {{input}}' } }] });
-    expect(ok, why('registry-operations.md §Validation flow', 'chat-card pack publishes with kind "card" (RFC 0071 / RFC 0107) — NOT "chat-card"')).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('the legacy "chat-card" kind string is REJECTED (RFC 0071 kind is "card")', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, kind: 'chat-card', cards: [{ cardTypeId: 'core.openwop.card.x', prompt: { template: 'x' } }] });
-    expect(ok, why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', 'kind enum is "card", not "chat-card" (corrected 2026-06-23)')).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('an unchanged node version manifest still validates (no kind, runtime + nodes)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, runtime: { language: 'javascript' }, nodes: [{ typeId: 'core.openwop.x.n', version: '1.0.0', category: 'data', role: 'pure' }] });
-    expect(ok, why('COMPATIBILITY.md §2.1', 'RFC 0107 is additive — node manifests validate unchanged')).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a declarative manifest carrying `runtime` is REJECTED (declarative kinds carry no runtime)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, kind: 'artifact-type', artifactTypes: [{ artifactTypeId: 'doc.x' }], runtime: { language: 'javascript' } });
-    expect(ok, why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', 'declarative kind MUST NOT carry runtime')).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('a node manifest MISSING `runtime` is still REJECTED (executable kinds require runtime)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, nodes: [{ typeId: 'core.openwop.x.n', version: '1.0.0', category: 'data', role: 'pure' }] });
-    expect(ok, why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', 'executable kind (node/absent) still requires runtime')).toBe(false);
-  });
-});

package/src/scenarios/rfc-0147-self-audit.test.ts

@@ -1,104 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * RFC 0147 §A.10 — the program audits itself, and silence is not compliance.
- *
- * §A states ten invariants that "apply to every workstream". §A.10 forbids using
- * the RFC's existence or partial implementation as evidence its gaps are closed.
- * A program that audits everything except itself has the same defect it was
- * written to fix, one level up.
- *
- * This gate does NOT assert the program is compliant. It asserts that every §A
- * invariant carries an **explicit disposition** — including the ones recorded as
- * VIOLATED. That is the RFC 0148 §A design applied to governance: an invariant
- * with no row is uncovered, not satisfied, and a self-audit that quietly omits
- * its uncomfortable rows is worth less than none because it looks like coverage.
- *
- * Two rows are currently VIOLATED and the gate is green, which is the intended
- * behavior. Making the gate fail on a violation would create pressure to delete
- * the row rather than fix the program — the failure mode RFC 0149 §D measured
- * when it declined to ship a gate that fires 69 times on its first run.
- *
- * Server-free.
- */
-
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-import { readFileSync, existsSync } from 'node:fs';
-import { resolve, dirname, join } from 'node:path';
-import { fileURLToPath } from 'node:url';
-import { V1_DIR } from '../lib/paths.js';
-
-const AUDIT = V1_DIR === null
-  ? null
-  : join(resolve(dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)), '..', '..', '..'), 'docs', 'RFC-0147-SELF-AUDIT.md');
-
-/** The ten §A invariants, by their heading anchor. */
-const INVARIANTS = [
-  'A.1',
-  'A.2',
-  'A.3',
-  'A.4',
-  'A.5',
-  'A.6',
-  'A.7',
-  'A.8',
-  'A.9',
-  'A.10',
-] as const;
-
-const DISPOSITIONS = /satisfied|VIOLATED|not satisfied|partially satisfied/;
-
-const AUDIT_PRESENT = AUDIT !== null && existsSync(AUDIT);
-
-describe.skipIf(!AUDIT_PRESENT)('RFC 0147 §A.10 — program self-audit', () => {
-  // `describe.skipIf` still EXECUTES this factory — it decides afterwards not to
-  // run the tests it collected. So a read here throws at collection time even
-  // when the suite is destined to skip, and one file's collection error takes
-  // the whole file down rather than skipping it. The audit lives under `docs/`,
-  // which is not bundled, so this is exactly the published-layout path.
-  const doc = AUDIT_PRESENT ? readFileSync(AUDIT as string, 'utf8') : '';
-
-  it('the audit exists and is substantive', () => {
-    // Guard: a stub file would make every leg below vacuous, and this gate's
-    // whole purpose is that an omitted row is visible.
-    expect(doc.length, 'the self-audit MUST be substantive').toBeGreaterThan(2000);
-    expect(doc).toMatch(/RFC 0147/);
-  });
-
-  it('every §A invariant carries an explicit disposition', () => {
-    const missing = INVARIANTS.filter((id) => {
-      const heading = new RegExp(`^## ${id.replace('.', '\\.')} — `, 'm');
-      const at = heading.exec(doc);
-      if (at === null) return true;
-      // The disposition must appear in that section, not merely somewhere.
-      const section = doc.slice(at.index, doc.indexOf('\n## ', at.index + 1) + 1 || undefined);
-      return !DISPOSITIONS.test(section);
-    });
-    expect(
-      missing,
-      'RFC 0147 §A.10: an invariant with no recorded disposition is UNCOVERED, not satisfied. ' +
-        'A self-audit that omits its uncomfortable rows is worth less than none, because it ' +
-        'looks like coverage.',
-    ).toEqual([]);
-  });
-
-  it('the audit records the violations it found rather than only the wins', () => {
-    // The load-bearing leg. An audit that reported nothing adverse would be
-    // indistinguishable from one nobody ran — and this program has two known
-    // violations, so a clean sheet here means the file stopped being honest.
-    expect(
-      /VIOLATED/.test(doc),
-      'RFC 0147 §A.5 and §A.6 are currently violated: four RFCs reached `Accepted` with no ' +
-        'evidence, and five high-risk RFCs had their comment windows waived by the exact ' +
-        'bootstrap mechanism §A.6 says must not shorten them. If those rows have been removed ' +
-        'rather than resolved, this leg is the thing that notices.',
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('the audit does not claim the exit criteria are met', () => {
-    // §A.10, applied to the audit itself.
-    expect(
-      /exit criteria in RFC 0147 are not met|exit criteria .{0,40}not met/i.test(doc),
-      'RFC 0147 §A.10: the program MUST NOT be read as closed. Three remaining gates — external ' +
-        'audit, second maintainer, Tier-3 host — cannot be closed by work in this repository.',
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-});