@pennixrv/trellis 0.7.0-beta.45 → 0.7.0-beta.47

package/dist/templates/markdown/spec/guides/cross-layer-thinking-guide.md.txt

@@ -1,327 +1,282 @@
-# Cross-Layer Thinking Guide
+# 跨层思考指南（Cross-Layer Thinking Guide）
 
-> **Purpose**: Think through data flow across layers before implementing.
+> **目的（Purpose）**：实现前先梳理跨层数据流。
 
 ---
 
-## The Problem
+## 问题（The Problem）
 
-**Most bugs happen at layer boundaries**, not within layers.
+**大多数错误发生在层之间的边界，而不是层内部。**
 
-Common cross-layer bugs:
+常见的跨层错误：
 
-- API returns format A, frontend expects format B
-- Database stores X, service transforms to Y, but loses data
-- Multiple layers implement the same logic differently
+- API 返回格式 A，而前端期望格式 B
+- 数据库存储 X，服务转换为 Y 时丢失数据
+- 多个层以不同方式实现同一逻辑
 
 ---
 
-## Before Implementing Cross-Layer Features
+## 实现跨层功能前（Before Implementing Cross-Layer Features）
 
-### Step 1: Map the Data Flow
+### 第一步：绘制数据流（Step 1: Map the Data Flow）
 
-Draw out how data moves:
+画出数据如何流动：
 
 ```
 Source → Transform → Store → Retrieve → Transform → Display
 ```
 
-For each arrow, ask:
+对每条箭头回答：
 
-- What format is the data in?
-- What could go wrong?
-- Who is responsible for validation?
+- 数据处于什么格式？
+- 可能出现什么问题？
+- 谁负责校验？
 
-### Step 2: Identify Boundaries
+### 第二步：识别边界（Step 2: Identify Boundaries）
 
-| Boundary              | Common Issues                     |
+| 边界（Boundary）      | 常见问题（Common Issues）         |
 | --------------------- | --------------------------------- |
-| API ↔ Service         | Type mismatches, missing fields   |
-| Service ↔ Database    | Format conversions, null handling |
-| Backend ↔ Frontend    | Serialization, date formats       |
-| Component ↔ Component | Props shape changes               |
+| API ↔ Service         | 类型不匹配、字段缺失              |
+| Service ↔ Database    | 格式转换、空值处理                |
+| Backend ↔ Frontend    | 序列化、日期格式                  |
+| Component ↔ Component | Props 形状变化                    |
 
-### Step 3: Define Contracts
+### 第三步：定义合同（Step 3: Define Contracts）
 
-For each boundary:
+对每个边界：
 
-- What is the exact input format?
-- What is the exact output format?
-- What errors can occur?
+- 精确的输入格式是什么？
+- 精确的输出格式是什么？
+- 可能出现哪些错误？
 
 ---
 
-## Common Cross-Layer Mistakes
+## 常见跨层错误（Common Cross-Layer Mistakes）
 
-### Mistake 1: Implicit Format Assumptions
+### 错误一：隐含的格式假设（Mistake 1: Implicit Format Assumptions）
 
-**Bad**: Assuming date format without checking
+**不佳**：未经核对就假定日期格式。
 
-**Good**: Explicit format conversion at boundaries
+**较好**：在边界处显式进行格式转换。
 
-### Mistake 2: Scattered Validation
+### 错误二：分散校验（Mistake 2: Scattered Validation）
 
-**Bad**: Validating the same thing in multiple layers
+**不佳**：在多个层中校验同一内容。
 
-**Good**: Validate once at the entry point
+**较好**：在入口处校验一次。
 
-### Mistake 3: Leaky Abstractions
+### 错误三：抽象泄漏（Mistake 3: Leaky Abstractions）
 
-**Bad**: Component knows about database schema
+**不佳**：组件了解数据库 schema。
 
-**Good**: Each layer only knows its neighbors
+**较好**：每个层只了解相邻层。
 
-### Mistake 4: Every Consumer Parses The Same Payload
+### 错误四：每个消费者都解析同一载荷（Mistake 4: Every Consumer Parses The Same Payload）
 
-**Bad**: A command reads JSONL events and casts fields inline:
+**错误示例（Bad）**：命令读取 JSONL 事件时就地转换字段：
 
 ```typescript
 const thread = (ev as { thread?: string }).thread;
 const labels = (ev as { labels?: string[] }).labels;
 ```
 
-This looks local, but it means every consumer owns a private version of the
-event contract. The next field change will update one command and miss another.
+这看似是局部处理，但意味着每个消费者都拥有一份私有事件合同。下次字段变化时，一个命令可能更新了，另一个命令却遗漏了。
 
-**Good**: Decode once at the event boundary, then export typed projections:
+**较好**：在事件边界解码一次，然后导出带类型的投影：
 
 ```typescript
 if (!isThreadEvent(ev)) return false;
 return ev.thread === filter.thread;
 ```
 
-**Rule**: For append-only logs, JSON streams, RPC payloads, or config files,
-create one owner for:
+**规则**：对于只追加日志、JSON 流、RPC 载荷或配置文件，应由一个 owner 负责：
 
-- event / payload type definitions
-- type guards and normalization from `unknown`
-- metadata projections used by UI commands
-- reducers that replay state from the source of truth
+- 事件/载荷类型定义
+- 从 `unknown` 开始的类型守卫和规范化
+- UI 命令使用的元数据投影
+- 根据事实来源重放状态的 reducer
 
-Rendering code may format fields, but it must not redefine the payload contract.
+渲染代码可以格式化字段，但不得重新定义载荷合同。
 
 ---
 
-## Checklist for Cross-Layer Features
+## 跨层功能清单（Checklist for Cross-Layer Features）
 
-Before implementation:
+实现前：
 
-- [ ] Mapped the complete data flow
-- [ ] Identified all layer boundaries
-- [ ] Defined format at each boundary
-- [ ] Decided where validation happens
+- [ ] 已绘制完整数据流
+- [ ] 已识别所有层边界
+- [ ] 已定义每个边界的格式
+- [ ] 已决定校验发生的位置
 
-After implementation:
+实现后：
 
-- [ ] Tested with edge cases (null, empty, invalid)
-- [ ] Verified error handling at each boundary
-- [ ] Checked data survives round-trip
-- [ ] Checked that consumers import shared decoders / projections instead of
-      casting payload fields locally
-- [ ] Checked that derived state points back to the source event identifier
-      (`seq`, `id`, `version`) instead of inventing a second cursor
+- [ ] 已使用边界情况测试（null、空值、无效值）
+- [ ] 已验证每个边界的错误处理
+- [ ] 已确认数据能够完整往返
+- [ ] 已确认消费者导入共享解码器/投影，而不是在本地转换载荷字段
+- [ ] 已确认派生状态指向源事件标识符（`seq`、`id`、`version`），而不是另造第二个游标
 
 ---
 
-## Cross-Platform Template Consistency
+## 跨平台模板一致性（Cross-Platform Template Consistency）
 
-In Trellis, command templates (e.g., `record-session.md`) exist in **multiple platforms** with identical or near-identical content. This is a cross-layer boundary.
+在 Trellis 中，命令模板（例如 `record-session.md`）存在于**多个平台**，内容相同或近似。这就是一个跨层边界。
 
-### Checklist: After Modifying Any Command Template
+### 清单：修改任意命令模板后（Checklist: After Modifying Any Command Template）
 
-- [ ] Find all platforms with the same command: `find src/templates/*/commands/trellis/ -name "<command>.*"`
-- [ ] Update all platform copies (Markdown `.md` and TOML `.toml`)
-- [ ] For Gemini TOML: adapt line continuations (`\\` vs `\`) and triple-quoted strings
-- [ ] Run `/trellis:check-cross-layer` to verify nothing was missed
+- [ ] 找到包含同一命令的所有平台：`find src/templates/*/commands/trellis/ -name "<command>.*"`
+- [ ] 更新所有平台副本（Markdown `.md` 和 TOML `.toml`）
+- [ ] 对 Gemini TOML 适配续行符（`\\` 与 `\`）和三引号字符串
+- [ ] 运行 `/trellis:check-cross-layer`，确认没有遗漏
 
-**Real-world example**: Updated `record-session.md` in Claude to use `--mode record`, but forgot iFlow, Kilo, OpenCode, and Gemini — caught by cross-layer check.
+**真实示例**：在 Claude 中将 `record-session.md` 更新为使用 `--mode record`，却遗漏了 iFlow、Kilo、OpenCode 和 Gemini，最终由跨层检查发现。
 
 ---
 
-## Generated Runtime Template Upgrade Consistency
+## 生成运行时模板的升级一致性（Generated Runtime Template Upgrade Consistency）
 
-Some generated files are both documentation and runtime input. In Trellis,
-`.trellis/workflow.md` is parsed by `get_context.py`, `workflow_phase.py`,
-SessionStart filters, and per-turn hooks. Template changes must be validated
-against both fresh init and upgrade paths.
+一些生成文件同时是文档和运行时输入。在 Trellis 中，`.trellis/workflow.md` 会被 `get_context.py`、`workflow_phase.py`、SessionStart 过滤器和逐轮 Hook 解析。模板变更必须同时通过全新 init 和升级路径验证。
 
-### Checklist: After Modifying A Runtime-Parsed Template
+### 清单：修改运行时解析的模板后（Checklist: After Modifying A Runtime-Parsed Template）
 
-- [ ] Identify every runtime parser that reads the template, not just the file
-      writer that installs it
-- [ ] Check whether relevant syntax lives outside obvious managed regions
-      such as tag blocks
-- [ ] Verify fresh `init` output and a versioned `update` scenario that writes
-      the older `.trellis/.version`
-- [ ] Add an upgrade regression using an older pristine template fixture, then
-      assert the installed file reaches the current packaged shape
-- [ ] Update the backend spec that owns the runtime contract
+- [ ] 找到读取模板的所有运行时解析器，而不只是安装模板的文件写入器
+- [ ] 检查相关语法是否位于明显托管区域（例如标记块）之外
+- [ ] 验证全新 `init` 输出，以及写入旧 `.trellis/.version` 的版本化 `update` 场景
+- [ ] 使用旧的干净模板 fixture 增加升级回归，并断言安装文件达到当前打包形态
+- [ ] 更新负责运行时合同的后端 spec
 
 ---
 
-## Versioned Documentation Boundary
-
-Versioned documentation is a cross-layer boundary: source paths, `docs.json`
-version routing, and the rendered version selector must all describe the same
-release line.
-
-### Checklist: Before Editing Versioned Docs
-
-- [ ] Identify the target release line: stable, beta, or RC
-- [ ] Verify the edited MDX path matches that line:
-  - stable: `docs-site/{start,advanced,...}` and `docs-site/zh/{start,advanced,...}`
-  - beta: `docs-site/beta/**` and `docs-site/zh/beta/**`
-  - RC: `docs-site/rc/**` and `docs-site/zh/rc/**`
-- [ ] Verify `docs.json` navigation points the version label to the same paths
-- [ ] Grep the opposite tree for release-line-specific terms before committing
-- [ ] Treat beta content appearing under root release paths as a source-path bug,
-      not a rendering bug
-
-**Real-world example**: A beta-only task workflow change documented
-`prd.md` + `design.md` + `implement.md`, task-creation consent, and Codex
-mode banners under root `start/` and `advanced/` paths. The docs site then
-served 0.6 beta behavior under the Release selector. The fix was to restore root
-release docs, move the 0.6 content to `beta/` and `zh/beta/`, and add a grep
-audit for beta markers against the root release tree.
-
-**Real-world example**: Codex inline mode changed workflow platform markers from
-`[Codex]` / `[Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]` to `[codex-sub-agent]` /
-`[codex-inline, Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]`. Fresh init was correct, but
-`trellis update` only merged `[workflow-state:*]` blocks and preserved stale
-markers outside those blocks. Result: upgraded projects got new hook scripts
-but old workflow routing, so `get_context.py --mode phase --platform codex`
-could return empty Phase 2.1 detail.
+## 版本化文档边界（Versioned Documentation Boundary）
+
+版本化文档是一个跨层边界：源路径、`docs.json` 版本路由和渲染后的版本选择器必须描述同一条发布线。
+
+### 清单：编辑版本化文档前（Checklist: Before Editing Versioned Docs）
+
+- [ ] 确认目标发布线：stable、beta 或 RC
+- [ ] 确认编辑的 MDX 路径与发布线匹配：
+  - stable：`docs-site/{start,advanced,...}` 和 `docs-site/zh/{start,advanced,...}`
+  - beta：`docs-site/beta/**` 和 `docs-site/zh/beta/**`
+  - RC：`docs-site/rc/**` 和 `docs-site/zh/rc/**`
+- [ ] 确认 `docs.json` 导航将版本标签指向相同路径
+- [ ] 提交前在另一棵目录树中 grep 发布线专属术语
+- [ ] 将根发布路径下出现 beta 内容视为源路径错误，而不是渲染错误
+
+**真实示例**：一个仅属于 beta 的任务工作流变更，将 `prd.md`、`design.md`、`implement.md`、任务创建确认和 Codex 模式提示写到了根 `start/` 与 `advanced/` 路径。文档站点随后在 Release 选择器下提供了 0.6 beta 行为。修复方式是恢复根发布文档，将 0.6 内容移动到 `beta/` 和 `zh/beta/`，并对根发布目录中的 beta 标记增加 grep 审查。
+
+**真实示例**：Codex inline 模式将工作流平台标记从 `[Codex]` / `[Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]` 改为 `[codex-sub-agent]` / `[codex-inline, Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]`。全新 init 正确，但 `trellis update` 只合并了 `[workflow-state:*]` 块，保留了这些块之外的旧标记。结果是升级项目获得了新 Hook 脚本，却仍使用旧工作流路由，`get_context.py --mode phase --platform codex` 可能返回空的 Phase 2.1 详情。
 
 ---
 
-## Mode-Detection Probe Checklist
+## 模式检测探针清单（Mode-Detection Probe Checklist）
 
-When a CLI auto-detects a mode by probing a remote resource (e.g., checking if `index.json` exists to decide marketplace vs direct download):
+当 CLI 通过探测远程资源自动检测模式时（例如检查是否存在 `index.json`，以决定使用 marketplace 还是直接下载）：
 
-### Before implementing:
+### 实现前（Before implementing）
 
-- [ ] Probe runs in **ALL** code paths that use the result (interactive, `-y`, `--flag` combos)
-- [ ] 404 vs transient error are distinguished — don't treat both as "not found"
-- [ ] Transient errors **abort or retry**, never silently switch modes
-- [ ] Shared state (caches, prefetched data) is **reset** when context changes (e.g., user switches source)
-- [ ] **Shortcut paths** (e.g., `--template` skipping picker) must have the same error-handling quality as the probed path — check that downstream functions don't call catch-all wrappers
+- [ ] 探针在使用该结果的**所有**代码路径中运行（交互式、`-y`、`--flag` 组合）
+- [ ] 区分 404 与临时错误，不要都当作“未找到”
+- [ ] 临时错误必须**中止或重试**，不能静默切换模式
+- [ ] 上下文变化时重置共享状态（缓存、预取数据）（例如用户切换来源）
+- [ ] **快捷路径**（例如 `--template` 跳过选择器）必须与探测路径具有相同的错误处理质量，检查下游函数是否调用了兜底包装器
 
-### After implementing:
+### 实现后（After implementing）
 
-- [ ] Trace every path from probe result to the mode-decision branch — no fallthrough
-- [ ] External format contracts (giget URI, raw URLs) are tested or at least documented as comments
-- [ ] Metadata reads consume a complete response or use a streaming parser — never parse a fixed-size prefix as full JSON
-- [ ] When reconstructing a composite identifier from parsed parts, verify **all** fields are included and in the **correct position** (e.g., `provider:repo/path#ref` not `provider:repo#ref/path`)
-- [ ] Verify that **action functions** called after a shortcut don't internally use the old catch-all fetch — they must use the probe-quality variant when error distinction matters
+- [ ] 跟踪从探针结果到模式决策分支的每条路径，不允许无意落入其他路径
+- [ ] 外部格式合同（giget URI、原始 URL）已经测试，或至少以注释记录
+- [ ] 元数据读取完整响应，或使用流式解析器，不能把固定大小的前缀当作完整 JSON 解析
+- [ ] 从解析部分重建复合标识符时，确认包含**所有**字段且位置**正确**（例如 `provider:repo/path#ref`，而不是 `provider:repo#ref/path`）
+- [ ] 确认快捷路径之后调用的**动作函数**没有内部使用旧的兜底获取逻辑；需要区分错误时必须使用具备探测质量的变体
 
-**Real-world example**: Custom registry flow had 8 bugs across 3 review rounds: (1) probe only ran in interactive mode, (2) transient errors fell through to wrong mode, (3) giget URI had `#ref` in wrong position, (4) prefetched templates leaked across source switches, (5) `--template` shortcut bypassed probe but `downloadTemplateById` internally used catch-all `fetchTemplateIndex`, turning timeouts into "Template not found".
+**真实示例**：自定义 registry 流程在三轮审查中发现了 8 个错误：(1) 探针只在交互模式运行；(2) 临时错误落入错误模式；(3) giget URI 中 `#ref` 位置错误；(4) 预取模板泄漏到来源切换之后；(5) `--template` 快捷路径绕过探针，但 `downloadTemplateById` 内部使用兜底的 `fetchTemplateIndex`，将超时变成“模板未找到”。
 
-**Real-world example**: Agent-session update hints fetched npm `latest` metadata with `response.read(4096)` and then parsed it as complete JSON. The `@pennixrv/trellis` package metadata exceeded 4 KB, so the JSON was truncated, parse failed silently, and the first session injection showed no update hint. Fix: read the complete response before parsing, and add a regression where `version` is followed by an 8 KB metadata tail.
+**真实示例**：Agent session 更新提示使用 `response.read(4096)` 获取 npm `latest` 元数据，然后把它作为完整 JSON 解析。`@pennixrv/trellis` 的包元数据超过 4 KB，JSON 被截断，解析静默失败，第一次会话注入没有显示更新提示。修复方式是解析前读取完整响应，并增加 `version` 后跟随 8 KB 元数据尾部的回归测试。
 
 ---
 
-## Cross-Platform Template Consistency
+## 跨平台模板一致性（Cross-Platform Template Consistency）
 
-In Trellis, command templates (e.g., `record-session.md`) exist in **multiple platforms** with identical or near-identical content. This is a cross-layer boundary.
+在 Trellis 中，命令模板（例如 `record-session.md`）存在于**多个平台**，内容相同或近似。这就是一个跨层边界。
 
-### Checklist: After Modifying Any Command Template
+### 清单：修改任意命令模板后（Checklist: After Modifying Any Command Template）
 
-- [ ] Find all platforms with the same command: `find src/templates/*/commands/trellis/ -name "<command>.*"`
-- [ ] Update all platform copies (Markdown `.md` and TOML `.toml`)
-- [ ] For Gemini TOML: adapt line continuations (`\\` vs `\`) and triple-quoted strings
-- [ ] Run `/trellis:check-cross-layer` to verify nothing was missed
+- [ ] 找到包含同一命令的所有平台：`find src/templates/*/commands/trellis/ -name "<command>.*"`
+- [ ] 更新所有平台副本（Markdown `.md` 和 TOML `.toml`）
+- [ ] 对 Gemini TOML 适配续行符（`\\` 与 `\`）和三引号字符串
+- [ ] 运行 `/trellis:check-cross-layer`，确认没有遗漏
 
-**Real-world example**: Updated `record-session.md` in Claude to use `--mode record`, but forgot iFlow, Kilo, OpenCode, and Gemini — caught by cross-layer check.
+**真实示例**：在 Claude 中将 `record-session.md` 更新为使用 `--mode record`，却遗漏了 iFlow、Kilo、OpenCode 和 Gemini，最终由跨层检查发现。
 
 ---
 
-## Generated Runtime Template Upgrade Consistency
-
-Some generated files are both documentation and runtime input. In Trellis,
-`.trellis/workflow.md` is parsed by `get_context.py`, `workflow_phase.py`,
-SessionStart filters, and per-turn hooks. Template changes must be validated
-against both fresh init and upgrade paths.
-
-### Checklist: After Modifying A Runtime-Parsed Template
-
-- [ ] Identify every runtime parser that reads the template, not just the file
-  writer that installs it
-- [ ] Check whether relevant syntax lives outside obvious managed regions
-  such as tag blocks
-- [ ] Verify fresh `init` output and a versioned `update` scenario that writes
-  the older `.trellis/.version`
-- [ ] Add an upgrade regression using an older pristine template fixture, then
-  assert the installed file reaches the current packaged shape
-- [ ] Update the backend spec that owns the runtime contract
-
-**Real-world example**: Codex inline mode changed workflow platform markers from
-`[Codex]` / `[Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]` to `[codex-sub-agent]` /
-`[codex-inline, Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]`. Fresh init was correct, but
-`trellis update` only merged `[workflow-state:*]` blocks and preserved stale
-markers outside those blocks. Result: upgraded projects got new hook scripts
-but old workflow routing, so `get_context.py --mode phase --platform codex`
-could return empty Phase 2.1 detail.
+## 生成运行时模板的升级一致性（Generated Runtime Template Upgrade Consistency）
+
+一些生成文件同时是文档和运行时输入。在 Trellis 中，`.trellis/workflow.md` 会被 `get_context.py`、`workflow_phase.py`、SessionStart 过滤器和逐轮 Hook 解析。模板变更必须同时通过全新 init 和升级路径验证。
+
+### 清单：修改运行时解析的模板后（Checklist: After Modifying A Runtime-Parsed Template）
+
+- [ ] 找到读取模板的所有运行时解析器，而不只是安装模板的文件写入器
+- [ ] 检查相关语法是否位于明显托管区域（例如标记块）之外
+- [ ] 验证全新 `init` 输出，以及写入旧 `.trellis/.version` 的版本化 `update` 场景
+- [ ] 使用旧的干净模板 fixture 增加升级回归，并断言安装文件达到当前打包形态
+- [ ] 更新负责运行时合同的后端 spec
+
+**真实示例**：Codex inline 模式将工作流平台标记从 `[Codex]` / `[Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]` 改为 `[codex-sub-agent]` / `[codex-inline, Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]`。全新 init 正确，但 `trellis update` 只合并了 `[workflow-state:*]` 块，保留了这些块之外的旧标记。结果是升级项目获得了新 Hook 脚本，却仍使用旧工作流路由，`get_context.py --mode phase --platform codex` 可能返回空的 Phase 2.1 详情。
 
 ---
 
-## Mode-Detection Probe Checklist
+## 模式检测探针清单（Mode-Detection Probe Checklist）
 
-When a CLI auto-detects a mode by probing a remote resource (e.g., checking if `index.json` exists to decide marketplace vs direct download):
+当 CLI 通过探测远程资源自动检测模式时（例如检查是否存在 `index.json`，以决定使用 marketplace 还是直接下载）：
 
-### Before implementing:
-- [ ] Probe runs in **ALL** code paths that use the result (interactive, `-y`, `--flag` combos)
-- [ ] 404 vs transient error are distinguished — don't treat both as "not found"
-- [ ] Transient errors **abort or retry**, never silently switch modes
-- [ ] Shared state (caches, prefetched data) is **reset** when context changes (e.g., user switches source)
-- [ ] **Shortcut paths** (e.g., `--template` skipping picker) must have the same error-handling quality as the probed path — check that downstream functions don't call catch-all wrappers
+### 实现前（Before implementing）
+- [ ] 探测覆盖使用其结果的**所有**代码路径（交互式、`-y`、`--flag` 组合）
+- [ ] 区分 404 与临时错误，不把两者都当成“未找到”
+- [ ] 临时错误会**中止或重试**，不会静默切换模式
+- [ ] 上下文变化时（如用户切换来源），共享状态（缓存、预取数据）会**重置**
+- [ ] **快捷路径**（如 `--template` 跳过选择器）具有与探测路径相同的错误处理质量；检查下游函数没有调用笼统捕获错误的包装器
 
-### After implementing:
-- [ ] Trace every path from probe result to the mode-decision branch — no fallthrough
-- [ ] External format contracts (giget URI, raw URLs) are tested or at least documented as comments
-- [ ] Metadata reads consume a complete response or use a streaming parser — never parse a fixed-size prefix as full JSON
-- [ ] When reconstructing a composite identifier from parsed parts, verify **all** fields are included and in the **correct position** (e.g., `provider:repo/path#ref` not `provider:repo#ref/path`)
-- [ ] Verify that **action functions** called after a shortcut don't internally use the old catch-all fetch — they must use the probe-quality variant when error distinction matters
+### 实现后（After implementing）
+- [ ] 跟踪从探测结果到模式决策分支的每条路径，不发生意外贯穿
+- [ ] 外部格式合同（giget URI、原始 URL）经过测试，或至少有注释说明
+- [ ] 元数据读取完整响应或使用流式解析器，不把固定长度前缀当成完整 JSON
+- [ ] 从解析结果重建复合标识时，核对**全部**字段均包含且处于**正确位置**（如 `provider:repo/path#ref`，而非 `provider:repo#ref/path`）
+- [ ] 核对快捷路径后的**动作函数**没有在内部使用旧的笼统捕获错误的获取逻辑；需要区分错误时，必须使用与探测同等质量的版本
 
-**Real-world example**: Custom registry flow had 8 bugs across 3 review rounds: (1) probe only ran in interactive mode, (2) transient errors fell through to wrong mode, (3) giget URI had `#ref` in wrong position, (4) prefetched templates leaked across source switches, (5) `--template` shortcut bypassed probe but `downloadTemplateById` internally used catch-all `fetchTemplateIndex`, turning timeouts into "Template not found".
+**真实示例**：自定义 registry 流程在三轮审查中发现了 8 个错误：(1) 探针只在交互模式运行；(2) 临时错误落入错误模式；(3) giget URI 中 `#ref` 位置错误；(4) 预取模板泄漏到来源切换之后；(5) `--template` 快捷路径绕过探针，但 `downloadTemplateById` 内部使用兜底的 `fetchTemplateIndex`，将超时变成“模板未找到”。
 
-**Real-world example**: Agent-session update hints fetched npm `latest` metadata with `response.read(4096)` and then parsed it as complete JSON. The `@pennixrv/trellis` package metadata exceeded 4 KB, so the JSON was truncated, parse failed silently, and the first session injection showed no update hint. Fix: read the complete response before parsing, and add a regression where `version` is followed by an 8 KB metadata tail.
+**真实示例**：Agent session 更新提示使用 `response.read(4096)` 获取 npm `latest` 元数据，然后把它作为完整 JSON 解析。`@pennixrv/trellis` 的包元数据超过 4 KB，JSON 被截断，解析静默失败，第一次会话注入没有显示更新提示。修复方式是解析前读取完整响应，并增加 `version` 后跟随 8 KB 元数据尾部的回归测试。
 
 ---
 
-## When to Create Flow Documentation
+## 何时创建流程文档（When to Create Flow Documentation）
 
-Create detailed flow docs when:
+在以下情况创建详细流程文档：
 
-- Feature spans 3+ layers
-- Multiple teams are involved
-- Data format is complex
-- Feature has caused bugs before
+- 功能跨越三个或更多层
+- 涉及多个团队
+- 数据格式复杂
+- 该功能过去曾经引发错误
 
 ---
 
-## Event Log / Projection Boundary
+## 事件日志/投影边界（Event Log / Projection Boundary）
 
-Append-only logs are cross-layer contracts. A single event travels through:
+只追加日志是跨层合同。单个事件会经过：
 
 ```
 CLI input → event writer → events.jsonl → reader → filter → reducer → display
 ```
 
-### Checklist: After Adding A New Event Kind Or Field
-
-- [ ] Add the event kind to the central event taxonomy
-- [ ] Add a typed event variant or type guard at the event layer
-- [ ] Add normalization helpers for array/object fields that come from
-      user input or JSON
-- [ ] Keep `seq` / `id` assignment in the event writer only
-- [ ] Make filters and reducers consume the typed event guard, not local casts
-- [ ] Make display code consume reducer output or typed events, not raw JSON
-- [ ] Add at least one regression that proves history replay and live filtering
-      use the same filter model
-
-**Real-world example**: Thread channels added `kind: "thread"`, `description`,
-`context`, labels, and `lastSeq`. The first implementation replayed thread
-state correctly, but several commands still re-parsed event payload fields with
-local casts. The fix was to make the core event layer own `ThreadChannelEvent`
-and `isThreadEvent`, make `reduceChannelMetadata` the only channel metadata
-projection, and make `reduceThreads` the only thread replay reducer.
+### 清单：增加新的事件类型或字段后（Checklist: After Adding A New Event Kind Or Field）
+
+- [ ] 将事件类型加入中央事件分类
+- [ ] 在事件层增加带类型的事件变体或类型守卫
+- [ ] 为来自用户输入或 JSON 的数组/对象字段增加规范化辅助函数
+- [ ] 只在事件写入器中分配 `seq` / `id`
+- [ ] 让过滤器和 reducer 使用带类型的事件守卫，而不是本地断言
+- [ ] 让展示代码使用 reducer 输出或带类型事件，而不是原始 JSON
+- [ ] 至少增加一项回归测试，证明历史重放和实时过滤使用相同的过滤模型
+
+**真实示例**：Thread channel 增加了 `kind: "thread"`、`description`、`context`、labels 和 `lastSeq`。首版实现能够正确重放 thread 状态，但多个命令仍使用本地断言重新解析事件载荷字段。修复方式是让核心事件层负责 `ThreadChannelEvent` 和 `isThreadEvent`，让 `reduceChannelMetadata` 成为唯一的 channel 元数据投影，让 `reduceThreads` 成为唯一的 thread 重放 reducer。