@principles/core 1.240.20 → 1.241.0

package/dist/runtime-v2/internalization/__tests__/progressive-disclosure-spike.test.js

@@ -0,0 +1,1039 @@
+/**
+ * Phase 0 Spike driver (tasks.md 1.2) — 价值验证阻塞门.
+ *
+ * 问题：只给**摘要级上下文**（每个 stage 一个 headline + 结构化 fields，
+ * 不含 `evidence` / 全量 `candidates` / `implementationCode` 等原始大字段），
+ * evaluator 能否指出「哪一段（pain_to_dreamer / dreamer_to_scribe /
+ * scribe_to_artificer）丢了哪个维度」，且对照链不被误报？
+ *
+ * 这个门只有在**真实 LLM** 从摘要级上下文独立判断时才有意义（ERR-088：
+ * 断言信号必须唯一指向被验证的路径）。因此：
+ *   - 没有任何手写启发式 / 字符串匹配替代 LLM 判断；
+ *   - LLM 不可达时测试**显式失败**并报 `LLM_UNAVAILABLE`（阻塞是合法结论，
+ *     模拟通过不是）；
+ *   - 摘要构造是确定性纯函数，且**不为了让答案对而调参**。
+ *
+ * 判断路由（Layer 2 尚不存在，如实记录保真度）：
+ *   Route A（主）：spike-local prompt，要求 LLM 输出 design §6.5 的
+ *     `segments[] / compressionFidelity / painCoverage` 形状。今天的
+ *     `EvaluatorOutputV2` 没有 `painCoverage` / `compressionFidelity`
+ *     （它们是 Layer 2 增量），所以这条路由用 spike-local prompt 承载判断，
+ *     字段构成照抄 design §6.5，注入字段照抄 `EVALUATOR_STAGE1_MANIFEST`。
+ *   Route B（对照）：生产 `EvaluatorPromptBuilder` + 生产
+ *     `DefaultEvaluatorValidator`，上下文换成摘要级 stand-in。用来记录
+ *     「今天的 prompt 在摘要级上下文下会把判断落在 `evaluation.concerns` /
+ *     `codeReview` 的哪里」。
+ *
+ * I/O 边界：本文件是 `*.test.ts`，按 eslint.config.js 的 PRI-450/462 豁免
+ * 允许 fs / child_process；core 生产代码仍是纯逻辑（AGENTS.md
+ * `antipattern-core-io`）。LLM 进程由生产同一个 `runCliProcess` 拉起
+ * （与 `OpenClawCliRuntimeAdapter` 相同的 spawn 语义）。
+ *
+ * ERR 清单：ERR-088（测试真实性：不用「没抛错」当依据，断言具体 segment /
+ * dimension），ERR-001 / ERR-005（LLM 输出保持 unknown 直到逐字段校验，
+ * 不用 `as` 绕过），ERR-013（读 unknown 键一律 `Object.hasOwn`），
+ * ERR-002（每条降级/不可达都带结构化原因，不静默跳过）。
+ *
+ * 2026-07-28 修订（design §12.1 的实测驱动修复，门禁重跑）：
+ *   - 维度不再是「五个等权」：`DIMENSION_COVERAGE_POLICY`（§6.5.1）把
+ *     `betterDecision` / `rationale` / `riskLevel` 定为 required，`badDecision`
+ *     为 optional（出现在 antiPatterns 即覆盖，**缺失不算缺陷**），
+ *     `strategicPerspective` 为 excluded（判据不得对它下结论）。
+ *   - 覆盖判定口径（§6.5.2 六条）写进 prompt，不再让模型自己发明尺子。
+ *   - 判据侧按政策过滤 LLM 给的 `missingDimensions`（§6.5.3）：模型仍可能把
+ *     optional / excluded / 不认识的字符串塞进去（rc-1 / rc-4 不可信输入），
+ *     一律忽略并记成 shape warning，不据此判失败。
+ *
+ * 2026-07-29 第四次门禁重跑（design §12.1「第三次门禁重跑」结论 4/5，Owner 已授权修补第 7 条规则冲突）：
+ *   - **第 7 条「看不见即不裁决」的字面表述改窄**：第三次重跑中模型把「scribe 没有一个
+ *     字面叫 riskLevel 的字段」误读成「riskLevel 在这一段不可判定」，导致缺陷链 A 的
+ *     dreamer_to_scribe 段判 pass。改后明确「看不见」指的是「维度值本身在 dreamer 的
+ *     injectedFields 里都没注入过」，不是「下游字段没有同名字段」——scribe 本来就没有
+ *     riskLevel/betterDecision 这类字段，它只有 principleText/scope 自由文本字段，
+ *     这条规则不应被读成「因此不判定」。这是**判据内部规则冲突的修补**，不是对模型
+ *     行为的第三次拟合：冲突在设计阶段就存在，只是前两次重跑的链条形态没有精确命中它
+ *     （对照链的 scribe 文本本身就含风险等级词，不会触发这条歧义）。
+ *   - 按 §6.5.2 止损规则，本条本应是「不再调整判据」，但 Owner 已明确审阅根因分析并
+ *     授权本次修补（判据内部规则冲突 ≠ 拟合模型行为），故本次修正记为止损规则下的
+ *     显式例外，不视为规则被违反。
+ *
+ * 2026-07-28 第三次门禁重跑（design §6.5.2 clause 2 / §6.5.4 / §12.1 第二次重跑记录）：
+ *   - **具体性子句**：`betterDecision` 的覆盖判定同时要求存在性与具体性 ——
+ *     把可核验动作（审计文件树 / grep 全部 imports / 检查导出依赖图）换成不可核验
+ *     的抽象（理解架构 / 掌握整体结构）**不算覆盖**。第二次重跑正是因为口径只写了
+ *     「存在语义等价表述」，模型检出抽象化后仍裁定为覆盖，缺陷链 B 退化为 `pass`。
+ *     这是**判据的最后一次修正**（§6.5.2 止损规则）。
+ *   - **输出契约路径**：回复经仓库既有的结构化输出修复通道
+ *     （`attemptStructuredOutputRepair` + `output-repair-contract` 助手）处理，
+ *     本文件不再自带 JSON 提取器；`llm_unavailable`（模型没答）与
+ *     `output_contract_violation`（答了但信封坏了）分两个桶、两条断言。
+ *   - **结果文件带运行时间戳**：`.kiro/` 是 git-ignored，第二次重跑覆盖了第一次的原始记录。
+ *   - Route B 本次不跑（第二次重跑中挂在传输层超时；纯记录性路由，不参与门禁判定）。
+ *
+ * @see .kiro/specs/internalization-progressive-disclosure/design.md §6.1 / §6.5.1 / §6.5.2 / §6.5.3 / §6.6.1 / §12.1
+ * @see Requirements 12.3、12.4
+ */
+import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
+import { mkdirSync, writeFileSync, rmSync } from 'node:fs';
+import { join, dirname } from 'node:path';
+import { runCliProcess } from '../../utils/cli-process-runner.js';
+import { EvaluatorPromptBuilder } from '../evaluator-prompt-builder.js';
+import { DefaultEvaluatorValidator } from '../evaluator-output.js';
+// design §6.5.4：输出契约违规必须走**仓库既有**的结构化输出修复通道，
+// 不得在本文件里再实现一份 JSON 提取器 / 修复循环。
+import { attemptStructuredOutputRepair, extractJsonObject, } from '../../adapter/structured-output-repair.js';
+import { repairMalformedJson } from '../../adapter/json-extractor.js';
+import { MAX_REPAIR_ATTEMPTS, normalizeMaxRepairAttempts, safeStringifyPreview, } from '../../adapter/output-repair-contract.js';
+import { SPIKE_CHAINS, assertSpikeChainLineageConsistent, } from './progressive-disclosure-spike-fixtures.js';
+// ── 摘要级上下文的确定性构造（mirrors design §6.1 派生映射表）────────────────
+//
+// 这是 Spike 本地实现：Layer 0 的 `deriveArtifactSummary` 还不存在（它属于
+// PR 1 / 任务 3.2，被 Phase 0 门禁阻塞）。字段选择与截断上限照抄 design §6.1，
+// 目的是让 Spike 看到的信息量与 Layer 0 上线后一致 —— 既不多给（不含原始大
+// 字段），也不少给。
+const SUMMARY_HEADLINE_MAX_CHARS = 200;
+const SUMMARY_FIELD_MAX_CHARS = 600;
+function isRecord(value) {
+    return value !== null && typeof value === 'object' && !Array.isArray(value);
+}
+/** rc-1 / rc-5：unknown 上按自有属性读字符串，空串视为缺失。 */
+function readString(source, key) {
+    if (!isRecord(source) || !Object.hasOwn(source, key))
+        return null;
+    const value = source[key];
+    if (typeof value !== 'string' || value.trim() === '')
+        return null;
+    return value;
+}
+function readRecord(source, key) {
+    if (!isRecord(source) || !Object.hasOwn(source, key))
+        return null;
+    const value = source[key];
+    return isRecord(value) ? value : null;
+}
+function readArray(source, key) {
+    if (!isRecord(source) || !Object.hasOwn(source, key))
+        return null;
+    const value = source[key];
+    return Array.isArray(value) ? value : null;
+}
+/** rc-4：数组元素逐个校验为字符串后再拼接。 */
+function readStringList(source, key) {
+    const list = readArray(source, key);
+    if (list === null)
+        return null;
+    const strings = list.filter((entry) => typeof entry === 'string' && entry.trim() !== '');
+    if (strings.length === 0)
+        return null;
+    return strings.join(' / ');
+}
+function clamp(text, max) {
+    return text.length <= max ? text : `${text.slice(0, max - 1)}…`;
+}
+/** 首句：以中文句号 / 分号 / 英文句点为界，确定性截断。 */
+function firstSentence(text) {
+    const match = /^[\s\S]*?[。；;.]/.exec(text);
+    const sentence = match?.[0] ?? text;
+    return clamp(sentence.trim(), SUMMARY_HEADLINE_MAX_CHARS);
+}
+/** 派生一个 stage 的摘要：目标键缺失即进 omittedFields（design §6.1）。 */
+function deriveSpikeSummary(runnerKind, targetKeys, headlineSource, resolved) {
+    const fields = {};
+    const omittedFields = [];
+    for (const key of targetKeys) {
+        const value = Object.hasOwn(resolved, key) ? resolved[key] : null;
+        if (typeof value === 'string' && value.trim() !== '') {
+            fields[key] = clamp(value, SUMMARY_FIELD_MAX_CHARS);
+        }
+        else {
+            omittedFields.push(key);
+        }
+    }
+    return {
+        runnerKind,
+        headline: headlineSource === null ? '' : firstSentence(headlineSource),
+        fields,
+        omittedFields,
+    };
+}
+/**
+ * 8 个 stage 的摘要。字段名是 design §6.1 的**目标键名**；实际 output schema
+ * 里不存在该语义的键一律进 `omittedFields`（不改 schema、不改 prompt）。
+ */
+function buildChainSummaries(chain) {
+    // rc-1：fixture 的 contentJson 一律按 unknown 读，不用 `as` 收窄（rc-2）
+    const rootCause = chain.diagRootCause.contentJson;
+    const distiller = chain.diagDistiller.contentJson;
+    const router = chain.diagRouter.contentJson;
+    const dreamer = chain.dreamer.contentJson;
+    const philosopher = chain.philosopher.contentJson;
+    const scribe = chain.scribe.contentJson;
+    const artificer = chain.artificer.contentJson;
+    const evaluator = chain.evaluator.contentJson;
+    // dreamer：只取第一个候选的五维（全量 candidates 属 tier2 原始大字段，排除）
+    const candidates = readArray(dreamer, 'candidates') ?? [];
+    const firstCandidate = candidates.length > 0 ? candidates[0] : null;
+    const principleDraft = readRecord(scribe, 'principleDraft');
+    const principleCandidate = readRecord(philosopher, 'principleCandidate');
+    const violated = readArray(router, 'violatedPrinciples') ?? [];
+    const violatedIds = violated
+        .map((entry) => readString(entry, 'principleId'))
+        .filter((id) => id !== null);
+    const recommendations = readArray(router, 'recommendations') ?? [];
+    const firstRecommendationKind = recommendations.length > 0 ? readString(recommendations[0], 'kind') : null;
+    const goldenTraceCases = readArray(artificer, 'goldenTraceCases') ?? [];
+    const evaluatorEvaluation = readRecord(evaluator, 'evaluation');
+    const evaluatorConcerns = evaluatorEvaluation === null ? null : readArray(evaluatorEvaluation, 'concerns');
+    const evaluatorCodeReview = readRecord(evaluator, 'codeReview');
+    const intentConsistency = evaluatorCodeReview === null ? null : readRecord(evaluatorCodeReview, 'intentConsistency');
+    return {
+        diag_rootcause: deriveSpikeSummary('diag_rootcause', ['rootSymptom', 'category', 'severity', 'rootCause'], readString(rootCause, 'rootCause'), {
+            rootSymptom: readString(rootCause, 'summary'),
+            category: readString(rootCause, 'rootCauseCategory'),
+            // DiagRootCauseOutputV1 没有 severity 语义字段 → omitted
+            severity: null,
+            rootCause: readString(rootCause, 'rootCause'),
+        }),
+        diag_distiller: deriveSpikeSummary('diag_distiller', ['rootCause', 'affectedComponents', 'category', 'severity'], readString(distiller, 'abstractedPrinciple'), {
+            rootCause: readString(distiller, 'rationale'),
+            // DiagDistillerOutputV1 没有 affectedComponents / severity → omitted
+            affectedComponents: null,
+            category: readString(distiller, 'scope'),
+            severity: null,
+        }),
+        diag_router: deriveSpikeSummary('diag_router', ['rootCause', 'affectedComponents', 'rootSymptom', 'category', 'severity'], readString(router, 'summary'), {
+            rootCause: readString(router, 'rootCause'),
+            affectedComponents: violatedIds.length > 0 ? violatedIds.join(' / ') : null,
+            rootSymptom: readString(router, 'summary'),
+            category: firstRecommendationKind,
+            severity: null,
+        }),
+        dreamer: deriveSpikeSummary('dreamer', ['badDecision', 'betterDecision', 'rationale', 'riskLevel', 'strategicPerspective'], readString(firstCandidate, 'betterDecision'), {
+            badDecision: readString(firstCandidate, 'badDecision'),
+            betterDecision: readString(firstCandidate, 'betterDecision'),
+            rationale: readString(firstCandidate, 'rationale'),
+            riskLevel: readString(firstCandidate, 'riskLevel'),
+            strategicPerspective: readString(firstCandidate, 'strategicPerspective'),
+        }),
+        philosopher: deriveSpikeSummary('philosopher', ['thesis', 'principleTitle', 'principleScope', 'principleConfidence'], principleCandidate === null ? null : readString(principleCandidate, 'title'), {
+            thesis: readString(philosopher, 'thesis'),
+            principleTitle: principleCandidate === null ? null : readString(principleCandidate, 'title'),
+            principleScope: principleCandidate === null ? null : readString(principleCandidate, 'scope'),
+            principleConfidence: principleCandidate !== null
+                && Object.hasOwn(principleCandidate, 'confidence')
+                && typeof principleCandidate.confidence === 'number'
+                ? String(principleCandidate.confidence)
+                : null,
+        }),
+        scribe: deriveSpikeSummary('scribe', ['principleText', 'scope', 'exceptions'], principleDraft === null ? null : readString(principleDraft, 'statement'), {
+            principleText: principleDraft === null ? null : readString(principleDraft, 'statement'),
+            scope: principleDraft === null ? null : readStringList(principleDraft, 'applicability'),
+            exceptions: principleDraft === null ? null : readStringList(principleDraft, 'antiPatterns'),
+        }),
+        artificer: deriveSpikeSummary('artificer', ['changedFiles', 'apiSurface', 'risks'], readString(artificer, 'implementationSummary'), {
+            // 原始 implementationCode 属 tier2 大字段，摘要级只给受影响工具与摘要
+            changedFiles: readStringList(artificer, 'affectedTools'),
+            apiSurface: readString(artificer, 'implementationSummary'),
+            risks: readStringList(artificer, 'risks'),
+        }),
+        evaluator: deriveSpikeSummary('evaluator', ['verdict', 'concernCount', 'intentConsistency'], evaluatorEvaluation === null ? null : readString(evaluatorEvaluation, 'summary'), {
+            verdict: evaluatorEvaluation === null ? null : readString(evaluatorEvaluation, 'decision'),
+            concernCount: evaluatorConcerns === null ? null : String(evaluatorConcerns.length),
+            intentConsistency: intentConsistency !== null
+                && Object.hasOwn(intentConsistency, 'aligned')
+                && typeof intentConsistency.aligned === 'boolean'
+                ? String(intentConsistency.aligned)
+                : null,
+        }),
+    };
+}
+/**
+ * 注入字段集合 = `EVALUATOR_STAGE1_MANIFEST` 的 tier0 ∪ tier1（design §6.6）。
+ * 逐字对齐，不额外加字段 —— Spike 看到的必须就是 Layer 1 会给的。
+ */
+const EVALUATOR_STAGE1_PATHS = [
+    // tier0
+    'artificer.summary.headline',
+    'artificer.predecessorSummary.headline',
+    // tier1
+    'scribe.summary.principleText',
+    'scribe.summary.scope',
+    'artificer.summary.changedFiles',
+    'artificer.summary.apiSurface',
+    'artificer.summary.risks',
+    'dreamer.summary.badDecision',
+    'dreamer.summary.betterDecision',
+    'dreamer.summary.rationale',
+    'dreamer.summary.riskLevel',
+    'pain.summary.rootSymptom',
+    'pain.summary.category',
+];
+function buildEvaluatorStage1Context(chain) {
+    const summaries = buildChainSummaries(chain);
+    const source = {
+        'artificer.summary.headline': summaries.artificer.headline,
+        // 一层冗余：artificer 的边上前驱是 scribe（design §6.1 前驱表）
+        'artificer.predecessorSummary.headline': summaries.scribe.headline,
+        'scribe.summary.principleText': summaries.scribe.fields.principleText,
+        'scribe.summary.scope': summaries.scribe.fields.scope,
+        'artificer.summary.changedFiles': summaries.artificer.fields.changedFiles,
+        'artificer.summary.apiSurface': summaries.artificer.fields.apiSurface,
+        'artificer.summary.risks': summaries.artificer.fields.risks,
+        'dreamer.summary.badDecision': summaries.dreamer.fields.badDecision,
+        'dreamer.summary.betterDecision': summaries.dreamer.fields.betterDecision,
+        'dreamer.summary.rationale': summaries.dreamer.fields.rationale,
+        'dreamer.summary.riskLevel': summaries.dreamer.fields.riskLevel,
+        'pain.summary.rootSymptom': summaries.diag_rootcause.fields.rootSymptom,
+        'pain.summary.category': summaries.diag_rootcause.fields.category,
+    };
+    const fields = {};
+    const absent = [];
+    for (const path of EVALUATOR_STAGE1_PATHS) {
+        const value = Object.hasOwn(source, path) ? source[path] : undefined;
+        if (typeof value === 'string' && value.trim() !== '') {
+            fields[path] = value;
+        }
+        else {
+            absent.push(path);
+        }
+    }
+    return { fields, absent };
+}
+// ── LLM 传输（与生产 OpenClawCliRuntimeAdapter 同一个 runCliProcess）─────────
+const LLM_TIMEOUT_MS = 420_000;
+const REPO_ROOT = join(process.cwd(), '..', '..');
+const SPIKE_TMP_DIR = join(REPO_ROOT, '.spike-tmp', 'spike-1.2');
+/**
+ * 结果文件名带运行时间戳：`.kiro/` 是 git-ignored，第二次重跑覆盖掉了第一次的
+ * 原始记录（无法再回看首轮原文）。带时间戳后每次重跑各留一份。
+ */
+const RUN_TIMESTAMP = new Date().toISOString();
+const RESULTS_PATH = join(REPO_ROOT, '.kiro', 'specs', 'internalization-progressive-disclosure', `phase0-spike-1.2-raw-results-${RUN_TIMESTAMP.replace(/[:.]/g, '-')}.json`);
+/**
+ * 从 openclaw `--json` 信封里取出 agent 回复文本（local / gateway / 裸对象三种形态）。
+ *
+ * 兜底顺序：平衡括号扫描找 `payloads[].text` → 整体 `JSON.parse` → 直接抓
+ * `finalAssistantVisibleText`（信封里同一份回复的另一处出口）。三条都失败才
+ * 判定为拿不到回复，理由分别可区分（rc-9）。
+ */
+function extractAgentText(stdout, stderr) {
+    for (const source of [stdout, stderr]) {
+        if (!source)
+            continue;
+        const objects = [];
+        let depth = 0;
+        let start = -1;
+        for (let i = 0; i < source.length; i++) {
+            const ch = source[i];
+            if (ch === '{') {
+                if (start === -1)
+                    start = i;
+                depth++;
+            }
+            else if (ch === '}') {
+                depth--;
+                if (depth === 0 && start !== -1) {
+                    try {
+                        objects.push(JSON.parse(source.slice(start, i + 1)));
+                    }
+                    catch {
+                        // keep scanning
+                    }
+                    start = -1;
+                }
+            }
+        }
+        for (let i = objects.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+            const candidate = objects[i];
+            const payloads = readArray(candidate, 'payloads')
+                ?? readArray(readRecord(candidate, 'result'), 'payloads');
+            if (payloads !== null && payloads.length > 0) {
+                const text = readString(payloads[payloads.length - 1], 'text');
+                if (text !== null)
+                    return text;
+            }
+        }
+        // 兜底 1：整体 JSON.parse（stdout 可能是被换行包裹的单个对象）
+        try {
+            const whole = JSON.parse(source);
+            const payloads = readArray(whole, 'payloads') ?? readArray(readRecord(whole, 'result'), 'payloads');
+            if (payloads !== null && payloads.length > 0) {
+                const text = readString(payloads[payloads.length - 1], 'text');
+                if (text !== null)
+                    return text;
+            }
+        }
+        catch {
+            // 继续兜底 2
+        }
+        // 兜底 2：信封的 meta.finalAssistantVisibleText / finalAssistantRawText
+        const visible = /"final(?:AssistantVisibleText|AssistantRawText)"\s*:\s*"((?:[^"\\]|\\.)*)"/.exec(source);
+        const captured = visible?.[1];
+        if (captured !== undefined && captured.trim() !== '') {
+            try {
+                const decoded = JSON.parse(`"${captured}"`);
+                if (typeof decoded === 'string' && decoded.trim() !== '')
+                    return decoded;
+            }
+            catch {
+                // 放弃该兜底
+            }
+        }
+    }
+    return null;
+}
+/**
+ * `runCliProcess` 自己做 Windows 的 .cmd shim 解析（resolveCommandForWindows），
+ * 所以这里传裸命令名即可；ENOENT 会以 `spawnError` 形式回来 → LLM_UNAVAILABLE。
+ */
+const OPENCLAW_BINARY = 'openclaw';
+/**
+ * 显式指定模型（2026-07-28 第三次门禁重跑）。
+ *
+ * 第三次重跑三条链全部 `exit_code:1`，`llm_unavailable` 桶正确捕获。stderr 证据
+ * 显示根因**不在判据也不在 prompt**：配置的默认模型返回
+ * `404 model route not found`，failover 无候选 →
+ * `FailoverError: The selected model was not found by the provider`。
+ *
+ * 因此 Spike 不再依赖 openclaw 的默认模型（它会随 Owner 的全局配置漂移），改为
+ * 显式传 `--model`：既让「模型不可用」这类环境问题一眼可辨，也避免为了跑 Spike
+ * 去改 Owner 的全局 `~/.openclaw/openclaw.json`（那超出本任务的改动边界）。
+ * 可用 `PD_SPIKE_MODEL` 覆盖。
+ */
+const SPIKE_MODEL = process.env.PD_SPIKE_MODEL ?? 'sensenova/deepseek-v4-flash';
+async function askAgent(label, message) {
+    mkdirSync(SPIKE_TMP_DIR, { recursive: true });
+    const messagePath = join(SPIKE_TMP_DIR, `${label}-${Date.now()}.json`);
+    writeFileSync(messagePath, message, 'utf8');
+    try {
+        const result = await runCliProcess({
+            command: OPENCLAW_BINARY,
+            args: [
+                'agent',
+                '--agent', 'main',
+                // 显式模型：见 SPIKE_MODEL 注释（默认模型 404 曾让整轮门禁误判为不可达）
+                '--model', SPIKE_MODEL,
+                '--message-file', messagePath,
+                '--session-id', `pd-spike-1-2-${label}-${Date.now()}`,
+                '--json',
+                '--timeout', String(Math.floor(LLM_TIMEOUT_MS / 1000)),
+            ],
+            // 传输层约束（由 .spike-tmp 的 probe4 / probe5 对照实验确定）：在
+            // vitest 的环境标记（NODE_ENV=test / VITEST=*）与 package 级 cwd 下，
+            // openclaw 的 embedded agent 会以 exit 0 + **空 stdout** 结束（stderr 只留
+            // 一条 gateway fallback 提示）。同一 payload 在仓库根 cwd + 非 test 环境下
+            // 正常返回。因此这里显式还原成生产式环境，否则 LLM 判断根本不会发生。
+            cwd: REPO_ROOT,
+            env: {
+                NODE_ENV: 'production',
+                VITEST: '',
+                VITEST_WORKER_ID: '',
+                VITEST_POOL_ID: '',
+                VITEST_MODE: '',
+            },
+            timeoutMs: LLM_TIMEOUT_MS,
+        });
+        if (result.spawnError !== undefined) {
+            return { kind: 'unavailable', reason: `spawn_error:${result.spawnError}`, rawText: result.stderr };
+        }
+        if (result.timedOut) {
+            return { kind: 'unavailable', reason: 'timeout', rawText: result.stderr };
+        }
+        // 诊断留痕：整份 stdout / stderr 落盘，便于在 Spike 结论里逐字引用不可达原因
+        writeFileSync(join(SPIKE_TMP_DIR, `${label}.stdout.txt`), result.stdout, 'utf8');
+        writeFileSync(join(SPIKE_TMP_DIR, `${label}.stderr.txt`), result.stderr, 'utf8');
+        if (result.exitCode !== 0) {
+            return {
+                kind: 'unavailable',
+                reason: `exit_code:${String(result.exitCode)}`,
+                rawText: `${result.stdout}\n${result.stderr}`.slice(0, 4000),
+            };
+        }
+        if (result.stdout.trim() === '') {
+            return { kind: 'unavailable', reason: 'empty_stdout', rawText: result.stderr.slice(-4000) };
+        }
+        const text = extractAgentText(result.stdout, result.stderr);
+        if (text === null) {
+            return {
+                kind: 'unavailable',
+                reason: 'no_agent_text_in_envelope',
+                rawText: `${result.stdout}\n${result.stderr}`.slice(0, 4000),
+            };
+        }
+        // 拿到回复文本即为「模型答了」。信封是否合法由输出契约通道判定（design §6.5.4）。
+        return { kind: 'reply', rawText: text };
+    }
+    finally {
+        rmSync(messagePath, { force: true });
+    }
+}
+// ── Route A：spike-local 三段式 prompt（字段照抄 design §6.5）────────────────
+const SEGMENTS = ['pain_to_dreamer', 'dreamer_to_scribe', 'scribe_to_artificer'];
+const VERDICTS = ['pass', 'degraded', 'fail'];
+const DIMENSION_COVERAGE_POLICY = {
+    betterDecision: 'required',
+    rationale: 'required',
+    riskLevel: 'required',
+    badDecision: 'optional',
+    strategicPerspective: 'excluded',
+};
+/** 由政策表派生，顺序稳定（确定性输出）。 */
+const REQUIRED_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS = [
+    'betterDecision',
+    'rationale',
+    'riskLevel',
+];
+const OPTIONAL_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS = ['badDecision'];
+const EXCLUDED_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS = ['strategicPerspective'];
+/**
+ * rc-5 / ERR-013：以 LLM 字符串为键查表用 `Map`，不用普通对象索引
+ * （`table['__proto__']` 会命中 `Object.prototype`）。
+ */
+const POLICY_BY_LOWERCASE_NAME = new Map(Object.entries(DIMENSION_COVERAGE_POLICY).map(([name, coverageClass]) => [
+    name.toLowerCase(),
+    coverageClass,
+]));
+/**
+ * rc-1 / rc-4：LLM 给的维度名是不可信输入。按政策表分类，认不出来的一律 unknown，
+ * 不做任何猜测性归并（大小写与首尾空白容错，因为那是书写形式而非语义差异）。
+ */
+function classifyDimension(raw) {
+    return POLICY_BY_LOWERCASE_NAME.get(raw.trim().toLowerCase()) ?? 'unknown';
+}
+function partitionByPolicy(values) {
+    const required = [];
+    const optional = [];
+    const ignored = [];
+    for (const value of values) {
+        switch (classifyDimension(value)) {
+            case 'required':
+                required.push(value);
+                break;
+            case 'optional':
+                optional.push(value);
+                break;
+            default:
+                ignored.push(value);
+                break;
+        }
+    }
+    return { required, optional, ignored };
+}
+/** rc-2：用类型守卫收窄 LLM 给的字符串，不用 `as`。 */
+function isSegmentId(value) {
+    return SEGMENTS.some((segment) => segment === value);
+}
+function isSegmentVerdict(value) {
+    return VERDICTS.some((verdict) => verdict === value);
+}
+const ROUTE_A_INSTRUCTION = `你是内化管道的 Evaluator。你只能看到每一跳的**摘要级上下文**（headline + 结构化字段），看不到任何原始大字段（没有 pain 证据全文、没有 dreamer 全量候选、没有 artificer 实现代码）。
+
+管道是一条逐级压缩的信息链：pain/诊断 → dreamer（维度：badDecision / betterDecision / rationale / riskLevel / strategicPerspective）→ scribe（原则文本）→ artificer（实现）。每一跳都可能丢字段或把具体动作模糊成抽象表述。
+
+你的任务：判断这条链上是否发生了信息丢失或语义模糊。若有，指出**发生在哪一段**以及**丢了哪个维度**。若没有，如实判 pass —— 不要为了显得严谨而编造缺失。
+
+三段的定义：
+- pain_to_dreamer：pain/诊断的根因与症状，是否在 dreamer 的决策里被覆盖。
+- dreamer_to_scribe：dreamer 的维度，是否在 scribe 的原则文本里被保留（维度值本身丢失，或具体动作被抽象化，都算缺陷）。
+- scribe_to_artificer：scribe 原则文本的约束意图，是否在 artificer 的实现摘要里被忠实实现。
+
+【维度分级政策】（**不是五个等权维度**，必须严格按下面分级判定，不得自行升级或降级）
+- required（必需，缺失即缺陷）：${REQUIRED_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS.join(' / ')}。
+- optional（可选，缺失**不是**缺陷）：${OPTIONAL_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS.join(' / ')}。它出现在原则文本的 antiPatterns（反模式/禁止行为清单）里即算覆盖；**不出现不算缺陷**，只写进 optionalUncovered，禁止写进 missingDimensions，也禁止因此把 verdict 判成 degraded 或 fail。
+- excluded（不参与判定）：${EXCLUDED_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS.join(' / ')}。**不得对它下任何结论**：不得写进 missingDimensions，不得写进 optionalUncovered，不得因它影响任何 verdict，也不要在 detail 里把它当成缺失。
+
+【覆盖判定口径】（口径由本 prompt 规定，不要自行发明；同一条链上各维度必须用同一把尺）
+1. 覆盖 = **语义等价的对应表述存在**。允许改写、允许换词、允许合并进其他句子；不要求逐字出现，也不要求出现字段名。**但本条不是一张空白许可**：这里的「改写」指用不同措辞表达**同一份可核验内容**；**抽象化不是改写**（见第 2 条）——把可核验的具体动作换成无法核验的概括属于内容丢失，不在本条允许范围内。第 1 条与第 2 条**必须连读**，只按第 1 条判定即误用。
+2. **betterDecision 的覆盖必须同时满足存在性与具体性**。仅当**可核验的具体动作被保留**时才算覆盖。把具体、可核验的动作（例如「审计文件树」「grep 全部 imports」「检查导出依赖图」）替换为**无法核验的抽象表述**（例如「理解架构」「掌握整体结构」「充分评估」）**不算覆盖**——即使抽象表述在语义上指向同一意图、即使核心意图被保留。此时必须把 betterDecision 写进该段的 missingDimensions，并且 compressionFidelity.betterDecisionCovered = false。判定依据只有一条：该表述能否让 Owner 或一段规则代码**判断它有没有被执行**；不能，即为具体性丢失，即不算覆盖。
+3. riskLevel：以风险等级词（high / medium / low 或中文等价）**或**等价的风险描述（例如「跨包改动一旦漏掉调用方会直接编译失败」）体现，两者任一即算覆盖。
+4. badDecision：出现在 antiPatterns（反模式/禁止行为清单）即算覆盖；**不出现不算缺陷**。
+5. strategicPerspective：不参与保真度判定，不要对它下结论，也不得让它出现在 missingDimensions 里。
+6. 未覆盖必须**指名 required 维度名**（${REQUIRED_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS.join(' / ')}），不得只给定性描述，也不得填别的名字。
+7. **看不见即不裁决，但这条只管「维度的值本身从未被注入过」，不管「下游字段没有同名字段」**：某个维度（riskLevel / betterDecision / rationale / badDecision）由 dreamer 产生，只要 \`dreamer.summary.<维度名>\` 出现在下面的 injectedFields 里，这个维度就**已经可判定**，即使 scribe / artificer 那一跳没有一个字面叫同样名字的字段——scribe 本来就没有 riskLevel / betterDecision 这类字段，它只有 principleText / scope 这类自由文本字段，dreamer_to_scribe 段要判的正是「dreamer 已注入的维度值，有没有被 scribe 的自由文本吸收」，**不是「scribe 有没有一个同名字段」**。只有当某个维度在 dreamer 的 injectedFields 里也完全不存在时，才适用「看不见即不裁决」，判定为该维度在此链路上不可判定，不得据此报缺失。
+
+【verdict 规则】
+- 某段的 required 维度全部覆盖 → verdict = "pass"，missingDimensions = []。optional 维度未覆盖**不影响** pass。
+- 该段有 required 维度缺失 → "degraded"（部分丢失）或 "fail"（约束意图整体丢失），并在 missingDimensions 里指名。
+- 某段判定 required 维度所需的字段在 injectedFields 里根本不存在 → "degraded"，并在 detail 里说明缺哪个字段，不要猜。
+
+只输出下面这个 JSON 对象，不要 markdown 代码围栏，不要任何解释性文字：
+{"segments":[{"segment":"pain_to_dreamer","verdict":"pass|degraded|fail","missingDimensions":[],"optionalUncovered":[],"detail":"简述依据"},{"segment":"dreamer_to_scribe","verdict":"pass|degraded|fail","missingDimensions":["riskLevel"],"optionalUncovered":["badDecision"],"detail":"简述依据"},{"segment":"scribe_to_artificer","verdict":"pass|degraded|fail","missingDimensions":[],"optionalUncovered":[],"detail":"简述依据"}],"compressionFidelity":{"betterDecisionCovered":true,"rationaleCovered":true,"riskLevelCovered":false,"badDecisionCovered":true,"missingDimensions":["riskLevel"],"optionalUncovered":[],"explanation":"简述依据"},"painCoverage":{"fullyCovered":true,"uncoveredAspects":[],"explanation":"简述依据"}}
+
+约束：
+- 不要调用任何工具，不要读写任何文件，直接基于下面给出的字段作答（这是传输层约束，不影响判断内容）。
+- segments 必须恰好三条，segment 取值必须是 pain_to_dreamer / dreamer_to_scribe / scribe_to_artificer。
+- verdict 必须是 pass / degraded / fail 之一。
+- missingDimensions **只能**含 required 维度名（${REQUIRED_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS.join(' / ')}）；没有缺失就给空数组。
+- optionalUncovered **只能**含 optional 维度名（${OPTIONAL_FIDELITY_DIMENSIONS.join(' / ')}）；没有就给空数组。它只是诊断参考，不是缺陷。
+- compressionFidelity 里**没有** strategicPerspectiveCovered 字段，不要补上。`;
+/**
+ * flagged = reasons 非空（design §6.5.3 的后置条件）。
+ *
+ * 与生产判据的两个差异，如实记录而非悄悄折衷：
+ *   - 第一条判据只看 **required 维度缺失**（政策过滤后），不是
+ *     `missingDimensions.length > 0`；optionalUncovered 永不进 reasons。
+ *   - 第三条判据 `implementationFidelity.score < 0.7` 不在本 Spike 的 prompt 形状里
+ *     （`implementationFidelity` 属 Layer 2 增量，Route A 不索取），因此它既不进
+ *     reasons 也不进 undetermined —— 它不是「依据缺失」，而是本次判定范围之外。
+ */
+function evaluateSpikeFlagged(judgment) {
+    const reasons = [];
+    const undetermined = [];
+    if (judgment.compressionFidelityMissing.length > 0) {
+        reasons.push('missing_dimensions');
+    }
+    if (judgment.painFullyCovered === false) {
+        reasons.push('pain_not_fully_covered');
+    }
+    if (judgment.painFullyCovered === null) {
+        undetermined.push('painCoverage.fullyCovered missing from reply');
+    }
+    return { flagged: reasons.length > 0, reasons, undetermined };
+}
+/**
+ * 容错读取 `compressionFidelity` / `painCoverage`：既接受顶层，也接受被模型
+ * 误塞进 `segments` 数组元素里的形态（实测 sensenova-flash-lite 会这样写）。
+ */
+function findNestedRecord(parsed, key) {
+    const top = readRecord(parsed, key);
+    if (top !== null)
+        return top;
+    const rawSegments = readArray(parsed, 'segments');
+    if (rawSegments === null)
+        return null;
+    for (const entry of rawSegments) {
+        const nested = readRecord(entry, key);
+        if (nested !== null)
+            return nested;
+    }
+    return null;
+}
+/** rc-2 / rc-3 / rc-4：逐字段校验 LLM 输出，不用 `as` 收窄，缺失即失败。 */
+function validateRouteA(parsed) {
+    const errors = [];
+    if (!isRecord(parsed))
+        return { ok: false, errors: ['reply is not an object'] };
+    const shapeWarnings = [];
+    const rawSegments = readArray(parsed, 'segments');
+    const segments = [];
+    if (rawSegments === null) {
+        errors.push('segments must be an array');
+    }
+    else {
+        for (const entry of rawSegments) {
+            const segment = readString(entry, 'segment');
+            const verdict = readString(entry, 'verdict');
+            if (segment === null || !isSegmentId(segment)) {
+                shapeWarnings.push(`segments[] entry without a valid segment id: ${String(segment)}`);
+                continue;
+            }
+            if (verdict === null || !isSegmentVerdict(verdict)) {
+                errors.push(`segments[].verdict invalid for ${segment}: ${String(verdict)}`);
+                continue;
+            }
+            // rc-4：数组元素逐个校验为字符串，再按政策表过滤（design §6.5.3）
+            const missingRaw = (readArray(entry, 'missingDimensions') ?? []).filter((v) => typeof v === 'string');
+            const declaredOptional = (readArray(entry, 'optionalUncovered') ?? []).filter((v) => typeof v === 'string');
+            const partition = partitionByPolicy(missingRaw);
+            if (partition.optional.length > 0) {
+                shapeWarnings.push(`${segment}.missingDimensions contained optional dimensions (ignored per policy): ${partition.optional.join(', ')}`);
+            }
+            if (partition.ignored.length > 0) {
+                shapeWarnings.push(`${segment}.missingDimensions contained excluded/unknown entries (ignored per policy): ${partition.ignored.join(', ')}`);
+            }
+            segments.push({
+                segment,
+                verdict,
+                rawMissingDimensions: missingRaw,
+                missingDimensions: partition.required,
+                optionalUncovered: [...declaredOptional, ...partition.optional],
+                detail: readString(entry, 'detail') ?? '',
+            });
+        }
+    }
+    // rc-3：三段必须齐全，缺一即判定不可用（不能静默当作「没问题」）
+    for (const required of SEGMENTS) {
+        if (!segments.some((s) => s.segment === required)) {
+            errors.push(`segment missing from reply: ${required}`);
+        }
+    }
+    const fidelity = findNestedRecord(parsed, 'compressionFidelity');
+    if (fidelity !== null && readRecord(parsed, 'compressionFidelity') === null) {
+        shapeWarnings.push('compressionFidelity was nested inside segments[] instead of top level');
+    }
+    const fidelityMissingRaw = (fidelity === null ? [] : readArray(fidelity, 'missingDimensions') ?? []).filter((v) => typeof v === 'string');
+    const fidelityDeclaredOptional = (fidelity === null ? [] : readArray(fidelity, 'optionalUncovered') ?? []).filter((v) => typeof v === 'string');
+    const fidelityPartition = partitionByPolicy(fidelityMissingRaw);
+    if (fidelityPartition.optional.length > 0) {
+        shapeWarnings.push(`compressionFidelity.missingDimensions contained optional dimensions (ignored per policy): ${fidelityPartition.optional.join(', ')}`);
+    }
+    if (fidelityPartition.ignored.length > 0) {
+        shapeWarnings.push(`compressionFidelity.missingDimensions contained excluded/unknown entries (ignored per policy): ${fidelityPartition.ignored.join(', ')}`);
+    }
+    if (fidelity !== null && Object.hasOwn(fidelity, 'strategicPerspectiveCovered')) {
+        shapeWarnings.push('compressionFidelity carried strategicPerspectiveCovered (excluded dimension; ignored per policy)');
+    }
+    const painCoverage = findNestedRecord(parsed, 'painCoverage');
+    if (painCoverage !== null && readRecord(parsed, 'painCoverage') === null) {
+        shapeWarnings.push('painCoverage was nested inside segments[] instead of top level');
+    }
+    let painFullyCovered = null;
+    if (painCoverage !== null && Object.hasOwn(painCoverage, 'fullyCovered') && typeof painCoverage.fullyCovered === 'boolean') {
+        painFullyCovered = painCoverage.fullyCovered;
+    }
+    if (errors.length > 0)
+        return { ok: false, errors };
+    return {
+        ok: true,
+        value: {
+            segments,
+            compressionFidelityMissing: fidelityPartition.required,
+            compressionFidelityMissingRaw: fidelityMissingRaw,
+            compressionFidelityOptionalUncovered: [
+                ...fidelityDeclaredOptional,
+                ...fidelityPartition.optional,
+            ],
+            painFullyCovered,
+            shapeWarnings,
+        },
+    };
+}
+function buildRouteAMessage(chain, context) {
+    return JSON.stringify({
+        instruction: ROUTE_A_INSTRUCTION,
+        contextLevel: 'summary_only',
+        manifestId: 'evaluator.stage1.v1',
+        excludedRawFields: ['pain.raw.evidence', 'dreamer.raw.candidates', 'artificer.raw.implementationCode'],
+        injectedFields: context.fields,
+        absentFields: context.absent,
+        chainId: chain.chainId,
+    });
+}
+// ── 输出契约通道（design §6.5.4）───────────────────────────────────────────────
+//
+// 第二次门禁重跑的首要失败形态是「判断内容正确但信封损坏」：`painCoverage` 被写成
+// 兄弟对象、外层对象从未闭合，3/3 不可解析。这里**复用仓库既有通道**处理该路径：
+//   1. `extractJsonObject`（adapter/json-extractor，经 structured-output-repair 再导出）
+//      —— 处理 markdown 围栏与前后散文；
+//   2. `repairMalformedJson`（同一模块）—— 本地语法修复，不花 LLM 往返；
+//   3. `attemptStructuredOutputRepair` —— 有界重试（`normalizeMaxRepairAttempts` /
+//      `MAX_REPAIR_ATTEMPTS`）、逐次刷新错误（rc-7 / ERR-015 / ERR-018 / ERR-019）、
+//      产出 `repairAttempts` 证据。
+// 本文件不再自带 brace 扫描器（旧 `extractJsonObject` 已删）。
+const ROUTE_A_SCHEMA_REF = 'spike.routeA.stage1.v1';
+/** 供修复 prompt 用的目标形状描述（`RepairConfig.schemaSummary`，PRI-271 A2）。 */
+const ROUTE_A_SCHEMA_SUMMARY = [
+    '  segments: object[] (required) — 恰好 3 条，segment ∈ {pain_to_dreamer, dreamer_to_scribe, scribe_to_artificer}',
+    '  segments[].verdict: enum(pass | degraded | fail) (required)',
+    '  segments[].missingDimensions: string[] (required) — 只含 required 维度名',
+    '  segments[].optionalUncovered: string[] (required)',
+    '  segments[].detail: string (required)',
+    '  compressionFidelity: object (required) — **顶层键**，不得放进 segments 数组',
+    '  compressionFidelity.{betterDecisionCovered,rationaleCovered,riskLevelCovered,badDecisionCovered}: boolean (required)',
+    '  compressionFidelity.{missingDimensions,optionalUncovered}: string[] (required)',
+    '  compressionFidelity.explanation: string (required)',
+    '  painCoverage: object (required) — **顶层键**，与 compressionFidelity 平级，不得写成 segments 的兄弟对象',
+    '  painCoverage.fullyCovered: boolean (required)',
+    '  painCoverage.uncoveredAspects: string[] (required)',
+    '  painCoverage.explanation: string (required)',
+].join('\n');
+/** 本 Spike 允许的 LLM 修复往返次数（上限由 MAX_REPAIR_ATTEMPTS 收口）。 */
+const ROUTE_A_REPAIR_ATTEMPTS = normalizeMaxRepairAttempts(2, MAX_REPAIR_ATTEMPTS);
+/** 把本地形状校验错误转成修复通道的错误形状（不引入新的错误类型）。 */
+function toSchemaValidationErrors(errors) {
+    return errors.map((message) => ({ path: ROUTE_A_SCHEMA_REF, message, value: undefined }));
+}
+/**
+ * 从回复文本解析 + 校验 Route A 判定；失败则经既有修复通道有界重试。
+ *
+ * rc-1 / rc-2：解析结果保持 `unknown`，一律经 `validateRouteA` 逐字段校验后才使用；
+ * 修复通道的 `output` 也不用 `as` 收窄（泛参显式给 `unknown`）。
+ * rc-9 / ERR-002：修复失败带 `repairAttempts` 与经 `safeStringifyPreview` 截断的原文预览。
+ */
+async function resolveRouteAContract(label, rawText) {
+    const firstPass = extractJsonObject(rawText) ?? repairMalformedJson(rawText);
+    if (firstPass !== null) {
+        const validated = validateRouteA(firstPass);
+        if (validated.ok) {
+            return { kind: 'ok', judgment: validated.value, repairAttempts: 0, repaired: false };
+        }
+    }
+    const initialErrors = firstPass === null
+        ? ['reply text contains no parseable JSON object (unbalanced or mis-nested envelope)']
+        : (() => {
+            const validated = validateRouteA(firstPass);
+            return validated.ok ? [] : validated.errors;
+        })();
+    let repairRound = 0;
+    const repair = await attemptStructuredOutputRepair(firstPass ?? rawText, toSchemaValidationErrors(initialErrors), {
+        llmCaller: async (prompt) => {
+            repairRound += 1;
+            const call = await askAgent(`${label}-repair${String(repairRound)}`, prompt);
+            return call.kind === 'reply' ? call.rawText : null;
+        },
+        schemaCheck: (value) => validateRouteA(value).ok,
+        // rc-7：每一轮读当轮的新错误，不复用上一轮的陈旧错误
+        schemaErrors: (value) => {
+            const validated = validateRouteA(value);
+            return validated.ok ? [] : toSchemaValidationErrors(validated.errors);
+        },
+    }, {
+        maxRepairAttempts: ROUTE_A_REPAIR_ATTEMPTS,
+        schemaRef: ROUTE_A_SCHEMA_REF,
+        schemaSummary: ROUTE_A_SCHEMA_SUMMARY,
+        // 回复本体 ~2-3 KB：预览必须覆盖全文，否则模型看不到自己写坏的那一段
+        maxRawOutputChars: 8000,
+        _testJitterMs: 0,
+    });
+    if (repair.repaired) {
+        const validated = validateRouteA(repair.output);
+        if (validated.ok) {
+            return {
+                kind: 'ok',
+                judgment: validated.value,
+                repairAttempts: repair.attemptsUsed,
+                repaired: true,
+            };
+        }
+        return {
+            kind: 'output_contract_violation',
+            errors: validated.errors,
+            repairAttempts: repair.attemptsUsed,
+            rawPreview: safeStringifyPreview(repair.output, 1200),
+        };
+    }
+    return {
+        kind: 'output_contract_violation',
+        errors: initialErrors.length > 0 ? initialErrors : [repair.repairSummary],
+        repairAttempts: repair.attemptsUsed,
+        rawPreview: safeStringifyPreview(firstPass ?? rawText, 1200),
+    };
+}
+// ── Route B：生产 evaluator prompt + 生产 validator，上下文换成摘要级 ────────
+function buildRouteBMessage(chain, context) {
+    const builder = new EvaluatorPromptBuilder();
+    const { message } = builder.buildPrompt({
+        taskId: chain.evaluator.taskId,
+        contextHash: `spike-summary-${chain.chainId}`,
+        sourceArtificerArtifactId: chain.artificer.artifactId,
+        // 摘要级 stand-in：只含 headline + 结构化字段，无 implementationCode
+        artificerArtifact: {
+            summary: {
+                headline: context.fields['artificer.summary.headline'],
+                changedFiles: context.fields['artificer.summary.changedFiles'],
+                apiSurface: context.fields['artificer.summary.apiSurface'],
+                risks: context.fields['artificer.summary.risks'],
+            },
+            predecessorSummary: {
+                runnerKind: 'scribe',
+                headline: context.fields['artificer.predecessorSummary.headline'],
+            },
+            upstreamSummaries: {
+                dreamer: {
+                    badDecision: context.fields['dreamer.summary.badDecision'],
+                    betterDecision: context.fields['dreamer.summary.betterDecision'],
+                    rationale: context.fields['dreamer.summary.rationale'],
+                    riskLevel: context.fields['dreamer.summary.riskLevel'],
+                },
+                pain: {
+                    rootSymptom: context.fields['pain.summary.rootSymptom'],
+                    category: context.fields['pain.summary.category'],
+                },
+            },
+            absentFields: context.absent,
+        },
+        scribeArtifact: {
+            summary: {
+                principleText: context.fields['scribe.summary.principleText'],
+                scope: context.fields['scribe.summary.scope'],
+            },
+        },
+    });
+    return message;
+}
+const results = {
+    generatedAt: RUN_TIMESTAMP,
+    llmRoute: 'openclaw agent --agent main --json (runCliProcess, same spawn path as OpenClawCliRuntimeAdapter)',
+    routeA: [],
+    routeB: [],
+    llmUnavailable: [],
+    outputContractViolations: [],
+};
+function persistResults() {
+    // CodeRabbit PR #1273 #7: RESULTS_PATH targets .kiro/specs/... which is
+    // git-ignored and may not exist on a fresh clone / CI. mkdirSync recursive
+    // mirrors askAgent's handling of SPIKE_TMP_DIR (line 513).
+    mkdirSync(dirname(RESULTS_PATH), { recursive: true });
+    writeFileSync(RESULTS_PATH, `${JSON.stringify(results, null, 2)}\n`, 'utf8');
+}
+// ── Tests ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+describe('Phase 0 Spike 1.2 — 摘要级上下文的定位能力（阻塞门）', () => {
+    it('摘要级上下文只含 headline + 结构化字段，不含任何原始大字段', () => {
+        for (const chain of SPIKE_CHAINS) {
+            assertSpikeChainLineageConsistent(chain);
+            const context = buildEvaluatorStage1Context(chain);
+            const serialized = JSON.stringify(context);
+            // 原始大字段的哨兵串：evidence note / 全量候选的 confidence / 实现代码
+            expect(serialized).not.toContain('run://spike-rename');
+            expect(serialized).not.toContain('function evaluate(input)');
+            expect(serialized).not.toContain('goldenTraceCases');
+            expect(serialized).not.toContain('causalChain');
+            // 注入路径恰好是 EVALUATOR_STAGE1_MANIFEST 的 tier0 ∪ tier1
+            expect([...Object.keys(context.fields), ...context.absent].sort()).toEqual([...EVALUATOR_STAGE1_PATHS].sort());
+            // 缺陷判定所需的两个关键字段必须在摘要级上下文里可用（否则门无意义）
+            expect(context.fields['dreamer.summary.riskLevel']).toBeTruthy();
+            expect(context.fields['scribe.summary.principleText']).toBeTruthy();
+        }
+    });
+    // Route A is the real-LLM Phase 0 value-validation gate (design §12.1).
+    // The gate has PASSED (2026-07-30, 4th rerun) — its blocking purpose is
+    // served. It must NOT run in regular CI: it spawns a real LLM agent
+    // (`openclaw agent --agent main`) requiring credentials/keys unavailable
+    // in CI, and it is non-deterministic by nature (LLM judgement).
+    //
+    // To re-run the gate manually (e.g. after a model swap or a criteria
+    // change), set PD_SPIKE_RUN_LLM=1 locally with the LLM key configured.
+    // Otherwise the test is skipped — never silently passes, never fails CI.
+    const runRouteA = process.env.PD_SPIKE_RUN_LLM === '1';
+    (runRouteA ? it : it.skip)('Route A：真实 LLM 仅凭摘要级上下文判断三段与维度；对照链不得被误报' + (runRouteA ? '' : '（skipped: PD_SPIKE_RUN_LLM 未设；门禁已于 2026-07-30 通过，CI 不重跑真实 LLM）'), async () => {
+        for (const chain of SPIKE_CHAINS) {
+            const context = buildEvaluatorStage1Context(chain);
+            const call = await askAgent(`routeA-${chain.chainId}`, buildRouteAMessage(chain, context));
+            // 桶 1：模型没答（design §6.5.4 的 llm_unavailable）
+            if (call.kind === 'unavailable') {
+                results.llmUnavailable.push(`${chain.chainId}: ${call.reason}`);
+                results.routeA.push({
+                    chainId: chain.chainId,
+                    label: chain.label,
+                    expectedDefect: chain.expectedDefect,
+                    injectedFieldPaths: Object.keys(context.fields),
+                    absentFieldPaths: context.absent,
+                    llmRawReply: call.rawText,
+                    validation: 'llm_unavailable',
+                    validationErrors: [call.reason],
+                });
+                continue;
+            }
+            const resolution = await resolveRouteAContract(`routeA-${chain.chainId}`, call.rawText);
+            // 桶 2：模型答了但信封坏了，且修复通道用尽仍非法
+            if (resolution.kind === 'output_contract_violation') {
+                results.outputContractViolations.push(`${chain.chainId}: ${resolution.errors.join(' | ')} (repairAttempts=${String(resolution.repairAttempts)})`);
+                results.routeA.push({
+                    chainId: chain.chainId,
+                    label: chain.label,
+                    expectedDefect: chain.expectedDefect,
+                    injectedFieldPaths: Object.keys(context.fields),
+                    absentFieldPaths: context.absent,
+                    llmRawReply: call.rawText,
+                    validation: 'output_contract_violation',
+                    validationErrors: resolution.errors,
+                    repairAttempts: resolution.repairAttempts,
+                    repaired: false,
+                    rawPreview: resolution.rawPreview,
+                });
+                continue;
+            }
+            const validated = { ok: true, value: resolution.judgment };
+            const flaggedDecision = evaluateSpikeFlagged(validated.value);
+            results.routeA.push({
+                chainId: chain.chainId,
+                label: chain.label,
+                expectedDefect: chain.expectedDefect,
+                injectedFieldPaths: Object.keys(context.fields),
+                absentFieldPaths: context.absent,
+                llmRawReply: call.rawText,
+                validation: 'ok',
+                repairAttempts: resolution.repairAttempts,
+                repaired: resolution.repaired,
+                namedSegments: validated.value.segments.map((s) => ({
+                    segment: s.segment,
+                    verdict: s.verdict,
+                    missingDimensions: s.missingDimensions,
+                    rawMissingDimensions: s.rawMissingDimensions,
+                    optionalUncovered: s.optionalUncovered,
+                    detail: s.detail,
+                })),
+                compressionFidelityMissing: validated.value.compressionFidelityMissing,
+                compressionFidelityMissingRaw: validated.value.compressionFidelityMissingRaw,
+                compressionFidelityOptionalUncovered: validated.value.compressionFidelityOptionalUncovered,
+                painFullyCovered: validated.value.painFullyCovered,
+                flagged: flaggedDecision.flagged,
+                flaggedReasons: flaggedDecision.reasons,
+                flaggedUndetermined: flaggedDecision.undetermined,
+                shapeWarnings: validated.value.shapeWarnings,
+            });
+        }
+        persistResults();
+        // rc-9 / ERR-002 / ERR-088：两种失败**分两条断言**，诊断信号唯一。
+        // 桶 1「模型没答」→ 运行时/环境问题（换 runtime 配置）。
+        expect(results.llmUnavailable, `LLM_UNAVAILABLE (model did not answer — spawn error / timeout / empty stdout / no reply in envelope): ${results.llmUnavailable.join('; ')}`).toEqual([]);
+        // 桶 2「模型答了但信封坏了」→ 能力/prompt 问题（换模型或改 prompt）。
+        expect(results.outputContractViolations, `OUTPUT_CONTRACT_VIOLATION (model answered but shape stayed invalid after up to ${String(ROUTE_A_REPAIR_ATTEMPTS)} repair round(s) via attemptStructuredOutputRepair): ${results.outputContractViolations.join('; ')}`).toEqual([]);
+        for (const record of results.routeA) {
+            expect(record.validation, `chain ${record.chainId} (${record.validation}) raw reply: ${record.llmRawReply}`).toBe('ok');
+        }
+        const byChain = new Map(results.routeA.map((r) => [r.chainId, r]));
+        // 缺陷链 A：必须点名 dreamer_to_scribe 段 + riskLevel 维度
+        const defectA = byChain.get('defect_a_risk_level_dropped');
+        expect(defectA).toBeDefined();
+        const defectASegment = defectA?.namedSegments?.find((s) => s.segment === 'dreamer_to_scribe');
+        expect(defectASegment?.verdict, `defect A raw: ${defectA?.llmRawReply ?? ''}`).not.toBe('pass');
+        expect([...(defectASegment?.missingDimensions ?? []), ...(defectA?.compressionFidelityMissing ?? [])]
+            .join(' ')
+            .toLowerCase(), `defect A raw: ${defectA?.llmRawReply ?? ''}`).toContain('risklevel');
+        // 缺陷链 B：必须点名 dreamer_to_scribe 段 + betterDecision（具体动作被抽象化）
+        const defectB = byChain.get('defect_b_action_abstracted');
+        expect(defectB).toBeDefined();
+        const defectBSegment = defectB?.namedSegments?.find((s) => s.segment === 'dreamer_to_scribe');
+        expect(defectBSegment?.verdict, `defect B raw: ${defectB?.llmRawReply ?? ''}`).not.toBe('pass');
+        expect([...(defectBSegment?.missingDimensions ?? []), ...(defectB?.compressionFidelityMissing ?? [])]
+            .join(' ')
+            .toLowerCase(), `defect B raw: ${defectB?.llmRawReply ?? ''}`).toContain('betterdecision');
+        // 对照链：假阳性守卫（design §12.1「门禁再跑」+ CP-36）——
+        // dreamer_to_scribe 判 pass、政策过滤后的 required 缺失为空、flagged 为 false。
+        // `badDecision`（optional）/ `strategicPerspective`（excluded）出现在
+        // optionalUncovered 里**不构成失败**，只作为诊断留痕。
+        const control = byChain.get('control_no_defect');
+        expect(control).toBeDefined();
+        const controlSegment = control?.namedSegments?.find((s) => s.segment === 'dreamer_to_scribe');
+        expect(controlSegment?.verdict, `control raw: ${control?.llmRawReply ?? ''}`).toBe('pass');
+        expect([...(controlSegment?.missingDimensions ?? []), ...(control?.compressionFidelityMissing ?? [])], `control raw: ${control?.llmRawReply ?? ''}`).toEqual([]);
+        expect(control?.flagged, `control flagged reasons: ${(control?.flaggedReasons ?? []).join(', ')}; raw: ${control?.llmRawReply ?? ''}`).toBe(false);
+    }, LLM_TIMEOUT_MS * 4);
+    // Route B 在第三次门禁重跑中**不执行**：第二次重跑里它每条链都跑过传输层超时
+    // （生产 evaluator prompt 体积远大于 Route A 的 spike-local prompt），整个测试挂到
+    // 超时上限之后才结束，且它是纯记录性路由（不参与门禁判定）。保留代码与形状，
+    // 显式 skip 并写明原因（不删测试、不假装通过）。
+    it.skip('Route B（第三次门禁重跑中跳过：第二次重跑挂在传输层超时；纯记录性路由，不参与门禁判定）', async () => {
+        const validator = new DefaultEvaluatorValidator();
+        for (const chain of SPIKE_CHAINS) {
+            const context = buildEvaluatorStage1Context(chain);
+            const call = await askAgent(`routeB-${chain.chainId}`, buildRouteBMessage(chain, context));
+            const rawText = call.rawText;
+            const parsed = call.kind === 'reply'
+                ? extractJsonObject(rawText) ?? repairMalformedJson(rawText)
+                : null;
+            const validation = await validator.validate(parsed, chain.evaluator.taskId, chain.artificer.artifactId);
+            const evaluation = readRecord(parsed, 'evaluation');
+            const concerns = evaluation === null ? null : readArray(evaluation, 'concerns');
+            const requiredChanges = evaluation === null ? null : readArray(evaluation, 'requiredChanges');
+            results.routeB.push({
+                chainId: chain.chainId,
+                llmRawReply: rawText,
+                productionValidatorValid: validation.valid,
+                productionValidatorErrors: validation.errors,
+                concerns: (concerns ?? []).filter((c) => typeof c === 'string'),
+                requiredChanges: (requiredChanges ?? []).filter((c) => typeof c === 'string'),
+                decision: evaluation === null ? null : readString(evaluation, 'decision'),
+            });
+        }
+        persistResults();
+        // ERR-088：不能用「拿到了某段文本」当依据 —— 传输层不可达时 stderr 也是文本。
+        // 唯一指向「LLM 真的判过」的信号是生产 validator 至少看到一个对象化输出，
+        // 因此断言输出被解析成对象（校验错误可以有，但不能是 'Output is not an object'）。
+        for (const record of results.routeB) {
+            expect(record.productionValidatorErrors, `chain ${record.chainId} produced no parseable LLM output; raw: ${record.llmRawReply.slice(0, 500)}`).not.toContain('Output is not an object');
+        }
+    }, LLM_TIMEOUT_MS * 4);
+});
+//# sourceMappingURL=progressive-disclosure-spike.test.js.map