@productbrain/mcp 0.0.1-beta.4595 → 0.0.1-beta.4600

package/dist/{chunk-IEPC2AQN.js → chunk-3FK3GMB5.js}

@@ -1787,7 +1787,7 @@ function buildClassifierUnknownResult() {
   return {
     content: [{
       type: "text",
-      text: "I could not infer a collection confidently from this input.\n\nPlease provide `collection`, or rewrite with clearer intent (decision/problem/definition/insight/bet)."
+      text: "I could not infer a collection confidently from this input.\n\nPlease provide `collection`, or rewrite with clearer intent (decision/problem/definition/insight/work-package)."
     }],
     structuredContent: failure(
       "VALIDATION_ERROR",
@@ -2917,7 +2917,7 @@ Use \`entries action=get\` to inspect the existing entry, or \`entries action=up
   if (isBetOrGoal && !hasStrategyLink) {
     lines.push("");
     lines.push(
-      `**Strategy link:** This ${isWorkPackageCapture ? "bet" : "goal"} doesn't connect to any strategy entry. Consider linking before accepting. Use \`relations action=suggest entryId="${finalEntryId}"\` to find strategy entries to connect to.`
+      `**Strategy link:** This ${isWorkPackageCapture ? "work package" : "goal"} doesn't connect to any strategy entry. Consider linking before accepting. Use \`relations action=suggest entryId="${finalEntryId}"\` to find strategy entries to connect to.`
     );
     await recordSessionActivity({ strategyLinkWarnedForEntryId: internalId });
   }
@@ -7120,7 +7120,7 @@ function formatConfidencePass(result2) {
   return {
     content: [{ type: "text", text: lines.join("\n") }],
     structuredContent: success(
-      `Confidence pass: ${changes.entries.length} changes, ${result2.workPackageCount} active bets, ${result2.tensionCount} active tensions.`,
+      `Confidence pass: ${changes.entries.length} changes, ${result2.workPackageCount} active work packages, ${result2.tensionCount} active tensions.`,
       { ...result2, trustFilterActive: true }
     )
   };
@@ -8471,7 +8471,7 @@ function buildTaskAlignmentLines(ta) {
 var CORE_PROTOCOL_BASE = [
   '**Search before proposing.** Before suggesting new features, architecture, or changes, search the Chain: `entries action=search query="<relevant terms>"`. Build on what exists.',
   "**Reference by ID.** When discussing a topic that has Chain entries, cite them by entry ID (e.g. `DEC-50`, `PRI-3`). This keeps conversations grounded in shared knowledge.",
-  "**Check scope.** If the proposed work doesn't fall under an active bet, stop and say so. Do not design implementation for out-of-scope work without explicit user go-ahead.",
+  "**Check scope.** If the proposed work doesn't fall under an active work package, stop and say so. Do not design implementation for out-of-scope work without explicit user go-ahead.",
   `**Capture continuously.** When a decision, tension, insight, or new term surfaces during work, capture it as a draft immediately. Don't defer to "later."`
 ];
 var RULE5_WITH_GOVERNANCE = "**Validate against governance.** Before proposing any solution, check it against the Workspace Governance directives below. If your proposal conflicts with a principle, standard, or business rule \u2014 stop, name the conflict, and get explicit user confirmation before proceeding.";
@@ -8557,10 +8557,10 @@ function buildOperatingProtocol(governanceOrStandards, task) {
 }
 function formatBetConstellationLines(constellationEntries, constellationBetName) {
   if (!constellationEntries?.length) return [];
-  const betName = constellationBetName ?? "Matched bet";
+  const betName = constellationBetName ?? "Matched work package";
   const lines = [
-    `## Bet Constellation \u2014 ${betName}`,
-    "_Decisions, tensions, and features related to the matched bet._",
+    `## Work Package Constellation \u2014 ${betName}`,
+    "_Decisions, tensions, and features related to the matched work package._",
     ""
   ];
   const bySlug = /* @__PURE__ */ new Map();
@@ -8597,7 +8597,7 @@ function formatWorkstreamHealthLines(workstreams) {
   if (!workstreams?.length) return [];
   const lines = ["## Workstream Health", ""];
   for (const ws of workstreams) {
-    const betDetail = ws.activeBetNames?.length ? ws.activeBetNames.join(", ") : `${ws.betCount} bet(s)`;
+    const betDetail = ws.activeBetNames?.length ? ws.activeBetNames.join(", ") : `${ws.betCount} work package(s)`;
     lines.push(`- ${ws.name} \u2014 ${betDetail}`);
   }
   lines.push("");
@@ -10611,8 +10611,8 @@ var SHAPE_WORKFLOW_DESCRIPTOR = {
   icon: "\u25C6",
   facilitatorPreamble: `You are now in **Shaping Mode**. The shaping skill owns the facilitation loop end-to-end \u2014 read it for scoring rubrics, investigation patterns, and the capture flow.
 
-Use \`capture\` to create constellation entries (elements, risks, decisions, glossary terms) linked to the bet.
-Use \`session action=commit-constellation\` to atomically accept the bet and all linked entries when the shape is complete.
+Use \`capture\` to create constellation entries (elements, risks, decisions, glossary terms) linked to the work package.
+Use \`session action=commit-constellation\` to atomically accept the work package and all linked entries when the shape is complete.
 Use \`workflows action=checkpoint\` after each round to persist progress to the durable run.`,
   rounds: [
     {
@@ -10621,7 +10621,7 @@ Use \`workflows action=checkpoint\` after each round to persist progress to the
       label: "Gather Context",
       type: "open",
       instruction: "Before shaping, let's see what the Chain already knows. Search for related entries, business rules, and existing decisions.",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "**Investigate proactively.** Spawn sub-agents in parallel: (1) `explore` agent to search the codebase for code related to the bet topic \u2014 find modules, patterns, and pain points. (2) `generalPurpose` agent to search the Chain: call `orient`, use `entries action=search` with keywords, surface related tensions, active bets, and applicable business rules. Synthesize both into a 3-5 line context brief: what the codebase reveals, what the Chain knows, what governance applies. Present with IDs and file paths. Build a system map: what modules, data flows, and contracts exist in this area today? Check governance: do any principles, standards, or business rules constrain this design space? Then transition: 'Here's what I found. Does this match the problem you're seeing?'",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "**Investigate proactively.** Spawn sub-agents in parallel: (1) `explore` agent to search the codebase for code related to the work package topic \u2014 find modules, patterns, and pain points. (2) `generalPurpose` agent to search the Chain: call `orient`, use `entries action=search` with keywords, surface related tensions, active work packages, and applicable business rules. Synthesize both into a 3-5 line context brief: what the codebase reveals, what the Chain knows, what governance applies. Present with IDs and file paths. Build a system map: what modules, data flows, and contracts exist in this area today? Check governance: do any principles, standards, or business rules constrain this design space? Then transition: 'Here's what I found. Does this match the problem you're seeing?'",
       outputSchema: {
         field: "context",
         description: "System map, Chain context, governance constraints, related entries",
@@ -10668,7 +10668,7 @@ Use \`workflows action=checkpoint\` after each round to persist progress to the
       label: "Find the Elements",
       type: "open",
       instruction: "What are the solution elements? Think breadboard level \u2014 places, affordances, connections. What's the architecture?",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "**Investigate first.** Spawn sub-agents to search the codebase for affected modules, existing architecture patterns, and API boundaries. Synthesize findings into 3-5 proposed solution elements at breadboard level, citing specific files and modules. **Five-path trace per element:** For each element, trace: (1) what data flows through it, (2) what contracts it relies on, (3) what contracts it alters, (4) what second-order effects downstream, (5) what happens at boundaries (batch, error, empty, scale). Present proposals for user reaction: 'Based on the codebase, here are the elements I'd suggest.' For each confirmed element, use `capture` with collection='features' to create a features entry linked to the bet via part_of. For Big Batch: also investigate architecture \u2014 search for layer boundaries and dependency directions, then propose architecture. Check business rules: do any elements conflict with governance surfaced in Round 1? Capture new glossary terms and decisions as they surface. Aim for 3-5 elements. When elements and architecture are well-covered, present for confirmation.",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "**Investigate first.** Spawn sub-agents to search the codebase for affected modules, existing architecture patterns, and API boundaries. Synthesize findings into 3-5 proposed solution elements at breadboard level, citing specific files and modules. **Five-path trace per element:** For each element, trace: (1) what data flows through it, (2) what contracts it relies on, (3) what contracts it alters, (4) what second-order effects downstream, (5) what happens at boundaries (batch, error, empty, scale). Present proposals for user reaction: 'Based on the codebase, here are the elements I'd suggest.' For each confirmed element, use `capture` with collection='features' to create a features entry linked to the work package via part_of. For Big Batch: also investigate architecture \u2014 search for layer boundaries and dependency directions, then propose architecture. Check business rules: do any elements conflict with governance surfaced in Round 1? Capture new glossary terms and decisions as they surface. Aim for 3-5 elements. When elements and architecture are well-covered, present for confirmation.",
       outputSchema: {
         field: "elements",
         description: "Core solution elements and architecture",
@@ -10683,7 +10683,7 @@ Use \`workflows action=checkpoint\` after each round to persist progress to the
       label: "De-risk \u2014 Rabbit Holes & No-Gos",
       type: "open",
       instruction: "What could go wrong? What are we NOT building? Walk through the solution slowly and find the risks.",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "**Investigate first.** Spawn sub-agents to search the codebase for fragile code, tight coupling, missing tests, performance-sensitive paths, and external dependencies near the affected modules. Propose risks with evidence: 'I found that X module has no tests and is tightly coupled to Y \u2014 this is a rabbit hole.' Every confirmed risk MUST be captured using `capture` with collection='tensions' \u2014 each becomes a tensions entry linked to the bet via constrains. Push for mitigations \u2014 every risk needs a patch or explicit acceptance. Then declare no-gos: 'Based on what I've seen, I'd suggest these no-gos.' Every no-go MUST also be captured. **Counter-Metric Mandate (STD-19):** If the derisking references any quantitative gates or metrics (accuracy targets, performance budgets, adoption thresholds), stress-test them: 'What's the denominator? What gets excluded? What counter-metric would expose a false positive?' A metric gate that can be gamed by abstaining or cherry-picking the population is not a gate \u2014 name the compound metric that can't be gamed. When risks and boundaries are well-covered, present Shape Go gate: 'Is this buildable within the appetite?'",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "**Investigate first.** Spawn sub-agents to search the codebase for fragile code, tight coupling, missing tests, performance-sensitive paths, and external dependencies near the affected modules. Propose risks with evidence: 'I found that X module has no tests and is tightly coupled to Y \u2014 this is a rabbit hole.' Every confirmed risk MUST be captured using `capture` with collection='tensions' \u2014 each becomes a tensions entry linked to the work package via constrains. Push for mitigations \u2014 every risk needs a patch or explicit acceptance. Then declare no-gos: 'Based on what I've seen, I'd suggest these no-gos.' Every no-go MUST also be captured. **Counter-Metric Mandate (STD-19):** If the derisking references any quantitative gates or metrics (accuracy targets, performance budgets, adoption thresholds), stress-test them: 'What's the denominator? What gets excluded? What counter-metric would expose a false positive?' A metric gate that can be gamed by abstaining or cherry-picking the population is not a gate \u2014 name the compound metric that can't be gamed. When risks and boundaries are well-covered, present Shape Go gate: 'Is this buildable within the appetite?'",
       questions: [
         {
           id: "shape-go",
@@ -10709,7 +10709,7 @@ Use \`workflows action=checkpoint\` after each round to persist progress to the
       label: "Validate & Build Contract",
       type: "synthesis",
       instruction: "Check completeness. Generate the build contract. Review the full scorecard.",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "Review the scorecard from the shaping skill's scoring rubric. Present it as a table. Verify the 5 core ingredients: Problem, Appetite, Solution elements, Rabbit Holes, No-Gos. For Big Batch: also verify Architecture, narrative hook, and value-flow annotations. **System coherence confirmation:** Were all five paths traced for each element? State which interaction risks remain unverified \u2014 these become explicit risks in the bet, not surprises during implementation. **Vision narrative (TEN-281):** Write one paragraph \u2014 how does this bet serve the product vision? **Test plan (TEN-281):** How will we know this is done? Concrete scenarios, not 'when tests pass.' **Counter-Metric Mandate (STD-19):** If the scorecard or build contract contains metrics or gates, verify each has a denominator, a coverage rate, and a counter-metric. Flag any gate that can be satisfied by abstaining or excluding the hard cases. Present the build contract. Ask: 'Anything to adjust before we capture to the Chain?'",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "Review the scorecard from the shaping skill's scoring rubric. Present it as a table. Verify the 5 core ingredients: Problem, Appetite, Solution elements, Rabbit Holes, No-Gos. For Big Batch: also verify Architecture, narrative hook, and value-flow annotations. **System coherence confirmation:** Were all five paths traced for each element? State which interaction risks remain unverified \u2014 these become explicit risks in the work package, not surprises during implementation. **Vision narrative (TEN-281):** Write one paragraph \u2014 how does this bet serve the product vision? **Test plan (TEN-281):** How will we know this is done? Concrete scenarios, not 'when tests pass.' **Counter-Metric Mandate (STD-19):** If the scorecard or build contract contains metrics or gates, verify each has a denominator, a coverage rate, and a counter-metric. Flag any gate that can be satisfied by abstaining or excluding the hard cases. Present the build contract. Ask: 'Anything to adjust before we capture to the Chain?'",
       outputSchema: {
         field: "validation",
         description: "Completeness check result and build contract",
@@ -10723,7 +10723,7 @@ Use \`workflows action=checkpoint\` after each round to persist progress to the
       label: "Capture & Accept",
       type: "close",
       instruction: "Capture the pitch to the Chain. Accept draft entries. Connect the constellation.",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "List all draft entries created during shaping (elements, risks, decisions, glossary terms). Ask the user to confirm: 'Ready to accept these onto the Chain?' Call `session action=commit-constellation` to atomically accept the bet and all linked entries. Then `relations action=suggest entryId='<betId>'` to discover connections. Create the top 3 suggested relations via `relations action=batch-create`. Thank the user. State: what was shaped, how many constellation entries captured, what the implementer inherits.",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "List all draft entries created during shaping (elements, risks, decisions, glossary terms). Ask the user to confirm: 'Ready to accept these onto the Chain?' Call `session action=commit-constellation` to atomically accept the work package and all linked entries. Then `relations action=suggest entryId='<betId>'` to discover connections. Create the top 3 suggested relations via `relations action=batch-create`. Thank the user. State: what was shaped, how many constellation entries captured, what the implementer inherits.",
       outputSchema: {
         field: "capture",
         description: "Final capture summary \u2014 entries accepted, relations created",
@@ -10815,7 +10815,7 @@ var IMPLEMENTATION_REVIEW_WORKFLOW_DESCRIPTOR = {
 
 ## Tool Usage
 
-- \`orient\` or \`start\` \u2014 governance, active bets, stale entries
+- \`orient\` or \`start\` \u2014 governance, active work packages, stale entries
 - \`quality action=check entryId="<BET-ID>"\` \u2014 score against collection criteria
 - \`chain-review action=gate chainEntryId="<id>"\` \u2014 coherence gate for chains
 - \`quality action=verify-chain\` \u2014 glossary code mappings, cross-references vs codebase
@@ -10845,7 +10845,7 @@ This block is the final deliverable of the review. Everything else is supporting
       label: "Orient & Scope",
       type: "open",
       instruction: "Apply the Review scope rules: infer scope from this conversation, git diff, and recent edits (default = work in this conversation only). Enumerate every file touched (created, modified, deleted). Call orient or start, then context action=gather for the inferred BET/feature. State scope in one explicit sentence and list all files in scope. Only ask the participant if scope is ambiguous. The review will assess: holistic coherence with our system, whether this brings us closer to our vision, and whether it makes our code and architecture cleaner.",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "Infer scope from conversation context, git status/diff, and recent edits \u2014 default is work in this conversation only. List every file touched (created, modified, or deleted) in the work under review; scope is not complete without this list. Call orient or start to load governance and active bets. Use context action=gather task='implementation review for [inferred-BET-or-feature]' to load related entries. State scope explicitly in one sentence (e.g. 'Scope: changes in this conversation for BET-72'). Present: stated scope, the full list of files touched, relevant BETs/DECs/BRs, and any stale entries orient surfaces. Frame the review: we will assess holistic coherence with our system, whether this brings us closer to our vision, and whether it makes our code and architecture cleaner. Ask the participant only if scope is ambiguous (e.g. 'Only the files we changed, or the whole feature?'). Note vision anchors (principles, strategy, active bet constraints) \u2014 you will reference these in Rounds 02\u201305.",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "Infer scope from conversation context, git status/diff, and recent edits \u2014 default is work in this conversation only. List every file touched (created, modified, or deleted) in the work under review; scope is not complete without this list. Call orient or start to load governance and active work packages. Use context action=gather task='implementation review for [inferred-BET-or-feature]' to load related entries. State scope explicitly in one sentence (e.g. 'Scope: changes in this conversation for BET-72'). Present: stated scope, the full list of files touched, relevant BETs/DECs/BRs, and any stale entries orient surfaces. Frame the review: we will assess holistic coherence with our system, whether this brings us closer to our vision, and whether it makes our code and architecture cleaner. Ask the participant only if scope is ambiguous (e.g. 'Only the files we changed, or the whole feature?'). Note vision anchors (principles, strategy, active work-package constraints) \u2014 you will reference these in Rounds 02\u201305.",
       outputSchema: {
         field: "scope",
         description: "Explicit scope statement, every file touched, WP/feature IDs, related Chain context, vision anchors",
@@ -10970,14 +10970,14 @@ var PROCESS_CHANGE_WORKFLOW_DESCRIPTOR = {
 1. **Be fast.** This is a 5-minute workflow, not a 45-minute ceremony. Respect the user's flow state.
 2. **Orient first.** Call orient to load workspace context \u2014 but present only what's relevant to the change, not the full briefing.
 3. **Capture the why.** The single most important thing: why is this change happening? The what is usually obvious from the code. The why is what evaporates.
-4. **Link to what exists.** Search the Chain for related entries. If this change was triggered by a tension, bet, or decision \u2014 link it. If it creates a new decision or surfaces a new tension \u2014 capture that too.
+4. **Link to what exists.** Search the Chain for related entries. If this change was triggered by a tension, work package, or decision \u2014 link it. If it creates a new decision or surfaces a new tension \u2014 capture that too.
 5. **Finalize through the workflow substrate.** Complete the terminal round with \`workflows action=checkpoint ... isFinal=true\`. The substrate will classifier-route the primary record and attach it to the durable run.
 6. **Don't over-process.** If the user gives you everything in one message, move quickly through the required checkpoints in order, then finalize. Not every round needs a conversation.
 7. **End with the link.** Always finish by connecting the new entry to related Chain knowledge via graph suggest.
 
 ## Tool Usage
 
-- \`orient\` \u2014 load workspace context (governance, active bets, stale entries)
+- \`orient\` \u2014 load workspace context (governance, active work packages, stale entries)
 - \`entries action=search\` \u2014 find related entries
 - \`capture\` \u2014 manual fallback only if workflow finalization cannot safely route the entry
 - \`relations action=suggest\` \u2014 discover connections
@@ -11026,7 +11026,7 @@ var PROCESS_CHANGE_WORKFLOW_DESCRIPTOR = {
       label: "Impact & Links",
       type: "synthesis",
       instruction: "What's affected? Are there existing Chain entries that relate to this change?",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "Search the Chain for entries that should be linked: entries action=search with keywords from the change. Check: does this change affect an active bet? Does it resolve a known tension? Does it supersede an existing decision? If the change is small and self-contained, this round can be brief \u2014 just confirm there's nothing obvious to link. If there are stale entries that this change invalidates, flag them for reconfirmation.",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "Search the Chain for entries that should be linked: entries action=search with keywords from the change. Check: does this change affect an active work package? Does it resolve a known tension? Does it supersede an existing decision? If the change is small and self-contained, this round can be brief \u2014 just confirm there's nothing obvious to link. If there are stale entries that this change invalidates, flag them for reconfirmation.",
       outputSchema: {
         field: "impact",
         description: "Affected entries and proposed links",
@@ -13153,7 +13153,7 @@ No constellation entries were accepted.`
     return {
       content: [{
         type: "text",
-        text: `# Bet accept failed
+        text: `# Work package accept failed
 
 \`${betId}\` could not be accepted: ${msg}
 
@@ -13161,7 +13161,7 @@ No constellation entries were accepted.`
       }],
       structuredContent: failure(
         "BACKEND_ERROR",
-        `Bet accept failed: ${msg}`,
+        `Work package accept failed: ${msg}`,
         "Retry or check for accept blockers.",
         [{ tool: "session", description: "Resume session", parameters: { action: "resume", betEntryId: betId } }],
         diagnostics
@@ -13187,7 +13187,7 @@ No constellation entries were accepted.`
       hasIssues ? `# Proposal created with issues` : `# Proposal created`,
       "",
       `Workspace uses consent-based governance. \`${betId}\` was submitted as a proposal \u2014 it will be accepted when approved.`,
-      `No linked entries were accepted because the bet itself is still awaiting approval.`
+      `No linked entries were accepted because the work package itself is still awaiting approval.`
     );
   } else {
     lines.push(
@@ -16127,13 +16127,13 @@ var AGENT_CHEATSHEET = `# Product Brain \u2014 Agent Cheatsheet
 ## Core Tools (Serves 13 default compound tools; 3 more (chain, chain-review, map) behind PB_MODULES=gitchain)
 | Tool | Purpose | Key params |
 |---|---|---|
-| \`orient\` | Workspace context, governance, active bets, session start | \`action\`: start, task, record-activation |
+| \`orient\` | Workspace context, governance, active work packages, session start | \`action\`: start, task, record-activation |
 | \`capture\` | Create entry (draft), single or batch | \`collection\`, \`name\`, \`description\`, optional \`data\` / \`items[]\` |
 | \`entries\` | List / get / batch / search / update / commit / history / move / verify | \`action\` + \`entryId\` / \`query\` / \`collection\` |
 | \`relations\` | Create / batch-create / dismiss / delete / find / suggest links | \`action\` + \`from\`, \`to\`, \`type\` or \`entryId\` |
 | \`context\` | Gather related knowledge, last-verified brief | \`action\` + \`entryId\` or \`task\` |
 | \`collections\` | List / create / update collections, manage labels | \`action\` |
-| \`quality\` | Score an entry, verify the Chain, audit a bet | \`action\`: check, re-evaluate, verify-chain, audit |
+| \`quality\` | Score an entry, verify the Chain, audit a work package | \`action\`: check, re-evaluate, verify-chain, audit |
 | \`session\` | Start / close, wrapup, resume, constellation accept | \`action\`: start, close, status, wrapup-review, wrapup-commit, resume, commit-constellation |
 | \`workflows\` | Run workflows, checkpoint, load a skill | \`action\`: list, start, checkpoint, get-run, load-skill |
 | \`workspace\` | Check / whoami / status / self-test, usage, governance proposals | \`action\`: check, whoami, status, audit, self-test, usage, proposals-* |
@@ -16873,10 +16873,10 @@ var INSTRUCTIONS = [
   "This builds trust \u2014 the Chain (main) is SSOT; nothing goes there without user consent.",
   "",
   "Alignment-first: before proposing or building anything, check orient's Workspace Governance",
-  "and Active bets sections. These are constraints, not reference material.",
+  "and Active work packages sections. These are constraints, not reference material.",
   "If the proposal conflicts with a principle, standard, or business rule \u2014 stop, flag the conflict,",
   "and get explicit user confirmation before proceeding. Do not design around governance.",
-  "If the work is outside the scope of active bets \u2014 stop, name the gap, and ask the user",
+  "If the work is outside the scope of active work packages \u2014 stop, name the gap, and ask the user",
   "to confirm before designing. Do not propose implementation for out-of-scope work without a go-ahead.",
   "",
   "Workspace setup: use `collections action=create` and `collections action=update` to shape the workspace",
@@ -17048,4 +17048,4 @@ export {
   createProductBrainServer,
   initFeatureFlags
 };
-//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-IEPC2AQN.js.map
+//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-3FK3GMB5.js.map