@sabaiway/agent-workflow-memory 4.5.2 → 4.5.4

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -4,6 +4,32 @@ All notable changes to the memory substrate. Versions are this **package's** npm
 they are distinct from the **deployment-lineage** stamp written into a project's
 `docs/ai/.memory-version` (which tracks the shared `agent-workflow` lineage, head `3.0.0`).
 
+## 4.5.4 — the deployed `agent_rules.md` carries the state-table clause (AD-111)
+
+Template-only follow-up to engine 3.2.0: the rendered lens block in
+`references/templates/agent_rules.md` gains the clause that asks for a state table before a guard,
+admitted by a conjunction of proven facts rather than a list of exclusions. No substrate behaviour
+changes.
+
+**Which deployments actually see it, stated precisely:** a FRESH bootstrap (the template is copied)
+and any project the KIT reconciles — the lens reconciler lives in the kit, not here. A standalone
+`agent-workflow-memory` upgrade over an existing `agent_rules.md` preserves that file and does NOT
+re-render its lens region, so this clause does not reach it by that path.
+
+## 4.5.3 — the bundled `agent_rules.md` template carries the finding-scope lens bullet (AD-110)
+
+The engine's agent-rules lens gained one bullet in **3.1.0** — the finding-scope rule, scoped to
+plan-execution — and this package's bundled `agent_rules.md` template carries its render. Nothing
+else in the substrate moves: no new template, no schema change, no migration.
+
+**Why this is its own release rather than a free ride.** The lens canon lives in the engine and a
+wording change is an engine-only release by contract, because a deployed region converges from the
+engine read on the next kit touch. That is true of a DEPLOYED project and says nothing about this
+PACKAGE: the publish workflow refuses to no-op a package whose subtree changed without a version
+bump, and it is right to — the existing 4.5.2 tag still points at exactly the bytes on npm, and it is
+the CHANGED subtree that no longer matches them, so a no-op would leave that change unversioned and
+unpublished.
+
 ## 4.5.2 — the boundary sentence names the plan SHAPE, not the retired vocabulary (AD-104; ships with engine 3.0.0 / kit 6.0.0)
 
 **Wording only — no contract, no script, no gate changes.** This substrate records only *where* the

package/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: agent-workflow-memory
 description: Deploy or upgrade a portable AI-agent memory substrate in any project — an entry-point `AGENTS.md` (+ `CLAUDE.md` alias) and a structured `docs/ai/` context store with cap/archive/index enforcement. Use when the user wants to bootstrap `docs/ai/`, set up the Memory Map and session protocols, install the docs-rotation pre-commit hook, or run `/agent-workflow-memory` / `/agent-workflow-memory upgrade`. Triggers on "set up the memory system", "deploy the AI memory here", "bootstrap docs/ai", "upgrade the memory substrate". This is the substrate only — the workflow methodology (plan→execute→review, queue, Cleanup) is owned elsewhere and injected into AGENTS.md by the family composition root.
 disable-model-invocation: true
 metadata:
-  version: '4.5.2'
+  version: '4.5.4'
 ---
 
 # agent-workflow-memory

package/capability.json

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
   "schema": 1,
   "name": "agent-workflow-memory",
   "kind": "memory-substrate",
-  "version": "4.5.2",
+  "version": "4.5.4",
   "provides": ["context"],
   "roles": {},
   "detect": {

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sabaiway/agent-workflow-memory",
-  "version": "4.5.2",
+  "version": "4.5.4",
   "description": "Portable, cross-agent memory substrate for AI coding agents — an AGENTS.md entry point + docs/ai context with cap/archive/index enforcement, deployable standalone or as part of the agent-workflow family. The memory layer of the agent-workflow family.",
   "keywords": [
     "ai-agents",

package/references/templates/agent_rules.md

@@ -78,10 +78,12 @@ Apply this as part of §2 before any user-facing summary:
 ### 2.6. Planning, review & process-fidelity invariants
 Apply these when authoring a plan, reviewing, folding a finding, or editing code — the layer read **before any code change**. (Full canon: the project's planning / workflow-methodology + orchestration canon. This section is rendered from that canon and refreshed on upgrade; a custom edit is preserved verbatim, but flagged.)
 - **Fold by code, not prose.** Before folding a code-touching finding into a plan or change, read the cited `file:line` and cite it — a prose fold drifts from the code and seeds the next bug.
+- **Finding scope (plan-execution) — name the invariant BEFORE the edit.** During EXECUTION only — a plan under authoring has no shipped behaviour to call a live defect in, so plan-review carries none of this. Every finding names the invariant its fix would enforce, and where that invariant already lives decides the disposition: already an acceptance criterion of the phase → **fold here**; it would have to be ADDED → ship the **narrow fix** for the found site (red first, then green) and queue ONLY the generalization — a deferral row carries the invariant, the origin `file:line`, the narrow fix, its proof and a residual exposure declared NOT live; no correct narrow fix → **blocking**: the phase does not close, and it is **never queued**. Two bars declared before each round: a finding counts only if it changes a **WRITE/REMOVE decision** or is a false statement in shipped text; a repeat finding in one subarea **routes to SUBTRACTION**, not a fourth patch.
 - **Right altitude.** Pin intent + invariants + acceptance criteria (named tests); leave fine code-mechanics to Execute, where prose cannot diverge from reality.
 - **No code-mechanics in the plan.** A ledger row carries its path and anchor, and Verification carries the exact commands (the plan-shape canon) — checked syntax: the plan's own Verification runs them against an explicit expected outcome or gate; the only other syntax a plan may carry is a literal fixture/schema fragment a named test copies or validates. Un-run, logic-bearing syntax — control-flow, a regex, a glob, a grammar, an algorithm body, a mini-DSL — never lives in plan prose, however plausible or shell-verified it looks: a fold or draft that wants one is the trigger to write the test instead.
 - **Test-as-spec.** Fold a code-touching finding into a red→green TEST, not a prose paragraph — the gate is the only deterministic checker; a paragraph cannot self-check.
 - **Characterize-first.** Before editing UNCOVERED code, pin its current behavior in a green test, then edit — any unintended change goes red. Never edit what has no checker; first give it one. Keep edits atomic/reversible; prefer SUBTRACTIVE folds.
+- **State table BEFORE the guard — enumerate by PROOF, never by exclusion.** The subtraction rule above fires on a repeat finding, which is a LATE signal: by then the review has paid for each miss. The EARLY signal is structural — a decision whose input has **several independent state dimensions** (is it tracked? do the bytes still match the source? does the neighbouring file exist?). Write the table first, admit the write with **ONE conjunction of proven facts**, and funnel every other cell into a single refusal; the table is then the table-driven test. An exclusion list (`if (bad1) return; if (bad2) return;`) fails **OPEN** on the first state nobody enumerated — and "unreadable" is a state, distinct from "absent". A reviewer cannot save you here: it judges the patch in front of it and can only name the NEXT missing state, one round at a time.
 - **Fold minimally — prose has no checker.** An ephemeral, gitignored plan is prose with no executable checker; fold **minimally, in ONE place** and run a **self-consistency** read across the plan before every re-review — a fold that drifts several prose spots is what turns a 2-round review into churn.
 - **Heavy review at the diff.** Plan-review settles architecture only (≤2 rounds, stop at the pre-existing→fold-induced crossover); the exhaustive per-row review runs against real compiling code + the full suite, where a regression fails a gate immediately. **Backend divergence** (one backend grounded-ships while another keeps revising mechanics) IS that crossover — resolve at altitude, don't exhaust the strictest backend; route an all-mechanics/CI or prose-only artifact to a **thin plan + diff-review**.
 - **Convergence bar.** A review loop is CLEAN only when one round returns **0 blockers + 0 majors** from EVERY backend the recipe names (nits + a ship verdict is the stop). Folding ≠ convergence — re-review after folding.