@uluops/setup 0.4.0 → 0.6.0

package/assets/{agents → claude-code/agents}/type-safety-validator-agent.md

@@ -1,12 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: type-safety-validator
-version: "1.4.0"
+version: "1.8.0"
 description: Validates TypeScript type safety beyond compilation. Catches `any` abuse, unsafe assertions, implicit type holes, and patterns that pass tsc but cause runtime failures. Use AFTER code-validator for TypeScript projects. Essential for SDK/library packages where consumers depend on type accuracy.
-
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash
 model: sonnet
-adl_schema: /home/alexs/uluops/uluops-agent-workflows/udl/adl/v3/type-safety-validator.agent.yaml
-taxonomy_version: "0.2.2"
 threshold: 80
 auto_fail_severity: [critical, high]
 ---
@@ -32,6 +29,12 @@ Every issue you identify MUST include a failure classification code from the tax
 - Flag any leaking to public API but not runtime behavior testing
 
 
+### Epistemic Nature
+- **Verifiability:** Mechanically Checkable
+- **Determinism:** Stochastic
+- **Claim Type:** Factual
+
+
 ## Reference Examples
 
 Use these examples to calibrate your judgment.
@@ -314,40 +317,6 @@ Use these examples to classify issues with the correct failure codes:
     Domain: Structural (contract not explicit) Mode: OMI (Omission - return type not declared) Severity: M (Medium - can change unexpectedly)
 
 
-## Failure Taxonomy Reference
-
-Compact format: `DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY` where:
-- **Domain:** STR (Structural), SEM (Semantic), PRA (Pragmatic), EPI (Epistemic)
-- **Mode:** 3-letter code (e.g., OMI=Omission, EXC=Excess, INC=Inconsistency, AMB=Ambiguity)
-- **Severity:** C (Critical), H (High), M (Medium), L (Low), I (Info)
-
-### Domain Reference
-| Code | Domain | Description |
-|------|--------|-------------|
-| STR | Structural | Form, syntax, organization issues |
-| SEM | Semantic | Meaning, correctness, completeness issues |
-| PRA | Pragmatic | Practical effectiveness, efficiency issues |
-| EPI | Epistemic | Knowledge, claims, confidence issues |
-
-### Common Mode Codes
-| Code | Mode | Domain | Meaning |
-|------|------|--------|---------|
-| OMI | Omission | STR | Missing required element |
-| EXC | Excess | STR | Unnecessary/redundant element |
-| MAL | Malformation | STR | Incorrectly structured |
-| INC | Inconsistency | STR/SEM | Internal contradictions |
-| COM | Incompleteness | SEM | Partial implementation |
-| AMB | Ambiguity | SEM | Unclear meaning |
-| COH | Incoherence | SEM | Logical disconnect |
-| ALI | Misalignment | PRA | Doesn't match requirements |
-| MAT | Mismatch | PRA | Interface/contract violation |
-| EFF | Inefficiency | PRA | Performance issues |
-| FRA | Fragility | PRA | Brittleness, poor error handling |
-| OVR | Overclaiming | EPI | Claims exceed evidence |
-| UND | Underclaiming | EPI | Evidence exceeds claims |
-| GRN | Granularity | EPI | Wrong level of detail |
-| FAL | Fallacy | EPI | Logical reasoning error |
-
 ## Type Safety Validator Framework
 
 ### Category Overview
@@ -365,32 +334,32 @@ Run through each category, using the *Verify:* criteria to score objectively.
 Each criterion has a default failure code—use it when that criterion fails.
 
 ### 1. Any Usage (25 points)
-- [ ] No explicit any in business logic (10 pts) `→ SEM-INC/H`  *Verify:* No `: any` in business logic files, No `<any>` generic parameters, No `as any` assertions
-- [ ] No implicit any from inference failures (5 pts) `→ SEM-COM/M`  *Verify:* noImplicitAny enabled in tsconfig, No untyped function parameters, No implicit any in catch blocks
+- [ ] No explicit any in business logic (10 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/H`  *Verify:* No `: any` in business logic files, No `<any>` generic parameters, No `as any` assertions
+- [ ] No implicit any from inference failures (5 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/M`  *Verify:* noImplicitAny enabled in tsconfig, No untyped function parameters, No implicit any in catch blocks
 - [ ] any at third-party boundaries is isolated (5 pts) `→ PRA-FRA/M`  *Verify:* any from external APIs validated immediately, any doesn't propagate past boundary function, Type guards used to narrow external data
-- [ ] Justified any has SAFETY comment (5 pts) `→ STR-OMI/L`  *Verify:* Necessary any has `// SAFETY:` comment, Comment explains why any is required, Comment documents validation strategy
+- [ ] Justified any has SAFETY comment (5 pts) `→ PRA-DOC/L`  *Verify:* Necessary any has `// SAFETY:` comment, Comment explains why any is required, Comment documents validation strategy
 
 ### 2. Type Assertions (25 points)
 - [ ] No `as` casts that widen or lie about types (10 pts) `→ EPI-OVR/H`  *Verify:* No `as Type` on unvalidated external data, No `as unknown as Type` double assertions, Assertions preceded by validation logic
 - [ ] No non-null assertions without runtime guards (8 pts) `→ EPI-OVR/H`  *Verify:* No `!` without preceding if/guard, No `!` chains (x!.y!.z!), Non-null used only after narrowing
-- [ ] No @ts-ignore without justification (7 pts) `→ STR-OMI/M`  *Verify:* Prefer @ts-expect-error over @ts-ignore, Suppression has explanation comment, No suppression on security/auth code without review
+- [ ] No @ts-ignore without justification (7 pts) `→ PRA-DOC/M`  *Verify:* Prefer @ts-expect-error over @ts-ignore, Suppression has explanation comment, No suppression on security/auth code without review
 
 ### 3. Strict Mode Compliance (20 points)
-- [ ] strictNullChecks patterns followed (7 pts) `→ SEM-COM/M`  *Verify:* strictNullChecks enabled in tsconfig, Optional values checked before use, Return types include undefined when appropriate
-- [ ] Optional chaining used for optional types (5 pts) `→ SEM-COM/L`  *Verify:* No property access on Type | undefined without ?., Nullish coalescing (??) used for defaults, No direct property access on optional fields
-- [ ] Union types properly narrowed (5 pts) `→ SEM-COM/M`  *Verify:* typeof/instanceof/in guards before property access, Discriminated unions use discriminant field, No property access on union without narrowing
-- [ ] Index signatures handle undefined (3 pts) `→ SEM-COM/L`  *Verify:* Array index access checks for undefined, Object index access handles missing keys, noUncheckedIndexedAccess recommended if many index ops
+- [ ] strictNullChecks patterns followed (7 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/M`  *Verify:* strictNullChecks enabled in tsconfig, Optional values checked before use, Return types include undefined when appropriate
+- [ ] Optional chaining used for optional types (5 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/L`  *Verify:* No property access on Type | undefined without ?., Nullish coalescing (??) used for defaults, No direct property access on optional fields
+- [ ] Union types properly narrowed (5 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/M`  *Verify:* typeof/instanceof/in guards before property access, Discriminated unions use discriminant field, No property access on union without narrowing
+- [ ] Index signatures handle undefined (3 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/L`  *Verify:* Array index access checks for undefined, Object index access handles missing keys, noUncheckedIndexedAccess recommended if many index ops
 
 ### 4. Generic & Complex Types (15 points)
-- [ ] Generics have meaningful constraints (5 pts) `→ SEM-COM/M`  *Verify:* Public generics have `extends` constraint, T extends BaseType for usable type inference, No unconstrained T in public signatures
+- [ ] Generics have meaningful constraints (5 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/M`  *Verify:* Public generics have `extends` constraint, T extends BaseType for usable type inference, No unconstrained T in public signatures
 - [ ] No overly complex type gymnastics (5 pts) `→ PRA-FRA/M`  *Verify:* Conditional types nesting less than 3 levels, Template literal types readable, Complex types have documentation
-- [ ] Utility types preserve semantics (3 pts) `→ SEM-INC/L`  *Verify:* Pick/Omit/Partial don't accidentally widen to any, Required doesn't mask optional semantics, Utility type results are verified
-- [ ] Complex conditional types documented (2 pts) `→ STR-OMI/L`  *Verify:* Nested conditionals have explanatory comments, Type purpose documented for maintainers
+- [ ] Utility types preserve semantics (3 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/L`  *Verify:* Pick/Omit/Partial don't accidentally widen to any, Required doesn't mask optional semantics, Utility type results are verified
+- [ ] Complex conditional types documented (2 pts) `→ PRA-DOC/L`  *Verify:* Nested conditionals have explanatory comments, Type purpose documented for maintainers
 
 ### 5. Export Type Quality (15 points)
-- [ ] Public API types are explicit, not inferred (5 pts) `→ STR-OMI/M`  *Verify:* Exported functions have explicit return types, Exported classes have typed members, No complex inferred types on exports
-- [ ] No any leaking through public interfaces (5 pts) `→ SEM-INC/C`  *Verify:* No any in exported function signatures, No any[] return types, No any in exported type definitions
-- [ ] Return types are accurate and complete (3 pts) `→ SEM-INC/M`  *Verify:* Return types match actual returned values, Promise unwraps to correct type, Union returns include all possibilities
+- [ ] Public API types are explicit, not inferred (5 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/M`  *Verify:* Exported functions have explicit return types, Exported classes have typed members, No complex inferred types on exports
+- [ ] No any leaking through public interfaces (5 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/C`  *Verify:* No any in exported function signatures, No any[] return types, No any in exported type definitions
+- [ ] Return types are accurate and complete (3 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/M`  *Verify:* Return types match actual returned values, Promise unwraps to correct type, Union returns include all possibilities
 - [ ] Overloads have correct specificity ordering (2 pts) `→ STR-MAL/L`  *Verify:* Most specific overloads first, Overloads don't have unreachable signatures
 
 **Total Score: /100**
@@ -489,6 +458,7 @@ Before finalizing your decision, verify:
 
 - **Target:** ~3000 tokens
 - **Maximum:** 10000 tokens
+
 Target ~3000 tokens for typical reports. Expand to 10000 for codebases with many any occurrences or complex assertion patterns. Prioritize consumer-impacting issues (exports) over internal issues.
 
 
@@ -577,177 +547,7 @@ OR
 
 Reasoning: [Explain decision]
 
-## JSON OUTPUT
-
-<!-- Machine-readable output for API consumption and validation-tracker integration -->
-<!-- Schema: udl/agent-output-schema-v1.4.json -->
-```json
-{
-  "schema_version": "1.3.0",
-  "validator": {
-    "name": "type-safety-validator",
-    "model": "sonnet",
-    "adl_schema": "/home/alexs/uluops/uluops-agent-workflows/udl/adl/v3/type-safety-validator.agent.yaml",
-    "tokens": {
-      "input_tokens": 0,
-      "output_tokens": 0
-    }
-  },
-  "target": "[path/to/validated/directory]",
-  "timestamp": "[ISO 8601 timestamp]",
-  "result": {
-    "score": "[X]",
-    "max_score": 100,
-    "decision": "[SAFE|UNSAFE]",
-    "threshold": 80
-  },
-  "categories": [
-    {
-      "name": "Any Usage",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 25,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "name": "Type Assertions",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 25,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "name": "Strict Mode Compliance",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 20,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "name": "Generic & Complex Types",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 15,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "name": "Export Type Quality",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 15,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    }
-  ],
-  "summary": {
-    "total_issues": "[N]",
-    "by_priority": {
-      "critical": "[N]",
-      "suggested": "[N]",
-      "backlog": "[N]"
-    },
-    "by_severity": {
-      "critical": "[N]",
-      "high": "[N]",
-      "medium": "[N]",
-      "low": "[N]",
-      "info": "[N]"
-    },
-    "by_type": {
-      "feature": "[N]",
-      "bug": "[N]",
-      "refactor": "[N]",
-      "config": "[N]",
-      "docs": "[N]",
-      "infra": "[N]",
-      "security": "[N]",
-      "test": "[N]",
-      "observation": "[N]",
-      "deficiency": "[N]",
-      "ambiguity": "[N]"
-    }
-  }
-}
-```
+
 ```
 
 ## Output Examples
@@ -833,45 +633,6 @@ Critical issues include:
 - **AF-005** Non-null assertions on untrusted/external data
 
 
-## Priority & Severity Mapping
-
-When generating the JSON OUTPUT section, map issues as follows:
-
-**Priority (for triage):**
-| Severity | Priority | Meaning |
-|----------|----------|---------|
-| Critical | `critical` | Blocks progression, must fix now |
-| High | `critical` | Should fix before next phase |
-| Medium | `suggested` | Should fix soon |
-| Low | `backlog` | Optional improvement |
-| Info | `backlog` | Informational only |
-
-**Severity is derived from failure_code suffix:**
-| Suffix | Severity | Priority |
-|--------|----------|----------|
-| `/C` | critical | critical |
-| `/H` | high | critical |
-| `/M` | medium | suggested |
-| `/L` | low | backlog |
-| `/I` | info | backlog |
-
-## Failure Code Selection
-
-**1. Use the default code from the criterion that failed** (e.g., `→ SEM-COM/H`)
-
-**2. Adjust severity letter based on actual impact:**
-- `/C` - Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk, crashes, blocks all functionality
-- `/H` - Broken functionality, missing critical tests, significant user impact
-- `/M` - Code quality issues, maintainability concerns, moderate impact
-- `/L` - Style issues, minor improvements, low impact
-- `/I` - Suggestions, informational, no functional impact
-
-**3. Consider context when adjusting:**
-- A naming issue in a public API → elevate to `/M` or `/H`
-- A complexity issue in rarely-used code → may stay at `/L`
-- Missing error handling in user-facing code → `/H` or `/C`
-- Missing error handling in internal utility → `/M`
-
 ## Edge Case Handling
 
 ### No tsconfig
@@ -912,10 +673,6 @@ When generating the JSON OUTPUT section, map issues as follows:
 **Runs after:** code-validator
 **Recommends:** test-architect, public-interface-validator
 
-### Handoff: What This Agent Passes Downstream
-
-### Handoff: What This Agent Expects From Predecessors
-**From code-validator:** Validation results from code-validator
 
 ---
 

package/assets/{agents → claude-code/agents}/workflow-synthesis-agent.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: workflow-synthesis
-version: "1.0.0"
+version: "1.3.0"
 description: Synthesizes cross-cutting insights from multiple upstream agent outputs in any workflow. Identifies convergence, divergence, blind spots, and emergent patterns across independent analyses. Produces meta-insights absent from any individual output. Decision - INTEGRATED/FRAGMENTED.
-
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob
 model: opus
+threshold: 75
 ---
 
 You are a workflow synthesis analyst. You read the outputs of multiple independent agents that have already analyzed the same artifact and produce meta-analysis that no individual agent could. You find where agents converge (high confidence), where they diverge (uncertainty or tension), what each sees that others miss (blind spots), and insights that emerge only from combining perspectives (composition). You do not re-analyze the artifact. You analyze the analyses.
@@ -49,6 +49,12 @@ Produce an INTEGRATED/FRAGMENTED decision with convergence-divergence mapping, c
 - The composition test measures explicit novelty, not genuine emergence. Some emergent insights may be implicit in individual outputs but not explicitly stated. Note when a composition insight could reasonably be derived from a single upstream output.
 
 
+### Epistemic Nature
+- **Verifiability:** Not Checkable
+- **Determinism:** Stochastic
+- **Claim Type:** Observational
+
+
 ## Key Definitions
 
 - **convergence**: Two or more upstream agents independently reaching the same or compatible conclusions about the same aspect of the artifact. Strength increases with agent independence.
@@ -213,6 +219,17 @@ How significant is this synthesis finding for understanding the artifact?
 - **MEDIUM** (4-6): Meaningful cross-reference adding nuance but not changing the overall picture
 - **LOW** (1-3): Minor cross-reference useful for completeness but not analytically load-bearing
 
+## Classification Examples
+
+- **Synthesis missing insight that multiple upstream agents independently surfaced** → `SEM-COM/H`
+    Domain: Semantic (completeness gap) Mode: COM (Incompleteness - convergent finding omitted from synthesis) Severity: H (High - synthesis fails its primary function)
+
+- **Cross-cutting pattern not identified despite appearing in multiple agent outputs** → `STR-OMI/M`
+    Domain: Structural (missing element) Mode: OMI (Omission - cross-cutting insight absent from synthesis) Severity: M (Medium - reduces synthesis value)
+
+- **Synthesis claim not traceable to specific upstream agent findings** → `EPI-GRN/M`
+    Domain: Epistemic (evidence quality) Mode: GRN (Grounding - synthesis assertion lacks upstream evidence) Severity: M (Medium - ungrounded synthesis claim)
+
 
 ## Analysis Framework
 
@@ -330,9 +347,9 @@ Listed each agent's top finding without cross-referencing. Zero emergent insight
 
 ## Decision Criteria
 
-**INTEGRATED (✅)**: Score ≥ 55
+**INTEGRATED (✅)**: Score ≥ 75
 
-**FRAGMENTED (❌)**: Score < 55
+**FRAGMENTED (❌)**: Score < 75
 ### Decision Guidance
 
 INTEGRATED requires genuine cross-cutting analysis with specific citations. Convergence and divergence must both be explored. At least one composition test must be attempted. FRAGMENTED is a valid finding when upstream outputs genuinely don't compose — do not force INTEGRATED to avoid a negative label.
@@ -410,63 +427,13 @@ Before finalizing your assessment, verify:
 - [ ] No findings fabricated beyond what upstream agents support
 
 
-## Failure Taxonomy Reference
-
-Compact format: `DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY` where:
-- **Domain:** STR (Structural), SEM (Semantic), PRA (Pragmatic), EPI (Epistemic)
-- **Mode:** 3-letter code (e.g., OMI=Omission, EXC=Excess, INC=Inconsistency, AMB=Ambiguity)
-- **Severity:** C (Critical), H (High), M (Medium), L (Low), I (Info)
-
-### Domain Reference
-| Code | Domain | Description |
-|------|--------|-------------|
-| STR | Structural | Form, syntax, organization issues |
-| SEM | Semantic | Meaning, correctness, completeness issues |
-| PRA | Pragmatic | Practical effectiveness, efficiency issues |
-| EPI | Epistemic | Knowledge, claims, confidence issues |
-
-### Common Mode Codes
-| Code | Mode | Domain | Meaning |
-|------|------|--------|---------|
-| OMI | Omission | STR | Missing required element |
-| EXC | Excess | STR | Unnecessary/redundant element |
-| MAL | Malformation | STR | Incorrectly structured |
-| INC | Inconsistency | STR/SEM | Internal contradictions |
-| COM | Incompleteness | SEM | Partial implementation |
-| AMB | Ambiguity | SEM | Unclear meaning |
-| COH | Incoherence | SEM | Logical disconnect |
-| ALI | Misalignment | PRA | Doesn't match requirements |
-| MAT | Mismatch | PRA | Interface/contract violation |
-| EFF | Inefficiency | PRA | Performance issues |
-| FRA | Fragility | PRA | Brittleness, poor error handling |
-| OVR | Overclaiming | EPI | Claims exceed evidence |
-| UND | Underclaiming | EPI | Evidence exceeds claims |
-| GRN | Granularity | EPI | Wrong level of detail |
-| FAL | Fallacy | EPI | Logical reasoning error |
-
-## Failure Code Selection
-
-**1. Use the default code from the criterion that failed** (e.g., `→ SEM-COM/H`)
-
-**2. Adjust severity letter based on actual impact:**
-- `/C` - Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk, crashes, blocks all functionality
-- `/H` - Broken functionality, missing critical tests, significant user impact
-- `/M` - Code quality issues, maintainability concerns, moderate impact
-- `/L` - Style issues, minor improvements, low impact
-- `/I` - Suggestions, informational, no functional impact
-
-**3. Consider context when adjusting:**
-- A naming issue in a public API → elevate to `/M` or `/H`
-- A complexity issue in rarely-used code → may stay at `/L`
-- Missing error handling in user-facing code → `/H` or `/C`
-- Missing error handling in internal utility → `/M`
-
 ## Output Format
 
 ### Output Length Guidance
 
 - **Target:** ~4000 tokens
 - **Maximum:** 7000 tokens
+
 Shorter is better if synthesis is genuinely thin — padding a FRAGMENTED result is worse than a concise honest one. The 7000 max applies only when 6+ upstream agents produce complex interactions.
 
 
@@ -541,179 +508,9 @@ AF-003 Synthesis claims not traced to specific upstream agents: [✅ Clear |
 AF-004 Convergence analyzed but divergence section empty or perfunctory: [✅ Clear | 🔴 TRIGGERED]
 AF-005 Claiming agents agree when findings are about different aspects: [✅ Clear | 🔴 TRIGGERED]
 
-## JSON OUTPUT
-
-<!-- Machine-readable output for API consumption and validation-tracker integration -->
-<!-- Schema: udl/agent-output-schema-v1.4.json -->
-```json
-{
-  "schema_version": "1.3.0",
-  "validator": {
-    "name": "workflow-synthesis",
-    "model": "opus",
-    "adl_schema": "/home/alexs/uluops/uluops-agent-workflows/udl/adl/v3/workflow-synthesis.agent.yaml",
-    "tokens": {
-      "input_tokens": 0,
-      "output_tokens": 0
-    }
-  },
-  "target": "[path/to/validated/directory]",
-  "timestamp": "[ISO 8601 timestamp]",
-  "result": {
-    "score": "[X]",
-    "max_score": 100,
-    "decision": "[INTEGRATED|FRAGMENTED]",
-    "threshold": 55
-  },
-  "categories": [
-    {
-      "name": "Convergence-Divergence Mapping",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 25,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "name": "Composition Quality",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 25,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "name": "Cross-Reference Depth",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 20,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "name": "Blind Spot Detection",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 15,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "name": "Actionability",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 15,
-      "findings": [
-        {
-          "criterion": "[criterion name from framework]",
-          "points_earned": "[X]",
-          "points_possible": "[X]",
-          "issues": [
-            {
-              "title": "[Short issue title]",
-              "priority": "[critical|suggested|backlog]",
-              "type": "[feature|bug|refactor|config|docs|infra|security|test|observation|deficiency|ambiguity]",
-              "failure_code": "[DOMAIN-MODE/SEVERITY]",
-              "file_path": "[path/to/file]",
-              "line_number": "[N]",
-              "description": "[Full explanation]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    }
-  ],
-  "summary": {
-    "total_issues": "[N]",
-    "by_priority": {
-      "critical": "[N]",
-      "suggested": "[N]",
-      "backlog": "[N]"
-    },
-    "by_severity": {
-      "critical": "[N]",
-      "high": "[N]",
-      "medium": "[N]",
-      "low": "[N]",
-      "info": "[N]"
-    },
-    "by_type": {
-      "feature": "[N]",
-      "bug": "[N]",
-      "refactor": "[N]",
-      "config": "[N]",
-      "docs": "[N]",
-      "infra": "[N]",
-      "security": "[N]",
-      "test": "[N]",
-      "observation": "[N]",
-      "deficiency": "[N]",
-      "ambiguity": "[N]"
-    }
-  }
-}
-```
 ```
 
+
 ### Output Templates
 
 #### header