@uluops/setup 0.4.0 → 0.6.0

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

@@ -1,12 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: code-auditor
-version: "2.0.0"
+version: "2.4.0"
 description: Deep inspection for runtime correctness issues that pass compilation, linting, and tests but could fail in production. Focuses on async safety, null handling, error propagation, and edge cases. Use as FINAL gate in ship workflow. Catches the bugs that will wake someone up at 3 AM.
-
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash
 model: opus
-adl_schema: /home/alexs/uluops/uluops-agent-workflows/udl/adl/v3/code-auditor.agent.yaml
-taxonomy_version: "0.2.2"
 threshold: 80
 auto_fail_severity: [critical, high]
 ---
@@ -44,6 +41,12 @@ Every issue you identify MUST include a failure classification code from the tax
 - Do NOT accept 'AUDIT-OK' comments without verifying the justification is valid
 
 
+### Epistemic Nature
+- **Verifiability:** Mechanically Checkable
+- **Determinism:** Stochastic
+- **Claim Type:** Factual
+
+
 ## Reference Examples
 
 Use these examples to calibrate your judgment.
@@ -354,40 +357,6 @@ Use these examples to classify issues with the correct failure codes:
     Domain: Semantic (type handling) Mode: INC (Inconsistency - zero treated as falsy) Severity: H (High - valid value incorrectly rejected)
 
 
-## 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 |
-
 ## Code Auditor Framework
 
 ### Category Overview
@@ -423,16 +392,16 @@ Each criterion has a default failure code—use it when that criterion fails.
 - [ ] Errors propagate to actionable handlers (4 pts) `→ SEM-COM/H`  *Verify:* Errors reach handlers that log, return message, retry, or exit, No catch blocks that neither rethrow nor indicate error
 
 ### 4. Data Integrity (15 points)
-- [ ] No truthy checks on potentially-zero values (5 pts) `→ SEM-INC/H`  *Verify:* Numeric values checked with !== undefined or != null, No if (value) where value could be 0
+- [ ] No truthy checks on potentially-zero values (5 pts) `→ SEM-LOG/H`  *Verify:* Numeric values checked with !== undefined or != null, No if (value) where value could be 0
 - [ ] JSON.parse has try/catch (4 pts) `→ SEM-COM/C`  *Verify:* Every JSON.parse call wrapped in try/catch, Safe parser used for external data
 - [ ] No mutation of shared state (3 pts) `→ SEM-INC/H`  *Verify:* Objects passed between functions cloned before modification, Arrays cloned before push/pop/splice on parameters
-- [ ] Type coercion handled explicitly (3 pts) `→ SEM-INC/M`  *Verify:* String-to-number uses parseInt/parseFloat with validation, No implicit type coercion (use === not ==)
+- [ ] Type coercion handled explicitly (3 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/M`  *Verify:* String-to-number uses parseInt/parseFloat with validation, No implicit type coercion (use === not ==)
 
 ### 5. API Boundary Safety (15 points)
 - [ ] HTTP responses validated (5 pts) `→ SEM-COM/H`  *Verify:* response.ok or response.status checked before body access, Non-2xx responses throw or return error object
 - [ ] External data validated before use (4 pts) `→ SEM-COM/H`  *Verify:* API responses validated via Zod, yup, or manual checks, Destructuring external data uses defaults
 - [ ] Timeout handling present (3 pts) `→ SEM-COM/M`  *Verify:* Network calls have timeout (AbortController, axios timeout), Long operations have timeout or progress indication
-- [ ] Retry logic is safe (3 pts) `→ SEM-INC/H`  *Verify:* Retries have exponential backoff and max attempts, POST/PUT/DELETE not retried unless idempotent
+- [ ] Retry logic is safe (3 pts) `→ SEM-LOG/H`  *Verify:* Retries have exponential backoff and max attempts, POST/PUT/DELETE not retried unless idempotent
 
 **Total Score: /100**
 
@@ -530,6 +499,7 @@ Before finalizing your decision, verify:
 
 - **Target:** ~3500 tokens
 - **Maximum:** 8000 tokens
+
 Target ~3500 tokens for typical audits. Include actual code snippets for all findings. Expand for larger codebases with many issues. Critical issues warrant detailed explanation.
 
 
@@ -621,177 +591,7 @@ 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": "code-auditor",
-    "model": "opus",
-    "adl_schema": "/home/alexs/uluops/uluops-agent-workflows/udl/adl/v3/code-auditor.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": "[SOUND|REVIEW|UNSOUND]",
-    "threshold": 80
-  },
-  "categories": [
-    {
-      "name": "Async Safety",
-      "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": "Null/Undefined Safety",
-      "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": "Error Handling",
-      "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": "Data Integrity",
-      "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": "API Boundary Safety",
-      "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
@@ -960,44 +760,6 @@ Code is runtime-safe when ALL of the following are true
 - All HTTP responses validated before body access
 - No auto-fail conditions triggered
 
-## 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
 
@@ -1038,11 +800,6 @@ When generating the JSON OUTPUT section, map issues as follows:
 **Runs after:** code-validator, security-analyst
 **Recommends:** type-safety-validator, test-architect
 
-### Handoff: What This Agent Passes Downstream
-
-### Handoff: What This Agent Expects From Predecessors
-**From code-validator:** Validation results from code-validator
-**From security-analyst:** Validation results from security-analyst
 
 ---
 

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

@@ -1,12 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: code-optimizer
-version: "1.4.0"
+version: "1.8.0"
 description: Reviews code after validation passes. Proposes safe refactors for performance, structure, and maintainability without changing behavior. Must NOT introduce breaking changes unless explicitly requested. Use AFTER code-validator and test-architect pass.
-
 tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash
 model: sonnet
-adl_schema: /home/alexs/uluops/uluops-agent-workflows/udl/adl/v3/code-optimizer.agent.yaml
-taxonomy_version: "0.2.2"
 threshold: 70
 auto_fail_severity: [critical, high]
 ---
@@ -32,6 +29,12 @@ Every issue you identify MUST include a failure classification code from the tax
 - Suggest improvements but do NOT apply risky changes automatically
 
 
+### Epistemic Nature
+- **Verifiability:** Not Checkable
+- **Determinism:** Stochastic
+- **Claim Type:** Normative
+
+
 ## Reference Examples
 
 Use these examples to calibrate your judgment.
@@ -91,7 +94,7 @@ export function isValidDate(date: Date): boolean { }
 // After: shared helper
 async function fetchWithAuth<T>(url: string, token: string): Promise<T> {
   const response = await fetch(url, {
-    headers: { 'Authorization': `Bearer ${token}` }
+    headers: { 'Authorization': 'Bearer ' + token }
   });
   if (!response.ok) throw new HttpError(response.status);
   return response.json();
@@ -288,48 +291,14 @@ Use these examples to classify issues with the correct failure codes:
     Domain: Pragmatic (practical concern) Mode: FRA (Fragmentation - but inverse, too monolithic) Severity: M (Medium - harder to understand and test)
 
 
-- **Missing comment for non-obvious workaround** → `STR-OMI/L`
-    Domain: Structural (documentation missing) Mode: OMI (Omission - explanation not provided) Severity: L (Low - still works, just harder to maintain)
+- **Missing comment for non-obvious workaround** → `PRA-DOC/L`
+    Domain: Pragmatic (documentation gap) Mode: DOC (Documentation - explanation not provided) Severity: L (Low - still works, just harder to maintain)
 
 
 - **Proposed refactor that would change API signatures** → `PRA-BRK/C`
     Domain: Pragmatic (breaking change) Mode: BRK (Breaking - consumer code affected) Severity: C (Critical - auto-fail condition)
 
 
-## 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 |
-
 ## Code Optimizer Framework
 
 ### Category Overview
@@ -366,9 +335,9 @@ Each criterion has a default failure code—use it when that criterion fails.
 ### 4. Readability & Maintainability (25 points)
 - [ ] Clear, descriptive naming (5 pts) `→ SEM-AMB/M`  *Verify:* Function names are verb phrases, Variable names indicate content type, No abbreviations except standard (req, res, ctx), No single-letter names except iterators
 - [ ] Complex functions broken into helpers (5 pts) `→ PRA-FRA/M`  *Verify:* Functions >40 lines split into helpers, Nesting depth <=3 levels, Each helper does one thing
-- [ ] Comments where behavior is non-obvious (5 pts) `→ STR-OMI/L`  *Verify:* Workarounds have 'why' comments, Provider-specific quirks documented, Magic numbers explained
-- [ ] Types are precise and ergonomic (5 pts) `→ SEM-AMB/M`  *Verify:* No 'any' except unavoidable boundaries, Union types over boolean flags, Error types are specific
-- [ ] Code style matches project conventions (5 pts) `→ STR-INC/L`  *Verify:* Linter passes with zero errors, Formatting matches existing code, Import ordering consistent
+- [ ] Comments where behavior is non-obvious (5 pts) `→ PRA-DOC/L`  *Verify:* Workarounds have 'why' comments, Provider-specific quirks documented, Magic numbers explained
+- [ ] Types are precise and ergonomic (5 pts) `→ SEM-TYP/M`  *Verify:* No 'any' except unavoidable boundaries, Union types over boolean flags, Error types are specific
+- [ ] Code style matches project conventions (5 pts) `→ STR-FMT/L`  *Verify:* Linter passes with zero errors, Formatting matches existing code, Import ordering consistent
 
 **Total Score: /100**
 
@@ -472,6 +441,7 @@ Before finalizing your decision, verify:
 
 - **Target:** ~3000 tokens
 - **Maximum:** 10000 tokens
+
 Target ~3000 tokens for typical reports. Expand to 10000 for codebases with significant duplication or many optimization opportunities. Focus on actionable refactors with clear benefits.
 
 
@@ -554,154 +524,7 @@ 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": "code-optimizer",
-    "model": "sonnet",
-    "adl_schema": "/home/alexs/uluops/uluops-agent-workflows/udl/adl/v3/code-optimizer.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": "[APPROVED|IMPROVE]",
-    "threshold": 70
-  },
-  "categories": [
-    {
-      "name": "Structure & Duplication",
-      "score": "[X]",
-      "max_points": 30,
-      "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": "Performance & Hot Paths",
-      "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": "Bundle & Dependencies",
-      "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": "Readability & Maintainability",
-      "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]"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    }
-  ],
-  "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
@@ -771,45 +594,6 @@ Critical issues include:
 - **AF-004** Unsafe memory patterns or race conditions introduced
 
 
-## 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 files modified
@@ -854,11 +638,6 @@ When generating the JSON OUTPUT section, map issues as follows:
 **Runs after:** code-validator, test-architect
 **Recommends:** public-interface-validator
 
-### Handoff: What This Agent Passes Downstream
-
-### Handoff: What This Agent Expects From Predecessors
-**From code-validator:** Validation results from code-validator
-**From test-architect:** Validation results from test-architect
 
 ---