@wefter/opencode 0.1.0 → 0.2.0

package/src/workflows/documentation-audit/templates/opencode/skills/documentation-audit/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -1,38 +1,38 @@
----
-name: documentation-audit
-description: Use when the user asks Wefter to audit docs, cross-check, consolidate, validate, generate an audit profile, or run redundant consistency analyses across project documentation.
----
-
-# Documentation Audit
-
-Use this skill when the user wants a rigorous documentation consistency audit across the project.
-
-Local workflow files:
-
-- `{{CONFIG_FILE}}`: local paths and installation configuration.
-- `{{PROFILE_PATH}}`: project-specific audit profile with corpus, variants and lenses.
-- `{{PROCESS_DOC_PATH}}`: process and execution rules.
-- `{{TEMPLATE_ROOT}}`: generic prompt templates used by `wefter docs audit`.
-
-Operational rules:
-
-- Audit is read-only with respect to source docs. Raw, consolidation, validation and final outputs are written under the configured artifact root.
-- Do not fix documentation during an audit run.
-- Do not assume source-of-truth precedence while auditing.
-- Require concrete file/quote evidence for every finding.
-- Consolidation must verify raw evidence before accepting candidates.
-- Validation must try to disprove every consolidated candidate before producing the final list.
-
-Recommended commands:
-
-```text
-/wefter-generate-doc-audit-profile
-```
-
-Use this when the audit profile is missing, outdated or too generic. It inspects the repository and creates or proposes `{{PROFILE_PATH}}`.
-
-```text
-/wefter-audit-docs
-```
-
-This is the default audit entry point. It creates or resumes a run, executes auditor waves, consolidates raw findings, validates candidates adversarially, and reports the final artifact path.
+---
+name: documentation-audit
+description: Use when the user asks Wefter to audit docs, cross-check, consolidate, validate, generate an audit profile, or run redundant consistency analyses across project documentation.
+---
+
+# Documentation Audit
+
+Use this skill when the user wants a rigorous documentation consistency audit across the project.
+
+Local workflow files:
+
+- `{{CONFIG_FILE}}`: local paths and installation configuration.
+- `{{PROFILE_PATH}}`: project-specific audit profile with corpus, variants and lenses.
+- `{{PROCESS_DOC_PATH}}`: process and execution rules.
+- `{{TEMPLATE_ROOT}}`: generic prompt templates used by `wefter docs audit`.
+
+Operational rules:
+
+- Audit is read-only with respect to source docs. Raw, consolidation, validation and final outputs are written under the configured artifact root.
+- Do not fix documentation during an audit run.
+- Do not assume source-of-truth precedence while auditing.
+- Require concrete file/quote evidence for every finding.
+- Consolidation must verify raw evidence before accepting candidates.
+- Validation must try to disprove every consolidated candidate before producing the final list.
+
+Recommended commands:
+
+```text
+/wefter-generate-doc-audit-profile
+```
+
+Use this when the audit profile is missing, outdated or too generic. It inspects the repository and creates or proposes `{{PROFILE_PATH}}`.
+
+```text
+/wefter-audit-docs
+```
+
+This is the default audit entry point. It creates or resumes a run, executes auditor waves, consolidates raw findings, validates candidates adversarially, and reports the final artifact path.

package/src/workflows/documentation-audit/templates/prompts/auditor-prompt.md

@@ -1,97 +1,97 @@
-# Individual Documentation Audit
-
-Run: `{{RUN_ID}}`
-Audit ID: `{{AUDIT_ID}}`
-Lens: `{{LENS_ID}}` - {{LENS_TITLE}}
-Variant: `{{VARIANT_ID}}` - {{VARIANT_TITLE}}
-Pass: `{{PASS_NUMBER}}`
-Required output: `{{OUTPUT_FILE}}`
-
-## Role
-
-You are an independent auditor in a redundant documentation cross-check process. Your job is to find real inconsistencies, not to fix documents.
-
-Do not assume a source of truth. If two documents conflict, report the conflict. If one document appears newer than another, record that as a hypothesis, not a decision.
-
-## Corpus
-
-Include:
-
-{{CORPUS_INCLUDE}}
-
-Exclude:
-
-{{CORPUS_EXCLUDE}}
-
-## Lens For This Analysis
-
-{{LENS_FOCUS}}
-
-## Variant For This Analysis
-
-{{VARIANT_INSTRUCTION}}
-
-## Mandatory Rules
-
-- Read broadly before concluding.
-- Use enough searches and reads to cover related documents, not only obvious filenames.
-- Do not edit product, technical, domain or scope documentation.
-- Write only the indicated output file.
-- Do not report generic improvement ideas without a verifiable conflict.
-- Do not report acceptable differences in level of detail as contradictions.
-- If an item depends on interpretation, mark it as ambiguity or probable, not as confirmed conflict.
-- Every finding must cite concrete evidence with file and quote.
-- If there are no findings, still write the file with the `NO_FINDINGS` section.
-
-## Output Format
-
-Write exactly this Markdown shape to `{{OUTPUT_FILE}}`:
-
-```md
-# Raw Documentation Audit
-
-Run: {{RUN_ID}}
-Audit ID: {{AUDIT_ID}}
-Lens: {{LENS_ID}} - {{LENS_TITLE}}
-Variant: {{VARIANT_ID}} - {{VARIANT_TITLE}}
-Pass: {{PASS_NUMBER}}
-
-## Coverage
-
-- Files inspected:
-- Searches performed:
-- Files intentionally skipped:
-- Limits or uncertainty:
-
-## Findings
-
-### F-{{AUDIT_ID}}-001: <short title>
-
-Type: Contradiction | Ambiguity | Probable staleness | Broken reference | Missing cross-reference | Code/doc drift | Scope leak | Unclassified
-Confidence: High | Medium | Low
-Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low
-Needs human decision: Yes | No
-
-Evidence A:
-- File: `<path>`
-- Lines or section: `<line/section>`
-- Quote: "<short exact quote>"
-
-Evidence B:
-- File: `<path>`
-- Lines or section: `<line/section>`
-- Quote: "<short exact quote>"
-
-Why this conflicts:
-<explain the incompatibility>
-
-False-positive risk:
-<explain why this might not be a real issue>
-
-Suggested correction direction:
-<do not rewrite docs; describe the likely direction if later corrected>
-
-## NO_FINDINGS
-
-Use this section only if no findings were identified. Explain briefly what was checked.
-```
+# Individual Documentation Audit
+
+Run: `{{RUN_ID}}`
+Audit ID: `{{AUDIT_ID}}`
+Lens: `{{LENS_ID}}` - {{LENS_TITLE}}
+Variant: `{{VARIANT_ID}}` - {{VARIANT_TITLE}}
+Pass: `{{PASS_NUMBER}}`
+Required output: `{{OUTPUT_FILE}}`
+
+## Role
+
+You are an independent auditor in a redundant documentation cross-check process. Your job is to find real inconsistencies, not to fix documents.
+
+Do not assume a source of truth. If two documents conflict, report the conflict. If one document appears newer than another, record that as a hypothesis, not a decision.
+
+## Corpus
+
+Include:
+
+{{CORPUS_INCLUDE}}
+
+Exclude:
+
+{{CORPUS_EXCLUDE}}
+
+## Lens For This Analysis
+
+{{LENS_FOCUS}}
+
+## Variant For This Analysis
+
+{{VARIANT_INSTRUCTION}}
+
+## Mandatory Rules
+
+- Read broadly before concluding.
+- Use enough searches and reads to cover related documents, not only obvious filenames.
+- Do not edit product, technical, domain or scope documentation.
+- Write only the indicated output file.
+- Do not report generic improvement ideas without a verifiable conflict.
+- Do not report acceptable differences in level of detail as contradictions.
+- If an item depends on interpretation, mark it as ambiguity or probable, not as confirmed conflict.
+- Every finding must cite concrete evidence with file and quote.
+- If there are no findings, still write the file with the `NO_FINDINGS` section.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Write exactly this Markdown shape to `{{OUTPUT_FILE}}`:
+
+```md
+# Raw Documentation Audit
+
+Run: {{RUN_ID}}
+Audit ID: {{AUDIT_ID}}
+Lens: {{LENS_ID}} - {{LENS_TITLE}}
+Variant: {{VARIANT_ID}} - {{VARIANT_TITLE}}
+Pass: {{PASS_NUMBER}}
+
+## Coverage
+
+- Files inspected:
+- Searches performed:
+- Files intentionally skipped:
+- Limits or uncertainty:
+
+## Findings
+
+### F-{{AUDIT_ID}}-001: <short title>
+
+Type: Contradiction | Ambiguity | Probable staleness | Broken reference | Missing cross-reference | Code/doc drift | Scope leak | Unclassified
+Confidence: High | Medium | Low
+Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low
+Needs human decision: Yes | No
+
+Evidence A:
+- File: `<path>`
+- Lines or section: `<line/section>`
+- Quote: "<short exact quote>"
+
+Evidence B:
+- File: `<path>`
+- Lines or section: `<line/section>`
+- Quote: "<short exact quote>"
+
+Why this conflicts:
+<explain the incompatibility>
+
+False-positive risk:
+<explain why this might not be a real issue>
+
+Suggested correction direction:
+<do not rewrite docs; describe the likely direction if later corrected>
+
+## NO_FINDINGS
+
+Use this section only if no findings were identified. Explain briefly what was checked.
+```

package/src/workflows/documentation-audit/templates/prompts/consolidator-prompt.md

@@ -1,84 +1,84 @@
-# Documentation Audit Consolidation
-
-Run: `{{RUN_ID}}`
-Raw directory: `{{RAW_DIR}}`
-Consolidation output: `{{CONSOLIDATED_OUTPUT}}`
-Discarded output: `{{DISCARDED_OUTPUT}}`
-
-## Role
-
-You are the central consolidator. Your job is to analyze raw auditor outputs, verify evidence against the original corpus, remove obvious false positives, merge duplicates and produce a consolidated candidate list.
-
-Do not correct documentation. Do not choose a source of truth. Do not accept a finding only because many auditors repeated it. A finding with strong evidence can survive even if it appeared once.
-
-## Tasks
-
-- Read all files in `{{RAW_DIR}}`.
-- For each raw finding, open the cited files and validate whether the quotes exist and support the claim.
-- Discard items without concrete evidence, with incorrect citations or based only on opinion.
-- Merge duplicates even when names, severity or wording differ.
-- Separate real contradiction from acceptable differences in granularity, context, example, roadmap or document responsibility.
-- Preserve all items that could still be real and need adversarial validation.
-
-## Consolidated Output
-
-Write `{{CONSOLIDATED_OUTPUT}}` with this format:
-
-```md
-# Consolidated Documentation Audit Candidates
-
-Run: {{RUN_ID}}
-
-## Summary
-
-- Raw files inspected:
-- Raw findings inspected:
-- Consolidated candidates:
-- Discarded during consolidation:
-
-## Candidates
-
-### C-001: <short title>
-
-Status: Candidate pending adversarial validation
-Type: Contradiction | Ambiguity | Probable staleness | Broken reference | Missing cross-reference | Code/doc drift | Scope leak | Unclassified
-Confidence after consolidation: High | Medium | Low
-Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low
-Needs human decision: Yes | No
-Detected by raw findings: `<audit ids>`
-
-Evidence set:
-- `<file>` `<line/section>`: "<quote>"
-- `<file>` `<line/section>`: "<quote>"
-
-Consolidated conflict:
-<explain the issue>
-
-Why it survived consolidation:
-<explain why this is not an obvious false positive>
-
-Known false-positive risks:
-<list risks>
-
-Suggested correction direction:
-<direction only; no rewrite>
-```
-
-## Discarded Output
-
-Write `{{DISCARDED_OUTPUT}}` with this format:
-
-```md
-# Discarded Raw Findings
-
-Run: {{RUN_ID}}
-
-## Discarded
-
-### D-001: <short title>
-
-Raw finding ids: `<ids>`
-Reason: Unsupported evidence | Duplicate merged | Acceptable granularity difference | Misread quote | Not a project inconsistency | Other
-Explanation:
-<why it was discarded or merged>
-```
+# Documentation Audit Consolidation
+
+Run: `{{RUN_ID}}`
+Raw directory: `{{RAW_DIR}}`
+Consolidation output: `{{CONSOLIDATED_OUTPUT}}`
+Discarded output: `{{DISCARDED_OUTPUT}}`
+
+## Role
+
+You are the central consolidator. Your job is to analyze raw auditor outputs, verify evidence against the original corpus, remove obvious false positives, merge duplicates and produce a consolidated candidate list.
+
+Do not correct documentation. Do not choose a source of truth. Do not accept a finding only because many auditors repeated it. A finding with strong evidence can survive even if it appeared once.
+
+## Tasks
+
+- Read all files in `{{RAW_DIR}}`.
+- For each raw finding, open the cited files and validate whether the quotes exist and support the claim.
+- Discard items without concrete evidence, with incorrect citations or based only on opinion.
+- Merge duplicates even when names, severity or wording differ.
+- Separate real contradiction from acceptable differences in granularity, context, example, roadmap or document responsibility.
+- Preserve all items that could still be real and need adversarial validation.
+
+## Consolidated Output
+
+Write `{{CONSOLIDATED_OUTPUT}}` with this format:
+
+```md
+# Consolidated Documentation Audit Candidates
+
+Run: {{RUN_ID}}
+
+## Summary
+
+- Raw files inspected:
+- Raw findings inspected:
+- Consolidated candidates:
+- Discarded during consolidation:
+
+## Candidates
+
+### C-001: <short title>
+
+Status: Candidate pending adversarial validation
+Type: Contradiction | Ambiguity | Probable staleness | Broken reference | Missing cross-reference | Code/doc drift | Scope leak | Unclassified
+Confidence after consolidation: High | Medium | Low
+Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low
+Needs human decision: Yes | No
+Detected by raw findings: `<audit ids>`
+
+Evidence set:
+- `<file>` `<line/section>`: "<quote>"
+- `<file>` `<line/section>`: "<quote>"
+
+Consolidated conflict:
+<explain the issue>
+
+Why it survived consolidation:
+<explain why this is not an obvious false positive>
+
+Known false-positive risks:
+<list risks>
+
+Suggested correction direction:
+<direction only; no rewrite>
+```
+
+## Discarded Output
+
+Write `{{DISCARDED_OUTPUT}}` with this format:
+
+```md
+# Discarded Raw Findings
+
+Run: {{RUN_ID}}
+
+## Discarded
+
+### D-001: <short title>
+
+Raw finding ids: `<ids>`
+Reason: Unsupported evidence | Duplicate merged | Acceptable granularity difference | Misread quote | Not a project inconsistency | Other
+Explanation:
+<why it was discarded or merged>
+```

package/src/workflows/documentation-audit/templates/prompts/validator-prompt.md

@@ -1,92 +1,92 @@
-# Adversarial Documentation Audit Validation
-
-Run: `{{RUN_ID}}`
-Consolidated candidates: `{{CONSOLIDATED_OUTPUT}}`
-Validation output: `{{VALIDATION_OUTPUT}}`
-Final report: `{{FINAL_OUTPUT}}`
-
-## Role
-
-You are the adversarial validator. Your job is to try to prove that each consolidated candidate is a false positive. Keep a problem in the final report only if it survives that attempt.
-
-Do not correct documentation. Do not choose a source of truth. Do not turn acceptable divergence into an error.
-
-## Tasks
-
-- Read `{{CONSOLIDATED_OUTPUT}}`.
-- For each candidate, open cited files and search nearby/additional context.
-- Try to refute the candidate with alternative explanations: scope, release, responsible document, example status, benchmark context, terminology or detail level.
-- Classify each candidate as Confirmed, Probable, Needs human decision or False positive.
-- Merge remaining duplicates.
-- Generate a short, actionable final report with evidence.
-
-## Validation Output
-
-Write `{{VALIDATION_OUTPUT}}` with this format:
-
-```md
-# Adversarial Validation Log
-
-Run: {{RUN_ID}}
-
-## Candidate Reviews
-
-### C-001: <title>
-
-Validation result: Confirmed | Probable | Needs human decision | False positive
-Reasoning:
-<why it survived or failed>
-
-Refutation attempts:
-- <attempt>
-
-Evidence checked:
-- `<file>` `<line/section>`
-```
-
-## Final Report
-
-Write `{{FINAL_OUTPUT}}` with this format:
-
-```md
-# Final Documentation Audit Report
-
-Run: {{RUN_ID}}
-
-## Summary
-
-- Confirmed problems:
-- Probable problems:
-- Needs human decision:
-- False positives removed during validation:
-
-## Confirmed Problems
-
-### P-001: <short title>
-
-Type: Contradiction | Ambiguity | Probable staleness | Broken reference | Missing cross-reference | Code/doc drift | Scope leak | Unclassified
-Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low
-Needs human decision: Yes | No
-
-Evidence:
-- `<file>` `<line/section>`: "<quote>"
-- `<file>` `<line/section>`: "<quote>"
-
-Problem:
-<explain the confirmed issue>
-
-Suggested correction direction:
-<direction only; no rewrite>
-
-## Probable Problems
-
-<same structure, for items that are likely but not fully proven>
-
-## Needs Human Decision
-
-<same structure, for real conflicts where product/architecture decision is needed>
-
-## Removed As False Positives
-
-- `<candidate id>`: <reason>
-```
+# Adversarial Documentation Audit Validation
+
+Run: `{{RUN_ID}}`
+Consolidated candidates: `{{CONSOLIDATED_OUTPUT}}`
+Validation output: `{{VALIDATION_OUTPUT}}`
+Final report: `{{FINAL_OUTPUT}}`
+
+## Role
+
+You are the adversarial validator. Your job is to try to prove that each consolidated candidate is a false positive. Keep a problem in the final report only if it survives that attempt.
+
+Do not correct documentation. Do not choose a source of truth. Do not turn acceptable divergence into an error.
+
+## Tasks
+
+- Read `{{CONSOLIDATED_OUTPUT}}`.
+- For each candidate, open cited files and search nearby/additional context.
+- Try to refute the candidate with alternative explanations: scope, release, responsible document, example status, benchmark context, terminology or detail level.
+- Classify each candidate as Confirmed, Probable, Needs human decision or False positive.
+- Merge remaining duplicates.
+- Generate a short, actionable final report with evidence.
+
+## Validation Output
+
+Write `{{VALIDATION_OUTPUT}}` with this format:
+
+```md
+# Adversarial Validation Log
+
+Run: {{RUN_ID}}
+
+## Candidate Reviews
+
+### C-001: <title>
+
+Validation result: Confirmed | Probable | Needs human decision | False positive
+Reasoning:
+<why it survived or failed>
+
+Refutation attempts:
+- <attempt>
+
+Evidence checked:
+- `<file>` `<line/section>`
+```
+
+## Final Report
+
+Write `{{FINAL_OUTPUT}}` with this format:
+
+```md
+# Final Documentation Audit Report
+
+Run: {{RUN_ID}}
+
+## Summary
+
+- Confirmed problems:
+- Probable problems:
+- Needs human decision:
+- False positives removed during validation:
+
+## Confirmed Problems
+
+### P-001: <short title>
+
+Type: Contradiction | Ambiguity | Probable staleness | Broken reference | Missing cross-reference | Code/doc drift | Scope leak | Unclassified
+Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low
+Needs human decision: Yes | No
+
+Evidence:
+- `<file>` `<line/section>`: "<quote>"
+- `<file>` `<line/section>`: "<quote>"
+
+Problem:
+<explain the confirmed issue>
+
+Suggested correction direction:
+<direction only; no rewrite>
+
+## Probable Problems
+
+<same structure, for items that are likely but not fully proven>
+
+## Needs Human Decision
+
+<same structure, for real conflicts where product/architecture decision is needed>
+
+## Removed As False Positives
+
+- `<candidate id>`: <reason>
+```

package/src/workflows/documentation-audit/workflow.json

@@ -1,24 +1,24 @@
-{
-  "id": "documentation-audit",
-  "status": "available",
-  "title": "Documentation Audit",
-  "summary": "Runs redundant, adversarial consistency audits across project documentation without editing source docs.",
-  "commands": {
-    "cli": [
-      "wefter docs audit",
-      "wefter new-run documentation-audit"
-    ],
-    "opencode": [
-      "/wefter-audit-docs",
-      "/wefter-generate-doc-audit-profile"
-    ]
-  },
-  "artifactLayout": [
-    "prompts/auditors/",
-    "raw/",
-    "consolidation/",
-    "validation/",
-    "final/"
-  ],
-  "writesSourceFiles": false
-}
+{
+  "id": "documentation-audit",
+  "status": "available",
+  "title": "Documentation Audit",
+  "summary": "Runs redundant, adversarial consistency audits across project documentation without editing source docs.",
+  "commands": {
+    "cli": [
+      "wefter docs audit",
+      "wefter new-run documentation-audit"
+    ],
+    "opencode": [
+      "/wefter-audit-docs",
+      "/wefter-generate-doc-audit-profile"
+    ]
+  },
+  "artifactLayout": [
+    "prompts/auditors/",
+    "raw/",
+    "consolidation/",
+    "validation/",
+    "final/"
+  ],
+  "writesSourceFiles": false
+}