@zhixuan92/multi-model-agent-core 4.7.8 → 4.7.10

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-audit.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { AnnotatorTemplate } from './annotator-shared.js';
-export declare const annotatorAuditTemplate: AnnotatorTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-audit.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-audit.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-audit.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-audit.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,iBAAiB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAE/D,eAAO,MAAM,sBAAsB,EAAE,iBAkBpC,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-audit.js

@@ -1,20 +0,0 @@
-export const annotatorAuditTemplate = {
-    role: 'audit',
-    onBriefCheck: 'For each finding, ask: is this the kind of issue the audit asked for? A security audit should produce security findings, not style nits. AND: is this finding consistent with the doc-audit failure-mode taxonomy (recommendation-coherence, internal contradiction, cross-item duplication, independence-claimed-without-evidence, argument soundness, completeness against constraints, fix actionability, drift, scope-creep)? Findings that match the taxonomy and are backed by section references are valid even when they are reasoning-based rather than direct quotes — do NOT downgrade them as "speculation".',
-    evidenceRule: [
-        '- Audit findings come in FOUR valid shapes:',
-        '  1. Doc quote: a verbatim passage from the document showing the issue.',
-        '  2. Absence-reference: a precise pointer to where the doc *should* address something but doesn\'t (e.g. "Section 3.2 lists failure modes but is silent on queue overflow").',
-        '  3. Claim + contradiction: the doc\'s claim plus a quote from the source it contradicts.',
-        '  4. Internal-coherence: a precise reference to two sections of the document that conflict — quote both, OR quote one and name the section ID of the other (e.g. "A8 fix says \'optionally auto-cancel\' but the next sentence says \'do NOT auto-escalate — that crosses into replacing caller judgment\'"). This shape is fully valid for recommendation-coherence, internal-contradiction, argument-soundness, and completeness-against-constraints findings.',
-        '- A finding without one of these four forms is speculation; downgrade to low or drop.',
-        '- Reasoning-based findings (e.g. "this fix relies on persistence which the doc forbids in Principle #6") are VALID when they cite both the recommendation and the constraint. Do NOT downgrade these as speculation — they are the highest-value kind of audit finding.',
-    ].join('\n'),
-    scopeRule: [
-        '- The document and what it directly references are in scope.',
-        '- Cross-section / cross-doc reasoning IS the value of an audit — do not penalize as speculation.',
-        '- Repository-wide enumeration / globbing is out of scope; flag findings whose evidence depends on broad enumeration.',
-        '- Coding-style nits on inline examples belong in a code review, not an audit; flag as off-brief.',
-    ].join('\n'),
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-audit.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-audit.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-audit.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-audit.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAEA,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,sBAAsB,GAAsB;IACvD,IAAI,EAAE,OAAO;IACb,YAAY,EAAE,0lBAA0lB;IACxmB,YAAY,EAAE;QACZ,6CAA6C;QAC7C,yEAAyE;QACzE,8KAA8K;QAC9K,2FAA2F;QAC3F,kcAAkc;QAClc,uFAAuF;QACvF,yQAAyQ;KAC1Q,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;IACZ,SAAS,EAAE;QACT,8DAA8D;QAC9D,kGAAkG;QAClG,sHAAsH;QACtH,kGAAkG;KACnG,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;CACb,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-debug.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { AnnotatorTemplate } from './annotator-shared.js';
-export declare const annotatorDebugTemplate: AnnotatorTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-debug.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-debug.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-debug.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-debug.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,iBAAiB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAE/D,eAAO,MAAM,sBAAsB,EAAE,iBAiBpC,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-debug.js

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
-export const annotatorDebugTemplate = {
-    role: 'debugging hypothesis',
-    onBriefCheck: 'Each finding should be a hypothesis with a complete trace from symptom to cause, not a point observation at the symptom. AND: the cited cause must come UPSTREAM of the cited symptom in the call/data flow — a finding that names a symptom location as the cause is misdirection (SYMPTOM-NOT-CAUSE failure mode). Findings consistent with the debug failure-mode taxonomy (symptom-not-cause, scapegoat file, incomplete trace, untested hypothesis, parallel causes, pre-existing-vs-new entanglement, wrong fix scope, missing reproduction, confidence overstatement) and backed by file:line citations at each step are valid even when the chain has marked gaps — partial-evidence hypotheses with explicit "the gap is here, verify by X" notes are FULLY VALID, do NOT downgrade them as "speculation".',
-    evidenceRule: [
-        '- Debug findings are hypotheses with REASONING CHAINS, not point observations.',
-        '- Each finding must have at least three citations: SYMPTOM (where the failure surfaces) → INTERMEDIATE STATE (the wrong value, the unexpected branch) → CAUSE (the file:line that, if changed, would prevent the failure).',
-        '- Evidence forms accepted: reproducer commands, captured logs / stack traces, observed values, code-path traces with file:line per step.',
-        '- A finding with NO falsifier (no way to verify the proposed fix worked) is a guess, not a finding.',
-        '- Cross-file tracing (symptom in one file, cause in another reachable via call/data flow) is REQUIRED and FULLY VALID — not "speculation about untouched files".',
-        '- Severity reflects evidence strength AND impact: confirmed root cause that ships a wrong fix = critical; confirmed root cause with full chain = high; plausible candidate with most of the chain = medium; partial trace / multiple plausible explanations = low.',
-    ].join('\n'),
-    scopeRule: [
-        '- Cross-file tracing is in scope and REQUIRED to follow the failure path. Cross-file findings are not out-of-scope just because the named files do not include the cause file.',
-        '- Reproduction discovery is in scope: if no reproduction was provided, the worker should infer one and state it explicitly.',
-        '- Pre-existing-vs-new separation is in scope: multiple bugs in one failure should be separated, with the answered one as the primary finding and others noted separately.',
-        '- Out of scope: applied fixes (the worker should propose, not apply); unrelated code-review remarks; broadening into general code review of files not on the failure path.',
-    ].join('\n'),
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-debug.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-debug.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-debug.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-debug.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAEA,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,sBAAsB,GAAsB;IACvD,IAAI,EAAE,sBAAsB;IAC5B,YAAY,EAAE,qxBAAqxB;IACnyB,YAAY,EAAE;QACZ,gFAAgF;QAChF,4NAA4N;QAC5N,0IAA0I;QAC1I,qGAAqG;QACrG,kKAAkK;QAClK,oQAAoQ;KACrQ,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;IACZ,SAAS,EAAE;QACT,gLAAgL;QAChL,6HAA6H;QAC7H,2KAA2K;QAC3K,4KAA4K;KAC7K,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;CACb,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-investigate.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { AnnotatorTemplate } from './annotator-shared.js';
-export declare const annotatorInvestigateTemplate: AnnotatorTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-investigate.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-investigate.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-investigate.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-investigate.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,iBAAiB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAE/D,eAAO,MAAM,4BAA4B,EAAE,iBAe1C,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-investigate.js

@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-export const annotatorInvestigateTemplate = {
-    role: 'codebase investigation',
-    onBriefCheck: 'Each finding should be relevant to the question (not an adjacent question — QUESTION SHIFT failure mode). AND: each load-bearing claim must have a file:line citation OR an explicit "searched X in Y, not found" negative. Findings consistent with the investigate failure-mode taxonomy (wrong file, stale quote, hallucinated citation, confidence overstatement, citation gap, question shift, synthesis without grounding, assumed-current-state) should be filed as the appropriate verdict — do NOT downgrade negative findings for lacking a code quote, and do NOT downgrade inference-with-citations as "speculation" if the cited links are real.',
-    evidenceRule: [
-        '- Present-thing citations: real `file:line` from files actually read THIS SESSION, with a quote or summary. Citations from training-data memory are hallucinations — flag any cited line that does not currently contain the cited content.',
-        '- Absent-thing citations: explicit "searched <pattern> in <path>, no matches" — negative findings are legitimate answers and must NOT be downgraded for lacking a code quote.',
-        '- Synthesis findings: cite each link in the reasoning chain by file:line. A synthesis with even one un-cited link is a hand-wave; downgrade confidence or drop the un-cited link.',
-        '- Inference-with-citations ("I infer X from Y:42, Z:18") is FULLY VALID and should not be downgraded as "speculation" when the cited links are real. The distinction: inference-with-citations names what is inferred and what is cited; speculation makes a claim without naming the gap.',
-    ].join('\n'),
-    scopeRule: [
-        '- Wherever the question leads is in scope; the question may not name files.',
-        '- Negative answers ("X is not used", "Y does not exist") ARE in scope when backed by an explicit search; they are not "unable to find" excuses.',
-        '- Drift into unrelated code-review remarks is out of scope.',
-        '- Fix proposals / suggestions / improvements are out of scope (this is a read-only Q&A).',
-    ].join('\n'),
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-investigate.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-investigate.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-investigate.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-investigate.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAEA,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,4BAA4B,GAAsB;IAC7D,IAAI,EAAE,wBAAwB;IAC9B,YAAY,EAAE,+nBAA+nB;IAC7oB,YAAY,EAAE;QACZ,6OAA6O;QAC7O,+KAA+K;QAC/K,mLAAmL;QACnL,4RAA4R;KAC7R,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;IACZ,SAAS,EAAE;QACT,6EAA6E;QAC7E,iJAAiJ;QACjJ,6DAA6D;QAC7D,0FAA0F;KAC3F,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;CACb,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-review.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { AnnotatorTemplate } from './annotator-shared.js';
-export declare const annotatorReviewTemplate: AnnotatorTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-review.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-review.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-review.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-review.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,iBAAiB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAE/D,eAAO,MAAM,uBAAuB,EAAE,iBAoBrC,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-review.js

@@ -1,22 +0,0 @@
-export const annotatorReviewTemplate = {
-    role: 'code review',
-    onBriefCheck: 'For each finding, ask: is this within the requested focus area (or universally applicable: security, correctness, performance apply to every code change)? AND: is this finding consistent with the code-review failure-mode taxonomy (test gap, cross-file ripple, pre-existing-bug-vs-new-regression, missing edge case, race, resource leak, backward-compat break, security regression, performance regression, implicit-contract assumption)? Findings that match the taxonomy and are backed by call-site references or sibling-test-file references are valid even when the cited code is not in the named files — do NOT downgrade them as "speculation about untouched files".',
-    evidenceRule: [
-        '- Code-review findings come in three valid shapes:',
-        '  1. In-file quote: a verbatim code excerpt from the named files at `file:line`.',
-        '  2. Cross-file ripple: a quote in the named file at `fileA:lineA` PLUS a call-site reference at `fileB:lineB` reachable via grep on the changed symbol. Both lines must be cited.',
-        '  3. Test-gap reference: a quote of the changed line in the named file PLUS the natural-sibling test file path (e.g. `tests/foo.test.ts` for `src/foo.ts`). If no test file exists, that itself is the finding.',
-        '- Implicit-contract findings are valid when they cite the changed line AND name the contract source (docstring, type, README) that does not state the assumption.',
-        '- Findings without one of these forms are speculation; downgrade or drop.',
-        '- Reasoning-based findings backed by call-site references (e.g. "this signature change breaks src/handlers/auth.ts:42") are FULLY VALID and the highest-value kind of code-review finding. Do NOT downgrade them as "speculation about untouched files."',
-    ].join('\n'),
-    scopeRule: [
-        '- Named files are in scope. Behavior of direct callers/callees may be referenced when visible in the named files.',
-        '- Cross-file ripples on changed public symbols ARE in scope when backed by a grep-able symbol reference. Do not penalize as out-of-scope.',
-        '- Test-gap findings citing a sibling test file ARE in scope. Do not penalize as out-of-scope.',
-        '- Speculation about unrelated untouched files is out of scope.',
-        '- Doc/spec issues belong in an audit, not a review — flag as off-brief.',
-        '- Pre-existing bugs (the diff did not introduce them) belong in a separate "Pre-existing — out of scope" section, not in the merge-blocking findings.',
-    ].join('\n'),
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-review.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-review.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-review.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-review.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAEA,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,uBAAuB,GAAsB;IACxD,IAAI,EAAE,aAAa;IACnB,YAAY,EAAE,ypBAAypB;IACvqB,YAAY,EAAE;QACZ,oDAAoD;QACpD,kFAAkF;QAClF,oLAAoL;QACpL,iNAAiN;QACjN,mKAAmK;QACnK,2EAA2E;QAC3E,0PAA0P;KAC3P,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;IACZ,SAAS,EAAE;QACT,mHAAmH;QACnH,2IAA2I;QAC3I,+FAA+F;QAC/F,gEAAgE;QAChE,yEAAyE;QACzE,uJAAuJ;KACxJ,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;CACb,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-shared.d.ts

@@ -1,23 +0,0 @@
-export interface AnnotatorPromptContext {
-    /** N parallel sub-worker narratives, one per criterion the dispatcher
-     *  fanned out. The empty-result narrative ("No findings for this
-     *  criterion.") is filtered out by the engine before this context is
-     *  built — entries here are non-empty narratives that need merging. */
-    workerOutputs: Array<{
-        criterion: string;
-        narrative: string;
-    }>;
-    brief: string;
-}
-export interface AnnotatorTemplate {
-    role: string;
-    onBriefCheck: string;
-    /** Per-tool evidence rule. Tells the annotator what counts as
-     *  grounded evidence for findings from this tool. */
-    evidenceRule: string;
-    /** Per-tool scope rule. Tells the annotator what is in/out of scope
-     *  for findings from this tool. */
-    scopeRule: string;
-}
-export declare function buildAnnotatorRubric(template: AnnotatorTemplate): string;
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-shared.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-shared.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-shared.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-shared.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAGA,MAAM,WAAW,sBAAsB;IACrC;;;2EAGuE;IACvE,aAAa,EAAE,KAAK,CAAC;QAAE,SAAS,EAAE,MAAM,CAAC;QAAC,SAAS,EAAE,MAAM,CAAA;KAAE,CAAC,CAAC;IAC/D,KAAK,EAAE,MAAM,CAAC;CACf;AAED,MAAM,WAAW,iBAAiB;IAChC,IAAI,EAAE,MAAM,CAAC;IACb,YAAY,EAAE,MAAM,CAAC;IACrB;yDACqD;IACrD,YAAY,EAAE,MAAM,CAAC;IACrB;uCACmC;IACnC,SAAS,EAAE,MAAM,CAAC;CACnB;AAED,wBAAgB,oBAAoB,CAAC,QAAQ,EAAE,iBAAiB,GAAG,MAAM,CA+CxE"}

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-shared.js

@@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
-// Data shared by all 5 annotator templates. The actual prompt assembly
-// happens in review/annotator-prompt-builder.ts.
-export function buildAnnotatorRubric(template) {
-    return String.raw `
-## Output format (REQUIRED)
-
-Respond with exactly one fenced JSON code block AS THE LAST BLOCK in your
-response. The block contains a JSON array of finding objects, in the order
-the worker presented them. Example:
-
-` + '```json\n' + `[
-  {
-    "id": "F1",
-    "severity": "critical",
-    "claim": "Remote code execution via unsanitized input in src/handler.ts:42",
-    "evidence": "user input is passed directly into shellExec() without escaping",
-    "suggestion": "Use a parameterized API or escape input",
-    "annotatorConfidence": 90,
-    "category": "security"
-  }
-]
-` + '```' + `
-
-Field rules:
-- ` + '`id`' + `: assign sequentially F1, F2, F3, ... (must be unique).
-- ` + '`severity`' + `: one of "critical" | "high" | "medium" | "low" — YOUR
-   final judgment. The worker's value is a hint; calibrate to actual impact.
-- ` + '`claim`' + `: one-sentence summary.
-- ` + '`evidence`' + `: REQUIRED, ≥20 chars, MUST be a verbatim quote from the
-   worker's output.
-- ` + '`suggestion`' + `: optional; quote or paraphrase the worker's recommended fix.
-- ` + '`annotatorConfidence`' + `: integer 0-100. How confident YOU are
-   that the finding is correct, on-brief, and well-grounded.
-- ` + '`category`' + `: optional, one of: "missing_test" | "scope_creep" |
-   "incomplete_impl" | "style_lint" | "security" | "performance" |
-   "maintainability" | "doc_gap" | "doc_drift" | "contract_violation" |
-   "coverage_gap" | "dead_code" | "queue_hygiene" | "other".
-
-## Tool-specific evidence rule (apply when judging "well-grounded")
-
-` + template.evidenceRule + `
-
-## Tool-specific scope rule (apply when judging "on-brief")
-
-` + template.scopeRule + `
-
-If the worker raised NO issues, return ` + '`[]`' + `. Surrounding prose is
-allowed but ignored by the parser — only the LAST ` + '```json' + ` block is read.
-`.trim();
-}
-//# sourceMappingURL=annotator-shared.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/annotator-shared.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"annotator-shared.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/annotator-shared.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,uEAAuE;AACvE,iDAAiD;AAsBjD,MAAM,UAAU,oBAAoB,CAAC,QAA2B;IAC9D,OAAO,MAAM,CAAC,GAAG,CAAA;;;;;;;CAOlB,GAAG,WAAW,GAAG;;;;;;;;;;;CAWjB,GAAG,KAAK,GAAG;;;GAGT,GAAG,MAAM,GAAG;GACZ,GAAG,YAAY,GAAG;;GAElB,GAAG,SAAS,GAAG;GACf,GAAG,YAAY,GAAG;;GAElB,GAAG,cAAc,GAAG;GACpB,GAAG,uBAAuB,GAAG;;GAE7B,GAAG,YAAY,GAAG;;;;;;;CAOpB,GAAG,QAAQ,CAAC,YAAY,GAAG;;;;CAI3B,GAAG,QAAQ,CAAC,SAAS,GAAG;;wCAEe,GAAG,MAAM,GAAG;mDACD,GAAG,SAAS,GAAG;CACjE,CAAC,IAAI,EAAE,CAAC;AACT,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/finding-criteria.d.ts

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * Truly-shared finding criteria — the constants that apply *identically*
- * across every consumer. Per-tool blocks live next to each tool, not here.
- *
- *  - SEVERITY_LADDER: same severity ladder, same anti-inflation hint, same
- *    impact-anchored definitions for all 5 read-only tools.
- *  - REVIEWER_AWARENESS_AP: same spec+quality reviewer expectation across
- *    delegate / execute-plan / retry implementer prompts.
- *
- * Evidence + scope + annotator-awareness are calibrated per-tool; see
- * tools/<tool>/implementer-criteria.ts for each tool's blocks.
- */
-export declare const SEVERITY_LADDER: string;
-export declare const REVIEWER_AWARENESS_AP: string;
-//# sourceMappingURL=finding-criteria.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/finding-criteria.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"finding-criteria.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/finding-criteria.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA;;;;;;;;;;;GAWG;AAEH,eAAO,MAAM,eAAe,QAOhB,CAAC;AAEb,eAAO,MAAM,qBAAqB,QAiBtB,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/finding-criteria.js

@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * Truly-shared finding criteria — the constants that apply *identically*
- * across every consumer. Per-tool blocks live next to each tool, not here.
- *
- *  - SEVERITY_LADDER: same severity ladder, same anti-inflation hint, same
- *    impact-anchored definitions for all 5 read-only tools.
- *  - REVIEWER_AWARENESS_AP: same spec+quality reviewer expectation across
- *    delegate / execute-plan / retry implementer prompts.
- *
- * Evidence + scope + annotator-awareness are calibrated per-tool; see
- * tools/<tool>/implementer-criteria.ts for each tool's blocks.
- */
-export const SEVERITY_LADDER = [
-    'Severity (your judgment, calibrated to actual impact):',
-    '- critical: must fix first — RCE, data loss, auth bypass, build broken, data corruption.',
-    '- high:     real bug or security gap; blocks release.',
-    '- medium:   real issue; fix soon; not blocking.',
-    '- low:      minor or cosmetic issue; nice-to-fix.',
-    'Calibrate to actual impact, not how alarming the wording sounds. Workers commonly inflate — resist the urge.',
-].join('\n');
-export const REVIEWER_AWARENESS_AP = [
-    'After your edit, two reviewers see the cumulative diff (every change since task start):',
-    '',
-    '1. SPEC reviewer — "does the diff fulfill the brief?"',
-    '   - APPROVED requires: every brief item present in the diff, no missing pieces, no out-of-scope edits.',
-    '   - CHANGES_REQUIRED requires: a concrete concern tied to a specific diff line.',
-    '   - Empty diff = changes_required UNLESS the brief explicitly requested a no-op.',
-    '',
-    '2. QUALITY reviewer — "is the diff sound, safe, maintainable?"',
-    '   - Flags: correctness bugs, broken tests, races, security gaps, speculative dependencies.',
-    '   - Does NOT flag: stylistic preferences, comment bikeshedding, unrelated pre-existing code.',
-    '',
-    'Self-check before declaring done:',
-    '- Implemented EVERY item in the brief? (no gaps)',
-    '- No edits OUTSIDE the brief? (no scope creep)',
-    '- If your edit affects callers / tests not in your filePaths, note them in your summary — even if you can\'t update them.',
-    '- Are the changes minimal and verifiable, or could they be smaller?',
-].join('\n');
-//# sourceMappingURL=finding-criteria.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/finding-criteria.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"finding-criteria.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/finding-criteria.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA;;;;;;;;;;;GAWG;AAEH,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,eAAe,GAAG;IAC7B,wDAAwD;IACxD,0FAA0F;IAC1F,uDAAuD;IACvD,iDAAiD;IACjD,mDAAmD;IACnD,8GAA8G;CAC/G,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,CAAC;AAEb,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,qBAAqB,GAAG;IACnC,yFAAyF;IACzF,EAAE;IACF,uDAAuD;IACvD,yGAAyG;IACzG,kFAAkF;IAClF,mFAAmF;IACnF,EAAE;IACF,gEAAgE;IAChE,6FAA6F;IAC7F,+FAA+F;IAC/F,EAAE;IACF,mCAAmC;IACnC,kDAAkD;IAClD,gDAAgD;IAChD,2HAA2H;IAC3H,qEAAqE;CACtE,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-audit.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { ReviewTemplate } from './shared.js';
-export declare const qualityAuditTemplate: ReviewTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review-audit.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-audit.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review-audit.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review-audit.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,cAAc,EAAE,MAAM,aAAa,CAAC;AAIlD,eAAO,MAAM,oBAAoB,EAAE,cAMlC,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-audit.js

@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-import { buildAnnotatorRubric } from './annotator-shared.js';
-import { annotatorAuditTemplate } from './annotator-audit.js';
-export const qualityAuditTemplate = {
-    systemPrompt: `You are a quality reviewer checking an audit produced by a worker.
-For each finding, ask: is this the kind of issue the audit asked for? A security audit should produce security findings, not style nits.`,
-    buildUserPrompt(ctx) {
-        return `Task: ${ctx.brief}\n\nWorker output:\n${ctx.workerOutput}\n\n${buildAnnotatorRubric(annotatorAuditTemplate)}`;
-    },
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review-audit.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-audit.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review-audit.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review-audit.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AACA,OAAO,EAAE,oBAAoB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAC7D,OAAO,EAAE,sBAAsB,EAAE,MAAM,sBAAsB,CAAC;AAE9D,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,oBAAoB,GAAmB;IAClD,YAAY,EAAE;yIACyH;IACvI,eAAe,CAAC,GAAG;QACjB,OAAO,SAAS,GAAG,CAAC,KAAK,uBAAuB,GAAG,CAAC,YAAY,OAAO,oBAAoB,CAAC,sBAAsB,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC;IACxH,CAAC;CACF,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-debug.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { ReviewTemplate } from './shared.js';
-export declare const qualityDebugTemplate: ReviewTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review-debug.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-debug.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review-debug.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review-debug.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,cAAc,EAAE,MAAM,aAAa,CAAC;AAIlD,eAAO,MAAM,oBAAoB,EAAE,cAMlC,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-debug.js

@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-import { buildAnnotatorRubric } from './annotator-shared.js';
-import { annotatorDebugTemplate } from './annotator-debug.js';
-export const qualityDebugTemplate = {
-    systemPrompt: `You are a quality reviewer checking a debugging hypothesis produced by a worker.
-Each finding should be a hypothesis, root-cause claim, or evidence (reproducer, error pattern, code path). Flag findings that do not logically follow from cited evidence or that exceed what the trace actually shows.`,
-    buildUserPrompt(ctx) {
-        return `Task: ${ctx.brief}\n\nWorker output:\n${ctx.workerOutput}\n\n${buildAnnotatorRubric(annotatorDebugTemplate)}`;
-    },
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review-debug.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-debug.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review-debug.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review-debug.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AACA,OAAO,EAAE,oBAAoB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAC7D,OAAO,EAAE,sBAAsB,EAAE,MAAM,sBAAsB,CAAC;AAE9D,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,oBAAoB,GAAmB;IAClD,YAAY,EAAE;wNACwM;IACtN,eAAe,CAAC,GAAG;QACjB,OAAO,SAAS,GAAG,CAAC,KAAK,uBAAuB,GAAG,CAAC,YAAY,OAAO,oBAAoB,CAAC,sBAAsB,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC;IACxH,CAAC;CACF,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-investigate.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { ReviewTemplate } from './shared.js';
-export declare const qualityInvestigateTemplate: ReviewTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review-investigate.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-investigate.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review-investigate.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review-investigate.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,cAAc,EAAE,MAAM,aAAa,CAAC;AAIlD,eAAO,MAAM,0BAA0B,EAAE,cAMxC,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-investigate.js

@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-import { buildAnnotatorRubric } from './annotator-shared.js';
-import { annotatorInvestigateTemplate } from './annotator-investigate.js';
-export const qualityInvestigateTemplate = {
-    systemPrompt: `You are a quality reviewer checking a codebase investigation produced by a worker.
-Each finding should be relevant to the question. Findings may be code-level (file:line cited in evidence) or project-level synthesis (what was searched, what was not found). Flag findings whose evidence does not support the claim or whose claim drifts from the question.`,
-    buildUserPrompt(ctx) {
-        return `Task: ${ctx.brief}\n\nWorker output:\n${ctx.workerOutput}\n\n${buildAnnotatorRubric(annotatorInvestigateTemplate)}`;
-    },
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review-investigate.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-investigate.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review-investigate.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review-investigate.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AACA,OAAO,EAAE,oBAAoB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAC7D,OAAO,EAAE,4BAA4B,EAAE,MAAM,4BAA4B,CAAC;AAE1E,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,0BAA0B,GAAmB;IACxD,YAAY,EAAE;+QAC+P;IAC7Q,eAAe,CAAC,GAAG;QACjB,OAAO,SAAS,GAAG,CAAC,KAAK,uBAAuB,GAAG,CAAC,YAAY,OAAO,oBAAoB,CAAC,4BAA4B,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC;IAC9H,CAAC;CACF,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-review.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { ReviewTemplate } from './shared.js';
-export declare const qualityReviewTemplate: ReviewTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review-review.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-review.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review-review.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review-review.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,cAAc,EAAE,MAAM,aAAa,CAAC;AAIlD,eAAO,MAAM,qBAAqB,EAAE,cAMnC,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-review.js

@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-import { buildAnnotatorRubric } from './annotator-shared.js';
-import { annotatorReviewTemplate } from './annotator-review.js';
-export const qualityReviewTemplate = {
-    systemPrompt: `You are a quality reviewer checking a code review produced by a worker.
-For each finding, ask: is this within the requested focus area? A security review should produce security findings, not formatting nits.`,
-    buildUserPrompt(ctx) {
-        return `Task: ${ctx.brief}\n\nWorker output:\n${ctx.workerOutput}\n\n${buildAnnotatorRubric(annotatorReviewTemplate)}`;
-    },
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review-review.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review-review.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review-review.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review-review.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AACA,OAAO,EAAE,oBAAoB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAC7D,OAAO,EAAE,uBAAuB,EAAE,MAAM,uBAAuB,CAAC;AAEhE,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,qBAAqB,GAAmB;IACnD,YAAY,EAAE;yIACyH;IACvI,eAAe,CAAC,GAAG;QACjB,OAAO,SAAS,GAAG,CAAC,KAAK,uBAAuB,GAAG,CAAC,YAAY,OAAO,oBAAoB,CAAC,uBAAuB,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC;IACzH,CAAC;CACF,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review.d.ts

@@ -1,9 +0,0 @@
-import type { ReviewTemplate } from './shared.js';
-export declare const legalOutcomes: readonly ["found", "clean"];
-export declare const qualityLintTemplate: ReviewTemplate;
-export declare function qualityReviewPrompt(ctx: {
-    brief: string;
-    workerSummary: string;
-    filesChanged: string[];
-}): string;
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,cAAc,EAAE,MAAM,aAAa,CAAC;AAElD,eAAO,MAAM,aAAa,6BAA8B,CAAC;AAiCzD,eAAO,MAAM,mBAAmB,EAAE,cA8CjC,CAAC;AAEF,wBAAgB,mBAAmB,CAAC,GAAG,EAAE;IAAE,KAAK,EAAE,MAAM,CAAC;IAAC,aAAa,EAAE,MAAM,CAAC;IAAC,YAAY,EAAE,MAAM,EAAE,CAAA;CAAE,GAAG,MAAM,CAUjH"}

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review.js

@@ -1,89 +0,0 @@
-export const legalOutcomes = ['found', 'clean'];
-const OUTPUT_FORMAT = `Output format (mandatory):
-
-## Verdict
-approved | changes_required
-
-## Finding N: <one-line claim for this finding>
-- Severity: critical | high | medium | low
-- Category: <category name>
-- Evidence: <one concrete symptom or risk — quote source line or describe observable bad behaviour>
-- Suggestion: <specific, actionable fix — not a general nudge>
-
-## Finding N+1: ...
-(omit section entirely if approved)
-
-## Outcome
-found | clean
-
-Rules:
-- "approved" when the code is safe and correct enough to ship. Style nits do NOT block.
-- "changes_required" only for substantive risks (null-handling gap, missing error path, real edge case, security surface, etc.).
-- Each finding must be specific enough that a rework worker can act on it without re-deriving.
-- If approved, write "## Verdict\napproved" and omit the ## Finding sections entirely; then "## Outcome\nclean".
-- If changes_required, write "## Outcome\nfound".
-- Do NOT use editor tools. Read-only investigation only.
-
-**Severity definitions (per quality-review):**
-- **critical:** Will break in production
-- **high:** Correctness gap in normal use
-- **medium:** Maintainability/fragility
-- **low:** Style`;
-export const qualityLintTemplate = {
-    systemPrompt: [
-        'You are the QUALITY reviewer for a plan-execution task. You are LINT-ONLY — do NOT edit files.',
-        'Your scope: safety, correctness, error handling, edge cases, security, maintainability.',
-        'You are NOT checking plan fidelity — that is the spec reviewer\'s job (their report runs in parallel).',
-        'Read files as needed to verify. A separate REWORK stage will apply your findings.',
-        '',
-        OUTPUT_FORMAT,
-        '',
-        'Rules:',
-        '- "approved" when the code is safe and correct enough to ship. Style nits do NOT block.',
-        '- "changes_required" only for substantive risks (null-handling gap, missing error path, real edge case, security surface, etc.).',
-        '- Each finding must be specific enough that a rework worker can act on it without re-deriving.',
-        '- If approved, write "## Verdict\napproved" and omit the ## Finding sections entirely.',
-        '- Do NOT use editor tools. Read-only investigation only.',
-    ].join('\n'),
-    buildUserPrompt(ctx) {
-        const parts = [];
-        parts.push(`# Task brief\n${ctx.brief}`);
-        if (ctx.planContext && ctx.planContext.trim().length > 0) {
-            parts.push(`# Plan section (for context)\n\n\`\`\`markdown\n${ctx.planContext.trim()}\n\`\`\``);
-        }
-        if (ctx.diff && ctx.diff.length > 0) {
-            parts.push(`# Cumulative diff (current on-disk state)\n\n\`\`\`diff\n${ctx.diff}\n\`\`\``);
-        }
-        else {
-            parts.push('# Cumulative diff\n(no file changes detected)');
-        }
-        parts.push('# Action\nReview for safety/correctness/edge-cases. Emit the report. Do not edit.');
-        return parts.join('\n\n');
-    },
-    buildWarmFollowup(_ctx) {
-        // Warm follow-up: spec review already loaded the brief, diff, and
-        // planContext into this reviewer session's history on turn 1.
-        // Emit only the NEW instruction — switch lens to safety/correctness
-        // and emit the verdict + deviations report.
-        return [
-            '# Action — second pass: quality lens',
-            '',
-            'Now re-evaluate the SAME work in this thread through the QUALITY lens:',
-            'safety, correctness, error handling, edge cases, security, maintainability.',
-            '',
-            OUTPUT_FORMAT,
-        ].join('\n');
-    },
-};
-export function qualityReviewPrompt(ctx) {
-    return `You are the quality reviewer for this task.
-
-Brief: ${ctx.brief}
-
-Worker said: ${ctx.workerSummary}
-
-Files changed: ${ctx.filesChanged.join(', ') || '(none)'}
-
-${OUTPUT_FORMAT}`;
-}
-//# sourceMappingURL=quality-review.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/quality-review.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"quality-review.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/quality-review.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAEA,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,aAAa,GAAG,CAAC,OAAO,EAAE,OAAO,CAAU,CAAC;AAEzD,MAAM,aAAa,GAAG;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;iBA6BL,CAAC;AAElB,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,mBAAmB,GAAmB;IACjD,YAAY,EAAE;QACZ,gGAAgG;QAChG,yFAAyF;QACzF,wGAAwG;QACxG,mFAAmF;QACnF,EAAE;QACF,aAAa;QACb,EAAE;QACF,QAAQ;QACR,yFAAyF;QACzF,kIAAkI;QAClI,gGAAgG;QAChG,wFAAwF;QACxF,0DAA0D;KAC3D,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;IAEZ,eAAe,CAAC,GAAG;QACjB,MAAM,KAAK,GAAa,EAAE,CAAC;QAC3B,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,iBAAiB,GAAG,CAAC,KAAK,EAAE,CAAC,CAAC;QACzC,IAAI,GAAG,CAAC,WAAW,IAAI,GAAG,CAAC,WAAW,CAAC,IAAI,EAAE,CAAC,MAAM,GAAG,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC;YACzD,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,mDAAmD,GAAG,CAAC,WAAW,CAAC,IAAI,EAAE,UAAU,CAAC,CAAC;QAClG,CAAC;QACD,IAAI,GAAG,CAAC,IAAI,IAAI,GAAG,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,MAAM,GAAG,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC;YACpC,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,4DAA4D,GAAG,CAAC,IAAI,UAAU,CAAC,CAAC;QAC7F,CAAC;aAAM,CAAC;YACN,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,+CAA+C,CAAC,CAAC;QAC9D,CAAC;QACD,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,mFAAmF,CAAC,CAAC;QAChG,OAAO,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,MAAM,CAAC,CAAC;IAC5B,CAAC;IAED,iBAAiB,CAAC,IAAI;QACpB,kEAAkE;QAClE,8DAA8D;QAC9D,oEAAoE;QACpE,4CAA4C;QAC5C,OAAO;YACL,sCAAsC;YACtC,EAAE;YACF,wEAAwE;YACxE,6EAA6E;YAC7E,EAAE;YACF,aAAa;SACd,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,CAAC;IACf,CAAC;CACF,CAAC;AAEF,MAAM,UAAU,mBAAmB,CAAC,GAAqE;IACvG,OAAO;;SAEA,GAAG,CAAC,KAAK;;eAEH,GAAG,CAAC,aAAa;;iBAEf,GAAG,CAAC,YAAY,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,QAAQ;;EAEtD,aAAa,EAAE,CAAC;AAClB,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/rework.d.ts

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-import type { ReviewTemplate } from './shared.js';
-export declare const reworkTemplate: ReviewTemplate;
-//# sourceMappingURL=rework.d.ts.map

package/dist/review/templates/rework.d.ts.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"rework.d.ts","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/rework.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAAA,OAAO,KAAK,EAAE,cAAc,EAAE,MAAM,aAAa,CAAC;AAElD,eAAO,MAAM,cAAc,EAAE,cAkD5B,CAAC"}

package/dist/review/templates/rework.js

@@ -1,48 +0,0 @@
-export const reworkTemplate = {
-    systemPrompt: [
-        'You are the REWORK worker. The implementer ran, then two reviewers (spec + quality) lint-checked the result and produced deviations.',
-        'Your job: fix every deviation. You have FULL editor tools.',
-        '',
-        'CRITICAL: this is a SINGLE-PASS pipeline. There is NO second rework round. After you, the annotator scores completeness and the commit gate fires. If you skip a fix, no commit lands.',
-        '',
-        'Per-deviation procedure:',
-        '  1. Read the relevant file ONCE (skip if already read this turn).',
-        '  2. Apply the fix with one edit call.',
-        '  3. Move on. Do not re-read; do not re-evaluate.',
-        '',
-        'Hard rules:',
-        '- Trust the reviewers — do not re-investigate whether the deviation is valid.',
-        '- If a deviation is truly impossible to fix (conflicting constraints, missing source), write "could not fix: <deviation> — reason" in your summary and move on.',
-        '- Read each file AT MOST ONCE in this stage.',
-        '',
-        'When done: write summary "Fixed: <list of deviations>. Could not fix: <list with reasons>." End your turn.',
-        '',
-        'workerStatus calibration (this is where rework workers commonly under-rate themselves):',
-        '- "done"             — you applied a fix for EVERY listed deviation. This is the correct value even though the reviewer originally flagged concerns. Being asked to rework is not, by itself, a "concern" — addressing the rework IS the success path. Verification of the fix is the reviewer\'s responsibility on the next round — do not mark yourself failed because you couldn\'t independently verify.',
-        '- "done_with_concerns" — you addressed every listed deviation AND noticed a NEW unrelated issue you couldn\'t fix in this turn. Put the new issue in `unresolved`.',
-        '- "blocked" / "failed"  — you were unable to apply a fix for ONE OR MORE of the listed deviations (conflicting constraints, missing source, ambiguous instruction). Put those entries in the "Could not fix" line AND in `unresolved`.',
-        'If your summary line is "Fixed: <every deviation>. Could not fix: (none)." then workerStatus MUST be "done".',
-    ].join('\n'),
-    buildUserPrompt(ctx) {
-        // Warm follow-up: this rework turn always resumes the implementer's
-        // thread. The brief, prior worker output, and current cumulative diff
-        // are already in the resumed session's conversation history. Emit
-        // only the NEW content — the reviewer's deviations to fix.
-        const parts = [];
-        if (ctx.priorConcerns && ctx.priorConcerns.length > 0) {
-            parts.push(`# Reviewer deviations to fix\n${ctx.priorConcerns
-                .map((c, i) => `${i + 1}. ${c}`)
-                .join('\n')}`);
-        }
-        else {
-            parts.push('# Reviewer deviations to fix\n(none — should not have reached this stage; end immediately)');
-        }
-        parts.push('# Action\n' +
-            '1. Fix each deviation in order.\n' +
-            '2. Apply one edit call per file. Do not re-read after editing.\n' +
-            '3. Write your summary and end your turn.\n' +
-            '4. In your final WorkerOutput JSON: set workerStatus to "done" if your "Could not fix" line is empty (every listed deviation was addressed). Reserve "failed" / "blocked" for deviations you could not address — having had concerns to begin with is not, in itself, a concern.');
-        return parts.join('\n\n');
-    },
-};
-//# sourceMappingURL=rework.js.map

package/dist/review/templates/rework.js.map

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-{"version":3,"file":"rework.js","sourceRoot":"","sources":["../../../src/review/templates/rework.ts"],"names":[],"mappings":"AAEA,MAAM,CAAC,MAAM,cAAc,GAAmB;IAC5C,YAAY,EAAE;QACZ,sIAAsI;QACtI,4DAA4D;QAC5D,EAAE;QACF,wLAAwL;QACxL,EAAE;QACF,0BAA0B;QAC1B,oEAAoE;QACpE,wCAAwC;QACxC,mDAAmD;QACnD,EAAE;QACF,aAAa;QACb,+EAA+E;QAC/E,iKAAiK;QACjK,8CAA8C;QAC9C,EAAE;QACF,4GAA4G;QAC5G,EAAE;QACF,yFAAyF;QACzF,8YAA8Y;QAC9Y,oKAAoK;QACpK,wOAAwO;QACxO,8GAA8G;KAC/G,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC;IAEZ,eAAe,CAAC,GAAG;QACjB,oEAAoE;QACpE,sEAAsE;QACtE,kEAAkE;QAClE,2DAA2D;QAC3D,MAAM,KAAK,GAAa,EAAE,CAAC;QAC3B,IAAI,GAAG,CAAC,aAAa,IAAI,GAAG,CAAC,aAAa,CAAC,MAAM,GAAG,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC;YACtD,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CACR,iCAAiC,GAAG,CAAC,aAAa;iBAC/C,GAAG,CAAC,CAAC,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC,EAAE,EAAE,CAAC,GAAG,CAAC,GAAG,CAAC,KAAK,CAAC,EAAE,CAAC;iBAC/B,IAAI,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,EAAE,CAChB,CAAC;QACJ,CAAC;aAAM,CAAC;YACN,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,4FAA4F,CAAC,CAAC;QAC3G,CAAC;QACD,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CACR,YAAY;YACZ,mCAAmC;YACnC,kEAAkE;YAClE,4CAA4C;YAC5C,kRAAkR,CACnR,CAAC;QACF,OAAO,KAAK,CAAC,IAAI,CAAC,MAAM,CAAC,CAAC;IAC5B,CAAC;CACF,CAAC"}