agestra 4.14.5 → 4.15.1

package/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
       "name": "agestra",
       "source": "./",
       "description": "Multi-host MCP orchestration across Claude, Ollama, Gemini, and Codex for review, QA, and cross-validation",
-      "version": "4.14.5",
+      "version": "4.15.1",
       "author": {
         "name": "mua-vtuber"
       },

package/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "agestra",
-  "version": "4.14.5",
+  "version": "4.15.1",
   "description": "Claude Code plugin — multi-host MCP orchestration across Claude, Ollama, Gemini, and Codex for review, QA, and cross-validation",
   "mcpServers": {
     "agestra": {
@@ -9,17 +9,5 @@
         "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/dist/bundle.js"
       ]
     }
-  },
-  "hooks": {
-    "UserPromptSubmit": [
-      {
-        "hooks": [
-          {
-            "type": "command",
-            "command": "node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/user-prompt-submit.js"
-          }
-        ]
-      }
-    ]
   }
 }

package/.gemini/commands/agestra/research.toml

@@ -1,16 +1,15 @@
 # Generated by Agestra. Managed file.
-description = "Run research using a selected investigation topology"
+description = "Run host-owned Agestra research with an idea, QA, or security viewpoint"
 prompt = """
 You are executing the `/agestra research` Gemini command.
 
-- Start with `setup_status`, then `environment_check` and `provider_list`.
-- For investigation-including workflows that continue into domain consensus, route through `agent_research_consensus_start`.
-- Host research consensus contract:
+- Start with `setup_status`; provider availability is not a gate for research.
+- Ask for the research viewpoint when missing: Idea exploration, QA evidence set, or Security evidence set.
+- Use host-owned `agestra-research` assignments. Do not ask for a research topology or provider investigation mode.
+- Host research contract uses workflow profiles, `aggregation`, `questionSet`, and `evidencePolicy`:
   호스트가 조사한다.
   호스트가 정리한다.
-  시스템이 토론한다.
   호스트가 문서화한다.
-- External AI research and debate run in separate fresh sessions, even when the same provider participates in both phases.
 
 @{commands/research.md}
 """

package/.gemini/commands/agestra/review.toml

@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ prompt = """
 You are executing the `/agestra review` Gemini command.
 
 - Start with `setup_status`, then `environment_check` and `provider_list`.
-- For investigation-including workflows, route through `agent_research_consensus_start`.
-- Host research consensus contract:
+- For investigation-including workflows, route through `agent_research_start`, then start debate separately with `agent_consensus_start`.
+- Host research/debate contract uses workflow profiles, `aggregation`, `questionSet`, and `evidencePolicy`:
   호스트가 조사한다.
   호스트가 정리한다.
   시스템이 토론한다.

package/AGENTS.md

@@ -16,38 +16,49 @@ Use `host_assets_status` to inspect generated Codex host assets, and only call `
 ## How to Work Here
 
 - Default to direct Codex work using the workspace `AGENTS.md` contract, oh-my-codex workflows, and Superpowers-style skills when they apply.
-- Use Agestra primarily for explicit multi-AI or provider orchestration requests, such as when the user names Agestra, Codex/Gemini/Ollama providers, "multi-AI", "multiple AI", "provider", `agent_debate_*`, `cli_worker_*`, or asks to gather/compare several AI opinions.
+- Use Agestra primarily for explicit multi-AI or provider-backed review, QA, security, design, idea, and evidence/consensus work, such as when the user names Agestra, Codex/Gemini/Ollama providers, "multi-AI", "multiple AI", "provider", or asks to gather/compare several AI opinions.
 - Plain review/QA/check requests without `/agestra` or explicit multi-AI/provider wording stay with the current host; they are not Agestra natural-language auto-triggers.
 - Agestra natural-language routing requires explicit multi-AI/provider wording such as "multiple AIs", "all AIs", "other AI", "multi-AI", "Codex and Gemini", "provider comparison", or "프로바이더 비교". Explicit `/agestra ...` commands remain supported.
 - Native helper agents are created by the active host layer. In Codex, use the generated custom agents installed from these assets; external MCP/CLI/chat providers participate through Agestra tools and never create or manage Codex native agents.
 - Keep Agestra setup/status/provider checks as installation and health checks, not as workflow-routing triggers.
 - Run `setup_status`, `environment_check`, and `provider_list` when the task concerns Agestra installation, MCP registration, host assets, provider availability, or before entering an Agestra workflow. If `setup_status` reports `Setup required: yes`, complete interactive setup first and then resume the original task.
 - Do not treat ordinary review, QA, security, design, idea, implementation, cleanup, build-fix, or planning requests as Agestra workflows just because setup/status/provider checks exist.
+- Agestra does not implement product code or author persistent E2E test files. Code and test authoring should happen in the current host first, then Agestra can review, QA, security-check, design-check, or discuss the result.
 - When an Agestra workflow is active, treat `commands/*.md` as the source of truth for that workflow.
 - Prefer Agestra MCP tools over ad-hoc multi-provider prompting only when the task is actually in Agestra/multi-provider mode.
 - If any legacy workflow text mentions old single-host Agestra execution, treat it as obsolete. Direct current-host work should happen outside Agestra workflows.
 
 ## Workflow Mapping
 
+- Public slash commands are limited to setup, research, and review.
+- Setup and research requests follow `commands/setup.md` and `commands/research.md`.
 - When Agestra is active, review requests follow `commands/review.md`
-- When Agestra is active, QA / verification requests follow `commands/qa.md`
-- When Agestra is active, security audit requests follow `commands/security.md`
+- Internal QA, security, design, idea, and planning viewpoints remain available through workflow profiles and skill/lens resources; they are not shipped as public slash commands.
 - Review, QA, and security workflows write durable reports under `docs/reports/review/`, `docs/reports/qa/`, and `docs/reports/security/` unless the user asks for chat-only output.
-- Persistent E2E test creation/maintenance is internal: QA produces `E2E_TEST_WORK_REQUEST`, the leader asks the user, and approved work goes to `agestra-implementer` with `mode: e2e-test-authoring`.
-- When Agestra is active, design and architecture requests follow `commands/design.md`
-- When Agestra is active, idea discovery requests follow `commands/idea.md`
-- When Agestra is active, implementation requests follow `commands/implement.md`
 
 ## Core MCP Tools
 
 - `setup_status`, `environment_check`, and `provider_list`: inspect installation, host, and provider state for Agestra health checks and active Agestra workflows
-- `agent_consensus_start` (with `agent_debate_approve`/`_continue`/`_reject`) and `agent_debate_review`: run approval-gated consensus flows from prepared `initial_aggregation`
-- `cli_worker_spawn`, `agent_changes_review`, `agent_changes_accept`, `agent_changes_reject`: use for explicit autonomous Codex/Gemini worker tasks
+- `agent_research_start`: research-only preprocessing with workflow profile, prompt pack, questionSet, evidencePolicy, research lenses, and investigator assignments; writes `research_submissions.json`, `research_transcript.json`, and `aggregation.json`; does not start debate
+- `agent_consensus_start` (with `agent_debate_approve`/`_continue`/`_reject`): debate-only approval-gated consensus flows from prepared `aggregation`, supplied `questionSet`, and `evidencePolicy`; `workflow` is a report/artifact label only, not a debate routing branch
 - `host_assets_status`, `host_assets_install`, `host_assets_uninstall`: inspect and explicitly manage generated Codex host-native assets such as custom agents and skills
-- `qa_run`: run workspace build/test verification before reporting implementation completion
+- `qa_run`: run workspace build/test verification for QA evidence
 
 ## Project Assets
 
-- `agents/`: canonical role prompts (`agestra-team-lead`, `agestra-research`, `agestra-debate`, `agestra-implementer`)
+- `agents/`: canonical role prompts (`agestra-team-lead`, `agestra-research`, `agestra-debate`)
 - `skills/`: reusable workflow references
 - `GEMINI.md` and `.gemini/commands/`: Gemini-specific host assets; keep behavior aligned with them when updating shared workflows
+
+## graphify
+
+This project has a knowledge graph at graphify-out/ with god nodes, community structure, and cross-file relationships.
+
+When the user types `/graphify`, invoke the `skill` tool with `skill: "graphify"` before doing anything else.
+
+Rules:
+- For codebase questions, first run `graphify query "<question>"` when graphify-out/graph.json exists. Use `graphify path "<A>" "<B>"` for relationships and `graphify explain "<concept>"` for focused concepts. These return a scoped subgraph, usually much smaller than GRAPH_REPORT.md or raw grep output.
+- Dirty graphify-out/ files are expected after hooks or incremental updates; dirty graph files are not a reason to skip graphify. Only skip graphify if the task is about stale or incorrect graph output, or the user explicitly says not to use it.
+- If graphify-out/wiki/index.md exists, use it for broad navigation instead of raw source browsing.
+- Read graphify-out/GRAPH_REPORT.md only for broad architecture review or when query/path/explain do not surface enough context.
+- After modifying code, run `graphify update .` to keep the graph current (AST-only, no API cost).

package/GEMINI.md

@@ -20,9 +20,11 @@ After setup, Gemini project commands are available:
 - `/agestra:security`
 - `/agestra:design`
 - `/agestra:idea`
-- `/agestra:implement`
 
 Each command delegates to the shared workflow specs in `commands/*.md`.
+Agestra does not implement product code or author persistent E2E test files. Use
+Gemini CLI or the current host for code/test changes first, then run Agestra
+QA/review/security on the result.
 
 ## Usage Rules
 
@@ -31,9 +33,10 @@ Each command delegates to the shared workflow specs in `commands/*.md`.
 - Start orchestration requests with `setup_status`, then `environment_check` and `provider_list`.
 - Prefer Agestra MCP tools instead of rebuilding workflows in free-form prompts.
 - Treat `commands/*.md` and `agents/*.md` as the canonical workflow and role assets.
-- Keep native agent creation host-owned. Providers reached through MCP, CLI workers, or chat are participants only.
-- For investigation-including workflows, route through `agent_research_consensus_start`.
-- Use this host research consensus contract verbatim:
+- Keep native agent creation host-owned. Providers reached through MCP or chat are participants only.
+- For investigation-including workflows, route through `agent_research_start`,
+  then start debate separately with `agent_consensus_start`.
+- Use this host research/debate phase contract verbatim:
   호스트가 조사한다.
   호스트가 정리한다.
   시스템이 토론한다.
@@ -43,11 +46,12 @@ Each command delegates to the shared workflow specs in `commands/*.md`.
 
 ## Core MCP Tools
 
-- `agent_research_consensus_start`: host-led research, consolidation, system debate, engine aggregation docs, and host-authored final decision docs for investigation-including workflows
-- `agent_consensus_start`, `agent_debate_approve`/`_continue`/`_reject`, `agent_debate_review`: direct consensus sessions from prepared `initial_aggregation` and approval-gated debate artifacts
-- `cli_worker_spawn`, `agent_changes_review`, `agent_changes_accept`, `agent_changes_reject`: autonomous worker lifecycle
+- `agent_research_start`: research-only host-led preprocessing with workflow
+  profile, prompt pack, `questionSet`, `evidencePolicy`, research lenses, and
+  investigator assignments; writes `research_submissions.json`,
+  `research_transcript.json`, and `aggregation.json`; does not start debate
+- debate-only `agent_consensus_start`, `agent_debate_approve`/`_continue`/`_reject`: sessions from prepared `aggregation`, supplied `questionSet`, `evidencePolicy`, and approval-gated debate artifacts
 - `workspace_*`: document-backed review and aggregation flows
-- `qa_run`: workspace build/test verification before implementation completion
+- `qa_run`: workspace build/test verification for QA evidence
 
 Review, QA, and security workflows write durable reports under `docs/reports/review/`, `docs/reports/qa/`, and `docs/reports/security/` unless the user asks for chat-only output.
-Persistent E2E test creation/maintenance is internal: QA produces `E2E_TEST_WORK_REQUEST`, the leader asks the user, and approved work goes to `agestra-implementer` with `mode: e2e-test-authoring`. There is no standalone Gemini `/agestra:e2e` command yet.

package/README.ja.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Claude Code、Codex CLI、Gemini CLI、ローカルモデルで使えるマル
 
 [English](README.md) | [한국어](README.ko.md) | [日本語](README.ja.md) | [中文](README.zh.md)
 
-Agestra は、1 つの作業に複数の AI を使って比較し、整理するためのツールです。コードレビュー、QA、セキュリティ確認、設計相談、アイデア探索、provider-backed 実装向けに作られています。
+Agestra は、1 つの問題を複数の AI 視点で検討し、整理するためのツールです。コードレビュー、QA、セキュリティ確認、設計相談、アイデア探索、根拠にもとづく合意形成向けに作られています。
 
 ## クイックスタート
 
@@ -21,32 +21,29 @@ Agestra は、1 つの作業に複数の AI を使って比較し、整理する
 
 インストール後、プロジェクトを開いて Agestra ワークフローを呼び出します。
 
-- Claude Code: `/agestra review`, `/agestra qa`, `/agestra security`, `/agestra design`, `/agestra idea`, `/agestra implement`
-- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:review`, `/agestra:qa`, `/agestra:security`, `/agestra:design`, `/agestra:idea`, `/agestra:implement`
+- Claude Code: `/agestra research ...` または `/agestra review ...`
+- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:research ...` または `/agestra:review ...`
 - Codex CLI: `Use Agestra with Gemini and Codex to review this branch.` のように、Agestra や複数 AI を明示して依頼
 
 初回は使う provider を聞かれることがあります。provider が 1 つだけでもセットアップやホスト所有の作業はできますが、複数 AI 比較は 2 つ以上あるとより有効です。
 
 ## 何に使うか
 
-- `review`: コード品質、回帰リスク、UX、整理ポイントを複数 AI の視点で比較
-- `qa`: 設計書や計画を基準に実装を検証し、PASS/FAIL の根拠を集める
-- `security`: セキュリティ観点に絞って確認する
-- `design`: 実装前に構造やトレードオフを整理する
-- `idea`: 改善案、代替案、類似ツールを探る
-- `implement`: 複数 provider で実装を進め、最後の検証までつなぐ
+- `research`: アイデア、QA、セキュリティの質問に必要な根拠を現在のホストだけで調査し整理します。この流れでは外部 provider は調査しません。
+- `review`: 既存のコード、ドキュメント、diff、または準備済みのリサーチ結果をもとに討論し、意見を比較します。レビューは新しい調査を始めません。
+- レビュー観点には、コード品質、回帰リスク、UX、整理、設計適合性、性能、信頼性、テスト、安全性のにおい、リリース準備状況を含められます。
 
 ## 実行すると何が起こるか
 
 1. Agestra が設定と利用可能な provider を確認します。
 2. 依頼を対象とスコープが明確なワークフローに整理します。
-3. 調査が必要なら、ホストが先に証拠を集めて整理します。
-4. 選ばれた provider は残っている論点だけをレビューまたは討論します。
+3. `research` では、現在のホストが根拠を調査し、整理し、文書化します。provider fan-out はありません。
+4. `review` では、選ばれた provider がスコープ内のコード、ドキュメント、diff、または準備済みのリサーチ結果について討論します。別途調査はしません。
 5. 結論、意見の違い、根拠を 1 つの結果として返します。
 
-普通のレビューや QA の依頼が自動で Agestra になるわけではありません。`/agestra ...` を使うか、複数 AI や provider-backed 作業を明示したときに Agestra が動きます。
+普通のレビューや QA の依頼が自動で Agestra になるわけではありません。`/agestra ...` を使うか、複数 AI や provider-backed のリサーチ/レビュー作業を明示したときに Agestra が動きます。
 
-実装と QA では、最後の確認は引き続きホストが担当します。ビルド、テスト、実行証拠、ブラウザフロー、最終的なファイル反映はホスト側で確認します。
+コード変更は、まず現在のホストで直接行うのが基本です。Agestra はその後で結果をレビューし、計画との一致を確認し、複数 provider の意見と根拠を記録するところで最も力を発揮します。
 
 ## このリポジトリで使う
 

package/README.ko.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, 로컬 모델을 함께 쓰기 위한 멀티
 
 [English](README.md) | [한국어](README.ko.md) | [日本語](README.ja.md) | [中文](README.zh.md)
 
-Agestra는 하나의 작업에 여러 AI를 붙여서 비교하고 정리해 주는 도구입니다. 코드 리뷰, QA, 보안 점검, 설계 논의, 아이디어 탐색, provider-backed 구현에 맞춰 설계되어 있습니다.
+Agestra는 하나의 문제를 여러 AI 시각으로 검토하고 정리해 주는 도구입니다. 코드 리뷰, QA, 보안 점검, 설계 논의, 아이디어 탐색, 근거 기반 합의에 맞춰 설계되어 있습니다.
 
 ## 빠른 시작
 
@@ -21,32 +21,29 @@ Agestra는 하나의 작업에 여러 AI를 붙여서 비교하고 정리해 주
 
 설치 후 프로젝트를 열고 Agestra 워크플로우를 요청하면 됩니다.
 
-- Claude Code: `/agestra review`, `/agestra qa`, `/agestra security`, `/agestra design`, `/agestra idea`, `/agestra implement`
-- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:review`, `/agestra:qa`, `/agestra:security`, `/agestra:design`, `/agestra:idea`, `/agestra:implement`
+- Claude Code: `/agestra research ...` 또는 `/agestra review ...`
+- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:research ...` 또는 `/agestra:review ...`
 - Codex CLI: `Agestra로 Gemini와 Codex를 같이 써서 이 브랜치 리뷰해줘`처럼 Agestra나 여러 AI를 명시해서 요청
 
 첫 실행에서는 사용할 provider를 물어볼 수 있습니다. provider가 하나만 있어도 설정과 호스트 소유 작업은 가능하지만, 멀티 AI 비교는 둘 이상일 때 가장 잘 살아납니다.
 
 ## 무엇에 쓰나
 
-- `review`: 코드 품질, 회귀 위험, UX, 정리 포인트를 여러 AI 의견으로 비교
-- `qa`: 설계 문서나 계획 기준으로 구현을 검증하고 PASS/FAIL 근거 수집
-- `security`: 보안 관점만 따로 집중해서 검토
-- `design`: 구현 전에 구조와 트레이드오프 논의
-- `idea`: 개선 아이디어, 대안, 유사 도구 탐색
-- `implement`: 여러 provider를 써서 구현을 진행하고 마지막 검증까지 이어감
+- `research`: 아이디어, QA, 보안 질문에 필요한 근거를 현재 호스트만 조사하고 정리합니다. 외부 provider는 이 흐름에서 조사하지 않습니다.
+- `review`: 이미 있는 코드, 문서, diff, 또는 준비된 리서치 결과를 두고 토론하고 의견을 비교합니다. 리뷰는 새 조사를 시작하지 않습니다.
+- 리뷰 관점은 코드 품질, 회귀 위험, UX, 정리, 설계 적합성, 성능, 안정성, 테스트, 기본 안전 냄새, 배포 준비도를 다룰 수 있습니다.
 
 ## 실행하면 어떻게 되나
 
 1. Agestra가 설정과 사용 가능한 provider를 확인합니다.
 2. 요청을 대상과 범위가 분명한 워크플로우로 정리합니다.
-3. 조사가 필요하면 호스트가 먼저 근거를 모으고 정리합니다.
-4. 선택된 provider들이 남은 쟁점만 검토하거나 토론합니다.
+3. `research`에서는 현재 호스트가 근거를 조사하고 정리하고 문서화합니다. provider fan-out은 없습니다.
+4. `review`에서는 선택된 provider들이 범위 안의 코드, 문서, diff, 또는 준비된 리서치 결과를 놓고 토론합니다. 별도 조사는 하지 않습니다.
 5. 결론, 이견, 근거를 하나의 결과로 돌려줍니다.
 
-평범한 리뷰나 QA 요청이 자동으로 Agestra가 되는 것은 아닙니다. `/agestra ...`를 쓰거나, 여러 AI나 provider-backed 작업을 명시했을 때 Agestra 워크플로우가 시작됩니다.
+평범한 리뷰나 QA 요청이 자동으로 Agestra가 되는 것은 아닙니다. `/agestra ...`를 쓰거나, 여러 AI나 provider-backed 리서치/리뷰 작업을 명시했을 때 Agestra 워크플로우가 시작됩니다.
 
-구현과 QA에서는 마지막 확인을 계속 호스트가 맡습니다. 빌드, 테스트, 실행 근거, 브라우저 흐름, 최종 파일 반영은 호스트가 확인합니다.
+코드 변경은 먼저 현재 호스트에서 직접 진행하는 편이 좋습니다. Agestra는 그 다음 결과를 리뷰하고, 계획과 맞는지 검증하고, 여러 provider 의견과 근거를 기록할 때 가장 강합니다.
 
 ## 이 저장소에서 쓰기
 

package/README.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Multi-host MCP orchestration for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, and local m
 
 [English](README.md) | [한국어](README.ko.md) | [日本語](README.ja.md) | [中文](README.zh.md)
 
-Agestra helps you use more than one AI for the same task. It is built for review, QA, design discussion, idea exploration, and provider-backed implementation.
+Agestra helps you use more than one AI to examine the same problem. It is built for review, QA, security checks, design discussion, idea exploration, and evidence-backed consensus.
 
 ## Quick Start
 
@@ -21,32 +21,29 @@ Install Agestra in the host you already use.
 
 Then open your project and ask for an Agestra workflow.
 
-- Claude Code: `/agestra review`, `/agestra qa`, `/agestra security`, `/agestra design`, `/agestra idea`, `/agestra implement`
-- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:review`, `/agestra:qa`, `/agestra:security`, `/agestra:design`, `/agestra:idea`, `/agestra:implement`
+- Claude Code: `/agestra research ...` or `/agestra review ...`
+- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:research ...` or `/agestra:review ...`
 - Codex CLI: ask explicitly for Agestra or multiple providers, for example `Use Agestra with Gemini and Codex to review this branch.`
 
 The first workflow may ask which providers you want to use. Agestra works best with two or more providers, but setup and host-owned flows still work with one.
 
 ## What To Use It For
 
-- `review`: compare multiple AI opinions about code quality, regressions, UX, and cleanup
-- `qa`: verify implementation against a design or plan and collect PASS/FAIL evidence
-- `security`: run a dedicated security-focused review
-- `design`: discuss architecture and tradeoffs before coding
-- `idea`: explore improvements, alternatives, and similar tools
-- `implement`: coordinate provider-backed implementation, then verify the result
+- `research`: host-only evidence gathering for idea, QA, or security questions. External providers do not investigate in this flow.
+- `review`: debate and compare opinions about existing code, docs, diffs, or prepared research. Review does not start a fresh investigation.
+- Review lenses can cover code quality, regressions, UX, cleanup, design fit, performance, reliability, tests, safety smells, and production readiness.
 
 ## How It Runs
 
 1. Agestra checks setup and available providers.
 2. It turns your request into a clear workflow with a target and scope.
-3. When research is needed, the host gathers and organizes the evidence first.
-4. Selected providers review or debate only the unresolved points.
+3. In `research`, the current host gathers, organizes, and documents evidence. There is no provider fan-out.
+4. In `review`, selected providers discuss the code, documents, diffs, or prepared research already in scope. They do not perform separate research.
 5. Agestra returns one result with conclusions, disagreements, and evidence.
 
-Plain review or QA requests do not automatically become Agestra workflows. Agestra starts when you use `/agestra ...` or explicitly ask for multi-AI or provider-backed help.
+Plain review or QA requests do not automatically become Agestra workflows. Agestra starts when you use `/agestra ...` or explicitly ask for multi-AI or provider-backed research/review work.
 
-For implementation and QA, the host still owns the final checks such as build, test, runtime evidence, browser flows, and accepted file changes.
+For code changes, use your current host directly first. Agestra is strongest after that: reviewing the result, checking it against a plan, comparing provider opinions, and recording the evidence.
 
 ## Using This Repository
 

package/README.zh.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 
 [English](README.md) | [한국어](README.ko.md) | [日本語](README.ja.md) | [中文](README.zh.md)
 
-Agestra 用来把多个 AI 放到同一个任务里比较和整理。它适合代码审查、QA、安全检查、设计讨论、想法探索，以及 provider-backed 实现。
+Agestra 用来让多个 AI 从不同角度审视同一个问题，并把结果整理成证据清晰的结论。它适合代码审查、QA、安全检查、设计讨论、想法探索和基于证据的共识。
 
 ## 快速开始
 
@@ -21,32 +21,29 @@ Agestra 用来把多个 AI 放到同一个任务里比较和整理。它适合
 
 安装后，打开项目并发起 Agestra 工作流。
 
-- Claude Code: `/agestra review`, `/agestra qa`, `/agestra security`, `/agestra design`, `/agestra idea`, `/agestra implement`
-- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:review`, `/agestra:qa`, `/agestra:security`, `/agestra:design`, `/agestra:idea`, `/agestra:implement`
+- Claude Code: `/agestra research ...` 或 `/agestra review ...`
+- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:research ...` 或 `/agestra:review ...`
 - Codex CLI: 像 `Use Agestra with Gemini and Codex to review this branch.` 这样明确提到 Agestra 或多个 AI
 
 第一次运行时，它可能会询问你要启用哪些 provider。只有一个 provider 也能完成设置和宿主自有流程，但 Multi-AI 比较在两个以上 provider 时效果最好。
 
 ## 用它做什么
 
-- `review`: 比较多个 AI 对代码质量、回归风险、UX 和整理点的看法
-- `qa`: 按设计文档或计划验证实现，并收集 PASS/FAIL 证据
-- `security`: 专门做安全视角的检查
-- `design`: 在写代码前讨论结构和取舍
-- `idea`: 探索改进方向、备选方案和相似工具
-- `implement`: 用多个 provider 推进实现，并把最后验证也串起来
+- `research`: 由当前宿主单独收集并整理 idea、QA 或安全问题所需的证据。外部 provider 不参与这个调查流程。
+- `review`: 围绕已有代码、文档、diff 或已准备好的 research 结果进行讨论并比较意见。review 不会启动新的调查。
+- review 视角可以覆盖代码质量、回归风险、UX、整理点、设计契合度、性能、可靠性、测试、安全异味和上线准备度。
 
 ## 运行时会发生什么
 
 1. Agestra 检查设置和可用 provider。
 2. 它把请求整理成目标和范围明确的工作流。
-3. 如果需要调查，宿主先收集并整理证据。
-4. 被选中的 provider 只讨论或审查剩下的未解决问题。
+3. 在 `research` 中，当前宿主负责调查、整理并文档化证据。没有 provider fan-out。
+4. 在 `review` 中，被选中的 provider 讨论范围内的代码、文档、diff 或已准备好的 research 结果。它们不会另行调查。
 5. Agestra 返回一份包含结论、分歧和证据的结果。
 
-普通的 review 或 QA 请求不会自动变成 Agestra 工作流。只有当你使用 `/agestra ...`，或者明确要求多 AI / provider-backed 帮助时，Agestra 才会启动。
+普通的 review 或 QA 请求不会自动变成 Agestra 工作流。只有当你使用 `/agestra ...`，或者明确要求多 AI / provider-backed 的 research/review 工作时，Agestra 才会启动。
 
-在实现和 QA 里，最后的确认仍然由宿主负责。构建、测试、运行证据、浏览器流程，以及最终落盘的改动都由宿主确认。
+代码修改应优先由当前宿主直接完成。Agestra 最适合在修改之后审查结果、按计划验证、比较多个 provider 的意见，并记录证据。
 
 ## 在这个仓库里使用
 

package/agents/agestra-debate.md

@@ -2,9 +2,10 @@
 name: agestra-debate
 description: |
   Host-native debate participant for Agestra consensus rounds. Reads the assigned
-  domain/lens context, answers a pending host turn, and returns the required
-  consensus JSON. It is not the moderator, not the team lead, not a reviewer/QA/
-  security specialist identity, and does not choose participants or run rounds.
+  workflow profile/lens context, answers a pending host turn by the supplied
+  question set, and returns the required [ITEM] markup. It is not the
+  moderator, not the team lead, not a reviewer/QA/security specialist identity,
+  and does not choose participants or run rounds.
 
   Use this agent only when the team lead or consensus engine has an explicit
   host-native participant turn for `agestra-debate`.
@@ -17,10 +18,10 @@ tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
 <Role>
 You are the host-native debate participant for Agestra. You receive one pending
 consensus turn, inspect only the supplied packet/files/lens references, and
-return the required JSON answer for that turn.
+return the required [ITEM] answer for that turn.
 
 You are not the consensus engine, moderator, team lead, reviewer, QA judge,
-security auditor, or implementation worker.
+security auditor, or code-change executor.
 
 Use only inside an active Agestra workflow. Plain review/QA/check requests
 without `/agestra` or explicit multi-AI/provider wording stay with the current
@@ -36,7 +37,8 @@ Required information:
 - round number to echo in `round`
 - assigned item ids
 - allowed files or evidence references
-- assigned domain/lens context, if any
+- assigned workflow profile and lens context, if any
+- supplied `questionSet` with required question IDs, verdict fields, and allowed verdicts
 - output contract
 
 If the request is only a generic review, QA, or debate request and does not
@@ -50,37 +52,40 @@ When a lens reference is provided, read only the needed file under
 `skills/references/lenses/`.
 
 Do not load every lens by default. The lens narrows the question; it does not
-override the pending turn packet or JSON contract.
+override the pending turn packet or [ITEM] contract.
 </Lens_Policy>
 
 <Output_Contract>
-Return JSON only. Do not include prose, Markdown, XML tags, or explanations
-outside the JSON object.
+Return [ITEM] blocks only. Do not include prose, Markdown, JSON, XML tags, or
+explanations outside the item blocks.
 
 Consensus turn shape:
 
-```json
-{
-  "provider": "<pending participant id>",
-  "round": 1,
-  "items": [
-    {
-      "id": "<assigned item id>",
-      "stance": "agree",
-      "comment": "short evidence-based comment when needed"
-    }
-  ]
-}
+```text
+[ITEM]
+id: <assigned item id>
+stance: agree
+responds_to: <assigned item id>
+evidence: file:line, artifact path, or item evidence ref
+stanceEvidenceType: empirical
+question: <questionId> | <verdictField> | <allowed verdict> | short evidence-based rationale
+finalStatus: <allowed final status from questionSet>
+adjustedRemedy: optional remedy adjustment when allowed by the packet
+text:
+Concise participant response text.
+[/ITEM]
 ```
 
 Rules:
-- `provider` must exactly match the pending participant id.
-- `round` must exactly match the pending round.
+- The mailbox turn id, participant id, and round are supplied by the packet and
+  submission tool call; do not invent different values.
 - Answer every assigned item exactly once.
-- `stance` must be one of `agree`, `disagree`, `opinion`, or `revise`.
-- `disagree`, `opinion`, and `revise` require a non-empty `comment`.
-- `revise` requires a `proposedItem` in the shape requested by the engine.
-- Do not create new top-level fields unless the engine contract explicitly allows them.
+- Answer every required question in the supplied `questionSet`.
+- Use only verdict values allowed by the supplied `questionSet`.
+- Include stance evidence type and evidence refs for each question answer.
+- Treat `workflow` as artifact context only; do not infer hidden QA, review,
+  security, design, idea, or planning rules.
+- Do not return debate JSON.
 </Output_Contract>
 
 <Boundaries>
@@ -89,5 +94,5 @@ Rules:
 - Do not write reports or final synthesis documents.
 - Do not edit source files.
 - Do not convert this task into a general review, QA, security audit, or design pass.
-- If evidence is missing, use `opinion` or `disagree` with a clear comment instead of inventing facts.
+- If evidence is missing, answer the supplied question set with `unclear` or the closest allowed verdict and explain the evidence gap instead of inventing facts.
 </Boundaries>

package/agents/agestra-research.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ You are a focused research assignee. You investigate the exact research
 assignment you receive and return structured evidence for aggregation.
 
 You are not the team lead, final synthesizer, consensus engine, reviewer, QA
-judge, security auditor, or implementation worker.
+judge, security auditor, or code-change executor.
 
 Use only inside an active Agestra workflow. Plain review/QA/check requests
 without `/agestra` or explicit multi-AI/provider wording stay with the current
@@ -27,9 +27,12 @@ host.
 Proceed only when the request includes a bounded research assignment.
 
 Expected assignment fields:
-- `domain`: idea, design, review, qa, security, implement, or research
+- `workflow` and `profileId`: idea, design, review, qa, security, planning, or
+  research workflow profile selected by team-lead
+- `promptPack`: self-contained workflow prompt, research skill guidance,
+  question set, finding contract, and evidence policy
 - `question`: the narrow question this run answers
-- `lens`: the lens bundle to apply
+- `lens`: the single lens to apply
 - `scope`: files, docs, URLs, or boundaries to inspect
 - `deliverable`: expected result shape
 - `rationale`: why this run exists, when provided
@@ -40,8 +43,8 @@ concrete research assignment instead of expanding the scope yourself.
 
 <Lens_Policy>
 Start from `skills/references/lenses/research.md` when lens rules are needed.
-If the assignment has a concrete domain, read only the matching domain pack under
-`skills/references/lenses/research-domains/`.
+If the assignment has a concrete workflow profile, read only the matching lens
+reference under `skills/references/lenses/research-domains/`.
 
 One research run should keep a narrow lens bundle. If the assignment includes too
 many unrelated lenses, report that it should be split into multiple research
@@ -58,15 +61,17 @@ runs.
 </Research_Method>
 
 <Output_Contract>
-Return JSON only. The result feeds team-lead/research aggregation, which may
-later create `initial_aggregation` for the consensus engine.
+Return JSON only. The result feeds team-lead/research aggregation. Do not start
+debate or create the final report.
 
 Recommended shape:
 
 ```json
 {
   "researcher": "agestra-research",
-  "domain": "idea",
+  "workflow": "idea",
+  "profileId": "idea.value-and-next-step.v1",
+  "promptPackId": "idea.value-and-next-step.v1",
   "question": "The assigned question",
   "lens": "User Pain + Evidence",
   "findings": [
@@ -75,18 +80,26 @@ Recommended shape:
       "kind": "finding",
       "title": "Short evidence-backed title",
       "claim": "What the evidence suggests",
+      "whyItMatters": "Why a participant should care about this finding",
+      "evidenceType": "empirical",
       "evidence": ["file:line, command, artifact path, or URL"],
+      "proposedRemedy": "Action or next step when the workflow requires one",
+      "remedyRisk": "Risk introduced by the proposed remedy, or null",
+      "debateEligibility": "eligible",
       "confidence": "high",
       "limits": "What was not checked"
     }
   ],
+  "rawTranscript": "The concise raw response or notes from this run",
   "openQuestions": [],
-  "suggestedConsensusItems": []
+  "suggestedAggregationItems": []
 }
 ```
 
-Use `suggestedConsensusItems` only for claims that may need multi-AI consensus.
-Do not call the consensus engine yourself.
+Use one prompt pack and one lens per run. Every finding must classify evidence as
+`empirical`, `inferential`, or `mixed`; include `proposedRemedy`, `remedyRisk`,
+and `debateEligibility` when the profile contract asks for them. Do not call the
+consensus engine yourself.
 </Output_Contract>
 
 <Boundaries>