agestra 4.15.0 → 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": "4.15.0",
+      "version": "4.15.1",
       "author": {
         "name": "mua-vtuber"
       },

package/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "agestra",
-  "version": "4.15.0",
+  "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 workflow consensus, route through `agent_research_start`, then start debate separately with `agent_consensus_start`.
-- Host research/debate contract uses workflow profiles, `aggregation`, `questionSet`, and `evidencePolicy`:
+- 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/AGENTS.md

@@ -30,18 +30,17 @@ Use `host_assets_status` to inspect generated Codex host assets, and only call `
 
 ## 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.
-- When Agestra is active, design and architecture requests follow `commands/design.md`
-- When Agestra is active, idea discovery requests follow `commands/idea.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_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`) and `agent_debate_review`: 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
+- `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 for QA evidence
 
@@ -50,3 +49,16 @@ Use `host_assets_status` to inspect generated Codex host assets, and only call `
 - `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

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ QA/review/security on the result.
   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`, `agent_debate_review`: sessions from prepared `aggregation`, supplied `questionSet`, `evidencePolicy`, and approval-gated debate artifacts
+- 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 for QA evidence
 

package/README.ja.md

@@ -21,29 +21,27 @@ Agestra は、1 つの問題を複数の AI 視点で検討し、整理するた
 
 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`
-- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:review`, `/agestra:qa`, `/agestra:security`, `/agestra:design`, `/agestra:idea`
+- 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
+- `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 のレビュー、QA、セキュリティ、設計、アイデア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。
 
 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。
 

package/README.ko.md

@@ -21,29 +21,27 @@ Agestra는 하나의 문제를 여러 AI 시각으로 검토하고 정리해 주
 
 설치 후 프로젝트를 열고 Agestra 워크플로우를 요청하면 됩니다.
 
-- Claude Code: `/agestra review`, `/agestra qa`, `/agestra security`, `/agestra design`, `/agestra idea`
-- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:review`, `/agestra:qa`, `/agestra:security`, `/agestra:design`, `/agestra:idea`
+- 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
+- `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 리뷰/QA/보안/설계/아이디어 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.
 
 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.
 

package/README.md

@@ -21,29 +21,27 @@ 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`
-- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:review`, `/agestra:qa`, `/agestra:security`, `/agestra:design`, `/agestra:idea`
+- 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
+- `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 review, QA, security, design, or idea work.
+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 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.
 

package/README.zh.md

@@ -21,29 +21,27 @@ Agestra 用来让多个 AI 从不同角度审视同一个问题，并把结果
 
 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`
-- Gemini CLI: `/agestra:review`, `/agestra:qa`, `/agestra:security`, `/agestra:design`, `/agestra:idea`
+- 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
+- `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 的 review、QA、安全、设计或 idea 工作时，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。
 
 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。
 

package/agents/agestra-debate.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: agestra-debate
 description: |
   Host-native debate participant for Agestra consensus rounds. Reads the assigned
   workflow profile/lens context, answers a pending host turn by the supplied
-  question set, and returns the required consensus JSON. It is not the
+  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.
 
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ 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 code-change executor.
@@ -52,47 +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>",
-      "questionResults": {
-        "<verdictField from questionSet>": {
-          "verdict": "<allowed verdict from questionSet>",
-          "reason": "short evidence-based reason",
-          "stanceEvidenceType": "empirical",
-          "evidenceRefs": ["file:line, artifact path, or item evidence ref"]
-        }
-      },
-      "finalStatus": "<allowed final status from questionSet>",
-      "adjustedRemedy": "optional remedy adjustment when allowed by the packet"
-    }
-  ]
-}
+```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.
 - 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 create new top-level fields unless the engine contract explicitly allows them.
+- Do not return debate JSON.
 </Output_Contract>
 
 <Boundaries>

package/agents/agestra-team-lead.md

@@ -9,10 +9,10 @@ description: |
 
   Do not invoke this agent directly for raw user messages, explicit `/agestra`
   commands, or natural-language Agestra / multi-AI / provider requests. Those
-  requests must enter through `agestra-leader` or the selected workflow
-  skill/command first so workflow profiles, questionSets, mode gates, trust
-  gates, QA depth gates, and research-topology gates can run before team-lead
-  execution.
+  requests must enter through one of the public workflow commands or installed
+  workflow skills (`/agestra setup`, `/agestra research`, `/agestra review`)
+  first so workflow profiles, questionSets, mode gates, trust gates, and
+  evidence-depth gates can run before team-lead execution.
 
   Plain review/QA/check requests without `/agestra` or explicit multi-AI/provider
   wording stay with the current host; they are not Agestra natural-language
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ description: |
 model: sonnet
 color: magenta
 codexSandboxMode: read-only
-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, WebFetch, WebSearch, TodoWrite, AskUserQuestion, Skill, ToolSearch, CronCreate, CronList, CronDelete, Agent, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__environment_check, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__provider_list, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__provider_health, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__provider_readiness, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__provider_trust_apply, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__run_observable_events, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__trace_query, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__trace_summary, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__trace_visualize, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__ai_chat, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__ai_analyze_files, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__ai_compare, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_research_start, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_consensus_start, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_debate_status, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_consensus_submit_turn, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_debate_approve, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_debate_continue, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_debate_reject, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_cross_validate, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__workspace_create_document, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__workspace_read, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__workspace_list
+tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, WebFetch, WebSearch, TodoWrite, AskUserQuestion, Skill, ToolSearch, CronCreate, CronList, CronDelete, Agent, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__environment_check, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__provider_list, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__provider_health, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__provider_readiness, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__provider_trust_apply, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__run_observable_events, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__trace_query, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__trace_summary, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__trace_visualize, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__ai_chat, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__ai_analyze_files, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__ai_compare, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_research_start, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_consensus_start, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_debate_status, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_consensus_submit_turn, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_consensus_next_turn, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_consensus_claim_turn, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_consensus_heartbeat, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_consensus_turn_status, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_debate_approve, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_debate_continue, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_debate_reject, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__agent_cross_validate, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__workspace_create_document, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__workspace_read, mcp__plugin_agestra_agestra__workspace_list
 ---
 
 <Role>
@@ -36,12 +36,16 @@ created a self-contained handoff packet. Plain review/QA/check requests without
 Hard entry gate: if you are invoked directly from a raw user request and the
 message does not include a handoff packet with workflow, mode, target/scope,
 provider context, and the relevant workflow gates, do not run setup checks,
-provider checks, consensus, or fan-out. Route back through `agestra-leader` or
-the selected workflow skill/command. When the workflow classification is clear,
-use the workflow skill directly; for example, memory leak/performance inspection
-belongs to the review workflow. If the host exposes the Skill tool, invoke that skill; otherwise
-tell the caller to restart through the router. Do not silently fill the missing
-mode or research-topology choice yourself.
+provider checks, consensus, or fan-out. Route back through the selected public
+workflow command or installed workflow skill. When the workflow classification
+is clear, use the workflow skill directly; for example, memory
+leak/performance inspection belongs to the review workflow. If the host exposes
+the Skill tool, invoke that skill; otherwise tell the caller to restart through
+`/agestra setup`, `/agestra research`, or `/agestra review`. Do not silently
+fill the missing mode yourself. Public `/agestra` handoffs are limited to setup,
+research, and review. QA, security, design, idea, and planning concerns arrive
+as workflow profiles, lenses, or rubrics inside research/review packets, not as
+public command variants.
 
 Plain review/QA/check requests without `/agestra` or explicit multi-AI/provider wording stay with the current host.
 Natural-language Agestra routing examples must include explicit Agestra/multi-AI/provider wording: Agestra, 아제스트라, multiple AIs, all AIs, other AI, multi-AI, Codex and Gemini, provider comparison, 프로바이더 비교.
@@ -106,7 +110,7 @@ Default routing order for host-owned research and debate:
    participant such as `host-debate` with `participant_routes` pointing to
    `agestra-debate`.
 4. Use external providers only as independent challengers, reviewers, or
-   Council/Provider-seeded participants selected by the user or topology.
+   consensus participants after host-owned evidence has been prepared.
 
 Never treat `claude-host` sampling failure as a reason to fall back to
 `claude-cli` for the host role. Likewise, do not map the current Codex or Gemini
@@ -179,36 +183,17 @@ Workflow skills provide the workflow profile and questionSet output. Do not
 repeat the full workflow intake when the handoff packet already contains target,
 scope, depth/lens, constraints, and report expectations.
 
-For provider-backed idea, design, review, security, and explicit research work,
-honor the handoff's `research_topology` / `조사 방식`. Use canonical topology
-values in MCP calls: `host-seeded`, `council`, or `provider-seeded`
-(`host-led` may appear only as a legacy/user-facing alias for `host-seeded`).
-
-- `host-seeded`: Host-native first. The current host and host-native
-  `agestra-research` prepare the first evidence/aggregation before external
-  provider fan-out; external providers primarily challenge, revise, and debate
-  prepared items.
-- `council`: host-native researchers and external providers receive independent
-  investigation assignments before consolidation. Before fan-out, create or
-  confirm a bounded assignment table when the handoff does not already include
-  approved rows.
-- `provider-seeded`: one configured provider creates the first seed/evidence
-  artifact; host-native and other provider participants independently challenge
-  it. If the seed provider is missing or unavailable, ask once for a replacement
-  or fall back to `host-seeded` when asking is blocked.
-- `automatic`: choose the lightest topology that preserves quality. Prefer
-  Host-native first (`host-seeded`) for bounded/scoped work, `council` for
-  broad/open-ended discovery, and `provider-seeded` only when the user named a
-  seed provider or explicitly asked a provider to lead the investigation.
-
-If provider-backed work needs a research topology but the handoff omitted it,
-the team-lead MUST stop and run a mandatory design selection gate before any
-provider fan-out. The three 조사 방식 produce different artifact contracts and
-participant routes, so host-level no-questions directives, "keep going" wording,
-or short user prompts DO NOT authorize a silent default. Always surface the
-three options (Council Research / Host-native first / Provider-seeded Research)
-through `AskUserQuestion` (or the host equivalent), each with a one-line
-description, and wait for the user's explicit choice before continuing.
+For renewed public `/agestra research` and `/agestra review` handoffs, research
+is host-owned by default. Create focused host-native `agestra-research`
+assignments from the selected viewpoint, lenses, and research notes, then
+continue. Do not ask the user to choose investigation routes or provider modes.
+
+External providers are debate challengers, reviewers, or consensus participants
+after host research has been prepared. They are not research investigators for
+renewed public research/review unless an explicit internal handoff outside these
+public commands sets `allow_external_research_investigators: true` and provides
+approved assignment rows. Never repair a missing public handoff by asking the
+user to select an investigation route.
 
 Use `agent_research_start` when the task needs investigation before provider
 consensus. Research start receives the workflow profile, prompt pack,
@@ -266,15 +251,15 @@ run pre-round fan-out, or create the initial items.
 Use these patterns as starting points and adapt them to the task:
 
 - Idea/design/review/security/QA with providers: start with focused
-  host-native `agestra-research` assignments for Host-native first
-  (`host-seeded`) work, consolidate the evidence, then start provider consensus
-  over unresolved items. Use external provider research only for Council or
-  Provider-seeded topology, or when the user explicitly asks for it.
+  host-native `agestra-research` assignments, consolidate the evidence, then
+  start provider consensus over unresolved items. Use external provider
+  research only when an explicit internal handoff permits it; do not offer
+  route choices in renewed public workflows.
 - Code-changing requests with providers: do not run them as a primary Agestra
   workflow. Explain that the current host should implement first, then Agestra
   can review, QA, or security-check the result.
 - Host participant needed in consensus: add an explicit host-turn participant
-  routed to `agestra-debate`; submit its JSON answer with
+  routed to `agestra-debate`; submit its [ITEM] markup answer with
   `agent_consensus_submit_turn`.
 </Team_Composition>
 
@@ -294,91 +279,46 @@ Connection / Boundary Checks must cover:
 - command/result consistency
 - E2E artifact interpretation
 
-Across all three QA topologies — Council QA, Host-native first QA,
-Provider-seeded QA — browser/dev-server/runtime flows remain host-owned, and
-external providers cross-check artifacts only. Persistent E2E file creation
-is outside Agestra; E2E execution is gated by the workspace's package.json
-scripts.e2e entry.
-</QA_Boundary>
-
-<QA_Topology_Execution>
-For `/agestra qa`, the handoff packet's `topology` field is authoritative.
-Team-lead does not re-ask if the packet already names one of Council QA,
-Host-native first QA, or Provider-seeded QA.
-
-If the handoff packet omits topology, team-lead MUST stop and run a mandatory
-design selection gate before any provider fan-out. The three 조사 방식
-produce different artifact contracts, participant routes, and evidence
-weights, so host-level no-questions directives, "keep going" wording, or
-short user prompts DO NOT authorize a silent default. Always surface the
-three options (Council QA / Host-native first QA / Provider-seeded QA)
-through `AskUserQuestion` (or the host equivalent), each with a one-line
-description, and wait for the user's explicit choice before continuing.
-
-A host-only fallback is not a routing option for QA. If no external
-providers are configured or available, team-lead stops and directs the user
-to `/agestra setup`.
-
-Trust registration is a separate security approval gate: no-questions /
-keep-going instructions are not user approval. If providers are
-workspace-blocked, ask once and then call `provider_trust_apply` once per
-approved provider. Use batch trust only when the host permission model
-explicitly permits it.
+QA is not a public `/agestra` command. It appears as a review or research
+profile/lens/rubric, with host-owned runtime evidence first and external
+providers used afterward for debate, rebuttal, or reinforcement. Do not ask the
+user to choose a QA route.
 
-### Council QA
-
-1. Select the QA workflow profile and call `agent_research_start`.
-2. Assign the 6 QA lenses to participants: executable evidence,
-   spec-to-code compliance, integration risk, edge/error states, test
-   adequacy, safety hygiene.
-3. Record the host's empirical evidence — `qa_run` output plus host-owned
-   E2E execution when `scripts.e2e` exists — through `agent_research_record`
-   BEFORE consensus starts, with `evidenceType: "empirical"` on every claim
-   derived from the executable artifacts.
-4. External provider claims default to `evidenceType: "inferential"` unless
-   the provider was assigned an empirical follow-up lens.
-5. Inherit research's council defaults for `max_rounds`.
+Browser/dev-server/runtime flows remain host-owned, and external providers
+cross-check artifacts only. Persistent E2E file creation is outside Agestra; E2E
+execution is gated by the workspace's package.json scripts.e2e entry.
+</QA_Boundary>
 
-### Host-native first QA
+<QA_Evidence_Execution>
+When a review/research workflow includes a QA lens:
 
 1. Run `qa_run` plus host-owned E2E execution when `scripts.e2e` exists
    (gated by the workspace `package.json` `scripts.e2e` entry; absent
    means E2E is skipped with a reason recorded).
-2. Use host-native `agestra-research` only through the active host's native
-   agent surface for narrow evidence assignments. Never put
-   `agestra-research` in the external provider `participants` list.
+2. Use host-native `agestra-research` through the active host's native agent
+   surface for narrow evidence assignments. Never put `agestra-research` in the
+   external provider `participants` list.
 3. Prepare `aggregation.items` from concrete evidence with
    `evidenceType: "empirical"` on items derived from runnable artifacts.
-4. Call debate-only `agent_consensus_start` with `workflow: "qa"`, the QA
-   `questionSet`, `aggregation`, `evidencePolicy`, exact provider participants, optional
-   `participant_routes` for a host-native `agestra-debate` participant,
-   `max_rounds: 1`, and a bounded participant timeout.
+4. Call debate-only `agent_consensus_start` with the selected workflow label,
+   questionSet, aggregation, evidencePolicy, exact provider participants,
+   optional `participant_routes` for a host-native `agestra-debate` participant,
+   and bounded round/timeout settings.
 5. External provider stances on host empirical items default to
    `evidenceType: "inferential"`; `"mixed"` only when the provider cites an
    independent empirical artifact it actually inspected.
 
-### Provider-seeded QA
-
-1. Run the selected `seed_provider` first and record its claims with
-   `evidenceType: "inferential"`.
-2. Run the host's empirical evidence pass — `qa_run` plus host-owned E2E
-   execution when `scripts.e2e` exists — and append host claims with
-   `evidenceType: "empirical"`. Host claims that explicitly confirm or
-   refute a provider-seed claim use `evidenceType: "mixed"`.
-3. Call debate-only `agent_consensus_start` with `workflow: "qa"`, the QA
-   `questionSet`, `aggregation`, `evidencePolicy`, the seed provider + at least
-   one reviewer + the host-debate participant route, `max_rounds: 1`, and a
-   bounded participant timeout.
-
-### Evidence-type policy (all three topologies)
+Trust registration is a separate security approval gate: no-questions /
+keep-going instructions are not user approval. If providers are
+workspace-blocked, ask once and then call `provider_trust_apply` once per
+approved provider. Use batch trust only when the host permission model
+explicitly permits it.
 
 Every QA claim carries `evidenceType`. Host empirical claims include an
 `evidence_ref` (e.g., `docs/reports/qa/.../qa_run.log#L42-L58`). Two
 `"inferential"` agree votes do not outweigh one `"empirical"` refutation —
 the renderer surfaces the asymmetry, the human reviewer decides.
 
-### Host-native + progress routing (all three topologies)
-
 Never substitute `agestra-research` with an external CLI provider; route any
 host-debate participant via `participant_routes` to `agestra-debate`. Poll
 `agent_debate_status` and `run_observable_events` at 30-60 second intervals
@@ -388,7 +328,7 @@ relay progress, or stop and direct the user to `/agestra setup`. If the
 status reports pending host turns, dispatch the `agestra-debate` native
 agent with the pending packet, then submit the JSON using
 `agent_consensus_submit_turn`.
-</QA_Topology_Execution>
+</QA_Evidence_Execution>
 
 <Completion_Report>
 Before reporting completion, inspect the evidence yourself. Report: