aios-core 4.2.13 → 4.2.15

package/.claude/rules/coderabbit-integration.md

@@ -1,93 +0,0 @@
-# CodeRabbit Integration — Detailed Rules
-
-## Self-Healing Configuration
-
-### Dev Phase (@dev — Story Development Cycle Phase 3)
-
-```yaml
-mode: light
-max_iterations: 2
-timeout_minutes: 30
-severity_filter: [CRITICAL, HIGH]
-behavior:
-  CRITICAL: auto_fix
-  HIGH: auto_fix (iteration < 2) else document_as_debt
-  MEDIUM: document_as_debt
-  LOW: ignore
-```
-
-**Flow:**
-```
-RUN CodeRabbit → CRITICAL found?
-  YES → auto-fix (iteration < 2) → Re-run
-  NO → Document HIGH as debt, proceed
-After 2 iterations with CRITICAL → HALT, manual intervention
-```
-
-### QA Phase (@qa — QA Loop Pre-Review)
-
-```yaml
-mode: full
-max_iterations: 3
-timeout_minutes: 30
-severity_filter: [CRITICAL, HIGH]
-behavior:
-  CRITICAL: auto_fix
-  HIGH: auto_fix
-  MEDIUM: document_as_debt
-  LOW: ignore
-```
-
-**Flow:**
-1. Pre-commit review scan
-2. Self-healing loop (max 3 iterations)
-3. Manual QA analysis (architectural, traceability, NFR)
-4. Gate decision (verdict)
-
-## Severity Handling Summary
-
-| Severity | Dev Phase | QA Phase |
-|----------|-----------|----------|
-| CRITICAL | auto_fix, block if persists | auto_fix, block if persists |
-| HIGH | auto_fix, document if fails | auto_fix, document if fails |
-| MEDIUM | document_as_tech_debt | document_as_tech_debt |
-| LOW | ignore | ignore |
-
-## WSL Execution (Windows)
-
-```bash
-# Self-healing mode (automatic in dev tasks)
-wsl bash -c 'cd /mnt/c/.../aios-core && ~/.local/bin/coderabbit --severity CRITICAL,HIGH --auto-fix'
-
-# Manual review
-wsl bash -c 'cd /mnt/c/.../aios-core && ~/.local/bin/coderabbit -t uncommitted'
-
-# Prompt-only mode
-wsl bash -c 'cd /mnt/c/.../aios-core && ~/.local/bin/coderabbit --prompt-only -t uncommitted'
-```
-
-## Integration Points
-
-| Workflow | Phase | Trigger | Agent |
-|----------|-------|---------|-------|
-| Story Development Cycle | 3 (Implement) | After task completion | @dev |
-| QA Loop | 1 (Review) | At review start | @qa |
-| Standalone | Any | `*coderabbit-review` command | Any |
-
-## Focus Areas by Story Type
-
-| Story Type | Primary Focus |
-|-----------|--------------|
-| Feature | Code patterns, test coverage, API design |
-| Bug Fix | Regression risk, root cause coverage |
-| Refactor | Breaking changes, interface stability |
-| Documentation | Markdown quality, reference validity |
-| Database | SQL injection, RLS coverage, migration safety |
-
-## Report Location
-
-CodeRabbit reports saved to: `docs/qa/coderabbit-reports/`
-
-## Configuration Reference
-
-Full config in `.aios-core/core-config.yaml` under `coderabbit_integration` section.

package/.claude/rules/ids-principles.md

@@ -1,112 +0,0 @@
-# IDS Principles — Detailed Rules
-
-> Status: Planned (IDS epic is Draft — principles apply as aspirational guidance)
-
-## Decision Hierarchy: REUSE > ADAPT > CREATE
-
-### REUSE (Relevance >= 90%)
-- Use existing artifact directly without modification
-- Import/reference existing entity
-- No justification needed beyond confirming match
-
-### ADAPT (Relevance 60-89%)
-- Adaptability score >= 0.6
-- Changes MUST NOT exceed 30% of original artifact
-- Changes MUST NOT break existing consumers (check usedBy list)
-- Document changes in artifact's change log
-- Update registry relationships
-- Impact analysis required
-
-### CREATE (No suitable match)
-Required justification:
-- `evaluated_patterns`: Existing entities you considered
-- `rejection_reasons`: Why each was rejected (technical reasons)
-- `new_capability`: What unique capability this provides
-- Register in Entity Registry within 24 hours
-- Establish relationships with existing entities
-- Define adaptability constraints for future reuse
-
-## Verification Gates G1-G6
-
-### G1: Epic Creation (@pm)
-- **Type:** Human-in-loop, Advisory
-- **Trigger:** `*create-epic` workflow
-- **Action:** Query registry for related entities, display potentially reusable artifacts
-- **Latency:** < 24h (async)
-- **Blocking:** No
-
-### G2: Story Creation (@sm)
-- **Type:** Human-in-loop, Advisory
-- **Trigger:** `*draft` workflow
-- **Action:** Check existing tasks/templates matching story work
-- **Latency:** < 24h (async)
-- **Blocking:** No
-
-### G3: Story Validation (@po)
-- **Type:** Human-in-loop, Soft Block
-- **Trigger:** `*validate-story-draft` workflow
-- **Action:** Verify referenced artifacts exist, detect potential duplication
-- **Latency:** < 4h (async)
-- **Blocking:** Soft (can override with reason)
-
-### G4: Dev Context (@dev)
-- **Type:** Automated, Informational
-- **Trigger:** Story assignment / `*develop` start
-- **Action:** Display matching patterns as reminder
-- **Latency:** < 2s
-- **Blocking:** NO (logged only for metrics)
-
-### G5: QA Review (@qa)
-- **Type:** Automated, Blocks Merge
-- **Trigger:** PR/merge request
-- **Action:** Check if new artifacts could have reused existing
-- **Latency:** < 30s
-- **Blocking:** YES if new entity without registry entry or justification
-
-### G6: CI/CD (@devops)
-- **Type:** Automated, Blocks Merge
-- **Trigger:** CI pipeline
-- **Action:** Registry integrity check + sync
-- **Latency:** < 60s
-- **Blocking:** YES on CRITICAL, WARN on MEDIUM/LOW
-
-## Override Policy
-
-**Command:** `--override-ids --override-reason "explanation"`
-
-**Permitted when:**
-- Time-critical fix requires immediate creation
-- Adaptation would introduce unacceptable risk
-- Existing artifact is deprecated/frozen
-
-**Requirements:**
-- Logged for audit trail
-- Reviewed within 7 days
-- Include override reason in gate verification log
-
-## Graceful Degradation
-
-All gates implement circuit breaker:
-- **Timeout:** 2s default
-- **On timeout:** warn-and-proceed
-- **On error:** log-and-proceed
-- **Key principle:** Development NEVER blocked by IDS failures
-
-```yaml
-circuit_breaker:
-  failure_threshold: 5
-  success_threshold: 3
-  reset_timeout_ms: 60000
-```
-
-## Article IV-A: Incremental Development (Constitution Amendment)
-
-**Severity:** MUST
-
-**Four Core Rules:**
-1. **Registry Consultation Required** — Query before creating
-2. **Decision Hierarchy** — REUSE > ADAPT > CREATE strictly
-3. **Adaptation Limits** — Changes < 30%, don't break consumers
-4. **Creation Requirements** — Full justification, register within 24h
-
-**Reference:** `docs/stories/epics/epic-ids-incremental-development/`

package/.claude/rules/story-lifecycle.md

@@ -1,139 +0,0 @@
-# Story Lifecycle — Detailed Rules
-
-## Status Progression
-
-```
-Draft → Ready → InProgress → InReview → Done
-```
-
-| Status | Trigger | Agent | Action |
-|--------|---------|-------|--------|
-| Draft | @sm creates story | @sm | Story file created |
-| Ready | @po validates (GO) | @po | **MUST update status field in story file from Draft → Ready** |
-| InProgress | @dev starts implementation | @dev | Update status field |
-| InReview | @dev completes, @qa reviews | @qa | Update status field |
-| Done | @qa PASS, @devops pushes | @devops | Update status field |
-
-**CRITICAL:** The `Draft → Ready` transition is the responsibility of @po during `*validate-story-draft`. When verdict is GO (including conditional GO after fixes are applied), @po MUST update the story's Status field to `Ready` and log the transition in the Change Log. A story left in `Draft` after a GO verdict is a process violation.
-
-## Phase 1: Create (@sm)
-
-**Task:** `create-next-story.md`
-**Inputs:** PRD sharded, epic context
-**Output:** `{epicNum}.{storyNum}.story.md`
-
-## Phase 2: Validate (@po)
-
-**Task:** `validate-next-story.md`
-
-### 10-Point Validation Checklist
-
-1. Clear and objective title
-2. Complete description (problem/need explained)
-3. Testable acceptance criteria (Given/When/Then preferred)
-4. Well-defined scope (IN and OUT clearly listed)
-5. Dependencies mapped (prerequisite stories/resources)
-6. Complexity estimate (points or T-shirt sizing)
-7. Business value (benefit to user/business clear)
-8. Risks documented (potential problems identified)
-9. Criteria of Done (clear definition of complete)
-10. Alignment with PRD/Epic (consistency with source docs)
-
-**Decision:** GO (≥7/10) or NO-GO (<7/10 with required fixes)
-
-## Phase 3: Implement (@dev)
-
-**Task:** `dev-develop-story.md`
-
-### Execution Modes
-
-**YOLO (autonomous):**
-- 0-1 prompts
-- Decisions logged in `decision-log-{story-id}.md`
-- Best for: simple, deterministic tasks
-
-**Interactive (default):**
-- 5-10 prompts with educational checkpoints
-- Confirmations at key decision points
-- Best for: learning, complex decisions
-
-**Pre-Flight (plan-first):**
-- All questions upfront (10-15 prompts)
-- Generates execution plan
-- Then zero-ambiguity execution
-- Best for: ambiguous requirements, critical work
-
-### CodeRabbit Self-Healing in Dev Phase
-
-```
-iteration = 0
-while CRITICAL issues found AND iteration < 2:
-  auto-fix CRITICAL/HIGH
-  iteration++
-if CRITICAL persist after 2 iterations:
-  HALT — manual intervention required
-```
-
-## Phase 4: QA Gate (@qa)
-
-**Task:** `qa-gate.md`
-
-### 7 Quality Checks
-
-1. **Code review** — patterns, readability, maintainability
-2. **Unit tests** — adequate coverage, all passing
-3. **Acceptance criteria** — all met per story AC
-4. **No regressions** — existing functionality preserved
-5. **Performance** — within acceptable limits
-6. **Security** — OWASP basics verified
-7. **Documentation** — updated if necessary
-
-### Gate Decisions
-
-| Decision | Score | Action |
-|----------|-------|--------|
-| PASS | All checks OK | Approve, proceed to @devops push |
-| CONCERNS | Minor issues | Approve with observations documented |
-| FAIL | HIGH/CRITICAL issues | Return to @dev with feedback |
-| WAIVED | Issues accepted | Approve with waiver documented (rare) |
-
-### Gate File Structure
-
-```yaml
-storyId: STORY-42
-verdict: PASS | CONCERNS | FAIL | WAIVED
-issues:
-  - severity: low | medium | high
-    category: code | tests | requirements | performance | security | docs
-    description: "..."
-    recommendation: "..."
-```
-
-## QA Loop (Iterative Review-Fix)
-
-```
-@qa review → verdict → @dev fixes → re-review (max 5 iterations)
-```
-
-**Commands:**
-- `*qa-loop {storyId}` — Start full loop
-- `*stop-qa-loop` — Pause and save state
-- `*resume-qa-loop` — Resume from saved state
-- `*escalate-qa-loop` — Force manual escalation
-
-**Escalation triggers:**
-- max_iterations_reached (default: 5)
-- verdict_blocked
-- fix_failure (after retries)
-- manual_escalate (user command)
-
-**Status:** Tracked in `qa/loop-status.json`
-
-## Story File Update Rules
-
-| Section | Who Can Edit |
-|---------|-------------|
-| Title, Description, AC, Scope | @po only |
-| File List, Dev Notes, checkboxes | @dev |
-| QA Results | @qa only |
-| Change Log | Any agent (append only) |

package/.claude/rules/workflow-execution.md

@@ -1,150 +0,0 @@
-# Workflow Execution — Detailed Rules
-
-## Task-First Principle
-
-**Workflows são compostos por tasks conectadas, não por agentes conectados.** Cada task define seus inputs, outputs, pre/post-conditions e execution modes. Os agentes listados abaixo são os **executores padrão** de cada task — mas a sequência, as regras e as dependências vêm das definições de tasks em `.aios-core/development/tasks/`.
-
-Uma task validada é lei: deve ser executada conforme configurada, com todas as suas dependências respeitadas, independente de quem a executa (agent, worker, clone ou humano).
-
----
-
-## 4 Primary Workflows
-
-### 1. Story Development Cycle (SDC) — PRIMARY
-
-**Full 4-phase workflow for all development work.**
-
-#### Phase 1: Create (@sm)
-- **Task:** `create-next-story.md`
-- **Inputs:** PRD sharded, epic context
-- **Output:** `{epicNum}.{storyNum}.story.md`
-- **Status:** Draft
-
-#### Phase 2: Validate (@po)
-- **Task:** `validate-next-story.md`
-- **10-point checklist** (see `story-lifecycle.md`)
-- **Decision:** GO (>=7) or NO-GO (required fixes listed)
-
-#### Phase 3: Implement (@dev)
-- **Task:** `dev-develop-story.md`
-- **Modes:** Interactive / YOLO / Pre-Flight
-- **CodeRabbit:** Self-healing max 2 iterations
-- **Status:** Ready → InProgress
-
-#### Phase 4: QA Gate (@qa)
-- **Task:** `qa-gate.md`
-- **7 quality checks** (see `story-lifecycle.md`)
-- **Decision:** PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL / WAIVED
-- **Status:** InProgress → InReview → Done
-
----
-
-### 2. QA Loop — ITERATIVE REVIEW
-
-**Automated review-fix cycle after initial QA gate.**
-
-```
-@qa review → verdict → @dev fixes → re-review (max 5)
-```
-
-**Commands:**
-- `*qa-loop {storyId}` — Start loop
-- `*qa-loop-review` — Resume from review
-- `*qa-loop-fix` — Resume from fix
-- `*stop-qa-loop` — Pause, save state
-- `*resume-qa-loop` — Resume from state
-- `*escalate-qa-loop` — Force escalation
-
-**Config:**
-- Max iterations: 5 (`autoClaude.qaLoop.maxIterations`)
-- Status file: `qa/loop-status.json`
-
-**Verdicts:**
-- APPROVE → Complete, mark Done
-- REJECT → @dev fixes, re-review
-- BLOCKED → Escalate immediately
-
-**Escalation triggers:**
-- `max_iterations_reached`
-- `verdict_blocked`
-- `fix_failure`
-- `manual_escalate`
-
----
-
-### 3. Spec Pipeline — PRE-IMPLEMENTATION
-
-**Transform informal requirements into executable spec.**
-
-| Phase | Agent | Output | Skip If |
-|-------|-------|--------|---------|
-| 1. Gather | @pm | `requirements.json` | Never |
-| 2. Assess | @architect | `complexity.json` | source=simple |
-| 3. Research | @analyst | `research.json` | SIMPLE class |
-| 4. Write Spec | @pm | `spec.md` | Never |
-| 5. Critique | @qa | `critique.json` | Never |
-| 6. Plan | @architect | `implementation.yaml` | If APPROVED |
-
-**Complexity Classes:**
-
-| Score | Class | Phases |
-|-------|-------|--------|
-| <= 8 | SIMPLE | gather → spec → critique (3) |
-| 9-15 | STANDARD | All 6 phases |
-| >= 16 | COMPLEX | 6 phases + revision cycle |
-
-**5 Complexity Dimensions (scored 1-5):**
-- **Scope:** Files affected
-- **Integration:** External APIs
-- **Infrastructure:** Changes needed
-- **Knowledge:** Team familiarity
-- **Risk:** Criticality level
-
-**Critique Verdicts:**
-
-| Verdict | Average Score | Next Step |
-|---------|--------------|-----------|
-| APPROVED | >= 4.0 | Plan (Phase 6) |
-| NEEDS_REVISION | 3.0-3.9 | Revise (Phase 5b) |
-| BLOCKED | < 3.0 | Escalate to @architect |
-
-**Constitutional Gate (Article IV — No Invention):**
-Every statement in spec.md MUST trace to FR-*, NFR-*, CON-*, or research finding. NO invented features.
-
----
-
-### 4. Brownfield Discovery — LEGACY ASSESSMENT
-
-**10-phase technical debt assessment for existing codebases.**
-
-**Data Collection (Phases 1-3):**
-- Phase 1: @architect → `system-architecture.md`
-- Phase 2: @data-engineer → `SCHEMA.md` + `DB-AUDIT.md` (if DB exists)
-- Phase 3: @ux-design-expert → `frontend-spec.md`
-
-**Draft & Validation (Phases 4-7):**
-- Phase 4: @architect → `technical-debt-DRAFT.md`
-- Phase 5: @data-engineer → `db-specialist-review.md`
-- Phase 6: @ux-design-expert → `ux-specialist-review.md`
-- Phase 7: @qa → `qa-review.md` (QA Gate: APPROVED | NEEDS WORK)
-
-**Finalization (Phases 8-10):**
-- Phase 8: @architect → `technical-debt-assessment.md` (final)
-- Phase 9: @analyst → `TECHNICAL-DEBT-REPORT.md` (executive)
-- Phase 10: @pm → Epic + stories ready for development
-
-**QA Gate (Phase 7):**
-- **APPROVED:** All debits validated, no critical gaps, dependencies mapped
-- **NEEDS WORK:** Gaps not addressed, return to Phase 4
-
----
-
-## Workflow Selection Guide
-
-| Situation | Workflow |
-|-----------|---------|
-| New story from epic | Story Development Cycle |
-| QA found issues, need iteration | QA Loop |
-| Complex feature needs spec | Spec Pipeline → then SDC |
-| Joining existing project | Brownfield Discovery |
-| Simple bug fix | SDC only (YOLO mode) |