amsd-pipeline-shared 0.5.40 → 0.5.41

package/orchestrations/prompts/templates/survey-review.json

@@ -9,22 +9,23 @@
     "",
     "Live 2026-08-17: the survey reported a codeline in_scope on a file that codeline does not",
     "have, and an implementer was briefed to apply that codeline's fix in a repository with no",
-    "such code. A validator was written to strip false paths, and it SILENTLY REWROTE the survey \u2014",
+    "such code. A validator was written to strip false paths, and it SILENTLY REWROTE the survey —",
     "worse than reporting, and removed. A generated prompt already gets an adversarial reviewer",
     "before anything inherits it (prompt-review); the survey needs the same and had none.",
     "",
     "SCOPE IS DELIBERATELY NARROW, for the reason prompt-review's is: it judges CHECKABLE CLAIMS",
     "ABOUT THE REPOSITORIES, never whether the survey looked hard enough or chose well. A reviewer",
-    "invited to improve judgement rewrites correct surveys."
+    "invited to improve judgement rewrites correct surveys.",
+    "v2 (run 14, 2026-10-24): read INSIDE the mint before any project prompt exists (the estate survey's review; the mint's test-ownership policy), so a never-minted project could not be minted. Bootstrap layer: rendered from the template there, as the registry's bootstrap seams are; the builder still makes the project's own copy for the seams that read it later."
   ],
   "id": "survey-review",
-  "version": 1,
-  "layer": "project",
+  "version": 2,
+  "layer": "bootstrap",
   "description": "Falsifies what an estate survey claims about the codelines, before a roster is minted from it.",
   "seams": [
     "survey-review"
   ],
-  "body": "You are reviewing an ESTATE SURVEY. A roster of agents is about to be minted from it, and every\nclaim below will be inherited as a brief and re-checked by nothing.\n\nTHE SURVEY UNDER REVIEW:\n__SURVEY_BLOCK__\n\nTHE CODELINES IN SCOPE, and where each is checked out:\n__CODELINE_BLOCK__\n\nTHE WORK THE PROJECT WAS ASKED TO DO:\n__TICKET_BLOCK__\n\n__TOOL_LINE__\n\n# What is in scope\n\nONE QUESTION ONLY: does the survey state anything about these repositories that is FALSE?\n\nA claim is in scope when you can check it by opening a repository. Open them and check.\n\n- a file named in `filesRead` that the codeline does not contain\n- a file, module, function or symbol said to exist where it does not\n- a claim attributed to the WRONG codeline \u2014 the commonest and most damaging error, because the\n  brief built from it sends an implementer into a repository that has no such code\n- a dependency, script, framework or command the codeline does not declare\n- a codeline reported in_scope on evidence that belongs to a different one\n\nA codeline reported no_work_found or not_investigated is making a WEAK claim, not a false one.\nCheck it only if you can show the work plainly does reach it.\n\n# What is NOT in scope\n\nDo not judge whether the survey looked hard enough, chose the right focus, or recommended the\nright team. Do not propose better wording. Do not supply a FIX SITE of your own \u2014 naming which\nfile to edit is not yours to say here any more than it was the surveyor's, and a fix site you add\nfor a repository you swept from the outside is how one codeline's file ends up in another's work.\n\n# Evidence\n\nFor each finding, say what you CHECKED and what you FOUND, naming the repository and the path you\nopened. A finding without a check is an opinion, and an opinion about a survey is not a defect.\n\nIf every claim checks out, return no findings. An empty finding list from a review that RAN is the\ncorrect answer for a sound survey.\n",
+  "body": "You are reviewing an ESTATE SURVEY. A roster of agents is about to be minted from it, and every\nclaim below will be inherited as a brief and re-checked by nothing.\n\nTHE SURVEY UNDER REVIEW:\n__SURVEY_BLOCK__\n\nTHE CODELINES IN SCOPE, and where each is checked out:\n__CODELINE_BLOCK__\n\nTHE WORK THE PROJECT WAS ASKED TO DO:\n__TICKET_BLOCK__\n\n__TOOL_LINE__\n\n# What is in scope\n\nONE QUESTION ONLY: does the survey state anything about these repositories that is FALSE?\n\nA claim is in scope when you can check it by opening a repository. Open them and check.\n\n- a file named in `filesRead` that the codeline does not contain\n- a file, module, function or symbol said to exist where it does not\n- a claim attributed to the WRONG codeline — the commonest and most damaging error, because the\n  brief built from it sends an implementer into a repository that has no such code\n- a dependency, script, framework or command the codeline does not declare\n- a codeline reported in_scope on evidence that belongs to a different one\n\nA codeline reported no_work_found or not_investigated is making a WEAK claim, not a false one.\nCheck it only if you can show the work plainly does reach it.\n\n# What is NOT in scope\n\nDo not judge whether the survey looked hard enough, chose the right focus, or recommended the\nright team. Do not propose better wording. Do not supply a FIX SITE of your own — naming which\nfile to edit is not yours to say here any more than it was the surveyor's, and a fix site you add\nfor a repository you swept from the outside is how one codeline's file ends up in another's work.\n\n# Evidence\n\nFor each finding, say what you CHECKED and what you FOUND, naming the repository and the path you\nopened. A finding without a check is an opinion, and an opinion about a survey is not a defect.\n\nIf every claim checks out, return no findings. An empty finding list from a review that RAN is the\ncorrect answer for a sound survey.\n",
   "placeholders": [
     "__CODELINE_BLOCK__",
     "__SURVEY_BLOCK__",
@@ -34,5 +35,5 @@
   "mayBeEmpty": [
     "__SURVEY_BLOCK__"
   ],
-  "$whyMayBeEmpty": "Declared 2026-08-27 by sweeping the CLASS rather than the instance, after three runs died on it one placeholder at a time. Every call site for these writes an explicit empty branch \u2014 the story is not being split, attempt one carries no forced-retry note, no documentation was fetched, the persona prefix is optional \u2014 so absence is a real state, which is the renderer's own test. Placeholders supplied by a lookup that may FAIL (`x || ''`) are deliberately NOT here: for those, empty means broken, and declaring them would hide the blank-brief defect the renderer exists to surface. Unanimity is required \u2014 one deliberate branch among several defensive lookups is not a licence."
+  "$whyMayBeEmpty": "Declared 2026-08-27 by sweeping the CLASS rather than the instance, after three runs died on it one placeholder at a time. Every call site for these writes an explicit empty branch — the story is not being split, attempt one carries no forced-retry note, no documentation was fetched, the persona prefix is optional — so absence is a real state, which is the renderer's own test. Placeholders supplied by a lookup that may FAIL (`x || ''`) are deliberately NOT here: for those, empty means broken, and declaring them would hide the blank-brief defect the renderer exists to surface. Unanimity is required — one deliberate branch among several defensive lookups is not a licence."
 }

package/orchestrations/prompts/templates/test-ownership.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "id": "test-ownership",
-  "layer": "project",
-  "version": 1,
+  "layer": "bootstrap",
+  "version": 2,
   "description": "Who owns the tests. ONE policy per MODE, rendered into the mint (what a brief may claim), the writer and the reviewer, so no agent holds a belief another contradicts.",
   "$why": [
     "This lived as a heredoc in claude.sh — the WRITER's prompt builder — and nowhere else.",
@@ -23,7 +23,8 @@
     "spec-mode-runner.js ('a dedicated agent of this pipeline writes the tests'), so every greenfield brief",
     "disowned its stories' test files; the roster reviewer then found, correctly, that no stage in a greenfield",
     "run authors feature tests, and blocked the roster on every cycle. In greenfield the implementer owns the",
-    "test files its stories declare. The mode picks the body; the mint renders it from here."
+    "test files its stories declare. The mode picks the body; the mint renders it from here.",
+    "v2 (run 14, 2026-10-24): read INSIDE the mint before any project prompt exists (the estate survey's review; the mint's test-ownership policy), so a never-minted project could not be minted. Bootstrap layer: rendered from the template there, as the registry's bootstrap seams are; the builder still makes the project's own copy for the seams that read it later."
   ],
   "placeholders": [],
   "bodies": {

package/orchestrations/scripts/lib/engine-prompt.js

@@ -202,6 +202,10 @@ function templateLayerOf(id) {
   try {
     const own = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(path.join(templatesDir(), `${id}.json`), 'utf8'));
     if (own && own.layer === 'project') return 'project';
+    // A TEMPLATE THAT DECLARES ITSELF BOOTSTRAP runs inside the mint, before this project's prompt layer exists (survey-review,
+    // test-ownership: read by the estate survey and the roster mint), and renders from the template as the registry's bootstrap
+    // seams do — run 14, 2026-10-24: a project never minted could not be minted ("project-authority prompt missing")
+    if (own && own.layer === 'bootstrap') return 'bootstrap';
   } catch { /* no template of that id here: the registry decides, as before */ }
   const registryPath = path.join(__dirname, '..', '..', 'agents', 'invocation-profiles.json');
   let reg;

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "amsd-pipeline-shared",
-  "version": "0.5.40",
+  "version": "0.5.41",
   "description": "The AMSD pipeline's shared components, one source for the bash pipeline and its Claude workflows: the model-call gateway (llm-handler.sh — retry, ladder, self-heal, cost) and the libraries it runs.",
   "license": "UNLICENSED",
   "bin": {