cc-devflow 4.5.1 → 4.5.3

package/.claude/skills/cc-spec-init/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: cc-spec-init
-version: 1.0.1
+version: 1.1.0
 description: Use when you need to initialize capability specs under `devflow/specs/`, create or evolve capability truth sources, generate `change-meta.json`, or validate roadmap/change/spec links before roadmap, planning, or closeout work continues.
 ---
 
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ description: Use when you need to initialize capability specs under `devflow/spe
 2. 先判断你是在做 `bootstrap`、`create`、`update-links`、`split`、`merge` 还是 `deprecate`。
 3. 先锁定 capability 边界，再写模板；不要先写 prose 再猜结构。
 4. 先明确 primary capability，再允许 secondary capabilities 存在。
+5. 先检查命名是否已经有 canonical term；同义词、歧义词和关系约束没收口前，不要新建第二套 capability 名称。
 
 ## Session Protocol
 
@@ -80,6 +81,7 @@ description: Use when you need to initialize capability specs under `devflow/spe
    - 为当前已知 capability 写最小 spec
 3. 如果是新 capability：
    - 先写 capability 边界、约束、当前 truth、gaps
+   - 再写最小 language block：canonical term、definition、aliases to avoid、relationships、flagged ambiguities
    - 再登记到 `INDEX.md`
 4. 如果是 change 绑定：
    - 生成或更新 `change-meta.json`
@@ -91,6 +93,17 @@ description: Use when you need to initialize capability specs under `devflow/spe
    - `INDEX.md` 引到的 capability 文件都存在
    - `change-meta.json` 里的 capability 都能落到 spec
    - roadmap / backlog 里的 capability 引用仍可追踪
+   - 新 capability 的名称、aliases、relationships 没有和已有 spec 冲突
+
+## Language Boundary Gate
+
+capability spec 是长期 truth source，命名必须比一次需求更稳定：
+
+- canonical term：只选一个主名，优先沿用 roadmap、历史 design/analysis、代码公共接口和用户领域语言里已经稳定的词。
+- aliases to avoid：记录容易混用的别名，说明为什么不能继续用。
+- flagged ambiguity：同一个词指向两个概念时，必须写清拆分边界，必要时拆 capability。
+- relationships：用一句话写清 capability 之间的拥有、依赖、生命周期、输入输出或互斥关系。
+- implementation names：类名、文件名、函数名只有在它们已经是公共领域语言时才进入 spec；否则留在 change 设计里。
 
 ## Output
 

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -9,6 +9,43 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0
 
 ## [Unreleased]
 
+## [4.5.3] - 2026-04-29
+
+### Skill Strategy Integration
+
+v4.5.3 absorbs the useful strategies from an external skill library into native
+cc-devflow contracts, keeping the public workflow cohesive instead of adding
+parallel skill surfaces.
+
+### Changed
+
+- Added an external skill strategy audit and migrated the useful patterns into native cc-devflow contracts instead of copying external skill prose.
+- Updated `cc-plan` to capture glossary deltas, compare non-trivial interface shapes, mark `AFK` / `HITL` vertical slices, and keep durable handoffs behavior-focused.
+- Updated `cc-investigate` to sharpen feedback loops as investigation products and record prevention handoffs after root-cause freeze.
+- Updated `cc-do` and `cc-check` to enforce tracer-bullet execution and review test fixture honesty around partial data, casts, stubs, and mocks.
+- Updated `cc-simplify` to apply deep-module, deletion-test, and real-seam checks before accepting architecture cleanup findings.
+- Updated `cc-act`, `cc-spec-init`, and `docs-sync` to harden issue handoffs, dangerous git action safety, capability language boundaries, and skill contract quality gates.
+- Updated `cc-check` to require QA feedback-loop and behavior evidence for bugfix and user-visible behavior verification, including reproduction mode, determinism, expected/actual behavior, and test seam follow-ups.
+- Updated `cc-act` to carry QA behavior evidence into PR briefs, handoffs, and release notes, and to write follow-ups as durable behavior briefs before roadmap/backlog writeback.
+- Updated `cc-roadmap`, `cc-plan`, and `cc-investigate` to keep canonical language and durable decisions in cc-devflow-native sources: `devflow/specs/`, roadmap/backlog, design/analysis, and change metadata.
+- Refreshed public examples and skill binding metadata for `cc-roadmap@4.4.1`, `cc-plan@3.7.0`, `cc-investigate@1.2.0`, `cc-do@1.6.0`, `cc-check@1.10.0`, `cc-act@1.8.0`, and `cc-spec-init@1.1.0`.
+
+## [4.5.2] - 2026-04-28
+
+### Skill Review Hardening
+
+v4.5.2 strengthens the verification and cleanup side of the workflow so
+review, QA, investigation, release readiness, and pre-ship simplification carry
+fresh evidence instead of relying on stale chat context.
+
+### Changed
+
+- Updated `cc-check` to record review freshness, specialist review facets, QA coverage/browser evidence, and runtime failure ownership before a verdict can enter `cc-act`.
+- Updated `cc-act` to render a readiness dashboard, check PR body accuracy, and rerun verification on each invocation while keeping ship actions idempotent.
+- Updated `cc-investigate` to require a frozen root-cause contract with prior-history checks, boundary probes, backward trace, reference comparison, diagnostic probe cleanup, condition-wait evidence, pattern analysis, sanitized research evidence, and repair-boundary blast-radius fields.
+- Updated `cc-simplify` to a Chinese Codex-native cleanup workflow with scope-aware reviewer dispatch, JSONL findings, confidence-gated deduplication, Fix-First decisions, false-positive suppressions, and fresh validation evidence.
+- Refreshed public examples and skill binding metadata for `cc-investigate@1.1.4`, `cc-check@1.8.4`, `cc-act@1.6.4`, and `cc-simplify@1.3.0`.
+
 ## [4.5.1] - 2026-04-28
 
 ### Planning Evidence Gates

package/README.md

@@ -76,9 +76,17 @@ Maintenance skills are shipped with the pack:
 
 ## Planning Quality Gates
 
-`cc-roadmap` now records planning posture and evidence maturity before recommending a route. That keeps idea-stage, active-user, paying-customer, infrastructure, and recovery work from being forced through the same questions. Developer-facing or operator-facing roadmap items also carry target user, time to first value, magic moment, and adoption bottleneck into `cc-plan`.
+`cc-roadmap` now records planning posture, evidence maturity, canonical project language, and durable decision context before recommending a route. That keeps idea-stage, active-user, paying-customer, infrastructure, and recovery work from being forced through the same questions, and prevents roadmap items from inventing a second vocabulary. Developer-facing or operator-facing roadmap items also carry target user, time to first value, magic moment, adoption bottleneck, and domain handoff into `cc-plan`.
 
-`cc-plan` freezes more implementation decisions before `cc-do` starts. Non-trivial plans compare minimal viable and ideal architecture options, full designs include decision horizon plus error/rescue mapping, and test-first plans record test framework evidence, coverage quality, and mandatory regression tests when existing behavior changes.
+Canonical language and durable decisions stay inside cc-devflow-native sources: `devflow/specs/`, `devflow/ROADMAP.md`, `devflow/BACKLOG.md`, `planning/design.md`, `planning/analysis.md`, and `change-meta.json`.
+
+`cc-plan` freezes more implementation decisions before `cc-do` starts. Non-trivial plans compare minimal viable and ideal architecture options, full designs include decision horizon plus error/rescue mapping, and test-first plans record test framework evidence, public test seams, behavior assertions, mock boundaries, coverage quality, mandatory regression tests, interface depth, and vertical tracer-bullet slices when existing behavior changes.
+
+## Verification And Ship Gates
+
+`cc-check` now treats QA as a feedback-loop problem, not only a green-test problem. Bugfix and behavior work records the loop used to prove reality, expected versus actual behavior, reproduction steps, test boundary quality, and architecture follow-ups when no clean public test seam exists.
+
+`cc-act` carries that evidence into PR briefs, handoffs, and release notes. Follow-ups must be durable behavior briefs with current behavior, desired behavior, key interfaces, acceptance criteria, and explicit out-of-scope notes before they are written back to roadmap or backlog.
 
 ## Installation Modes
 

package/README.zh-CN.md

@@ -76,9 +76,17 @@ npx cc-devflow@latest adapt --cwd /path/to/your/project --all
 
 ## 计划质量门禁
 
-`cc-roadmap` 现在会先记录 planning posture 和 evidence maturity，再推荐路线。idea、已有用户、付费客户、infra、recovery 场景不会被套进同一组问题。面向开发者或操作者的 roadmap item 还会把目标用户、time to first value、magic moment 和 adoption bottleneck 交给 `cc-plan`。
+`cc-roadmap` 现在会先记录 planning posture、evidence maturity、项目 canonical language 和持久决策上下文，再推荐路线。idea、已有用户、付费客户、infra、recovery 场景不会被套进同一组问题，也不会让 roadmap item 发明第二套词汇。面向开发者或操作者的 roadmap item 还会把目标用户、time to first value、magic moment、adoption bottleneck 和 domain handoff 交给 `cc-plan`。
 
-`cc-plan` 会在 `cc-do` 开始前冻结更多实现决策。非 trivial 计划需要比较 minimal viable 和 ideal architecture，full-design 需要包含 implementation decision horizon 和 error/rescue map；测试计划要记录测试框架证据、覆盖质量，并在修改既有行为时强制规划 regression test。
+Canonical language 和 durable decisions 只收敛到 cc-devflow 原生真相源：`devflow/specs/`、`devflow/ROADMAP.md`、`devflow/BACKLOG.md`、`planning/design.md`、`planning/analysis.md` 和 `change-meta.json`。
+
+`cc-plan` 会在 `cc-do` 开始前冻结更多实现决策。非 trivial 计划需要比较 minimal viable 和 ideal architecture，full-design 需要包含 implementation decision horizon 和 error/rescue map；测试计划要记录测试框架证据、public test seam、behavior assertion、mock boundary、覆盖质量、强制 regression test、interface depth 和 vertical tracer-bullet slices。
+
+## 验证与交付门禁
+
+`cc-check` 现在把 QA 当成反馈环问题，而不是只看测试是否绿。Bugfix 和行为变更需要记录证明现实的 loop、expected / actual、复现步骤、测试边界质量；如果没有干净的 public test seam，要留下架构 follow-up。
+
+`cc-act` 会把这些证据带进 PR brief、handoff 和 release note。Follow-up 必须写成 durable behavior brief，包含 current behavior、desired behavior、key interfaces、acceptance criteria 和 out-of-scope，再回写 roadmap 或 backlog。
 
 ## 安装方式
 

package/docs/examples/example-bindings.json

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 {
   "updatedAt": "2026-04-28",
   "skills": {
-    "cc-roadmap": "4.3.4",
-    "cc-plan": "3.5.6",
-    "cc-investigate": "1.1.2",
-    "cc-do": "1.5.2",
-    "cc-check": "1.8.2",
-    "cc-act": "1.6.2",
-    "cc-spec-init": "1.0.1"
+    "cc-roadmap": "4.4.1",
+    "cc-plan": "3.7.0",
+    "cc-investigate": "1.2.0",
+    "cc-do": "1.6.0",
+    "cc-check": "1.10.0",
+    "cc-act": "1.8.0",
+    "cc-spec-init": "1.1.0"
   },
   "examples": [
     {

package/docs/examples/full-design-blocked/BACKLOG.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 ## Backlog Meta
 
 - Roadmap version: `roadmap.v2`
-- Skill version: `4.3.4`
+- Skill version: `4.4.1`
 - Last synced: `2026-04-19`
 - Current focus stage: `Stage 2`
 - Tracking source: `roadmap-tracking.json`

package/docs/examples/full-design-blocked/README.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - Example version: `1.0.0`
 - Last reviewed: `2026-04-17`
-- Bound skills: `cc-roadmap@4.3.4`, `cc-plan@3.5.6`, `cc-do@1.5.2`, `cc-check@1.8.2`
+- Bound skills: `cc-roadmap@4.4.1`, `cc-plan@3.7.0`, `cc-do@1.6.0`, `cc-check@1.10.0`
 
 This example shows a requirement that **looked executable**, but `cc-check` correctly stopped it and sent it back to `cc-plan`.
 

package/docs/examples/full-design-blocked/ROADMAP.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 ## Roadmap Meta
 
 - Roadmap version: `roadmap.v2`
-- Skill version: `4.3.4`
+- Skill version: `4.4.1`
 - Status: `active`
 - Last updated: `2026-04-16`
 - Owner / decider: `product-owner`

package/docs/examples/full-design-blocked/changes/REQ-002-bulk-invite-import/planning/design.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - Requirement version: `REQ-002.v2`
 - Design version: `design.v2`
-- CC-Plan skill version: `3.5.6`
+- CC-Plan skill version: `3.7.0`
 - Requirement ID: `REQ-002`
 - Design mode: `full-design`
 - Why not `tiny-design`: the feature crosses import parsing, invite rules, billing limits, duplicate handling, and audit logging

package/docs/examples/full-design-blocked/changes/REQ-002-bulk-invite-import/planning/tasks.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - Requirement version: `REQ-002.v2`
 - Design version: `design.v2`
-- CC-Plan skill version: `3.5.6`
+- CC-Plan skill version: `3.7.0`
 - Source roadmap item: `RM-010`
 - Source roadmap version: `roadmap.v2`
 

package/docs/examples/full-design-blocked/changes/REQ-002-bulk-invite-import/review/report-card.json

@@ -3,6 +3,74 @@
   "verdict": "blocked",
   "overall": "fail",
   "summary": "verdict=blocked quick=2/2 strict=0/0 review=blocked",
+  "specAlignment": "blocked",
+  "specDeltaVerified": false,
+  "specSyncReady": false,
+  "runtime": {
+    "status": "blocked",
+    "failureOwnership": [
+      {
+        "failure": "requirement semantics cannot be proven from current design",
+        "classification": "ambiguous",
+        "touchedByDiff": true,
+        "evidence": "duplicate-email and seat-limit outcomes lack a frozen row matrix",
+        "action": "reroute-cc-plan",
+        "status": "open"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "claimEvidence": [
+    {
+      "claim": "tests-pass",
+      "requiredProof": "fresh targeted test command with exit 0",
+      "commandOrArtifact": "npm test -- src/invite/bulk-import.test.ts",
+      "exitStatus": 0,
+      "keyObservation": "targeted bulk invite rule tests passed",
+      "status": "pass"
+    },
+    {
+      "claim": "requirements-met",
+      "requiredProof": "line-by-line planning/tasks.md and task-manifest.json checklist",
+      "commandOrArtifact": "planning/design.md + planning/task-manifest.json",
+      "exitStatus": null,
+      "keyObservation": "duplicate-email and seat-limit semantics are still underspecified",
+      "status": "blocked"
+    }
+  ],
+  "qa": {
+    "status": "blocked",
+    "regressionProof": [],
+    "testQuality": [
+      {
+        "area": "bulk-invite-rules",
+        "checksRealBehavior": true,
+        "mockBoundary": "none",
+        "testOnlyProductionApi": false,
+        "status": "pass"
+      }
+    ],
+    "coverageAudit": {
+      "status": "blocked",
+      "coveragePct": null,
+      "pathMap": ["bulk invite parser", "admin panel happy path"],
+      "gaps": ["duplicate-email row semantics", "seat-limit partial-failure semantics"],
+      "testsAdded": ["src/invite/bulk-import.test.ts", "src/admin/BulkInvitePanel.test.tsx"],
+      "e2eRequired": true,
+      "evalRequired": false,
+      "qualityStars": "★"
+    },
+    "browserEvidence": {
+      "status": "skipped",
+      "mode": "not-applicable",
+      "affectedRoutes": [],
+      "screenshots": [],
+      "consoleErrors": [],
+      "healthScore": null,
+      "issues": [],
+      "skipReason": "design contract is blocked before browser QA can prove the intended behavior"
+    },
+    "tddException": "design contract is incomplete, so tests cannot prove final requirement semantics yet"
+  },
   "quickGates": [
     {
       "name": "bulk-rule-tests",
@@ -22,10 +90,35 @@
     "status": "blocked",
     "summary": "The implementation evidence is real, but the requirement-level design contract is still incomplete",
     "details": "Diff review found that duplicate-email and seat-limit semantics are still not frozen tightly enough to trust the current implementation as the requirement truth.",
+    "freshness": {
+      "status": "fresh",
+      "reviewedCommit": "example-head",
+      "currentCommit": "example-head",
+      "commitsSinceReview": 0,
+      "staleReason": ""
+    },
+    "qualityScore": 6,
+    "specialistReviews": [
+      {
+        "name": "testing",
+        "status": "blocked",
+        "required": true,
+        "summary": "tests are real but cannot cover semantics that are not frozen in design",
+        "skipReason": "",
+        "findings": []
+      }
+    ],
     "taskReviews": {
       "status": "pass",
       "required": true,
       "summary": "All completed tasks carry spec/code proof",
+      "reviewPacket": {
+        "baseSha": "example-base",
+        "headSha": "example-head",
+        "requirements": "planning/tasks.md",
+        "implemented": "bulk invite import implementation",
+        "reviewerContext": "task manifest plus current implementation evidence"
+      },
       "reviewers": [],
       "findings": []
     },
@@ -33,20 +126,64 @@
       "status": "blocked",
       "required": false,
       "summary": "Requirement-level review says the row-outcome matrix must be reopened in planning",
+      "reviewPacket": {
+        "baseSha": "example-base",
+        "headSha": "example-head",
+        "requirements": "planning/design.md",
+        "implemented": "bulk invite import implementation",
+        "reviewerContext": "requirement diff, plan completion, scope drift, docs staleness"
+      },
       "reviewers": [],
       "findings": [
-        "duplicate-email behavior is still underspecified",
-        "seat-limit partial-failure semantics are not frozen in design.md"
+        {
+          "severity": "important",
+          "confidence": "high",
+          "source": "diff-review",
+          "summary": "duplicate-email behavior is still underspecified",
+          "evidence": "planning/design.md does not freeze row-level duplicate semantics",
+          "action": "reroute-cc-plan",
+          "triageStatus": "clarification-needed",
+          "confidenceScore": 9,
+          "fingerprint": "diff-review:bulk-invite:duplicate-email-semantics",
+          "displayTier": "blocking",
+          "suppressionReason": null
+        },
+        {
+          "severity": "important",
+          "confidence": "high",
+          "source": "diff-review",
+          "summary": "seat-limit partial-failure semantics are not frozen in design.md",
+          "evidence": "planning/design.md lacks accepted row-outcome matrix",
+          "action": "reroute-cc-plan",
+          "triageStatus": "clarification-needed",
+          "confidenceScore": 9,
+          "fingerprint": "diff-review:bulk-invite:seat-limit-partial-failure",
+          "displayTier": "blocking",
+          "suppressionReason": null
+        }
       ]
     },
     "findings": [
-      "The current code may be locally green while still violating the intended admin trust model"
+      {
+        "severity": "important",
+        "confidence": "medium",
+        "source": "diff-review",
+        "summary": "The current code may be locally green while still violating the intended admin trust model",
+        "evidence": "tests pass but requirement claim remains blocked by design ambiguity",
+        "action": "reroute-cc-plan",
+        "triageStatus": "clarification-needed",
+        "confidenceScore": 7,
+        "fingerprint": "diff-review:bulk-invite:trust-model-ambiguous",
+        "displayTier": "warning",
+        "suppressionReason": null
+      }
     ]
   },
   "blockingFindings": [
     "design: duplicate-email row handling is not frozen tightly enough",
     "design: seat-limit partial-failure semantics must be reopened in cc-plan"
   ],
+  "gaps": ["duplicate-email row handling", "seat-limit partial-failure semantics"],
   "reroute": "cc-plan",
   "timestamp": "2026-04-16T12:15:00.000Z"
 }

package/docs/examples/full-design-blocked/roadmap-tracking.json

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
   "lastSyncedAt": "2026-04-19",
   "backlogMeta": {
     "roadmapVersion": "roadmap.v2",
-    "skillVersion": "4.3.4",
+    "skillVersion": "4.4.1",
     "currentFocusStage": "Stage 2"
   },
   "dependencyHandoff": {

package/docs/examples/local-handoff/BACKLOG.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 ## Backlog Meta
 
 - Roadmap version: `roadmap.v2`
-- Skill version: `4.3.4`
+- Skill version: `4.4.1`
 - Last synced: `2026-04-19`
 - Current focus stage: `Stage 2`
 - Tracking source: `roadmap-tracking.json`

package/docs/examples/local-handoff/README.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - Example version: `1.0.0`
 - Last reviewed: `2026-04-17`
-- Bound skills: `cc-roadmap@4.3.4`, `cc-plan@3.5.6`, `cc-do@1.5.2`, `cc-check@1.8.2`, `cc-act@1.6.2`
+- Bound skills: `cc-roadmap@4.4.1`, `cc-plan@3.7.0`, `cc-do@1.6.0`, `cc-check@1.10.0`, `cc-act@1.8.0`
 
 This example shows verified work that is **ready to move forward**, but `cc-act` still chooses `local-handoff`.
 

package/docs/examples/local-handoff/ROADMAP.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 ## Roadmap Meta
 
 - Roadmap version: `roadmap.v3`
-- Skill version: `4.3.4`
+- Skill version: `4.4.1`
 - Status: `active`
 - Last updated: `2026-04-16`
 - Owner / decider: `product-owner`

package/docs/examples/local-handoff/changes/REQ-003-audit-log-export/planning/design.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - Requirement version: `REQ-003.v1`
 - Design version: `design.v1`
-- CC-Plan skill version: `3.5.6`
+- CC-Plan skill version: `3.7.0`
 - Requirement ID: `REQ-003`
 - Design mode: `tiny-design`
 - Why this stays `tiny-design`: the patch adds one export action inside the existing admin audit UI without changing data contracts

package/docs/examples/local-handoff/changes/REQ-003-audit-log-export/planning/tasks.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - Requirement version: `REQ-003.v1`
 - Design version: `design.v1`
-- CC-Plan skill version: `3.5.6`
+- CC-Plan skill version: `3.7.0`
 - Source roadmap item: `RM-020`
 - Source roadmap version: `roadmap.v3`
 

package/docs/examples/local-handoff/changes/REQ-003-audit-log-export/review/report-card.json

@@ -3,6 +3,65 @@
   "verdict": "pass",
   "overall": "pass",
   "summary": "verdict=pass quick=2/2 strict=0/0 review=pass",
+  "specAlignment": "pass",
+  "specDeltaVerified": true,
+  "specSyncReady": true,
+  "runtime": {
+    "status": "pass",
+    "failureOwnership": []
+  },
+  "claimEvidence": [
+    {
+      "claim": "tests-pass",
+      "requiredProof": "fresh targeted test command with exit 0",
+      "commandOrArtifact": "npm test -- src/admin/AuditSummaryPanel.test.tsx",
+      "exitStatus": 0,
+      "keyObservation": "audit summary panel targeted tests passed",
+      "status": "pass"
+    },
+    {
+      "claim": "requirements-met",
+      "requiredProof": "line-by-line planning/tasks.md and task-manifest.json checklist",
+      "commandOrArtifact": "planning/tasks.md + planning/task-manifest.json",
+      "exitStatus": null,
+      "keyObservation": "approved tiny-design scope completed",
+      "status": "pass"
+    }
+  ],
+  "qa": {
+    "status": "pass",
+    "regressionProof": [],
+    "testQuality": [
+      {
+        "area": "audit-summary-panel",
+        "checksRealBehavior": true,
+        "mockBoundary": "none",
+        "testOnlyProductionApi": false,
+        "status": "pass"
+      }
+    ],
+    "coverageAudit": {
+      "status": "pass",
+      "coveragePct": 80,
+      "pathMap": ["audit summary render path", "empty audit state"],
+      "gaps": [],
+      "testsAdded": ["src/admin/AuditSummaryPanel.test.tsx"],
+      "e2eRequired": false,
+      "evalRequired": false,
+      "qualityStars": "★★"
+    },
+    "browserEvidence": {
+      "status": "skipped",
+      "mode": "not-applicable",
+      "affectedRoutes": [],
+      "screenshots": [],
+      "consoleErrors": [],
+      "healthScore": null,
+      "issues": [],
+      "skipReason": "local handoff example records component evidence without a live browser fixture"
+    },
+    "tddException": null
+  },
   "quickGates": [
     {
       "name": "targeted-tests",
@@ -22,10 +81,35 @@
     "status": "pass",
     "summary": "Task review proof and requirement-level diff review both passed",
     "details": "The diff stayed inside the approved tiny-design scope and verification evidence is fresh.",
+    "freshness": {
+      "status": "fresh",
+      "reviewedCommit": "example-head",
+      "currentCommit": "example-head",
+      "commitsSinceReview": 0,
+      "staleReason": ""
+    },
+    "qualityScore": 9,
+    "specialistReviews": [
+      {
+        "name": "testing",
+        "status": "pass",
+        "required": true,
+        "summary": "targeted tests cover the audit summary behavior for this example",
+        "skipReason": "",
+        "findings": []
+      }
+    ],
     "taskReviews": {
       "status": "pass",
       "required": true,
       "summary": "All completed tasks carry spec/code proof",
+      "reviewPacket": {
+        "baseSha": "example-base",
+        "headSha": "example-head",
+        "requirements": "planning/tasks.md",
+        "implemented": "audit log export summary view",
+        "reviewerContext": "task manifest plus changed audit panel files"
+      },
       "reviewers": [],
       "findings": []
     },
@@ -33,12 +117,20 @@
       "status": "pass",
       "required": false,
       "summary": "No blocking requirement-level findings",
+      "reviewPacket": {
+        "baseSha": "example-base",
+        "headSha": "example-head",
+        "requirements": "planning/design.md",
+        "implemented": "audit log export summary view",
+        "reviewerContext": "requirement diff, plan completion, scope drift, docs staleness"
+      },
       "reviewers": [],
       "findings": []
     },
     "findings": []
   },
   "blockingFindings": [],
+  "gaps": [],
   "reroute": "none",
   "timestamp": "2026-04-16T14:30:00.000Z"
 }

package/docs/examples/local-handoff/roadmap-tracking.json

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
   "lastSyncedAt": "2026-04-19",
   "backlogMeta": {
     "roadmapVersion": "roadmap.v2",
-    "skillVersion": "4.3.4",
+    "skillVersion": "4.4.1",
     "currentFocusStage": "Stage 2"
   },
   "dependencyHandoff": {

package/docs/examples/pdca-loop/BACKLOG.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 ## Backlog Meta
 
 - Roadmap version: `roadmap.v1`
-- Skill version: `4.3.4`
+- Skill version: `4.4.1`
 - Last synced: `2026-04-19`
 - Current focus stage: `Stage 1`
 - Tracking source: `roadmap-tracking.json`

package/docs/examples/pdca-loop/README.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - Example version: `1.0.0`
 - Last reviewed: `2026-04-17`
-- Bound skills: `cc-roadmap@4.3.4`, `cc-plan@3.5.6`, `cc-do@1.5.2`, `cc-check@1.8.2`, `cc-act@1.6.2`
+- Bound skills: `cc-roadmap@4.4.1`, `cc-plan@3.7.0`, `cc-do@1.6.0`, `cc-check@1.10.0`, `cc-act@1.8.0`
 
 This folder shows one minimal but complete `cc-roadmap -> cc-plan -> cc-do -> cc-check -> cc-act` loop.
 

package/docs/examples/pdca-loop/ROADMAP.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 ## Roadmap Meta
 
 - Roadmap version: `roadmap.v1`
-- Skill version: `4.3.4`
+- Skill version: `4.4.1`
 - Status: `active`
 - Last updated: `2026-04-15`
 - Owner / decider: `product-owner`

package/docs/examples/pdca-loop/changes/REQ-001-copy-invite-link/handoff/pr-brief.md

@@ -20,6 +20,25 @@
 - Base branch: `main`
 - PR / MR: not created yet
 
+## Review Range
+
+- Reviewed base SHA: `example-base`
+- Reviewed head SHA: `example-head`
+- Review packet: `planning/tasks.md#T001-T003`; `planning/design.md`
+- Finding triage: no findings
+- QA / claim evidence: `qa=pass`, `tests-pass=pass`, `requirements-met=pass`
+
+## Readiness Dashboard
+
+- Review freshness: `fresh`, reviewed `example-head`, current `example-head`
+- Review quality: `qualityScore=9`
+- Specialist review facets: `testing:pass`
+- QA coverage: `status=pass`, gaps `0`, e2eRequired `false`
+- Browser QA: `skipped`, example fixture uses targeted component evidence instead of a live browser
+- Failure ownership: no open failures recorded
+- Documentation release: README and CLAUDE unchanged for this scoped example
+- PR body accuracy: regenerate the PR body from this brief, current report-card, and current diff
+
 ## Summary
 
 - removes a small but visible sharing friction in the beta flow
@@ -35,6 +54,7 @@
 ## Verification Evidence
 
 - `report-card.json` verdict: `pass`
+- Merged-result verification: not applicable before merge
 - Fresh evidence:
   - `npm test -- src/features/share/ShareDialog.test.tsx`
   - `npm run lint -- src/features/share/ShareDialog.tsx`

package/docs/examples/pdca-loop/changes/REQ-001-copy-invite-link/planning/design.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - Requirement version: `REQ-001.v1`
 - Design version: `design.v1`
-- CC-Plan skill version: `3.5.6`
+- CC-Plan skill version: `3.7.0`
 - Requirement ID: `REQ-001`
 - Design mode: `tiny-design`
 - Why this stays `tiny-design`: the patch is limited to an existing dialog and test file, with no API or data model changes