cclaw-cli 0.48.30 → 0.48.32

package/dist/content/stages/design.js

@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+import { REVIEW_LOOP_CHECKLISTS } from "../review-loop.js";
 // ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 // DESIGN — reference: gstack Eng review
 // ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ export const DESIGN = {
             "Codebase Investigation — Before any design decision, read the actual code in the blast radius. List every file that will be touched, its current responsibilities, and existing patterns (error handling, naming, test style). Design must conform to discovered patterns, not impose new ones without justification.",
             "Step 0: Scope Challenge — what existing code solves sub-problems? Minimum change set? Complexity check: 8+ files or 2+ new services = complexity smell → flag for possible scope reduction.",
             "Search Before Building — For each technical choice (library, pattern, architecture), search for existing solutions. Label findings: Layer 1 (exact match), Layer 2 (partial match, needs adaptation), Layer 3 (inspiration only), EUREKA (unexpected perfect solution). Default to existing before custom.",
-            "Architecture Review — lock component boundaries and one realistic failure scenario per new codepath. **Mandatory diagrams:** architecture for all tiers; Standard/Deep adds Data-Flow Shadow Paths and Error Flow.",
+            "Architecture Review — lock component boundaries and one realistic failure scenario per new codepath. **Mandatory diagrams by tier:** Lightweight=Architecture Diagram, Standard=+Data-Flow Shadow Paths + Error Flow Diagram, Deep=+State Machine Diagram + Rollback Flowchart + Deployment Sequence Diagram.",
             "Security & Threat Model Review — trust boundaries, authn/authz, input validation, secrets handling, data exposure risks, abuse cases, and mitigation ownership.",
             "Code Quality Review — code organization, DRY violations, error handling patterns, over/under-engineering assessment. Include stale-diagram audit for touched files.",
             "Test Review — diagram every new flow, data path, error path. For each: what test type covers it? Does one exist? What is the gap? Produce test plan artifact.",
@@ -52,7 +53,9 @@ export const DESIGN = {
             "Observability & Debuggability Review — logging, metrics, traces, alerts, and on-call diagnosis path for each critical failure mode.",
             "Deployment & Rollout Review — migration sequencing, flag strategy, rollback plan, compatibility window, and post-deploy verification steps.",
             "Parallelization Strategy — If multiple independent modules, produce dependency table: which can be built in parallel? Where are conflict risks? Flag shared-state modules.",
-            "Outside Voice + Spec Review Loop — run adversarial second-opinion review, reconcile findings, and iterate up to 3 cycles or until quality score >= 0.8.",
+            "Outside Voice + Spec Review Loop — run adversarial second-opinion review, reconcile findings, and iterate up to 3 cycles or until quality score >= 0.8. When `.cclaw/config.yaml::reviewLoop.externalSecondOpinion.enabled` is true, run an additional external-model pass and explicitly resolve score/finding disagreements.",
+            "Stale Diagram Audit (opt-in) — when `.cclaw/config.yaml::optInAudits.staleDiagramAudit` is true, compare blast-radius file mtimes against diagram-marker freshness and flag stale diagrams before design lock.",
+            "Plant-seed shelf (optional) — when an unresolved/deferred design idea has upside, capture it as `.cclaw/seeds/SEED-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md` with trigger_when and action so it can be recalled on future `/cc` starts.",
             "Unresolved Decisions — List any design decisions that could not be resolved in this session. For each: what information is missing? Who can provide it? What is the default if no answer comes?",
             "Distribution Check — If the plan creates new artifact types (packages, CLI tools, configs), document the build/publish story. How does it reach the user?",
             "Deferred Items Cross-Reference — Collect every item explicitly deferred during design review. Each must appear in the Unresolved Decisions table or in the upstream scope artifact's deferred list. No deferred item may exist only in conversation — it must be written down."
@@ -86,8 +89,9 @@ export const DESIGN = {
             "Add security, observability, and deployment reviews for Standard+ changes.",
             "Run stale-diagram audit in touched files and reconcile drift.",
             "Define test coverage strategy and performance budget.",
-            "Produce required outputs: NOT-in-scope section, What-already-exists section, architecture + shadow/error diagrams, failure mode table.",
-            "Run outside-voice spec review loop (up to 3 iterations, quality score target >= 0.8).",
+            "Produce required outputs: NOT-in-scope section, What-already-exists section, tier-required diagrams with markers, failure mode table.",
+            "Optionally plant unresolved high-upside ideas into `.cclaw/seeds/SEED-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md` with trigger_when/action notes.",
+            "Run outside-voice spec review loop (up to 3 iterations, quality score target >= 0.8). If configured, include external second opinion and reconcile deltas.",
             "Produce completion dashboard: status per review section, critical/open gap counts, decision count, unresolved items.",
             "Write design lock artifact for downstream spec/plan."
         ],
@@ -102,12 +106,15 @@ export const DESIGN = {
             "Research artifact written to `.cclaw/artifacts/02a-research.md` with stack/features/architecture/pitfalls sections plus synthesis.",
             "Artifact written to `.cclaw/artifacts/03-design-<slug>.md`.",
             "Failure-mode table exists in Method/Exception/Rescue/UserSees format.",
-            "Data-flow shadow and error-flow diagrams are present for Standard+ complexity.",
+            "Tier-required diagram markers are present: architecture (all tiers), +shadow/error (Standard+), +state-machine/rollback/deployment-sequence (Deep).",
+            "When `.cclaw/config.yaml::optInAudits.staleDiagramAudit` is true, stale diagram audit finding is clear (no blast-radius file newer than diagram markers without explicit update).",
             "Security & threat model findings are documented with mitigations.",
             "Observability and deployment plans are explicit for critical flows.",
             "Outside-voice findings and dispositions are recorded (accept/reject/defer).",
             "Spec review loop summary includes iteration count and quality score trajectory.",
+            "When `.cclaw/config.yaml::reviewLoop.externalSecondOpinion.enabled` is true, external second-opinion disposition is captured.",
             "Test strategy includes unit/integration/e2e expectations.",
+            "When a high-upside idea is deferred, a seed file is created under `.cclaw/seeds/` and referenced in the artifact.",
             "NOT-in-scope section produced.",
             "What-already-exists section produced.",
             "Completion dashboard lists review section status, critical/open gap counts, decision count, and unresolved items (or 'None')."
@@ -154,13 +161,23 @@ export const DESIGN = {
             { section: "Codebase Investigation", required: false, validationRule: "Must list blast-radius files with current responsibilities and discovered patterns." },
             { section: "Search Before Building", required: false, validationRule: "For each technical choice: Layer 1 (exact match), Layer 2 (partial match), Layer 3 (inspiration), EUREKA labels with reuse-first default." },
             { section: "Architecture Boundaries", required: true, validationRule: "Must list component boundaries with ownership." },
-            { section: "Architecture Diagram", required: true, validationRule: "At least one diagram (ASCII, Mermaid, or image) showing component boundaries and data flow direction. Diagram must: (1) label every node with a concrete component name (no generic 'Service A/B'), (2) label every arrow with the action or message (no unlabeled arrows), (3) mark direction of data flow explicitly, (4) distinguish synchronous from asynchronous edges (e.g. solid vs dashed, or `sync:` / `async:` prefix), (5) include at least one failure/degraded edge line that contains an arrow plus a failure keyword (`timeout`, `error`, `fallback`, `degraded`, `retry`, etc.). Standard/Deep complexity must also include `Data-Flow Shadow Paths` and `Error Flow Diagram` sections." },
-            { section: "Data Flow", required: false, validationRule: "Must include happy path, nil input, empty input, upstream error paths, plus interaction edge-case matrix (double-click, navigate-away, stale-state, large-result, background-job abandonment)." },
+            { section: "Architecture Diagram", required: true, validationRule: "Must include `<!-- diagram: architecture -->` marker. Diagram must label concrete nodes, label arrows, mark direction, distinguish sync/async edges, and include at least one failure/degraded edge." },
+            { section: "Data-Flow Shadow Paths", required: false, validationRule: "Standard/Deep: include `<!-- diagram: data-flow-shadow-paths -->` marker and path table with trigger plus fallback/degrade behavior." },
+            { section: "Error Flow Diagram", required: false, validationRule: "Standard/Deep: include `<!-- diagram: error-flow -->` marker and failure-detection -> rescue -> user-visible outcome flow." },
+            { section: "State Machine Diagram", required: false, validationRule: "Deep: include `<!-- diagram: state-machine -->` marker and state transitions for critical flow lifecycle." },
+            { section: "Rollback Flowchart", required: false, validationRule: "Deep: include `<!-- diagram: rollback-flowchart -->` marker with trigger -> rollback actions -> verification." },
+            { section: "Deployment Sequence Diagram", required: false, validationRule: "Deep: include `<!-- diagram: deployment-sequence -->` marker with rollout order and guard checks." },
+            { section: "Data Flow", required: false, validationRule: "Must include happy path, nil input, empty input, upstream error paths, plus Interaction Edge Case matrix rows for: double-click, nav-away-mid-request, 10K-result dataset, background-job abandonment, zombie connection. Each row must declare handled yes/no and deferred item when not handled." },
+            { section: "Stale Diagram Audit", required: false, validationRule: "When `.cclaw/config.yaml::optInAudits.staleDiagramAudit` is true: blast-radius files from Codebase Investigation must not be newer than the current design diagram-marker baseline unless explicitly refreshed." },
             { section: "Failure Mode Table", required: true, validationRule: "Use Method/Exception/Rescue/UserSees columns and treat silent user impact without rescue as critical." },
-            { section: "Security & Threat Model", required: false, validationRule: "Must list trust boundaries, abuse/failure scenarios, mitigations, and residual risks." },
+            { section: "Security & Threat Model", required: true, validationRule: "Must list trust boundaries, abuse/failure scenarios, mitigations, and residual risks." },
             { section: "Test Strategy", required: false, validationRule: "Must define unit/integration/e2e expectations with coverage targets." },
             { section: "Performance Budget", required: false, validationRule: "For each critical path: metric name, target threshold, and measurement method." },
+            { section: "Observability & Debuggability", required: true, validationRule: "Must define logs/metrics/traces plus alerting/debug path for critical failure modes." },
+            { section: "Deployment & Rollout", required: true, validationRule: "Must define migration/flag strategy, rollback plan, and post-deploy verification steps." },
             { section: "What Already Exists", required: false, validationRule: "For each sub-problem: existing code/library found (Layer 1-3/EUREKA label), reuse decision, and adaptation needed." },
+            { section: "Outside Voice Findings", required: false, validationRule: "List adversarial findings and disposition (accept/reject/defer) with rationale per finding." },
+            { section: "Spec Review Loop", required: false, validationRule: "Record iteration table (max 3) with quality score per iteration, stop reason, and unresolved concerns." },
             { section: "NOT in scope", required: false, validationRule: "Work considered and explicitly deferred with one-line rationale." },
             { section: "Parallelization Strategy", required: false, validationRule: "If multi-module: dependency table, parallel lanes, conflict flags." },
             { section: "Unresolved Decisions", required: false, validationRule: "If any: what info is missing, who provides it, default if unanswered." },
@@ -178,6 +195,12 @@ export const DESIGN = {
             "What-already-exists section",
             "design completion dashboard"
         ],
+        reviewLoop: {
+            stage: "design",
+            checklist: REVIEW_LOOP_CHECKLISTS.design.map((dimension) => dimension.id),
+            maxIterations: 3,
+            targetScore: 0.8
+        },
         reviewSections: [
             {
                 title: "Architecture Review",

package/dist/content/stages/schema-types.d.ts

@@ -70,10 +70,18 @@ export interface StageReviewLens {
     outputs: string[];
     reviewSections: ReviewSection[];
     mandatoryDelegations: string[];
+    reviewLoop?: StageReviewLoop;
 }
 export interface StageReviewLensInput {
     outputs: string[];
     reviewSections: ReviewSection[];
+    reviewLoop?: StageReviewLoop;
+}
+export interface StageReviewLoop {
+    stage: "scope" | "design";
+    checklist: string[];
+    maxIterations: number;
+    targetScore: number;
 }
 export interface StageSchema {
     schemaShape: "v2";
@@ -130,6 +138,8 @@ export interface StageSchema {
     trivialOverrideSections?: string[];
     /** Agent names that MUST be dispatched (or waived) before stage transition — derived from mandatory auto-subagent rows. */
     mandatoryDelegations: string[];
+    /** Optional shared outside-voice loop config for scope/design stages. */
+    reviewLoop?: StageReviewLoop;
 }
 export type StageSchemaLegacyInput = Omit<StageSchema, "schemaShape" | "philosophy" | "executionModel" | "artifactRules" | "reviewLens" | "mandatoryDelegations" | "complexityTier"> & {
     schemaShape?: "legacy";

package/dist/content/stages/scope.js

@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+import { REVIEW_LOOP_CHECKLISTS } from "../review-loop.js";
 // ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 // SCOPE — reference: gstack CEO review
 // ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -43,7 +44,7 @@ export const SCOPE = {
     },
     executionModel: {
         checklist: [
-            "**Pre-Scope System Audit** — before premise challenge, gather reality snapshot: recent commits (`git log -30 --oneline`), current diff (`git diff --stat`), stash state (`git stash list`), and deferred debt markers (`rg -n 'TODO|FIXME|XXX|HACK'`). Record findings in scope artifact.",
+            "**Pre-Scope System Audit (opt-in)** — when `.cclaw/config.yaml::optInAudits.scopePreAudit` is true, before premise challenge gather reality snapshot: recent commits (`git log -30 --oneline`), current diff (`git diff --stat`), stash state (`git stash list`), and deferred debt markers (`rg -n 'TODO|FIXME|XXX|HACK'`). Record findings in scope artifact.",
             "**Assess complexity** — Read the brainstorm artifact. If project is simple (single component, clear architecture, personal/prototype), run light-touch scope: mode selection, 3-5 key in/out boundaries, deferred items. Skip Dream State Mapping and Temporal Interrogation. If project is complex (multi-component, team delivery, production), run the full checklist.",
             "**Prime Directives** — Zero silent failures. For each in-scope capability, name concrete failure modes, the exact error surface, and trace all four data-flow paths (happy, nil, empty, upstream error). Include interaction edge cases (double-click, navigate-away, stale state), observability commitments, and explicit deferred-item logging.",
             "**Premise Challenge** — Is this the right problem? What if we do nothing? What are we optimizing for?",
@@ -55,7 +56,8 @@ export const SCOPE = {
             "**Temporal Interrogation** — (complex projects only) simulate implementation timeline: HOUR 1 foundations, HOUR 2-3 core logic, HOUR 4-5 integration surprises, HOUR 6+ polish/tests. Decide what must be locked now vs safely deferred.",
             "**Mode Selection** — Present expand/selective/hold/reduce with recommendation and default heuristic: greenfield -> expand, feature enhancement -> selective, bugfix/hotfix/refactor -> hold, broad blast radius (>15 files or multi-team impact) -> reduce.",
             "**Mode-Specific Analysis** — After mode is selected, run the matching analysis: EXPAND (10x and delight opportunities), SELECTIVE (hold-scope rigor then cherry-picked expansions), HOLD (minimum-change-set hardening), REDUCE (ruthless cuts and follow-up split).",
-            "**Outside Voice + Spec Review Loop** — run an adversarial second-opinion pass on the scope artifact, reconcile findings, and iterate up to 3 cycles or until quality score >= 0.8.",
+            "**Plant-seed shelf (optional)** — when a deferred/out-of-scope idea still has upside, capture it as `.cclaw/seeds/SEED-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md` with trigger_when and action instead of losing it in prose-only notes.",
+            "**Outside Voice + Spec Review Loop** — run an adversarial second-opinion pass on the scope artifact, reconcile findings, and iterate up to 3 cycles or until quality score >= 0.8. When `.cclaw/config.yaml::reviewLoop.externalSecondOpinion.enabled` is true, run an additional external-model pass and explicitly resolve score/finding disagreements.",
             "**Error and Rescue Registry** — For each capability: what breaks, how detected, what fallback."
         ],
         interactionProtocol: [
@@ -74,15 +76,16 @@ export const SCOPE = {
             "**STOP BEFORE ADVANCE.** Mandatory delegation `planner` must be marked completed or explicitly waived in `.cclaw/state/delegation-log.json`. Then close the stage via `node .cclaw/hooks/stage-complete.mjs scope` (do not hand-edit `.cclaw/state/flow-state.json`)."
         ],
         process: [
-            "Run pre-scope system audit (git log/diff/stash/debt markers).",
+            "When `.cclaw/config.yaml::optInAudits.scopePreAudit` is true, run pre-scope system audit (git log/diff/stash/debt markers).",
             "Run premise challenge and existing-solution leverage check.",
             "When mode is EXPAND/SELECTIVE, run brief landscape check before final scope lock.",
             "Calibrate quality bar against 2-3 strong existing modules/files.",
             "Produce 2-3 scope alternatives in a structured format (Name, Summary, Effort, Risk, Pros, Cons, Reuses) with minimum viable and ideal architecture options included.",
             "Choose scope mode with user approval.",
             "Run mode-specific analysis that matches the selected scope mode.",
+            "Optionally plant high-upside deferred ideas into `.cclaw/seeds/SEED-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md` with trigger_when/action notes.",
             "Walk through scope review sections one at a time.",
-            "Run outside-voice spec review loop (up to 3 iterations, quality score target >= 0.8).",
+            "Run outside-voice spec review loop (up to 3 iterations, quality score target >= 0.8). If configured, include external second opinion and reconcile deltas.",
             "Write explicit scope contract, discretion areas, and deferred items.",
             "Freeze non-negotiable boundaries as stable Locked Decisions (D-XX IDs).",
             "Produce scope summary plus completion dashboard (section status, critical gaps, resolved decisions, unresolved items or `None`)."
@@ -94,7 +97,7 @@ export const SCOPE = {
         ],
         requiredEvidence: [
             "Artifact written to `.cclaw/artifacts/02-scope-<slug>.md`.",
-            "Pre-Scope System Audit findings are captured (git log/diff/stash/debt markers).",
+            "When `.cclaw/config.yaml::optInAudits.scopePreAudit` is true, Pre-Scope System Audit findings are captured (git log/diff/stash/debt markers).",
             "In-scope and out-of-scope lists are explicit.",
             "Discretion areas are explicit (or marked as `None`).",
             "Selected mode and rationale are documented.",
@@ -102,7 +105,9 @@ export const SCOPE = {
             "Premise challenge findings documented.",
             "Outside Voice findings and dispositions are recorded (accept/reject/defer with rationale).",
             "Spec review loop summary includes iteration count and quality score trajectory.",
+            "When `.cclaw/config.yaml::reviewLoop.externalSecondOpinion.enabled` is true, external second-opinion disposition is captured.",
             "Deferred items list with one-line rationale for each.",
+            "When an upside deferred idea is parked, a seed file is created under `.cclaw/seeds/` and referenced in the artifact.",
             "Completion dashboard lists per-section status, critical/open gaps, decision count, and unresolved items (or `None`)."
         ],
         inputs: ["brainstorm artifact", "timeline constraints", "product priorities"],
@@ -139,7 +144,7 @@ export const SCOPE = {
             traceabilityRule: "Every scope boundary must be traceable to a brainstorm decision. Every downstream design choice must stay within the scope contract."
         },
         artifactValidation: [
-            { section: "Pre-Scope System Audit", required: false, validationRule: "Must capture git log/diff/stash/debt-marker findings before premise challenge." },
+            { section: "Pre-Scope System Audit", required: false, validationRule: "When `.cclaw/config.yaml::optInAudits.scopePreAudit` is true: must capture git log -30, git diff --stat, git stash list, and debt-marker scan (TODO/FIXME/XXX/HACK) before premise challenge." },
             { section: "Prime Directives", required: false, validationRule: "For each scoped capability: named failure modes, explicit error surface, four data-flow paths, interaction edge cases, observability expectations, and deferred-item handling." },
             { section: "Premise Challenge", required: false, validationRule: "Must contain explicit answers to: right problem? direct path? what if nothing?" },
             { section: "Landscape Check", required: false, validationRule: "When mode is EXPAND/SELECTIVE, include at least one external reference insight and its impact on scope." },
@@ -163,6 +168,12 @@ export const SCOPE = {
     },
     reviewLens: {
         outputs: ["scope mode decision", "scope contract", "discretion areas list", "deferred scope list", "scope summary", "scope completion dashboard"],
+        reviewLoop: {
+            stage: "scope",
+            checklist: REVIEW_LOOP_CHECKLISTS.scope.map((dimension) => dimension.id),
+            maxIterations: 3,
+            targetScore: 0.8
+        },
         reviewSections: [
             {
                 title: "Scope Boundary Audit",

package/dist/content/start-command.js

@@ -47,13 +47,18 @@ This is the **recommended way to start** working with cclaw. Use \`/cc-next\` fo
 
    Record the chosen class in \`.cclaw/artifacts/00-idea.md\` on the \`Class:\` line. Do NOT silently treat a non-software task as software.
 
-2. **Phase 1 — Origin-document discovery.** Before asking the user for context, scan for existing requirements/plan artifacts and merge them into initial context:
+2. **Phase 0.5 — Seed shelf recall.** Before routing, scan \`${RUNTIME_ROOT}/seeds/SEED-*.md\` and match each seed's \`trigger_when\` tokens against the prompt text (substring match is enough). If any match:
+   - Surface up to 3 matches (file + title + one-line action) as \`Seed recalls\`.
+   - Ask whether to apply now, keep as reference, or ignore for this run.
+   - If applied/reference, append selected seeds to \`00-idea.md\` under \`Discovered context\` so downstream stages keep the trace.
+
+3. **Phase 1 — Origin-document discovery.** Before asking the user for context, scan for existing requirements/plan artifacts and merge them into initial context:
    - \`.cclaw/artifacts/00-idea.md\` if it already exists (resumed flow).
    - Common origin locations: \`docs/prd/**\`, \`docs/rfcs/**\`, \`docs/adr/**\`, \`docs/design/**\`, \`specs/**\`, \`prd/**\`, \`rfc/**\`, \`design/**\`, root-level \`PRD.md\` / \`SPEC.md\` / \`DESIGN.md\` / \`REQUIREMENTS.md\` / \`ROADMAP.md\`.
    - Summarize each discovered doc in \`00-idea.md\` under a \`Discovered context\` section with path + 1-line summary.
    - If an origin doc contradicts the prompt, surface the conflict to the user before routing.
 
-3. **Phase 2 — Tech-stack + version detection.** Sniff the repo for stack + language versions and record under \`Stack:\`:
+4. **Phase 2 — Tech-stack + version detection.** Sniff the repo for stack + language versions and record under \`Stack:\`:
    - Node: \`package.json\` \`engines\` / \`volta\` / \`packageManager\` / \`devDependencies\`.
    - Python: \`pyproject.toml\` / \`requirements*.txt\` / \`.python-version\`.
    - Go: \`go.mod\` (module + Go version).
@@ -63,9 +68,9 @@ This is the **recommended way to start** working with cclaw. Use \`/cc-next\` fo
    - CI: \`.github/workflows\`, \`.gitlab-ci.yml\`.
    Skip detection quietly if no markers are found — do NOT invent a stack.
 
-4. Read \`${flowPath}\`.
-5. If flow already has completed stages, warn the user that starting a new tracked flow will reset progress. Ask for confirmation before proceeding.
-6. **Track heuristic** — classify the idea text and **recommend** a track (the user can override before any state mutation):
+5. Read \`${flowPath}\`.
+6. If flow already has completed stages, warn the user that starting a new tracked flow will reset progress. Ask for confirmation before proceeding.
+7. **Track heuristic** — classify the idea text and **recommend** a track (the user can override before any state mutation):
    - First, load \`${RUNTIME_ROOT}/config.yaml\`. If \`trackHeuristics\` is defined, apply those per-track vocabulary hints (\`fallback\`, \`tracks.<id>.{triggers,veto}\`) on top of the built-in defaults. Evaluation order is always \`standard -> medium -> quick\` (narrow-to-broad).
    - **quick** (\`spec → tdd → review → ship\`) — single-purpose work where the spec is essentially already known.
      Triggers (case-insensitive substring or close variant): \`bug\`, \`bugfix\`, \`fix\`, \`hotfix\`, \`patch\`, \`typo\`, \`regression\`, \`copy change\`, \`rename\`, \`bump\`, \`upgrade dep\`, \`config tweak\`, \`docs only\`, \`comment\`, \`lint\`, \`format\`, \`small\`, \`tiny\`, \`one-liner\`, \`revert\`.
@@ -74,17 +79,17 @@ This is the **recommended way to start** working with cclaw. Use \`/cc-next\` fo
    - **standard** (full 8 stages — default fallback) — anything that introduces a new capability with architecture uncertainty, touches many modules, or has unclear scope.
      Triggers: \`new feature\`, \`refactor\`, \`migration\`, \`platform\`, \`architecture\`, \`schema\`, \`integrate\`, \`workflow\`, \`onboarding\`, or any prompt that does not match quick/medium confidently.
    - When triggers conflict, prefer **standard** over **medium**, and **medium** over **quick**.
-7. Present the recommendation as a single decision with explicit options:
+8. Present the recommendation as a single decision with explicit options:
    > \`Recommended track: <quick|medium|standard>\` because \`<one-line reason citing matched triggers>\`.
    > Override? (A) keep \`<recommended>\`  (B) switch track  (C) cancel.
    If the harness's native ask tool is available (\`AskUserQuestion\` / \`AskQuestion\` / \`question\` / \`request_user_input\`), send exactly ONE question; on schema error, fall back to a plain-text lettered list.
-8. Persist the chosen track to \`${flowPath}\` (\`track\` field). Compute \`skippedStages\` from the track and write that too. Use the **first stage of the chosen track** as \`currentStage\` (quick → \`spec\`, medium/standard → \`brainstorm\`, trivial fast-path → \`design\` or \`spec\` per Phase 0).
-9. Write the prompt to \`.cclaw/artifacts/00-idea.md\` with the following header lines: \`Class:\` (from Phase 0), \`Track:\` (chosen track + matched heuristic), \`Stack:\` (from Phase 2 detection, or \`unknown\`), and a \`Discovered context\` section if Phase 1 found origin docs.
-10. Load the **first-stage skill for the chosen track** and its command file:
+9. Persist the chosen track to \`${flowPath}\` (\`track\` field). Compute \`skippedStages\` from the track and write that too. Use the **first stage of the chosen track** as \`currentStage\` (quick → \`spec\`, medium/standard → \`brainstorm\`, trivial fast-path → \`design\` or \`spec\` per Phase 0).
+10. Write the prompt to \`.cclaw/artifacts/00-idea.md\` with the following header lines: \`Class:\` (from Phase 0), \`Track:\` (chosen track + matched heuristic), \`Stack:\` (from Phase 2 detection, or \`unknown\`), and a \`Discovered context\` section if Phase 1/seed recall found references.
+11. Load the **first-stage skill for the chosen track** and its command file:
     - quick → \`.cclaw/skills/specification-authoring/SKILL.md\` + \`.cclaw/commands/spec.md\`
     - medium/standard → \`.cclaw/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md\` + \`.cclaw/commands/brainstorm.md\`
     - trivial fast-path → design or spec skill per Phase 0 decision.
-11. Execute that stage with the prompt + Phase 1/Phase 2 context as initial input.
+12. Execute that stage with the prompt + Phase 1/Phase 2 + seed context as initial input.
 
 ### Reclassification on discovery
 
@@ -152,14 +157,15 @@ Do **not** silently discard an existing flow when the user provides a prompt. If
 ### Path A: \`/cc <prompt>\`
 
 1. **Task classification (Phase 0).** Decide whether the prompt is \`software-standard\`, \`software-trivial\`, \`software-bugfix\`, \`pure-question\`, or \`non-software\`. Non-software and pure-question exit immediately — answer directly, do not open a stage.
-2. **Origin-document discovery (Phase 1).** Scan for \`docs/prd/**\`, \`docs/rfcs/**\`, \`docs/adr/**\`, \`docs/design/**\`, \`specs/**\`, root-level \`PRD.md\` / \`SPEC.md\` / \`DESIGN.md\` / \`REQUIREMENTS.md\`. Summarize any hits in \`00-idea.md\` under \`Discovered context\`. Surface conflicts with the prompt before routing.
-3. **Stack detection (Phase 2).** Inspect \`package.json\` engines, \`pyproject.toml\`, \`go.mod\`, \`Cargo.toml\`, \`pom.xml\`, \`build.gradle*\`, \`Dockerfile\`, \`docker-compose*.yml\`, and CI configs. Record stack + versions on the \`Stack:\` line. Do not invent stack details.
-4. Read \`${flowPath}\`.
-5. If \`completedStages\` is non-empty:
+2. **Seed shelf recall (Phase 0.5).** Scan \`${RUNTIME_ROOT}/seeds/SEED-*.md\` and match \`trigger_when\` tokens against the prompt text. Surface up to 3 matching seeds with file/title/action and ask whether to apply or ignore. When applied, add them to \`00-idea.md\` under \`Discovered context\`.
+3. **Origin-document discovery (Phase 1).** Scan for \`docs/prd/**\`, \`docs/rfcs/**\`, \`docs/adr/**\`, \`docs/design/**\`, \`specs/**\`, root-level \`PRD.md\` / \`SPEC.md\` / \`DESIGN.md\` / \`REQUIREMENTS.md\`. Summarize any hits in \`00-idea.md\` under \`Discovered context\`. Surface conflicts with the prompt before routing.
+4. **Stack detection (Phase 2).** Inspect \`package.json\` engines, \`pyproject.toml\`, \`go.mod\`, \`Cargo.toml\`, \`pom.xml\`, \`build.gradle*\`, \`Dockerfile\`, \`docker-compose*.yml\`, and CI configs. Record stack + versions on the \`Stack:\` line. Do not invent stack details.
+5. Read \`${flowPath}\`.
+6. If \`completedStages\` is non-empty:
    - Inform: "You have an active flow at stage **{currentStage}** with {N} completed stages. Starting a new tracked flow will reset progress."
    - Ask: "Continue with reset? (A) Yes, start fresh (B) No, resume current flow"
    - If (B) → switch to Path B behavior.
-6. **Classify the idea** using the heuristic below and present a single track recommendation. Wait for explicit confirmation or override before mutating any state.
+7. **Classify the idea** using the heuristic below and present a single track recommendation. Wait for explicit confirmation or override before mutating any state.
    - If \`${RUNTIME_ROOT}/config.yaml\` defines \`trackHeuristics\`, apply those vocabulary hints (\`fallback\`, \`tracks.<id>.{triggers,veto}\`) on top of built-in defaults. Evaluation order is fixed: \`standard -> medium -> quick\`. (Honest note: this is advisory prose; the LLM applies it, not a Node-level router.)
 
    **Track heuristic** (lowercase substring match against the user prompt):
@@ -172,9 +178,9 @@ Do **not** silently discard an existing flow when the user provides a prompt. If
 
    - On conflict, prefer \`standard\` over \`medium\`, and \`medium\` over \`quick\`.
    - Always state the recommendation as a one-line reason citing matched triggers.
-7. Persist the chosen track in \`${flowPath}\` (\`track\` + \`skippedStages\`). Set \`currentStage\` to the first stage of the chosen track (\`quick\` → \`spec\`, \`medium\`/ \`standard\` → \`brainstorm\`, trivial fast-path → \`design\` or \`spec\`). Reset gate catalog.
-8. Write \`${RUNTIME_ROOT}/artifacts/00-idea.md\` with the user's prompt plus header lines: \`Class:\`, \`Track:\`, \`Stack:\`, and a \`Discovered context\` section from Phase 1.
-9. Load and execute the **first stage skill of the chosen track** (\`brainstorming\` for medium/standard, \`specification-authoring\` for quick) plus its matching command file.
+8. Persist the chosen track in \`${flowPath}\` (\`track\` + \`skippedStages\`). Set \`currentStage\` to the first stage of the chosen track (\`quick\` → \`spec\`, \`medium\`/ \`standard\` → \`brainstorm\`, trivial fast-path → \`design\` or \`spec\`). Reset gate catalog.
+9. Write \`${RUNTIME_ROOT}/artifacts/00-idea.md\` with the user's prompt plus header lines: \`Class:\`, \`Track:\`, \`Stack:\`, and a \`Discovered context\` section from Phase 0.5/1.
+10. Load and execute the **first stage skill of the chosen track** (\`brainstorming\` for medium/standard, \`specification-authoring\` for quick) plus its matching command file.
 
 ### Reclassification on discovery
 

package/dist/content/templates.js

@@ -28,17 +28,36 @@ inputs_hash: sha256:pending
 |---|---|---|---|
 | 1 |  |  |  |
 
+## Approach Tier
+- Tier: Lightweight | Standard | Deep
+- Why this tier:
+
+## Short-Circuit Decision
+- Status: bypassed
+- Why:
+- Scope handoff:
+
 ## Approaches
-| Approach | Architecture | Trade-offs | Recommendation |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| A |  |  |  |
-| B |  |  |  |
+| Approach | Role | Architecture | Trade-offs | Recommendation |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| A | baseline |  |  |  |
+| B | challenger: higher-upside |  |  |  |
+
+## Approach Reaction
+- Closest option:
+- Concerns:
+- What changed after reaction:
 
 ## Selected Direction
 - **Approach:**
 - **Rationale:**
 - **Approval:** pending
 
+## Seed Shelf Candidates (optional)
+| Seed file | Trigger when | Suggested action | Status (planted/deferred/ignored) |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| .cclaw/seeds/SEED-YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md |  |  |  |
+
 ## Design
 - **Architecture:**
 - **Key components:**
@@ -62,6 +81,14 @@ inputs_hash: sha256:pending
 
 # Scope Artifact
 
+## Pre-Scope System Audit
+| Check | Command | Findings |
+|---|---|---|
+| Recent commits | \`git log -30 --oneline\` |  |
+| Current diff | \`git diff --stat\` |  |
+| Stash state | \`git stash list\` |  |
+| Debt markers | \`rg -n "TODO|FIXME|XXX|HACK"\` |  |
+
 ## Prime Directives
 - Zero silent failures:
 - Every error has a name:
@@ -138,11 +165,28 @@ inputs_hash: sha256:pending
 |---|---|
 |  |  |
 
+## Seed Shelf Candidates (optional)
+| Seed file | Trigger when | Suggested action | Status (planted/deferred/ignored) |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| .cclaw/seeds/SEED-YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md |  |  |  |
+
 ## Error & Rescue Registry
 | Capability | Failure mode | Detection | Fallback |
 |---|---|---|---|
 |  |  |  |  |
 
+## Outside Voice Findings
+| ID | Dimension | Finding | Disposition | Rationale |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| F-1 | premise_fit |  | accept/reject/defer |  |
+
+## Spec Review Loop
+| Iteration | Quality Score | Findings | Stop decision |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | 0.00 | 0 | continue/stop |
+- Stop reason:
+- Unresolved concerns:
+
 ## Completion Dashboard
 - Checklist findings:
 - Resolved decisions count:
@@ -236,21 +280,55 @@ inputs_hash: sha256:pending
 
 ## Architecture Diagram
 
+<!-- diagram: architecture -->
+
 \`\`\`
 (ASCII, Mermaid, or tool-generated diagram showing component boundaries and data flow direction)
 \`\`\`
 
 ## Data-Flow Shadow Paths
+<!-- diagram: data-flow-shadow-paths -->
 | Path | Trigger | Fallback/Degrade behavior |
 |---|---|---|
 |  |  |  |
 
 ## Error Flow Diagram
 
+<!-- diagram: error-flow -->
+
 \`\`\`
 (failure detection -> rescue action -> user-visible outcome)
 \`\`\`
 
+## State Machine Diagram
+
+<!-- diagram: state-machine -->
+
+\`\`\`
+(state transitions for the critical flow lifecycle)
+\`\`\`
+
+## Rollback Flowchart
+
+<!-- diagram: rollback-flowchart -->
+
+\`\`\`
+(trigger -> rollback actions -> verification)
+\`\`\`
+
+## Deployment Sequence Diagram
+
+<!-- diagram: deployment-sequence -->
+
+\`\`\`
+(rollout order, guard checks, and verification sequence)
+\`\`\`
+
+## Stale Diagram Audit
+| File | Last modified | Diagram marker baseline | Status | Notes |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+|  |  |  | clear/stale |  |
+
 ## What Already Exists
 | Sub-problem | Existing code/library | Layer | Reuse decision |
 |---|---|---|---|
@@ -262,6 +340,15 @@ inputs_hash: sha256:pending
 - Upstream error path:
 - Timeout/downstream path:
 
+### Interaction Edge Case Matrix
+| Edge case | Handled? | Design response | Deferred item (if not handled) |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| double-click | yes/no |  | None / D-XX |
+| nav-away-mid-request | yes/no |  | None / D-XX |
+| 10K-result dataset | yes/no |  | None / D-XX |
+| background-job abandonment | yes/no |  | None / D-XX |
+| zombie connection | yes/no |  | None / D-XX |
+
 ## Security & Threat Model
 | Boundary | Threat | Mitigation | Owner |
 |---|---|---|---|
@@ -292,6 +379,18 @@ inputs_hash: sha256:pending
 |---|---|---|
 |  |  |  |
 
+## Outside Voice Findings
+| ID | Dimension | Finding | Disposition | Rationale |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| F-1 | architecture_fit |  | accept/reject/defer |  |
+
+## Spec Review Loop
+| Iteration | Quality Score | Findings | Stop decision |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | 0.00 | 0 | continue/stop |
+- Stop reason:
+- Unresolved concerns:
+
 ## NOT in scope
 - 
 
@@ -314,6 +413,11 @@ inputs_hash: sha256:pending
 |---|---|---|---|
 |  |  |  |  |
 
+## Seed Shelf Candidates (optional)
+| Seed file | Trigger when | Suggested action | Status (planted/deferred/ignored) |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| .cclaw/seeds/SEED-YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md |  |  |  |
+
 ## Completion Dashboard
 | Review Section | Status | Issues |
 |---|---|---|