cclaw-cli 0.51.23 → 0.51.25

package/dist/content/subagents.js

@@ -6,12 +6,25 @@ import { conversationLanguagePolicyMarkdown } from "./language-policy.js";
  * execute orchestration logic at install time beyond string assembly.
  */
 const SUBAGENT_AGENT_NAMES = [
+    "researcher",
+    "architect",
+    "spec-validator",
+    "slice-implementer",
+    "performance-reviewer",
+    "compatibility-reviewer",
+    "observability-reviewer",
+    "release-reviewer",
     "planner",
+    "product-manager",
+    "critic",
     "reviewer",
     "security-reviewer",
     "test-author",
-    "doc-updater"
+    "doc-updater",
+    "implementer",
+    "fixer"
 ];
+const MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE = "```";
 function formatAgentList(agents) {
     return agents.length > 0 ? agents.join(", ") : "none";
 }
@@ -26,7 +39,7 @@ ${rows}`;
 }
 function stageSummary(stage) {
     return stageDelegationSummary("standard").find((row) => row.stage === stage)
-        ?? { stage, mandatoryAgents: [], proactiveAgents: [], primaryAgents: [], stackAwareRoutes: [] };
+        ?? { stage, mandatoryAgents: [], proactiveAgents: [], primaryAgents: [], dispatchRules: [], stackAwareRoutes: [] };
 }
 export function subagentDrivenDevSkill() {
     return `---
@@ -38,11 +51,11 @@ description: "Orchestrate implementation via isolated subagents — one fresh ag
 
 ## Overview
 
-Use a **controller → implementer → reviewer** loop when building multi-step software work.
+Use a **controller -> coder -> overseer** loop when building multi-step software work.
 
 - **Controller (parent agent):** owns the plan, gating, sequencing, and dispatch decisions; never mixes deep implementation context with review evidence.
-- **Implementer (subagent):** receives a **single self-contained task** and edits code within that scope; exits with a structured status contract.
-- **Reviewer (subagent):** validates outputs against the specification **by reading code**, then hands findings back to the controller for the next dispatch.
+- **Coder / slice-implementer (subagent):** receives a **single self-contained task** and edits code only within that scope; exits with a structured status contract.
+- **Overseer / reviewer (subagent):** validates outputs against the specification **by reading code** and never edits during the overseer pass.
 
 This pattern is intentionally **Superpowers-style**: cheap parallelism where it doesn’t corrupt state, strict serialization where it would.
 
@@ -130,9 +143,9 @@ Concrete per-stage rules so the controller does not have to guess which tier fit
 
 | Stage | Deep slot | Balanced slot(s) | Fast fan-out | Trigger to escalate |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
-| brainstorm | planner (only if ambiguity spans >1 module) | — | run in-thread research playbooks | promote to \`balanced\` reviewer once direction locks |
-| scope | planner (always) | — | run \`research/git-history.md\` in-thread when churn is high | promote to \`balanced\` planner if scope touches external contracts |
-| design | planner (always) | security-reviewer (if trust boundary touched) | run \`research/framework-docs-lookup.md\` + \`research/best-practices-lookup.md\` in-thread | escalate one specialist to \`deep\` only if a failure mode is Critical-severity |
+| brainstorm | planner (only if ambiguity spans >1 module) | product-manager / critic when product value or premise is uncertain | run in-thread research playbooks | promote to \`balanced\` critic if the do-nothing path may beat the idea |
+| scope | planner (always) | product-manager / critic when mode changes user value or boundaries are soft | run \`research/git-history.md\` in-thread when churn is high | promote to \`balanced\` critic if scope mode is disputed |
+| design | planner (always) | critic, security-reviewer, test-author when alternatives/trust/testability apply | run \`research/framework-docs-lookup.md\` + \`research/best-practices-lookup.md\` in-thread | escalate one specialist to \`deep\` only if a failure mode is Critical-severity |
 | spec | — | reviewer (if spec > 200 lines or multiple ACs) | — | escalate to \`deep\` only for spec ↔ design contradictions |
 | plan | planner (solo, always) | — | — | never fan out at plan stage; one owner for dependency graph |
 | tdd | — | ${formatAgentList(stageSummary("tdd").primaryAgents)} (per slice, carrying RED/GREEN/REFACTOR evidence) · reviewer (slice-local only when sliceReview triggers) | doc-updater (API surface changes) | escalate to \`deep\` only when a RED test cannot be expressed (design leak) |
@@ -196,9 +209,43 @@ Borrow the good part of Team/Ruflo-style orchestration without adding a swarm ru
 | NEEDS_CONTEXT | Missing authoritative information only the parent/user can supply | Parent gathers context, then re-dispatch implementer with augmented prompt |
 | BLOCKED | Hard stop (permissions, tool failure, conflicting requirements, unsafe state) | Parent escalates to user; do not stack speculative guesses |
 
+## Strict Worker Return Schemas
+
+Every delegated worker must return one terminal status and the listed evidence fields. Prefer JSON fenced as \`json\`; prose may follow only after the object.
+
+### Implementer / fixer return
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}json
+{
+  "status": "DONE|DONE_WITH_CONCERNS|NEEDS_CONTEXT|BLOCKED",
+  "filesChanged": ["path"],
+  "testsRun": [{ "command": "string", "result": "PASS|FAIL|NOT_RUN", "evidence": "short excerpt or reason" }],
+  "evidenceRefs": [".cclaw/artifacts/<file>#anchor"],
+  "concerns": ["string"],
+  "needsContext": ["string"],
+  "blockers": ["string"]
+}
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+### Reviewer return
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}json
+{
+  "status": "PASS|PASS_WITH_GAPS|FAIL|BLOCKED",
+  "findings": [{ "severity": "Critical|Important|Suggestion", "location": "file:line", "problem": "string", "recommendation": "string" }],
+  "criteria": [{ "id": "string", "verdict": "PASS|PARTIAL|FAIL", "evidence": "file:line" }],
+  "evidenceRefs": [".cclaw/artifacts/<file>#anchor"],
+  "blockers": ["string"]
+}
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+### Lifecycle evidence
+
+Before dispatch, create or reserve a delegation span (\`status: "scheduled"\`, \`spanId\`, \`startTs\`, optional \`taskId\`). On return, append a terminal row for the same \`spanId\` with \`endTs\`, \`status\`, \`fulfillmentMode\`, and non-empty \`evidenceRefs\` whenever the worker was generic-dispatch or role-switch. A scheduled span without a terminal row in the current run is stale and must be resolved before claiming the stage is complete.
+
 ## Implementer Prompt Template (paste into Task tool)
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are implementing a single task from a development plan.
 
 TASK: {paste full task text here}
@@ -207,15 +254,15 @@ CONSTRAINTS: {paste from spec — what NOT to do}
 
 After implementation:
 0. Write user-facing narrative in the parent/user language; keep status tokens unchanged.
-1. Run the full test suite
-2. Report your status: DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS / NEEDS_CONTEXT / BLOCKED
-3. If DONE_WITH_CONCERNS, list each concern
-4. If NEEDS_CONTEXT, specify exactly what you need
-\`\`\`
+1. Run the relevant test suite or explain why it was not run.
+2. Return the strict implementer/fixer JSON schema first.
+3. If DONE_WITH_CONCERNS, list each concern in \`concerns\`.
+4. If NEEDS_CONTEXT, specify exactly what you need in \`needsContext\`.
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 ## Spec-Reviewer Prompt Template (paste into Task tool)
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 Review the implementation against the specification.
 
 SPEC CRITERIA: {paste acceptance criteria}
@@ -223,7 +270,7 @@ FILES CHANGED: {list files}
 
 For each criterion: PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL with evidence (file:line).
 Do NOT trust the implementer's self-report — read the actual code.
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 ## Anti-patterns
 
@@ -271,7 +318,7 @@ Do NOT trust the implementer's self-report — read the actual code.
 
 ## Code-Quality Reviewer Prompt Template (paste into Task tool)
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are a code-quality reviewer (subagent) after a single SDD task.
 
 SCOPE: {files touched by this task}
@@ -286,11 +333,11 @@ Review for maintainability and ship hygiene across:
 Output:
 - FINDINGS: severity, file:line, issue, recommendation
 - VERDICT: APPROVE | APPROVE_WITH_NITS | REWORK_REQUIRED
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 ## Fixer Subagent Prompt Template (after spec review FAIL)
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are a fixer subagent. You are NOT the original implementer.
 
 FAILING CRITERION (verbatim): {paste failed criterion}
@@ -303,11 +350,11 @@ Process:
 2) Implement the smallest fix that satisfies the criterion.
 3) Run the full test suite.
 4) Report STATUS: DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS / NEEDS_CONTEXT / BLOCKED with evidence excerpts.
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 ## Final Code Reviewer Prompt Template (post-queue sweep)
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are the final code-quality reviewer after ALL SDD tasks completed.
 
 ENTIRE CHANGESET: {summary + primary entrypoints}
@@ -321,7 +368,7 @@ Deliver:
 - TOP_FINDINGS (merge blockers first)
 - CONSISTENCY_PASS/FAIL with rationale
 - SHIP_RECOMMENDATION: SHIP | SHIP_WITH_FOLLOWUPS | NO_SHIP
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 ## Glossary
 
@@ -398,7 +445,7 @@ Implementation that touches shared source trees must remain **sequential** unles
 
 Write a structured reconciliation artifact at \`.cclaw/artifacts/07-review-army.json\` using this schema:
 
-\`\`\`json
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}json
 {
   "version": 1,
   "generatedAt": "ISO timestamp",
@@ -422,7 +469,7 @@ Write a structured reconciliation artifact at \`.cclaw/artifacts/07-review-army.
     "shipBlockers": []
   }
 }
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 Contract rules:
 - \`id\` and \`fingerprint\` must be stable between reruns if the finding is unchanged.
@@ -504,7 +551,7 @@ Contract rules:
 
 ## Parallel Review Task Template (paste into Task tool)
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are an independent review/investigation subagent.
 
 LENS: {security|data|perf|api|ux|observability — pick one}
@@ -516,7 +563,7 @@ Rules:
 - Do not edit files unless explicitly authorized in this prompt.
 - Cite evidence as file:line for every finding.
 - If uncertain, emit CONFIDENCE <= 4 and label as hypothesis.
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 ## Worked Example (narrative)
 
@@ -527,6 +574,137 @@ A large refactor touches **auth middleware** and **repository queries**. The con
 - Parallel agents produce **evidence and prioritized tasks**.
 - SDD **implements** those tasks **one at a time** with sequential implementers.
 - Never parallelize **writers** on the same codebase; parallelize **readers/analysts** with disjoint scopes.
+`;
+}
+function researcherEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+Use this payload when a stage needs context-readiness or search-before-read evidence:
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+You are a researcher subagent.
+
+QUESTION: {one falsifiable research question}
+SCOPE: {repo paths, docs, references, providers to inspect}
+CONTEXT READINESS: {graph/search/provider status if known}
+
+Required output:
+- SEARCH_SUMMARY: queries/patterns/providers tried before large reads
+- FACTS: evidence-backed findings with refs
+- STALE_OR_MISSING_CONTEXT: gaps and recommended recovery
+- DECISION_IMPACT: what stage decision this changes
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+`;
+}
+function architectEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+You are an architect subagent.
+
+DESIGN_DECISION: {architecture decision to validate}
+SCOPE_CONTRACT: {approved boundaries}
+BLAST_RADIUS: {paths/modules/interfaces}
+
+Required output:
+- BOUNDARIES: chosen ownership and interface contracts
+- ALTERNATIVES: rejected alternatives and revival signals
+- FAILURE_MODES: method/exception/rescue/user-visible impact
+- SPEC_HANDOFF: requirements and verification evidence downstream spec must carry
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+`;
+}
+function specValidatorEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+You are a spec-validator subagent.
+
+ACCEPTANCE_CRITERIA: {criteria to validate}
+UPSTREAM_DECISIONS: {design/scope refs}
+
+Required output:
+- CRITERIA_AUDIT: PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL per AC with reason
+- EDGE_CASE_GAPS: boundary/error cases missing
+- ASSUMPTION_GAPS: assumptions requiring approval or rewrite
+- TESTABILITY_MAP: concrete test level and command/manual evidence per AC
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+`;
+}
+function sliceImplementerEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+You are a slice-implementer subagent.
+
+SLICE: {single vertical slice}
+RED_EVIDENCE: {failing test and expected failure}
+ALLOWED_FILES: {explicit file boundaries}
+FORBIDDEN_CHANGES: {scope/compatibility limits}
+VERIFICATION: {commands expected}
+
+Rules:
+- Implement only the minimal GREEN change for the existing RED evidence.
+- Keep REFACTOR behavior-preserving.
+- Return the strict worker JSON schema first.
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+`;
+}
+function performanceReviewerEnhancedBody() {
+    return `${codeReviewerEnhancedBody()}
+
+## Performance Lens
+
+Focus on hot paths, IO/network calls, repeated work, caching, data volume, rendering, and algorithmic complexity. Include measurement evidence or a concrete measurement plan for every non-trivial finding.
+`;
+}
+function compatibilityReviewerEnhancedBody() {
+    return `${codeReviewerEnhancedBody()}
+
+## Compatibility Lens
+
+Focus on public APIs, CLI/config shape, persisted data, migrations, generated clients, dependency/runtime versions, and backwards-compatibility obligations. Distinguish shipped behavior from in-branch churn.
+`;
+}
+function observabilityReviewerEnhancedBody() {
+    return `${codeReviewerEnhancedBody()}
+
+## Observability Lens
+
+Focus on logs, metrics, traces, alerts, debug paths, rollout visibility, and support handoff. Block only when missing visibility affects diagnosis, rollback, or user/data safety.
+`;
+}
+function releaseReviewerEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+You are a release-reviewer subagent.
+
+SHIP_ARTIFACT: {ship/preflight evidence}
+REVIEW_VERDICT: {review status and blockers}
+FINALIZATION_MODE: {selected enum}
+
+Required output:
+- PREFLIGHT: commands and PASS/FAIL evidence freshness
+- VICTORY_DETECTOR: feature coverage, evaluator evidence, clean state, learnings, handoff
+- ROLLBACK: trigger, steps, owner, and no-VCS handoff if applicable
+- SHIP_VERDICT: SHIP | SHIP_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
 `;
 }
 function plannerEnhancedBody() {
@@ -538,7 +716,7 @@ When a planning problem is too broad for one message, delegate **planning subtas
 
 Paste the template below verbatim and fill \`{placeholders}\` in the parent before dispatching.
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are a planning subagent for a larger Cclaw / engineering workflow.
 
 PLANNING GOAL: {one sentence outcome — e.g., sequencing, risk register, dependency graph}
@@ -551,7 +729,7 @@ Rules:
 - Every task must include acceptance criteria copy-paste ready for SDD implementers.
 - Flag UNKNOWN explicitly instead of guessing.
 - Close with: OPEN_QUESTIONS: ... and NEXT_TASK_TEXT: ... (verbatim extractable queue item)
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -562,7 +740,7 @@ function specReviewerEnhancedBody() {
 
 For review audits, use the Task tool with the following **reviewer** payload (fill placeholders in the parent session).
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are a specification compliance reviewer (subagent).
 
 SPEC CRITERIA (verbatim): {acceptance criteria / invariants / non-goals}
@@ -573,7 +751,7 @@ Instructions:
 - For EACH criterion emit PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL with evidence as file:line.
 - Read the code; ignore implementer claims unless backed by code citations.
 - Close with SPEC_VERDICT: PASS | PASS_WITH_GAPS | FAIL plus GAPS/FAIL list.
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -584,7 +762,7 @@ function codeReviewerEnhancedBody() {
 
 Launch deep **code-quality** reviews using this five-axis template in the Task tool body:
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are a code-quality reviewer (subagent). Review along ALL axes:
 
 1) Correctness — logic, data flow, error handling, boundary conditions
@@ -599,7 +777,57 @@ BASELINE CONTEXT: {tests, deployment constraints, compatibility promises}
 Output format (mandatory):
 - FINDING: [Critical|Important|Suggestion] file:line — problem — recommendation
 - Close with RISK_SUMMARY and SHIP_BLOCKERS (explicit list, possibly empty).
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+`;
+}
+function productManagerEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+Use this payload when product discovery needs an isolated lens:
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+You are a product-manager subagent.
+
+DISCOVERY GOAL: {problem/value decision to clarify}
+CONTEXT: {existing artifact excerpts, user segment, constraints}
+DEPTH: {lite|standard|deep}
+
+Required output:
+- PERSONA_JTBD: persona, job, pain/trigger
+- VALUE_HYPOTHESIS: expected value and success metric
+- EVIDENCE_SIGNAL: strongest evidence, weakest assumption
+- WHY_NOW_AND_DO_NOTHING: why now plus consequence of no action
+- NON_GOALS: explicit exclusions
+- SCOPE_HANDOFF: one recommendation for hold/selective/expand/reduce
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+`;
+}
+function criticEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+Use this payload when a premise, scope mode, or engineering path needs adversarial pressure:
+
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+You are a critic subagent.
+
+DECISION_UNDER_REVIEW: {direction/scope/design choice}
+CONTEXT: {artifact excerpts, constraints, known risks}
+DEPTH: {lite|standard|deep}
+
+Required output:
+- PREMISE_ATTACK: what could make this decision wrong
+- CHEAPER_ALTERNATIVE: smaller or more reversible option
+- SHADOW_ALTERNATIVE: viable competing path
+- SWITCH_TRIGGER: signal that should change the decision
+- FAILURE_RESCUE: likely failure and rescue/degraded behavior
+- VERIFICATION_EVIDENCE: evidence needed before locking
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -613,7 +841,7 @@ function securityReviewerEnhancedBody() {
 
 Use a dedicated Task tool invocation for CWE-focused review with reproducible narratives:
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are a security reviewer (subagent). Perform a CWE-oriented review of the scoped change.
 
 SCOPE: {files/commits/services touched}
@@ -625,7 +853,7 @@ Requirements:
 - Include a short proof-of-concept attack vector (conceptual, no weaponization).
 - Recommend concrete controls (validation, sandboxing, authz checks, safer APIs).
 - Close with SECURITY_VERDICT: SHIP | SHIP_WITH_HOTFIXES | NO_SHIP and cite top 3 drivers.
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -639,7 +867,7 @@ This agent runs in two explicit stage modes to respect cclaw hard-gates:
 - \`TEST_RED_ONLY\` (only failing tests + evidence; no production edits)
 - \`BUILD_GREEN_REFACTOR\` (implementation + full-suite green + refactor notes)
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are a TDD implementer subagent.
 
 STAGE_MODE: {TEST_RED_ONLY | BUILD_GREEN_REFACTOR}
@@ -656,6 +884,52 @@ Process (mandatory):
    - GREEN — minimal production code to satisfy existing RED tests, rerun full suite.
    - REFACTOR — only after full suite is green; preserve behavior.
    - Report: FILES_EDITED, GREEN_COMMAND_RUN, REFACTOR_NOTES, STATUS: DONE|BLOCKED.
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
+
+`;
+}
+function implementerEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+You are the default sequential implementation worker for one scoped task. Do not expand scope silently.
+
+\`\`\`
+You are an implementer subagent.
+
+TASK: {single task with acceptance criteria pasted in full}
+ALLOWED FILES / MODULES: {explicit boundaries}
+FORBIDDEN CHANGES: {out-of-scope behavior, compatibility constraints}
+VERIFICATION: {commands expected, or explain if unavailable}
+
+Rules:
+- Implement the smallest code change that satisfies the task.
+- Do not spawn subagents.
+- Return the strict implementer JSON schema first.
+\`\`\`
+
+`;
+}
+function fixerEnhancedBody() {
+    return `
+
+## Task Tool Delegation
+
+Fixers are fresh workers dispatched only after a reviewer identifies a concrete failing criterion.
+
+\`\`\`
+You are a fixer subagent. You are NOT the original implementer.
+
+FAILING CRITERION: {verbatim criterion}
+REVIEW EVIDENCE: {file:line citations and short quotes}
+ALLOWED FILES: {explicit list}
+FORBIDDEN CHANGES: {scope and compatibility constraints}
+
+Rules:
+- Reproduce or reason from the cited failure before editing.
+- Apply the smallest fix that closes the cited gap.
+- Return the strict fixer JSON schema first.
 \`\`\`
 
 `;
@@ -667,7 +941,7 @@ function docUpdaterEnhancedBody() {
 
 For documentation parallelism, still avoid conflicting writes — partition by artifact:
 
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 You are a documentation updater subagent.
 
 DOCS SCOPE: {README|API ref|runbook|changelog section}
@@ -677,7 +951,7 @@ Tasks:
 - Diff mental model vs reality; update only stale sections.
 - Preserve tone/structure; no doc rewrite for its own sake.
 - List FILES_UPDATED + SUMMARY + OPEN_DOC_QUESTIONS (if user input needed).
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -687,8 +961,28 @@ Tasks:
  */
 export function enhancedAgentBody(agentName) {
     switch (agentName) {
+        case "researcher":
+            return researcherEnhancedBody();
+        case "architect":
+            return architectEnhancedBody();
+        case "spec-validator":
+            return specValidatorEnhancedBody();
+        case "slice-implementer":
+            return sliceImplementerEnhancedBody();
+        case "performance-reviewer":
+            return performanceReviewerEnhancedBody();
+        case "compatibility-reviewer":
+            return compatibilityReviewerEnhancedBody();
+        case "observability-reviewer":
+            return observabilityReviewerEnhancedBody();
+        case "release-reviewer":
+            return releaseReviewerEnhancedBody();
         case "planner":
             return plannerEnhancedBody();
+        case "product-manager":
+            return productManagerEnhancedBody();
+        case "critic":
+            return criticEnhancedBody();
         case "reviewer":
             return reviewerEnhancedBody();
         case "security-reviewer":
@@ -697,6 +991,10 @@ export function enhancedAgentBody(agentName) {
             return testAuthorEnhancedBody();
         case "doc-updater":
             return docUpdaterEnhancedBody();
+        case "implementer":
+            return implementerEnhancedBody();
+        case "fixer":
+            return fixerEnhancedBody();
         default:
             return `
 
@@ -715,7 +1013,7 @@ Two patterns (skills under \`.cclaw/skills/\`):
 - **SDD** (subagent-driven-development): sequential implementer→reviewer loops. Paste self-contained task text; never point subagents at plan files.
 - **Parallel Agents** (dispatching-parallel-agents): parallel review/analysis lenses. Never parallelize implementers on same codebase.
 
-Status contract: DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | NEEDS_CONTEXT | BLOCKED.
+Status contract: DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | NEEDS_CONTEXT | BLOCKED. Worker returns must use the strict JSON schemas in \`subagent-driven-development\`.
 
 - Controller sequentially dispatches **implementer → reviewer** loops per task.
 - HARD-GATE: paste **self-contained task text**; never point subagents at plan files to “discover” scope.