cclaw-cli 0.51.24 → 0.51.26

package/dist/content/subagents.js

@@ -6,14 +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";
 }
@@ -28,7 +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 `---
@@ -40,11 +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.
 
@@ -164,6 +175,10 @@ Borrow the good part of Team/Ruflo-style orchestration without adding a swarm ru
 - **Checkpoint before synthesis.** Each agent returns status, files inspected/changed, evidence, and blockers before the parent acts.
 - **Consensus is for hard calls only.** Use two reviewers when severity or architecture is disputed; otherwise one evidence-backed reviewer is enough.
 
+## Parallelization Decision Gate
+
+Before parallel dispatch, answer yes to all gates: tasks are independent, write sets do not overlap, outputs can be reconciled by evidence, and failure in one lane will not invalidate hidden assumptions in another. If any answer is no, serialize. Coder/overseer work is contract-first: the coder implements only the pasted contract, the overseer reads code and verifies acceptance evidence before the controller marks work complete.
+
 ## When to Use
 
 - Mid/large plans with multiple discrete tasks, dependencies, or risky overlap.
@@ -198,9 +213,43 @@ 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}
@@ -209,15 +258,15 @@ 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}
@@ -225,7 +274,7 @@ 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
 
@@ -273,7 +322,7 @@ 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}
@@ -288,11 +337,11 @@ 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}
@@ -305,11 +354,11 @@ 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}
@@ -323,7 +372,7 @@ Deliver:
 - TOP_FINDINGS (merge blockers first)
 - CONSISTENCY_PASS/FAIL with rationale
 - SHIP_RECOMMENDATION: SHIP | SHIP_WITH_FOLLOWUPS | NO_SHIP
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 ## Glossary
 
@@ -400,7 +449,7 @@ 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
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}json
 {
   "version": 1,
   "generatedAt": "ISO timestamp",
@@ -424,7 +473,7 @@ Write a structured reconciliation artifact at \`.cclaw/artifacts/07-review-army.
     "shipBlockers": []
   }
 }
-\`\`\`
+${MARKDOWN_CODE_FENCE}
 
 Contract rules:
 - \`id\` and \`fingerprint\` must be stable between reruns if the finding is unchanged.
@@ -506,7 +555,7 @@ 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}
@@ -518,7 +567,7 @@ 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)
 
@@ -529,6 +578,137 @@ 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() {
@@ -540,7 +720,7 @@ 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}
@@ -553,7 +733,7 @@ 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}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -564,7 +744,7 @@ 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}
@@ -575,7 +755,7 @@ 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}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -586,7 +766,7 @@ 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
@@ -601,7 +781,7 @@ 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}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -612,7 +792,7 @@ function productManagerEnhancedBody() {
 
 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}
@@ -626,7 +806,7 @@ Required output:
 - 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}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -637,7 +817,7 @@ function criticEnhancedBody() {
 
 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}
@@ -651,7 +831,7 @@ Required output:
 - 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}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -665,7 +845,7 @@ 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}
@@ -677,7 +857,7 @@ 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}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -691,7 +871,7 @@ 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}
@@ -708,6 +888,52 @@ 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.
 \`\`\`
 
 `;
@@ -719,7 +945,7 @@ 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}
@@ -729,7 +955,7 @@ 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}
 
 `;
 }
@@ -739,6 +965,22 @@ 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":
@@ -753,6 +995,10 @@ export function enhancedAgentBody(agentName) {
             return testAuthorEnhancedBody();
         case "doc-updater":
             return docUpdaterEnhancedBody();
+        case "implementer":
+            return implementerEnhancedBody();
+        case "fixer":
+            return fixerEnhancedBody();
         default:
             return `
 
@@ -771,9 +1017,9 @@ 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: ACK first, then DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | NEEDS_CONTEXT | BLOCKED. Worker returns must use the strict JSON schemas in \`subagent-driven-development\` and include matching spanId+dispatchId proof.
 
-- Controller sequentially dispatches **implementer → reviewer** loops per task.
+- Controller sequentially dispatches **implementer → reviewer** loops per task and records lifecycle events in \`.cclaw/state/delegation-events.jsonl\`.
 - HARD-GATE: paste **self-contained task text**; never point subagents at plan files to “discover” scope.
 - **Review fixers** are **fresh agents** after failed review passes — avoids parent-context pollution.
 - **Machine-only flow checks auto-dispatch** by stage (design/plan/tdd/review/ship) without asking the user to trigger each specialist manually.