codex-workflows 0.6.8 → 0.7.0

package/.codex/agents/quality-fixer.toml

@@ -158,140 +158,22 @@ Return one of the following as the final response (see Output Format for schemas
 
 **When incomplete implementation is detected**:
 ```json
-{
-  "status": "stub_detected",
-  "summary": "Incomplete implementation detected in changed code before quality checks.",
-  "stubFindings": [
-    {
-      "file": "src/example.ts",
-      "indicator": "TODO marker",
-      "details": "TODO comment defers required business logic in the task scope"
-    }
-  ],
-  "nextActions": "Return to task-executor and complete the implementation before re-running quality-fixer."
-}
+{"status":"stub_detected","summary":"Incomplete implementation detected in changed code before quality checks.","stubFindings":[{"file":"src/example.ts","indicator":"TODO marker","details":"TODO comment defers required business logic in the task scope"}],"nextActions":"Return to task-executor and complete the implementation before re-running quality-fixer."}
 ```
 
 **When quality check succeeds**:
 ```json
-{
-  "status": "approved",
-  "summary": "Overall quality check completed. All checks passed.",
-  "checksPerformed": {
-    "phase1_linting": {
-      "status": "passed",
-      "commands": ["linting", "formatting"],
-      "autoFixed": true
-    },
-    "phase2_structure": {
-      "status": "passed",
-      "commands": ["unused code check", "dependency check"]
-    },
-    "phase3_build": {
-      "status": "passed",
-      "commands": ["build"]
-    },
-    "phase4_tests": {
-      "status": "passed",
-      "commands": ["test"],
-      "testsRun": 42,
-      "testsPassed": 42
-    },
-    "phase5_code_recheck": {
-      "status": "passed",
-      "commands": ["code quality re-check"]
-    }
-  },
-  "fixesApplied": [
-    {
-      "type": "auto",
-      "category": "format",
-      "description": "Auto-fixed indentation and style",
-      "filesCount": 5
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "manual",
-      "category": "correctness",
-      "description": "Improved correctness guarantees",
-      "filesCount": 2
-    }
-  ],
-  "taskFileMechanisms": {
-    "provided": true,
-    "executed": ["mechanism names that were found and executed"],
-    "skipped": [
-      {
-        "mechanism": "mechanism name",
-        "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  "metrics": {
-    "totalErrors": 0,
-    "totalWarnings": 0,
-    "executionTime": "2m 15s"
-  },
-  "nextActions": "Ready to commit"
-}
+{"status":"approved","summary":"Overall quality check completed. All checks passed.","checksPerformed":{"phase1_linting":{"status":"passed","commands":["linting","formatting"],"autoFixed":true},"phase2_structure":{"status":"passed","commands":["unused code check","dependency check"]},"phase3_build":{"status":"passed","commands":["build"]},"phase4_tests":{"status":"passed","commands":["test"],"testsRun":42,"testsPassed":42},"phase5_code_recheck":{"status":"passed","commands":["code quality re-check"]}},"fixesApplied":[{"type":"auto","category":"format","description":"Auto-fixed indentation and style","filesCount":5},{"type":"manual","category":"correctness","description":"Improved correctness guarantees","filesCount":2}],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanism names that were found and executed"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"metrics":{"totalErrors":0,"totalWarnings":0,"executionTime":"2m 15s"},"nextActions":"Ready to commit"}
 ```
 
 **blocked response format (specification conflict)**:
 ```json
-{
-  "status": "blocked",
-  "reason": "Cannot determine due to unclear specification",
-  "blockingIssues": [{
-    "type": "specification_conflict",
-    "details": "Test expectation and implementation contradict",
-    "test_expects": "500 error",
-    "implementation_returns": "400 error",
-    "why_cannot_judge": "Correct specification unknown"
-  }],
-  "attemptedFixes": [
-    "Fix attempt 1: Tried aligning test to implementation",
-    "Fix attempt 2: Tried aligning implementation to test",
-    "Fix attempt 3: Tried inferring specification from related documentation"
-  ],
-  "taskFileMechanisms": {
-    "provided": true,
-    "executed": ["mechanisms executed before blocking"],
-    "skipped": [
-      {
-        "mechanism": "mechanism name",
-        "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  "needsUserDecision": "Please confirm the correct error code"
-}
+{"status":"blocked","reason":"Cannot determine due to unclear specification","blockingIssues":[{"type":"specification_conflict","details":"Test expectation and implementation contradict","test_expects":"500 error","implementation_returns":"400 error","why_cannot_judge":"Correct specification unknown"}],"attemptedFixes":["Fix attempt 1: Tried aligning test to implementation","Fix attempt 2: Tried aligning implementation to test","Fix attempt 3: Tried inferring specification from related documentation"],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanisms executed before blocking"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"needsUserDecision":"Please confirm the correct error code"}
 ```
 
 **blocked response format (missing prerequisites)**:
 ```json
-{
-  "status": "blocked",
-  "reason": "Execution prerequisites not met",
-  "missingPrerequisites": [
-    {
-      "type": "seed_data",
-      "description": "E2E database is missing required seeded user records",
-      "affectedChecks": ["test:e2e"],
-      "resolutionSteps": ["Run the project seed script for E2E fixtures", "Start the dependent local services"]
-    }
-  ],
-  "taskFileMechanisms": {
-    "provided": true,
-    "executed": ["mechanisms executed before blocking"],
-    "skipped": [
-      {
-        "mechanism": "mechanism name",
-        "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  "checksSkipped": 1,
-  "checksPassedWithoutPrerequisites": 3
-}
+{"status":"blocked","reason":"Execution prerequisites not met","missingPrerequisites":[{"type":"seed_data","description":"E2E database is missing required seeded user records","affectedChecks":["test:e2e"],"resolutionSteps":["Run the project seed script for E2E fixtures","Start the dependent local services"]}],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanisms executed before blocking"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"checksSkipped":1,"checksPassedWithoutPrerequisites":3}
 ```
 
 Allowed `type` values: `seed_data`, `library`, `environment_variable`, `running_service`, `external_dependency`, `other`

package/.codex/agents/requirement-analyzer.toml

@@ -120,35 +120,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 **JSON format is mandatory.**
 
 ```json
-{
-  "taskType": "feature|fix|refactor|performance|security",
-  "purpose": "Essential purpose of request (1-2 sentences)",
-  "scale": "small|medium|large",
-  "confidence": "confirmed|provisional",
-  "affectedFiles": ["path/to/file1.ts", "path/to/file2.ts"],
-  "affectedLayers": ["backend", "frontend"],
-  "fileCount": 3,
-  "adrRequired": true,
-  "adrReason": "specific condition met, or null if not required",
-  "technicalConsiderations": {
-    "constraints": ["list"],
-    "risks": ["list"],
-    "dependencies": ["list"]
-  },
-  "scopeDependencies": [
-    {
-      "question": "specific question that affects scale",
-      "impact": { "if_yes": "large", "if_no": "medium" }
-    }
-  ],
-  "questions": [
-    {
-      "category": "boundary|existing_code|dependencies",
-      "question": "specific question",
-      "options": ["A", "B", "C"]
-    }
-  ]
-}
+{"taskType":"feature|fix|refactor|performance|security","purpose":"Essential purpose of request (1-2 sentences)","scale":"small|medium|large","confidence":"confirmed|provisional","affectedFiles":["path/to/file1.ts","path/to/file2.ts"],"affectedLayers":["backend","frontend"],"fileCount":3,"adrRequired":true,"adrReason":"specific condition met, or null if not required","technicalConsiderations":{"constraints":["list"],"risks":["list"],"dependencies":["list"]},"scopeDependencies":[{"question":"specific question that affects scale","impact":{"if_yes":"large","if_no":"medium"}}],"questions":[{"category":"boundary|existing_code|dependencies","question":"specific question","options":["A","B","C"]}]}
 ```
 
 **Field descriptions**:

package/.codex/agents/rule-advisor.toml

@@ -73,85 +73,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 Return structured JSON:
 
 ```json
-{
-  "taskAnalysis": {
-    "taskType": "implementation|fix|refactoring|design|quality-improvement",
-    "essence": "Fundamental purpose of the task",
-    "estimatedFiles": 3,
-    "scale": "small|medium|large",
-    "extractedTags": ["implementation", "testing", "security"]
-  },
-  "selectedRules": [
-    {
-      "file": "coding-rules",
-      "sections": [
-        {
-          "title": "Function Design",
-          "content": "## Function Design\\n\\n### Basic Principles\\n- Single responsibility principle\\n..."
-        },
-        {
-          "title": "Error Handling",
-          "content": "## Error Handling\\n\\n### Error Classification\\n..."
-        }
-      ],
-      "reason": "Core implementation rules needed",
-      "priority": "high"
-    },
-    {
-      "file": "testing",
-      "sections": [
-        {
-          "title": "Red-Green-Refactor Process",
-          "content": "## Red-Green-Refactor Process\\n\\n1. Red: Write failing test\\n..."
-        }
-      ],
-      "reason": "TDD practice required",
-      "priority": "high"
-    }
-  ],
-  "metaCognitiveGuidance": {
-    "taskEssence": "Understanding fundamental purpose, not surface work",
-    "ruleAdequacy": "Evaluation of whether selected rules match task characteristics",
-    "pastFailures": [
-      "error-fixing impulse",
-      "large changes at once",
-      "insufficient testing"
-    ],
-    "potentialPitfalls": [
-      "Error-fixing impulse without root cause analysis",
-      "Large changes without phased approach",
-      "Implementation without tests"
-    ],
-    "firstStep": {
-      "action": "Specific first action to take",
-      "rationale": "Why this should be done first"
-    }
-  },
-  "metaCognitiveQuestions": [
-    "What is the most important quality criterion for this task?",
-    "What problems occurred in similar tasks in the past?",
-    "Which part should be tackled first?",
-    "Is there a possibility of exceeding initial assumptions?"
-  ],
-  "warningPatterns": [
-    {
-      "pattern": "Large changes at once",
-      "risk": "High complexity, difficult debugging",
-      "mitigation": "Split into phases"
-    },
-    {
-      "pattern": "Implementation without tests",
-      "risk": "Quality degradation",
-      "mitigation": "Follow Red-Green-Refactor"
-    }
-  ],
-  "criticalRules": [
-    "Complete static checking before proceeding",
-    "User approval mandatory before implementation",
-    "No commits before quality check completion"
-  ],
-  "confidence": "high|medium|low"
-}
+{"taskAnalysis":{"taskType":"implementation|fix|refactoring|design|quality-improvement","essence":"Fundamental purpose of the task","estimatedFiles":3,"scale":"small|medium|large","extractedTags":["implementation","testing","security"]},"selectedRules":[{"file":"coding-rules","sections":[{"title":"Function Design","content":"## Function Design\\n\\n### Basic Principles\\n- Single responsibility principle\\n..."},{"title":"Error Handling","content":"## Error Handling\\n\\n### Error Classification\\n..."}],"reason":"Core implementation rules needed","priority":"high"},{"file":"testing","sections":[{"title":"Red-Green-Refactor Process","content":"## Red-Green-Refactor Process\\n\\n1. Red: Write failing test\\n..."}],"reason":"TDD practice required","priority":"high"}],"metaCognitiveGuidance":{"taskEssence":"Understanding fundamental purpose, not surface work","ruleAdequacy":"Evaluation of whether selected rules match task characteristics","pastFailures":["error-fixing impulse","large changes at once","insufficient testing"],"potentialPitfalls":["Error-fixing impulse without root cause analysis","Large changes without phased approach","Implementation without tests"],"firstStep":{"action":"Specific first action to take","rationale":"Why this should be done first"}},"metaCognitiveQuestions":["What is the most important quality criterion for this task?","What problems occurred in similar tasks in the past?","Which part should be tackled first?","Is there a possibility of exceeding initial assumptions?"],"warningPatterns":[{"pattern":"Large changes at once","risk":"High complexity, difficult debugging","mitigation":"Split into phases"},{"pattern":"Implementation without tests","risk":"Quality degradation","mitigation":"Follow Red-Green-Refactor"}],"criticalRules":["Complete static checking before proceeding","User approval mandatory before implementation","No commits before quality check completion"],"confidence":"high|medium|low"}
 ```
 
 ## Skill Selection Priority

package/.codex/agents/scope-discoverer.toml

@@ -162,76 +162,7 @@ Note: These signals are informational only during steps 1-6. Keep all discovered
 ### Essential Output
 
 ```json
-{
-  "targetPath": "/path/to/project",
-  "referenceArchitecture": "layered|mvc|clean|hexagonal|none",
-  "existingPrd": "path or null",
-  "saturationReached": true,
-  "discoveredUnits": [
-    {
-      "id": "UNIT-001",
-      "name": "Unit Name",
-      "description": "Brief description",
-      "confidence": "high|medium|low",
-      "triangulationStrength": "strong|moderate|weak",
-      "sourceCount": 3,
-      "entryPoints": ["/path1", "/path2"],
-      "relatedFiles": ["src/feature/*"],
-      "dependencies": ["UNIT-002"],
-      "valueProfile": {
-        "targetPersona": "Who this feature serves (e.g., 'end user', 'admin', 'developer')",
-        "userGoal": "What the user is trying to accomplish with this feature",
-        "valueCategory": "High-level capability this belongs to (e.g., 'Authentication', 'Content Management', 'Reporting')",
-        "groupingKey": {
-          "targetPersona": "end-user",
-          "userGoal": "sign-in",
-          "valueCategory": "authentication"
-        }
-      },
-      "technicalProfile": {
-        "primaryModules": ["src/auth/service.ts", "src/auth/controller.ts"],
-        "publicInterfaces": ["AuthService.login()", "AuthController.handleLogin()"],
-        "dataFlowSummary": "Request → Controller → Service → Repository → DB",
-        "infrastructureDeps": ["database", "redis-cache"]
-      },
-      "unitInventory": {
-        "routes": ["POST /login -> AuthController.handleLogin (src/auth/controller.ts:24)"],
-        "testFiles": ["src/auth/service.test.ts"],
-        "publicExports": ["AuthService (src/auth/service.ts:10)"]
-      }
-    }
-  ],
-  "relationships": [
-    {
-      "from": "UNIT-001",
-      "to": "UNIT-002",
-      "type": "depends_on|extends|shares_data"
-    }
-  ],
-  "uncertainAreas": [
-    {
-      "area": "Area name",
-      "reason": "Why uncertain",
-      "suggestedAction": "What to do"
-    }
-  ],
-  "prdUnits": [
-    {
-      "id": "PRD-001",
-      "name": "PRD unit name (user-value level)",
-      "description": "What this capability delivers to the user",
-      "groupingKey": {
-        "targetPersona": "end-user",
-        "userGoal": "sign-in",
-        "valueCategory": "authentication"
-      },
-      "sourceUnits": ["UNIT-001", "UNIT-003"],
-      "combinedRelatedFiles": ["src/feature-a/*", "src/feature-b/*"],
-      "combinedEntryPoints": ["/path1", "/path2", "/path3"]
-    }
-  ],
-  "limitations": ["What could not be discovered and why"]
-}
+{"targetPath":"/path/to/project","referenceArchitecture":"layered|mvc|clean|hexagonal|none","existingPrd":"path or null","saturationReached":true,"discoveredUnits":[{"id":"UNIT-001","name":"Unit Name","description":"Brief description","confidence":"high|medium|low","triangulationStrength":"strong|moderate|weak","sourceCount":3,"entryPoints":["/path1","/path2"],"relatedFiles":["src/feature/*"],"dependencies":["UNIT-002"],"valueProfile":{"targetPersona":"Who this feature serves (e.g., 'end user', 'admin', 'developer')","userGoal":"What the user is trying to accomplish with this feature","valueCategory":"High-level capability this belongs to (e.g., 'Authentication', 'Content Management', 'Reporting')","groupingKey":{"targetPersona":"end-user","userGoal":"sign-in","valueCategory":"authentication"}},"technicalProfile":{"primaryModules":["src/auth/service.ts","src/auth/controller.ts"],"publicInterfaces":["AuthService.login()","AuthController.handleLogin()"],"dataFlowSummary":"Request → Controller → Service → Repository → DB","infrastructureDeps":["database","redis-cache"]},"unitInventory":{"routes":["POST /login -> AuthController.handleLogin (src/auth/controller.ts:24)"],"testFiles":["src/auth/service.test.ts"],"publicExports":["AuthService (src/auth/service.ts:10)"]}}],"relationships":[{"from":"UNIT-001","to":"UNIT-002","type":"depends_on|extends|shares_data"}],"uncertainAreas":[{"area":"Area name","reason":"Why uncertain","suggestedAction":"What to do"}],"prdUnits":[{"id":"PRD-001","name":"PRD unit name (user-value level)","description":"What this capability delivers to the user","groupingKey":{"targetPersona":"end-user","userGoal":"sign-in","valueCategory":"authentication"},"sourceUnits":["UNIT-001","UNIT-003"],"combinedRelatedFiles":["src/feature-a/*","src/feature-b/*"],"combinedEntryPoints":["/path1","/path2","/path3"]}],"limitations":["What could not be discovered and why"]}
 ```
 
 ## Completion Criteria

package/.codex/agents/security-reviewer.toml

@@ -107,25 +107,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 ## Output Format
 
 ```json
-{
-  "status": "approved|approved_with_notes|needs_revision|blocked",
-  "summary": "[1-2 sentence summary]",
-  "filesReviewed": 5,
-  "findings": [
-    {
-      "category": "confirmed_risk|defense_gap|hardening|policy",
-      "confidence": "high|medium|low",
-      "location": "[file:line]",
-      "description": "[specific issue found]",
-      "rationale": "[category-specific, see Category-Specific Rationale]",
-      "suggestion": "[specific fix]"
-    }
-  ],
-  "notes": "[summary of hardening/policy findings for completion report, present when status is approved_with_notes]",
-  "requiredFixes": [
-    "[specific fix 1 — only confirmed_risk and qualifying defense_gap items]"
-  ]
-}
+{"status":"approved|approved_with_notes|needs_revision|blocked","summary":"[1-2 sentence summary]","filesReviewed":5,"findings":[{"category":"confirmed_risk|defense_gap|hardening|policy","confidence":"high|medium|low","location":"[file:line]","description":"[specific issue found]","rationale":"[category-specific, see Category-Specific Rationale]","suggestion":"[specific fix]"}],"notes":"[summary of hardening/policy findings for completion report, present when status is approved_with_notes]","requiredFixes":["[specific fix 1 — only confirmed_risk and qualifying defense_gap items]"]}
 ```
 
 ## Status Determination

package/.codex/agents/solver.toml

@@ -92,6 +92,10 @@ Generate at least 3 solutions from the following perspectives:
 | mitigation | Measures to reduce impact | Temporary measure while waiting for root fix |
 | fundamental | Comprehensive fix including recurrence prevention | When similar problems have occurred repeatedly |
 
+**Adjacent Case Coverage**:
+- When the investigated incident is a bug or regression, or when a confirmed failure point affects a state transition, persisted state, or external boundary, evaluate cases sharing the same path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary for the same class of defect.
+- Include adjacent cases in the solution scope when they share the defect class. Record why any are excluded in `uncertaintyHandling.residualRisks`.
+
 **Generated Solution Verification**:
 - Check if project rules have applicable guidelines
 - For areas without guidelines, research current best practices via web search to verify solutions align with standard approaches
@@ -126,60 +130,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 ## Output Format
 
 ```json
-{
-  "inputSummary": {
-    "identifiedFailurePoints": [
-      {"failurePointId": "FP1", "description": "Failure point description", "status": "confirmed|probable|possible"}
-    ],
-    "failurePointRelationships": [
-      {"from": "FP1", "to": "FP2", "relationship": "independent|upstream_of|downstream_of|amplifies|same_boundary"}
-    ],
-    "coverageAssessment": "sufficient|partial|insufficient"
-  },
-  "solutions": [
-    {
-      "id": "S1",
-      "name": "Solution name",
-      "type": "direct|workaround|mitigation|fundamental",
-      "description": "Detailed solution description",
-      "implementation": {
-        "approach": "Implementation approach description",
-        "affectedFiles": ["Files requiring changes"],
-        "dependencies": ["Affected dependencies"]
-      },
-      "tradeoffs": {
-        "cost": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"},
-        "risk": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"},
-        "scope": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"},
-        "maintainability": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"},
-        "certainty": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"}
-      },
-      "pros": ["Advantages"],
-      "cons": ["Disadvantages"]
-    }
-  ],
-  "recommendation": {
-    "selectedSolutionId": "S1",
-    "rationale": "Detailed selection rationale",
-    "alternativeIfRejected": "Alternative solution ID if recommendation rejected",
-    "conditions": "Conditions under which this recommendation is appropriate"
-  },
-  "implementationPlan": {
-    "steps": [
-      {
-        "order": 1,
-        "action": "Specific action",
-        "verification": "How to verify this step",
-        "rollback": "Rollback procedure if problems occur"
-      }
-    ],
-    "criticalPoints": ["Points requiring special attention"]
-  },
-  "uncertaintyHandling": {
-    "residualRisks": ["Risks that may remain after resolution"],
-    "monitoringPlan": "Monitoring plan after resolution"
-  }
-}
+{"inputSummary":{"identifiedFailurePoints":[{"failurePointId":"FP1","description":"Failure point description","status":"confirmed|probable|possible"}],"failurePointRelationships":[{"from":"FP1","to":"FP2","relationship":"independent|upstream_of|downstream_of|amplifies|same_boundary"}],"coverageAssessment":"sufficient|partial|insufficient"},"solutions":[{"id":"S1","name":"Solution name","type":"direct|workaround|mitigation|fundamental","description":"Detailed solution description","implementation":{"approach":"Implementation approach description","affectedFiles":["Files requiring changes"],"dependencies":["Affected dependencies"]},"tradeoffs":{"cost":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"},"risk":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"},"scope":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"},"maintainability":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"},"certainty":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"}},"pros":["Advantages"],"cons":["Disadvantages"]}],"recommendation":{"selectedSolutionId":"S1","rationale":"Detailed selection rationale","alternativeIfRejected":"Alternative solution ID if recommendation rejected","conditions":"Conditions under which this recommendation is appropriate"},"implementationPlan":{"steps":[{"order":1,"action":"Specific action","verification":"How to verify this step","rollback":"Rollback procedure if problems occur"}],"criticalPoints":["Points requiring special attention"]},"uncertaintyHandling":{"residualRisks":["Risks that may remain after resolution"],"monitoringPlan":"Monitoring plan after resolution"}}
 ```
 
 ## Completion Criteria

package/.codex/agents/task-decomposer.toml

@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
    - Document concrete executable procedures
    - Include task-level Quality Assurance Mechanisms when the work plan defines them
    - Include task-level Binding Decisions when ADR Bindings cover the task
+   - Include task-level Reference Contracts when Reference Contract Values cover the task
    - Include task-level Proof Obligations when the work plan defines Proof Strategy, test skeleton proof annotations, or acceptance-criterion primary failure modes
    - **Always include operation verification methods**
    - Define clear completion criteria (within executor's scope of responsibility)
@@ -94,6 +95,7 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
    - Extract task list
    - Identify dependencies
    - Read Design-to-Plan Traceability rows and verify every `covered` item has a corresponding generated task or phase completion task
+   - Read Reference Contract Values rows and verify every `covered` value has a corresponding generated task
    - Read ADR Bindings rows and verify every `covered` item has a corresponding generated task
    - **Overall Optimization Considerations**
      - Identify common processing (prevent redundant implementation)
@@ -121,6 +123,7 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
    - Task overview
    - Target files
    - Investigation Targets
+   - Change Category when the task is a bug fix, regression, state-change, or boundary-change
    - Investigation Notes
    - Concrete implementation steps
    - Operation Verification Methods
@@ -138,7 +141,7 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
    | Integration test work | Test skeleton file, target implementation under test, existing fixture/auth/setup patterns |
    | fixture-e2e environment/setup work | Existing fixture data, API mock layer, browser harness configuration |
    | service-integration-e2e environment/setup work | Current environment config, startup scripts, seed scripts, auth flow references, external service stubs |
-   | Cross-boundary implementation | Connection Map rows touching the task target files, caller/producer module, callee/consumer module, expected signal, contract definition |
+   | Cross-boundary implementation | Connection Map rows touching the task target files, caller/producer module, callee/consumer module, serialized format, consumer parse rule, expected signal, contract definition |
    | Task constrained by an ADR | ADR file with section hint matching the ADR Bindings row's Source Section value |
    | Bug fix/refactor | Affected code paths, failing tests, reproduction-related files |
    | Behavior replacement/rewrite | Existing implementation being replaced, observable outputs, Verification Strategy section in the Design Doc |
@@ -150,6 +153,7 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
    - When test skeletons exist, include them explicitly
    - When the work plan contains a UI Spec Component -> Task Mapping table, propagate matching component sections to every task listed in the row
    - When the work plan contains a Connection Map, propagate boundary rows touching the task's target files to every task on either side of the boundary
+   - When the work plan contains a Reference Contract Values table, propagate matching rows to every covered task
    - When the work plan contains an ADR Bindings table, propagate matching binding rows to every covered task
    - When a task matches multiple natures, include Investigation Targets from all matching rows and deduplicate overlaps
 
@@ -164,6 +168,18 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
 9. **Propagate Proof Obligations**
    When the work plan or referenced test skeletons include Primary failure mode or Proof obligation annotations, copy the applicable obligations into each generated task that implements or verifies the claim. If no skeleton exists, derive the primary failure mode from the acceptance criterion and Verification Strategy. Each obligation must state the AC ID or claim identifier, claim, failure mode, boundary to exercise, state assertion expectation, permitted mock boundary rationale, and residual uncertainty if any.
 
+10. **Classify Change Category for Adjacent Case Sweep**
+   When a task corrects observed behavior or changes a path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary, classify it so executors and reviewers can run a scoped adjacent-case sweep from a concrete field instead of re-inferring intent.
+
+   - `bug-fix`: corrects observed incorrect behavior
+   - `regression`: restores behavior a prior change broke
+   - `state-change`: changes how state is written, transitioned, or persisted
+   - `boundary-change`: changes a published or consumed contract at an external, cross-package, or persisted boundary
+
+   A task can match more than one category. Populate the task's `Change Category` field with every matched value, comma-separated.
+
+   For every matched category, extend Investigation Targets with files sharing the same path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary as the change, including the owner module on both sides of an affected boundary. Union targets across all matched categories. Omit `Change Category` only when the task neither corrects observed behavior nor changes a path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary. Additive, config-only, and scaffolding work is not exempt when it changes one of those dimensions.
+
 ## Verification Strategy Propagation
 
 Verification Strategy defines what correctness means at design time. L1/L2/L3 (from implementation-approach) define task-level verification depth at execution time. Use both.
@@ -231,6 +247,25 @@ When the work plan includes an `ADR Bindings` section:
    - `persistence`: `User records are persisted through the UsersRepository interface`
 6. **Validation**: Treat missing Axis, unknown Axis value, or non-checkable Compliance Check as an incomplete task file. Non-checkable means the implementation cannot be observed and answered as `Y` or `N`, or the predicate is written as a negative or compound condition.
 
+## Reference Contract Propagation
+
+When the work plan includes a `Reference Contract Values` section:
+
+1. **Coverage preservation**: For each row marked `covered`, locate every task ID listed in `Covered By Task(s)`.
+2. **Gap handling**: Preserve each `gap` row as a planning issue and surface it to the caller when task generation would otherwise assume the observable value is implemented.
+3. **Investigation Targets**: Add the row's Design Doc path with section hint to each matched task. Deduplicate against Design-to-Plan Traceability targets.
+4. **Reference Contracts table**: Add one row to each matched task's `Reference Contracts` section:
+   - `Source`: Design Doc path with section hint
+   - `Contract Type`: value copied verbatim from the work plan row
+   - `Required Observable Value`: value copied verbatim from the work plan row, preserving exact wording, field order, labels, and conditions
+   - `Compliance Check`: a Y/N-answerable positive predicate that evaluates whether the planned and final implementation reproduces the value
+5. **Predicate shape**: Write each Compliance Check as a concrete positive statement. Examples:
+   - `The listed columns render in the specified order`
+   - `The label shows the looked-up name in place of the raw code`
+   - `The restored state is applied only when the explicit restore signal is present`
+6. **Boundary ownership**: Connection Map Propagation carries serialized boundaries. Reference Contract rows carry non-serialized observable values. When a work plan records the same value in both places, keep Connection Map propagation and surface the duplicate Reference Contract row as a planning issue.
+7. **Validation**: Treat missing Contract Type, missing Required Observable Value, non-checkable Compliance Check, or `covered` row without task IDs as an incomplete task file.
+
 ## UI Spec Propagation
 
 When the work plan includes a `UI Spec Component -> Task Mapping` section:
@@ -246,9 +281,15 @@ When the work plan includes a `UI Spec Component -> Task Mapping` section:
 When the work plan includes a `Connection Map` section:
 
 1. For each boundary row, locate all tasks listed in `Covered By Task(s)`.
-2. Add the caller/producer module, callee/consumer module, serialized contract, and expected signal to each listed task's Investigation Targets or Notes.
-3. For tasks on one side of a boundary, include an Operation Verification Method that observes the expected signal from the other side.
-4. Propagate only boundary rows explicitly mapped in the work plan.
+2. Add the caller/producer module, callee/consumer module, serialized format, consumer parse rule, and expected signal to each listed task's Investigation Targets or Notes.
+3. For serialized boundaries, require concrete serialized format and consumer parse rule values. Treat `-` in either column as an incomplete plan row unless the row is a non-serialized external signal whose Expected Signal fully captures the contract.
+4. For serialized in-runtime boundaries, include a Boundary Context note that states the producer value, the consumer parse rule, and the roundtrip check: the emitted value parses to the value the consumer expects.
+5. For tasks on one side of a boundary, include an Operation Verification Method that observes the expected signal from the other side.
+6. Propagate only boundary rows explicitly mapped in the work plan.
+
+## Change Category Classification
+
+This is distinct from per-AC boundary-path proof. Proof obligations prove the boundary path within an acceptance criterion; Change Category drives a sweep of cases outside the task's explicit ACs that share its path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary. Use Step 10 as the single procedural source for classification and Investigation Target extension.
 
 ## Task File Template
 
@@ -349,7 +390,9 @@ Please execute decomposed tasks according to the order.
 - [ ] Impact scope and boundaries definition for each task
 - [ ] Appropriate granularity (1-5 files/task)
 - [ ] Investigation Targets specified for every task
+- [ ] Change Category set for bug-fix, regression, state-change, or boundary-change tasks, with adjacent path/boundary owners added to Investigation Targets
 - [ ] Quality Assurance Mechanisms propagated to relevant tasks when present in the plan header
+- [ ] Reference Contract Values rows propagated to relevant tasks when present in the work plan
 - [ ] ADR Bindings rows propagated to relevant tasks when present in the work plan
   - [ ] ADR source includes section hint
   - [ ] Axis copied verbatim from the work plan row