coding-artifact-evaluation-shell 0.1.0-eidolon.a3d53b93d02d8 → 0.1.0-eidolon.a40d355425c38

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "coding-artifact-evaluation-shell",
-  "version": "0.1.0-eidolon.a3d53b93d02d8",
+  "version": "0.1.0-eidolon.a40d355425c38",
   "private": false,
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Code-development artifact evaluator and code-first Halfcode SkillApp",

package/resources/evaluate.md

@@ -24,5 +24,3 @@ The dynamic Evidence, Check and Groups LocalFunctions are read-only tools over e
 For grouped results, the caller explicitly supplies `{id,label,rootIds}` entries selecting actual root obligation IDs from the admitted decision. Use `projectTargetGroups(input, decision, groups)` from the package, or discover the Groups LocalFunction and invoke it with absolute native `inputPath`, `decisionPath`, and `groups`. It reuses the original graph, shows ungrouped/shared roots, and preserves the overall result. Non-root/unknown selections are rejected for admitted decisions; unfinished or rejected drafts never yield partial PASS. There are no built-in domains or automatic categories. Labels do not certify unlisted requirements: a group of selected calculations is not proof of an entire product. Missing historical process evidence remains missing; a group view cannot supply it or repair a mistaken original judgment.
 
 For current coding runs, explicit nonempty `codingScope.groups` also asks the same judge to compare every applicable caller-owned leaf, including after an overall FAIL. It does not add a role, scoring protocol, evidence or new requirements. An absent claim is unreviewed, distinct from an explicit indeterminate claim. Historical and ungrouped minimal FAIL decisions retain their original meaning; completeness and semantic correctness still require actual evidence.
-
-Before collection, describe the caller's intended scope and method/depth in its trusted codingScope description and capability declarations; report the work actually completed. See [Review](review.md) for the shared evidence-depth guidance used by both collection and judgment. The existing claim method/conditions/reasoning/limitations support scope, actual investigation, coverage and gaps; there is no new wire field or depth score. A code-review-only selection cannot certify an original full-delivery requirement left unobserved. Index/search tools are optional, explicitly supplied locators whose version, resolution and coverage must be checked against frozen source; they do not substitute for execution or unavailable historical facts.

package/resources/review.md

@@ -13,11 +13,3 @@ Goal → fact → comparison:
 Read COMPLETE originals first; preserve each independent qualifier, modality and quantifier. Exclusion is not all-member selection; do not transfer a qualifier between objects without a source relation. A neighboring attribute cannot satisfy another property. Split independent conditions under all/any instead of partially certifying a broad leaf. Compare the ACTUAL CONTENT of static deliverables, not their titles/existence. Challenge PASS: could cited facts remain unchanged if the required property were absent? Challenge absence FAIL: inspect the bounded candidate set and relevant alternative implementations/call sites; unread/uncited supplied facts are not unavailable; ambiguous wording cannot become a stronger mechanism requirement. No extra planning file is required.
 Evidence must distinguish the promised consumer PURPOSE, not just setup/access/empty state. Genuine tests count for what their real seams/assertions exercise: cite BOTH their definition and native execution; a replaced entrance is not proven even when other dependencies are real. Ask which required failure a test detects. Temporal/causal/lifecycle requirements need observations distinguishing those conditions, not final values alone. Free-text probe conditions describe intent; neither a word such as "settled" nor tool completion proves business completion. For absence require established prerequisites and an observed completion/deadline, not immediate silence: unknown completion means indeterminate; an unavailable environment prerequisite is not a business capability failure. Representative acceptance is finite sampling; disclose limits without waiving material conditions. No exhaustive branch checklist is required; equivalent observable semantics count unless originals mandate the form.
 Derive expected outcomes before comparison; artifact output, exit 0, coverage labels and self-assertions never define the goal. PASS needs all required conditions; FAIL needs an applicable original contradiction surviving valid alternative readings/implementations; missing or ambiguous evidence is indeterminate. Keep judgments consistent with comparisons and findings. Actual facts and finite sampling are not universal proofs.
-
-Describe evidence depth per comparison, using existing fields: `method` names what actually happened (source inspection, symbol/call tracing, executed tests, integration or consumer observation); `conditions` identifies the assessed boundary, artifact/version and actual execution or historical conditions; `reasoning` states which required distinctions the evidence covers; `limitations` identifies material uncovered distinctions and why. This supports a scope | actual method/depth | coverage | judgment | gap view without extra output keys, a second score, or mandatory repeated checklists. A requested depth label is an operational plan, never evidence that the work happened. Keep explanations concise and reuse evidence references.
-
-Scope, method, depth and coverage are independent: scope selects the authorized object/requirements; methods obtain facts; depth describes how far the actual investigation followed relevant dependencies, transitions, error paths or counterexamples; coverage states inspected versus unassessed conditions. Choose the least costly sufficient evidence for each original requirement, deepening only for a material unresolved distinction within available capabilities and the same budget. Static architecture/deliverable requirements can be established by adequate source inspection without executing E2E; passing tests or a successful consumer journey do not establish unrelated architecture or all branches. Neither add generic testing/E2E/process obligations nor silently waive frozen original conditions. A deliberately unperformed method is not itself a failed requirement; an original behavioral condition still lacking support remains unresolved.
-
-Symbol indexes, call graphs and search results locate candidate evidence. When supplied, check their binding to the frozen artifact, source/file hashes or matching revision, supported languages, parser/resolver confidence, exclusions, unresolved edges and truncation; follow relevant locators back to actual source before making a code claim. Do not infer freshness from HEAD alone for dirty/non-git artifacts. A missing hit/path is not proof of absence when resolution, scope or traversal is incomplete, and a static graph is not an executed trace. Use only explicitly available capabilities; do not discover/install an indexer or invent a tool.
-
-Separate actual counterevidence from unperformed observations, unavailable/lost inputs, unresolved interpretation and exhausted investigation. State the specific missing fact in `limitations`; do not label already supplied unread evidence unavailable. Current source or a new execution cannot recreate a missing historical development/review event. Localize ambiguities and gaps to their actual requirement; preserve supported subcomparisons instead of describing successful test execution as unperformed. Original aggregate judgments and source-review admission rules still apply; do not turn a selected positive view into full-delivery PASS.