create-agdf 0.14.5 → 0.20.1

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/BROWNFIELD_REVIEW.md

@@ -41,12 +41,43 @@ Brownfield cites repository evidence.
 | Tests / QA |  |  | `none | low | medium | high` |
 | Release / operations |  |  | `none | low | medium | high` |
 
+## Architecture Impact
+
+- architecture_relevance: `relevant | architecture-not-applicable`
+- architecture_impact: `none | low | medium | high`
+- architecture_reason:
+- architecture_evidence:
+- architecture_missing_evidence: `none | <fact and evidence owner>`
+- architecture_next_owner_and_action:
+
+Assess only affected module/owner, external interface, data/SoT, compatibility/migration,
+runtime/host, or security/policy boundaries. An unresolved effect is relevant until its evidence
+owner resolves it. For `architecture-not-applicable`, cite the affected code and owner and explain
+why no material boundary or unresolved question remains. Do not add an exhaustive checklist.
+
 ## Reuse And Parallel-Structure Risk
 
 | Finding | Evidence | Risk | Required action |
 |---|---|---|---|
 |  |  | `none | warn | revise | block` |  |
 
+For a relevant architecture finding, prefix the existing Finding cell with `problem`,
+`trade-off` or `unresolved`; cite its boundary in Evidence and put the existing owner and route
+in Required action. A deliberate trade-off that retains or adds debt uses the same finding label
+in the detail below. An incomplete detail remains unresolved and cannot be called accepted debt.
+Keep the review decision at least `revise` until every debt-acceptance field is evidenced;
+use `block` if the missing decision prevents a safe Mode/Slice route.
+Add a focused diagram link only if it answers a named ownership or dependency question that
+textual evidence cannot settle.
+
+### Retained Debt Detail (only when applicable)
+
+- finding: <same label as the Reuse And Parallel-Structure Risk row>
+- rationale:
+- accountable_owner:
+- mitigation:
+- review_date_or_exit_condition:
+
 ## Mode / Slice Decision
 
 - decision: `quick_task | verified_change | structured_slice | structured_delivery | block`

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/PRD.md

@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ Gate approval: open
 Based on: UR
 Date:
 Owner:
+Traceability contract: criteria-chain-v1
 
 ## 1. Product Scope
 
@@ -22,6 +23,24 @@ What exactly must be delivered?
 Every field must be populated or explicitly justified as `not_applicable`. Medium/high impact requires
 a `ready` UX Intent Definition result before this PRD is ready.
 
+If UI previews or scenario walkthroughs informed clarification, summarize the user task and confirmed
+findings here. Map adopted behavior to criterion IDs in Acceptance Criteria, retain observation limits
+in Evidence Requirements and resolve material choices in Approval Decisions. Keep the PRD sufficient
+to understand the required behavior without opening the preview. Link the same run-local preview
+version, file/asset digests and observations recorded by UX. An explicitly required preview must
+exist at the agreed fidelity before its obligation is closed; a chat rendering alone is insufficient.
+A mockup is supporting input and carries no separate approval or implementation proof.
+
+For a required preview, include a concise review task, readable versioned preview reference and
+covered scenarios with their criterion IDs. State what the reviewer should judge about the proposed
+behavior. The existing presentation owner uses this review material; authoring must not add a second
+approval card. See interaction.md PRD Preview Review At Approval for the integration requirements.
+When the approved UR declares `Preview requirement: before_prd_interactive`, add the exact
+`## Preview Review` JSON section defined by prd-definition.md, binding the approved UR digest,
+versioned run-local files, review task, scenarios, criterion IDs and open questions. Its machine
+format is also available through the existing PRD authoring-format contract. Do not create an empty
+descriptor for an unrelated legacy PRD or turn illustrative unanswered policy into a resolved choice.
+
 ## 3. Working Modes And Effective State
 
 For every user-relevant working mode, define:
@@ -43,9 +62,12 @@ ownership remain Solution Design concerns.
 
 ## 5. Acceptance Criteria
 
-Every applicable UX criterion must include a stable `criterion_id`, `working_mode`, `source_state`,
-trigger/action, expected effective state, visible feedback, blocker/failure behavior, recovery/next
-action, observable success and required evidence. Specify observable behavior, not implementation.
+Give every acceptance criterion a unique, stable `criterion_id` (for example `AC-001`) so SD, TP
+and QA can refer to the same requirement without copying or renaming it. Every applicable UX
+criterion must also include `working_mode`, `source_state`, trigger/action, expected effective state,
+visible feedback, blocker/failure behavior, recovery/next action, observable success and required
+evidence. Specify observable behavior, not implementation. Do not leave the section empty or retain
+placeholders when requesting approval.
 
 ## 6. Non-Goals
 
@@ -65,10 +87,27 @@ Which evidence must later support QA?
 
 ## 10. Risks And Open Questions
 
-Which questions must SD, TP or Brownfield Analysis clarify later?
+Record risks and questions that can be answered later. Move every decision that changes product
+scope, acceptance, accountable ownership or release acceptance into Approval Decisions below.
+
+## Approval Decisions
+
+Before presenting this PRD, collect all `before_prd` answers in one request and record their
+resolution here. Use `later_sd` or `later_tp` only for genuine design or planning decisions;
+name the responsible owner in the final column. Keep at least one explicit row.
+
+| Decision | Timing | Status | Resolution | Owner |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| <product decision or none> | before_prd | open | <answer> | <accountable owner> |
 
 ## 11. Next Step
 
-Review this PRD and approve only with:
+Present this PRD only after every `before_prd` row is `resolved` with a concrete answer and
+the named PRD Owner is filled. Then review and approve only with:
 
 `Approval: PRD`
+
+The approval confirms the specified behavior, scope and criteria and permits the existing SD step.
+For a required preview, present its review task and exact applicable version together with the PRD
+through the supported canonical presentation. Opening or liking the preview is no approval. A
+missing required review basis or unsupported binding must remain visible, not silently count as ready.

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/QA_REPORT.md

@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ Decision: `pass | revise | block`
 
 ## 2. TP Coverage
 
+- delivered_result: <Concrete actual scoped result; not a task count, plan or report title>
+
 Which TP tasks are fully done, partially done or not done?
 
 ## 3. Evidence
@@ -21,10 +23,14 @@ Which tests, logs, diffs, reviews or observations support the decision?
 
 ## 4. Missing Evidence
 
+- qualification_limits: <Concrete unobserved qualification or explicit none>
+
 What remains unverified?
 
 ## 5. Risks
 
+- delivery_risks: <Material current open issues or explicit none>
+
 Which risks remain and what is their impact?
 
 ## 6. Required Next Step

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/SD.md

@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ Gate approval: open
 Based on: PRD
 Date:
 Owner:
+Traceability contract: criteria-chain-v1
+Design Decisions contract: sd-decisions-v1
 
 ## 1. Solution Overview
 
@@ -17,7 +19,9 @@ Which existing modules, documents, services or owners remain authoritative?
 
 ## 3. Architecture Decisions
 
-Which design decisions are binding for implementation?
+Use one bullet per binding decision in the form `SDD-...: <decision>; rationale: <why>; consequence: <trade-off>`.
+Use stable IDs. If no binding design decision is needed, record one reasoned bullet beginning
+`none —`. The Acceptance Traceability table below must reference every listed ID and no others.
 
 ## 4. Integration Points
 
@@ -31,11 +35,35 @@ Which constraints must implementation preserve?
 
 Which evidence must TP and QA later collect?
 
-## 7. Risks And Open Questions
+## 7. Acceptance Traceability
+
+Copy each approved PRD `criterion_id` exactly once. Keep PRD as the source of product acceptance;
+record only its technical realization here. Point to the existing source of truth and accountable
+owner. Use stable `SDD-001` decision IDs where design decisions are needed; otherwise write
+`none — <why no new design decision is needed>`. Include compatibility, migration and material risk
+or a reasoned `none` for each criterion. Do not restate or silently change acceptance.
+
+| criterion_id | design_response | source_of_truth | design_decision_ids | compatibility_risk |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| <AC-001> | <design element> | <existing owner and authoritative module> | <SDD-001 or reasoned none> | <impact/mitigation or reasoned none> |
+
+## 8. Risks And Open Questions
 
 Which risks remain before task planning?
 
-## 8. Next Step
+## Design Decisions
+
+Use one table in this same SD. Every material architecture/design question is before_sd and
+must have status resolved, a concrete Resolution and named Owner before presentation. later_tp
+may defer execution/test/evidence detail with a named owner and concrete reason; it cannot hide
+binding architecture or product choices. With no material unknown, record a resolved applicability
+decision instead of leaving an empty table. Never remove the declaration/table to conceal gaps.
+
+| Decision | Timing | Status | Resolution | Owner |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| <unique decision> | before_sd | open | <answer needed or confirmed choice> | <named owner> |
+
+## 9. Next Step
 
 Review this solution design and approve only with:
 

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/TP.md

@@ -6,30 +6,65 @@ Gate approval: open
 Based on: SD
 Date:
 Owner:
+Traceability contract: criteria-chain-v1
+Planning Decisions contract: tp-decisions-v1
 
 ## 1. Task List
 
-| task_id | Task | Acceptance mapping | Evidence required |
+Use a stable task ID for each implementation or preparation task.
+
+| task_id | Task | Owner | Dependencies |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| T1 |  |  |  |
+| T-001 |  |  |  |
+
+## 2. Verification Traceability
+
+Map every approved PRD criterion and every SD design decision to one or more concrete scenarios.
+Reference IDs exactly; do not duplicate acceptance text. Each scenario has one task, a stable
+`SCN-001` ID, an observable expected result and a specific evidence source or artifact. Include
+boundary or failure scenarios where they matter to the criterion.
+
+| criterion_id | design_decision_id | task_id | scenario_id | expected_result | evidence |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| <AC-001> | <SDD-001 or reasoned none> | <T-001> | <SCN-001> | <observable result> | <test/report/log or manual observation> |
+
+## 3. Test Plan
+
+For each applicable verification scenario name its concrete execution prerequisites and failure action.
+
+| criterion_id | scenario_id | test_route | environment | prerequisites_permissions | owner | expected_evidence | unavailable_action |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| <AC-001> | <SCN-001> | <command/check> | <actual environment> | <required access> | <responsible owner> | <output/observation> | <action if unavailable> |
+
+## Planning Decisions
+
+Resolve each approved SD later_tp decision exactly once, using Source `SD: <exact decision label>`.
+Local execution choices use Source `TP`. Open rows block approval. With no material question, record
+one concrete resolved applicability row. Never defer product or design authority as planning detail.
 
-## 2. Test Plan
+| Decision | Source | Status | Resolution | Owner |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| <planning decision> | TP | open | <answer or concrete blocking context> | <named owner> |
 
-Which automated, manual or inspection checks must run?
+For a material question add `## Clarification Requests` with the existing quality.md normalized
+finding columns, and `## Clarification Details` with finding_id, planning_decision, question,
+blocking_reason, required_answer, owner, source_ref, resolution_evidence. Use the focused
+TP contract for exact source/evidence references, responsible-owner handoff and protected-source
+revision. Omit both clarification sections when no material finding exists.
 
-## 3. Brownfield Scope
+## 4. Brownfield Scope
 
 Which existing owners, modules or artefacts must be inspected before implementation?
 
-## 4. Out Of Scope
+## 5. Out Of Scope
 
 Which implementation work is explicitly not part of this TP?
 
-## 5. Risks And Blockers
+## 6. Risks And Blockers
 
 Which risks must block, revise or warn later QA?
 
-## 6. Next Step
+## 7. Next Step
 
 Review this task and test plan and approve only with:
 

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/UR.md

@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
 Status: draft
 Gate: UR
 Gate approval: open
+Requirements clarification: open
+Preview requirement: none
 Date:
 Owner:
 
@@ -14,10 +16,19 @@ What user, business or operational problem should be solved?
 
 What outcome should become possible?
 
+## Affected Users
+
+Which people or roles experience the problem and benefit from the outcome?
+
 ## 3. Scope
 
 What is included in this first slice?
 
+Preserve explicitly requested clarification deliverables such as a UI preview: purpose, user task,
+relevant scenarios, required interaction/format and timing. Distinguish a required deliverable from
+an optional aid; do not invent a preview requirement. The later UX step retains a run-bound preview
+under `.agdf/control/artefacts/<run_id>/previews/`; UR authoring records the need only.
+
 ## 4. Non-Goals
 
 What is explicitly not part of this UR?
@@ -26,6 +37,9 @@ What is explicitly not part of this UR?
 
 How will we know the need is clear enough for PRD?
 
+For a requested preview, state what the user must be able to inspect or try and which questions
+it should clarify. These are planned review signals, not a claim that the preview already exists.
+
 ## 6. Existing Source Of Truth
 
 Which existing repository artefacts, docs, code paths or decisions must be respected?
@@ -39,3 +53,6 @@ Which questions must Brownfield Review, PRD, SD or later implementation-preparat
 Review this UR and approve only with:
 
 `Approval: UR`
+
+When a preview is required before PRD approval, name the later UX clarification step that must
+create, retain and review it. This does not authorize product implementation or approve the preview.

package/generated/plugins/agdf/control/templates/artefacts/UX_INTENT_DEFINITION.md

@@ -43,6 +43,16 @@ grants no implementation permission. After PRD approval, the PRD is the sole pro
 
 ## 6. Decision Evidence
 
+When a UI preview or scenario walkthrough helps clarify behavior, retain the user task, relevant
+states, illustrative assumptions, actual observations and feedback in the fields below. Derive
+proposed PRD criteria from confirmed findings. Distinguish agent inspection from user observation
+and record untested interactions explicitly. Preserve any explicit UR preview requirement, including
+interaction and timing; an optional aid and a required deliverable have different completion needs.
+Record the run-local versioned preview path, source binding, file/asset digests, covered scenarios
+and validation limits in `evidence`. See `ux-intent-definition` for the canonical retention workflow.
+Missing required preview evidence keeps this analysis blocked. A preview grants no approval and
+proves no implementation or host behavior.
+
 - blocking_reason:
 - open_product_questions:
 - affected_outputs:

package/generated/plugins/agdf/hooks/hooks.json

@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
                 "hooks": [
                     {
                         "type":         "command",
-                        "command":      "node \"${PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/runtime/agdf-session-check.js\"",
-                        "commandWindows": "node \"$([Environment]::GetEnvironmentVariable('PLUGIN_ROOT') + [Environment]::GetEnvironmentVariable('CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT'))\\runtime\\agdf-session-check.js\"",
+                        "command":      "node \"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/runtime/agdf-session-check.js\"",
+                        "commandWindows": "node \"$(if ([Environment]::GetEnvironmentVariable('PLUGIN_ROOT')) { [Environment]::GetEnvironmentVariable('PLUGIN_ROOT') } else { [Environment]::GetEnvironmentVariable('CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT') })\\runtime\\agdf-session-check.js\"",
                         "statusMessage": "Checking AGDF runtime state..."
                     }
                 ]

package/generated/plugins/agdf/hooks/session-start.sh

@@ -1,76 +1,11 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env bash
-# AGDF Session Start Hook
-# Activates a compact AGDF runtime reminder for the agent session.
+# Compatibility transport only. Host manifests execute the generated runtime directly.
 
 SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" && pwd)"
-PLUGIN_DIR="$(cd "${SCRIPT_DIR}/.." && pwd)"
-META_DIR="$(cd "${SCRIPT_DIR}/../meta" && pwd)"
-ROUTER="${META_DIR}/agdf-agent-router.md"
-CONSTITUTION="${META_DIR}/agdf-constitution.md"
-RUNTIME_CONTRACT="${META_DIR}/agdf-runtime-contract.md"
-CONFIG_PATH="${PWD}/.agdf/control/config.json"
-LOCAL_RUNTIME="${PLUGIN_DIR}/runtime/agdf-local.js"
+SESSION_CHECK="${SCRIPT_DIR}/../runtime/agdf-session-check.js"
 
-RUNTIME_HINT="AGDF runtime: profile=source-development evidence=source_checkout machine_validation=unavailable provenance=not_applicable."
-if [[ -f "${PLUGIN_DIR}/.agdf-installation.json" && ! -f "${LOCAL_RUNTIME}" ]]; then
-  RUNTIME_HINT="AGDF runtime: profile=runtime-plugin evidence=installed_plugin_root machine_validation=unavailable provenance=unverified. Use the supported AGDF install/update command, then restart the host and retry in a fresh session."
+if [[ -f "${SESSION_CHECK}" ]]; then
+  exec node "${SESSION_CHECK}"
 fi
-if [[ -f "${LOCAL_RUNTIME}" ]]; then
-  RUNTIME_HINT="AGDF runtime: profile=runtime-plugin evidence=unverified machine_validation=unavailable provenance=unverified. Retry the surface-local runtime probe or use the supported AGDF install/update command."
-  RUNTIME_JSON="$(AGDF_SURFACE="${AGDF_SURFACE:-plugin}" node "${LOCAL_RUNTIME}" --resolve-only --json 2>/dev/null || true)"
-  RUNTIME_RENDERED="$(RUNTIME_JSON="${RUNTIME_JSON}" node <<'NODE' 2>/dev/null || true
-try {
-  const value = JSON.parse(process.env.RUNTIME_JSON || "{}");
-  const profile = value.distribution_profile || "runtime-plugin";
-  const evidence = value.evidence_plane || "unverified";
-  const version = value.plugin_version || value.observed_version || value.expected_version || "unknown";
-  const provenance = value.provenance_status || "unverified";
-  const validation = value.machine_validation || "unavailable";
-  const root = value.plugin_root || "unavailable";
-  console.log(`AGDF runtime: profile=${profile} evidence=${evidence} version=${version} provenance=${provenance} machine_validation=${validation} root=${root}.`);
-} catch {
-  console.log("AGDF runtime: profile=runtime-plugin evidence=unverified machine_validation=unavailable provenance=invalid. Retry the surface-local runtime probe or use the supported AGDF install/update command.");
-}
-NODE
-)"
-  if [[ -n "${RUNTIME_RENDERED}" ]]; then
-    RUNTIME_HINT="${RUNTIME_RENDERED}"
-  fi
-fi
-
-CONFIG_HINT="Project config: .agdf/control/config.json not found. Use npx --yes @agdf/cli@latest config --language de|en to persist the project language."
-if [[ -f "${CONFIG_PATH}" ]]; then
-  CONFIG_HINT="$(CONFIG_PATH="${CONFIG_PATH}" node <<'NODE' 2>/dev/null || true
-const fs = require("node:fs");
-const path = process.env.CONFIG_PATH;
-try {
-  const config = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(path, "utf8"));
-  const artefacts = config.artifact_language || "unset";
-  const chat = config.chat_language || "unset";
-  const runtime = config.runtime_language || "en";
-  console.log(`Project config: .agdf/control/config.json (artefacts=${artefacts}, chat=${chat}, runtime=${runtime}).`);
-  if (artefacts !== "unset" || chat !== "unset") {
-    console.log(`Language policy: write durable AGDF artefacts in ${artefacts} and user-facing responses in ${chat} unless the user explicitly asks otherwise. Runtime rules stay ${runtime}.`);
-  }
-} catch {
-  console.log("Project config: .agdf/control/config.json exists but is not valid JSON. Run the surface-local AGDF validator's doctor command.");
-}
-NODE
-)"
-fi
-
-cat <<EOF
-AGDF active.
-
-${RUNTIME_HINT}
-
-Use the installed AGDF skills as workflow controls.
-For a new build, change, extension, refactor, CLI, app, fix with product semantics, unclear approval, or unclear next step, use gate-check before implementation or later-gate artefacts.
-${CONFIG_HINT}
 
-Do not print the full router or constitution unless the user asks for them.
-Source of truth:
-- ${ROUTER}
-- ${CONSTITUTION}
-- ${RUNTIME_CONTRACT}
-EOF
+printf '%s\n' "AGDF SessionStart transport unavailable: generated runtime entrypoint not found."

package/generated/plugins/agdf/mcp/agdf-mcp-launch.js

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+
+// Generated by scripts/sync-plugin-mcp.js; do not edit.
+import { fileURLToPath } from "node:url";
+import { launchPluginMcpServer } from "../runtime/create-agdf/lib/mcp-lifecycle/plugin-runtime.js";
+
+await launchPluginMcpServer({ pluginRoot: fileURLToPath(new URL("../", import.meta.url)) });

package/generated/plugins/agdf/mcp/claude.mcp.json

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+{
+  "mcpServers": {
+    "agdf": {
+      "type": "stdio",
+      "command": "node",
+      "args": [
+        "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/mcp/agdf-mcp-launch.js"
+      ]
+    }
+  }
+}

package/generated/plugins/agdf/mcp/sdk/expected-sdk.json

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+{
+  "schema_version": 1,
+  "sdk_digest": "b863c5d6511cbdf1e29eddaf5e95e052b5f5c0d742d186f6665daaa9189994bb",
+  "packages": [
+    {
+      "name": "@modelcontextprotocol/core",
+      "version": "2.0.0",
+      "integrity": "sha512-pJCEwGG7Lfr/+PQp9ZTwKXNeO5wzbfKL7H3MYpCorM4oFBoQrdjnBgEoqG+RjhsvS1FKrDbKux+M1HhlnGWqcA=="
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "@modelcontextprotocol/server",
+      "version": "2.0.0",
+      "integrity": "sha512-YhHWdHfpFMQfd0prsEnxKeS3Qz3ytIGmsS0sth4KDjnacIT7hxk6hXHkJ9KysxlkvTM+WZAtQbbcUhdoP4Hvtw=="
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "zod",
+      "version": "4.5.4",
+      "integrity": "sha512-sC95tT5iHHH9gtpj6A81kh+NEaRAUFN+qlUPDUbRfOMvNf5QCBqsb3WgvnpVtK5Y+4UfA6KqufotuTvMGiTlsA=="
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/generated/plugins/agdf/mcp/sdk/package-lock.json

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+{
+  "name": "agdf-plugin-mcp-sdk",
+  "lockfileVersion": 3,
+  "requires": true,
+  "packages": {
+    "": {
+      "name": "agdf-plugin-mcp-sdk",
+      "dependencies": {
+        "@modelcontextprotocol/server": "2.0.0"
+      }
+    },
+    "node_modules/@modelcontextprotocol/core": {
+      "version": "2.0.0",
+      "resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/@modelcontextprotocol/core/-/core-2.0.0.tgz",
+      "integrity": "sha512-pJCEwGG7Lfr/+PQp9ZTwKXNeO5wzbfKL7H3MYpCorM4oFBoQrdjnBgEoqG+RjhsvS1FKrDbKux+M1HhlnGWqcA==",
+      "license": "MIT",
+      "dependencies": {
+        "zod": "^4.2.0"
+      },
+      "engines": {
+        "node": ">=20"
+      }
+    },
+    "node_modules/@modelcontextprotocol/server": {
+      "version": "2.0.0",
+      "resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/@modelcontextprotocol/server/-/server-2.0.0.tgz",
+      "integrity": "sha512-YhHWdHfpFMQfd0prsEnxKeS3Qz3ytIGmsS0sth4KDjnacIT7hxk6hXHkJ9KysxlkvTM+WZAtQbbcUhdoP4Hvtw==",
+      "license": "MIT",
+      "dependencies": {
+        "@modelcontextprotocol/core": "2.0.0",
+        "zod": "^4.2.0"
+      },
+      "engines": {
+        "node": ">=20"
+      }
+    },
+    "node_modules/zod": {
+      "version": "4.5.4",
+      "resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/zod/-/zod-4.5.4.tgz",
+      "integrity": "sha512-sC95tT5iHHH9gtpj6A81kh+NEaRAUFN+qlUPDUbRfOMvNf5QCBqsb3WgvnpVtK5Y+4UfA6KqufotuTvMGiTlsA==",
+      "license": "MIT",
+      "funding": {
+        "url": "https://github.com/sponsors/colinhacks"
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}

package/generated/plugins/agdf/mcp/sdk/package.json

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+{
+  "name": "agdf-plugin-mcp-sdk",
+  "private": true,
+  "dependencies": {
+    "@modelcontextprotocol/server": "2.0.0"
+  }
+}

package/generated/plugins/agdf/mcp/server/NOTICE

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+AI Governance & Delivery Framework (AGDF)
+Copyright 2026 Arndt Gold
+
+This product includes software developed by the Model Context Protocol project.
+Dependency versions and licenses are recorded by the package lock and release inventory.
+
+AGDF(TM) and AI Governance & Delivery Framework(TM) are marks of Arndt Gold.
+The Apache License, Version 2.0 does not grant permission to use project names,
+trademarks, service marks or logos except as required for reasonable and
+customary description of the origin of the project.