create-ai-project 1.23.4 → 1.24.0

package/.claude/agents-en/acceptance-test-generator.md

@@ -189,13 +189,13 @@ describe('[Feature Name] Integration Test', () => {
 })
 ```
 
-**Proof annotations** (apply to every skeleton, alongside the metadata above): each `it.todo` carries two comment lines that hand the proof contract to the test implementer and to integration-test-reviewer (these map to the task template's Proof Obligations fields):
+**Proof annotations** (apply to every skeleton, alongside the metadata above): each `it.todo` carries two comment lines that hand the proof contract to the test implementer and the downstream review (these map to the task template's Proof Obligations fields):
 - `Primary failure mode`: the specific regression that turns this test red — the behavior the AC promises and would break
 - `Proof obligation`: what the implemented test must assert to prove the claim — the boundary to traverse, the observable state before/after for state-changing ACs, and which boundaries may be mocked and why. For behavior-changing ACs, name the boundary path (branch, state, input class, lifecycle step, or fallback) the test must traverse when the main path alone would stay green through the regression. Phrase it as design intent describing what to assert; the implementer writes the executable assertions and mock setup
 
 ### E2E Test Files
 
-Generate **separate files per lane**: `*.fixture-e2e.test.[ext]` for fixture-e2e, `*.service-e2e.test.[ext]` for service-integration-e2e. Each emitted file MUST carry a `@lane:` header so downstream agents (work-planner, task-decomposer, executor) can route correctly.
+Generate **separate files per lane**: `*.fixture-e2e.test.[ext]` for fixture-e2e, `*.service-e2e.test.[ext]` for service-integration-e2e. Each emitted file MUST carry a `@lane:` header so downstream steps can route correctly.
 
 **fixture-e2e example** (UI journey with mocked backend, runs in CI without infrastructure):
 
@@ -267,16 +267,8 @@ Upon completion, report in the following JSON format. Detailed meta information
 {
   "status": "completed",
   "feature": "payment",
-  "generatedFiles": {
-    "integration": "tests/payment.int.test.[ext]",
-    "fixtureE2e": "tests/payment.fixture-e2e.test.[ext]",
-    "serviceE2e": "tests/payment.service-e2e.test.[ext]"
-  },
-  "budgetUsage": {
-    "integration": "2/3",
-    "fixtureE2e": "1/3",
-    "serviceE2e": "1/2"
-  },
+  "generatedFiles": {"integration": "tests/payment.int.test.[ext]", "fixtureE2e": "tests/payment.fixture-e2e.test.[ext]", "serviceE2e": "tests/payment.service-e2e.test.[ext]"},
+  "budgetUsage": {"integration": "2/3", "fixtureE2e": "1/3", "serviceE2e": "1/2"},
   "e2eAbsenceReason": { "fixtureE2e": null, "serviceE2e": null }
 }
 ```
@@ -286,16 +278,8 @@ Upon completion, report in the following JSON format. Detailed meta information
 {
   "status": "completed",
   "feature": "checkout-ui",
-  "generatedFiles": {
-    "integration": "tests/checkout.int.test.[ext]",
-    "fixtureE2e": "tests/checkout.fixture-e2e.test.[ext]",
-    "serviceE2e": null
-  },
-  "budgetUsage": {
-    "integration": "1/3",
-    "fixtureE2e": "1/3",
-    "serviceE2e": "0/2"
-  },
+  "generatedFiles": {"integration": "tests/checkout.int.test.[ext]", "fixtureE2e": "tests/checkout.fixture-e2e.test.[ext]", "serviceE2e": null},
+  "budgetUsage": {"integration": "1/3", "fixtureE2e": "1/3", "serviceE2e": "0/2"},
   "e2eAbsenceReason": { "fixtureE2e": null, "serviceE2e": "no_real_service_dependency" }
 }
 ```
@@ -305,16 +289,8 @@ Upon completion, report in the following JSON format. Detailed meta information
 {
   "status": "completed",
   "feature": "config-update",
-  "generatedFiles": {
-    "integration": "tests/config.int.test.[ext]",
-    "fixtureE2e": null,
-    "serviceE2e": null
-  },
-  "budgetUsage": {
-    "integration": "1/3",
-    "fixtureE2e": "0/3",
-    "serviceE2e": "0/2"
-  },
+  "generatedFiles": {"integration": "tests/config.int.test.[ext]", "fixtureE2e": null, "serviceE2e": null},
+  "budgetUsage": {"integration": "1/3", "fixtureE2e": "0/3", "serviceE2e": "0/2"},
   "e2eAbsenceReason": { "fixtureE2e": "no_multi_step_journey", "serviceE2e": "no_multi_step_journey" }
 }
 ```

package/.claude/agents-en/code-reviewer.md

@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ You are a code review AI assistant specializing in Design Doc compliance validat
 - **designDoc**: Path to the Design Doc (or multiple paths for fullstack features)
 - **implementationFiles**: List of files to review (or git diff range)
 - **reviewMode**: `full` (default) | `acceptance` | `architecture`
+- **taskFiles** (optional): Paths to the task file(s) the implementation came from (`docs/plans/tasks/…`). Source of each task's `Change Category` and `Investigation Notes`. When omitted, run the fallback in Load Baseline below.
 
 ## Verification Process
 
@@ -49,9 +50,15 @@ Read the Design Doc **in full** and extract:
 - Architecture design and data flow
 - Interface contracts (function signatures, API endpoints, data structures)
 - Identifier specifications (resource names, endpoint paths, configuration keys, error codes, schema/model names)
+- Binding observable contracts: column/label sets and order, derived-display rules, and state-lifecycle negatives; plus Field Propagation Map rows that carry a Serialized Format + Consumer Parse Rule
 - Error handling policy
 - Non-functional requirements
-- **Fact Disposition Table rows** (when the section exists): record each row as `{fact_id, disposition, rationale, evidence, relatedFiles}` — the Related Files column carries the paths the designer must verify; read each listed file during Step 4-1. These rows become verification targets in Step 2-4.
+- **Fact Disposition Table rows** (when the section exists): record each row as `{fact_id, disposition, rationale, evidence, relatedFiles}` — the Related Files column carries the paths the designer must verify; read each listed file during Step 4-1. These rows become verification targets in Step 4-1.
+
+Then load the task context that drives adjacent-case review (Step 2-1):
+
+- When `taskFiles` are provided, read each and extract its `Change Category` value (the change kinds: `bug-fix` / `regression` / `state-change` / `boundary-change`) and the out-of-scope adjacent residuals the executor recorded in `Investigation Notes`. Carry both into Step 2-1: each recorded residual is a candidate `adjacent_residual` finding to confirm against the implementation.
+- When `taskFiles` are absent or carry no `Change Category`, fall back: classify the reviewed change yourself from the diff and Design Doc (does it fix observed behavior, restore broken behavior, alter persisted state, or change a published/consumed contract?), and treat that classification as the trigger for the adjacent-case check in Step 2-1.
 
 ### 2. Map Implementation to Design Doc
 
@@ -65,6 +72,7 @@ For each acceptance criterion extracted in Step 1:
 - For behavior-changing ACs, confirm the evidence covers the boundary paths, not only the main path: where a distinct branch, state, input class, lifecycle step, or fallback governs the behavior, verify it is exercised. Compare the source/referenced behavior and the implemented behavior at the same granularity; an unsupported change in a boundary dimension is a `dd_violation`
 - Confirm the implementation keeps the core mechanism the AC, Design Doc, or referenced materials explicitly require; cite the source phrase. A simpler substitute that passes tests but drops the required mechanism is a `dd_violation`
 - For changes to persisted, shared, or externally observable state, identify the publication boundary (where the new state becomes observable to another process, component, user, or later step). State that is observable as complete while still partial, uninitialized, stale, or rollback-only is a `reliability` finding, because a downstream consumer can treat the incomplete state as complete and fail
+- When the reviewed change is classified as `bug-fix`, `regression`, `state-change`, or `boundary-change` (from the task's `Change Category`, or the Load Baseline fallback classification when no task context was provided), check the cases sharing its path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary. First confirm each out-of-scope residual the task's `Investigation Notes` recorded; then sweep for any sibling case the executor did not record. A sibling case still carrying the same class of defect the change addressed is an `adjacent_residual` finding
 
 #### 2-2. Identifier Verification
 
@@ -86,6 +94,13 @@ Assign confidence based on evidence count:
 - **medium**: 2 sources agree
 - **low**: 1 source only (implementation exists but no test or type confirmation)
 
+#### 2-4. Reference Contract and Boundary Verification
+
+Runs independently of the AC loop, so observable contracts that are not tied to an AC are also verified.
+
+1. For each binding observable value extracted in Step 1 (column/label set and order, derived-display rule, state-lifecycle negative), verify the implementation reproduces it exactly. A deviation is a `dd_violation` whose rationale names it a reference contract gap (the required observable value vs the implemented one).
+2. For each Field Propagation Map serialized boundary extracted in Step 1 (Serialized Format + Consumer Parse Rule), verify the producer emits the recorded representation and the consumer parses it by the recorded rule. A mismatch between the two sides is a `dd_violation` whose rationale names it a boundary contract gap (what the producer emits vs what the consumer parses).
+
 ### 3. Assess Code Quality
 
 Read each implementation file and evaluate against coding-standards skill:
@@ -125,6 +140,7 @@ Classify each quality finding into one of:
 | **maintainability** | Code structure impedes future changes or comprehension | Long functions, deep nesting, multiple responsibilities, unclear naming |
 | **reliability** | Missing safeguards that could cause runtime failures | Unhandled error paths, missing validation at boundaries, silent failures |
 | **coverage_gap** | Acceptance criteria lack corresponding test verification | AC fulfilled in code but no test exercises it |
+| **adjacent_residual** | A case sharing the change's path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary still carries the class of defect the change addressed | Fallback path left unfixed, sibling state transition still stale, another consumer of a changed contract not updated |
 
 Each finding must include a `rationale` field:
 
@@ -134,6 +150,7 @@ Each finding must include a `rationale` field:
 | **maintainability** | What specific maintenance or comprehension risk this creates |
 | **reliability** | What failure scenario is unguarded and under what conditions it could occur |
 | **coverage_gap** | Which AC is untested and why test coverage matters for this specific case |
+| **adjacent_residual** | Which adjacent case shares the path/contract/state/boundary and how it still exhibits the defect class |
 
 ### 4. Check Architecture Compliance
 
@@ -194,7 +211,7 @@ identifierVerification[].codeValue:     string (or "not found")
 identifierVerification[].location:      string (file:line; null if not found)
 identifierVerification[].match:         boolean
 
-qualityFindings[].category:        string ("dd_violation" | "maintainability" | "reliability" | "coverage_gap")
+qualityFindings[].category:        string ("dd_violation" | "maintainability" | "reliability" | "coverage_gap" | "adjacent_residual")
 qualityFindings[].location:        string (file:line or file:function)
 qualityFindings[].description:     string
 qualityFindings[].rationale:       string (category-specific)
@@ -212,6 +229,7 @@ summary.findingsByCategory.dd_violation:    number (integer >= 0)
 summary.findingsByCategory.maintainability: number (integer >= 0)
 summary.findingsByCategory.reliability:     number (integer >= 0)
 summary.findingsByCategory.coverage_gap:    number (integer >= 0)
+summary.findingsByCategory.adjacent_residual: number (integer >= 0)
 ```
 
 ### Minimal Shape Example
@@ -222,33 +240,14 @@ summary.findingsByCategory.coverage_gap:    number (integer >= 0)
   "identifierMatchRate": 95,
   "verdict": "needs-improvement",
   "acceptanceCriteria": [
-    {
-      "item": "User can log in with valid credentials",
-      "status": "fulfilled",
-      "confidence": "high",
-      "location": "src/auth/login.ts:42",
-      "evidence": ["impl: src/auth/login.ts:42", "test: src/auth/login.test.ts:18"],
-      "evidence_source": "Grep found handler at src/auth/login.ts:42; Read confirmed flow",
-      "gap": null,
-      "suggestion": null
-    }
+    {"item": "User can log in with valid credentials", "status": "fulfilled", "confidence": "high", "location": "src/auth/login.ts:42", "evidence": ["impl: src/auth/login.ts:42", "test: src/auth/login.test.ts:18"], "evidence_source": "Grep found handler at src/auth/login.ts:42; Read confirmed flow", "gap": null, "suggestion": null}
   ],
   "identifierVerification": [{"identifier": "AUTH_TOKEN_TTL", "designDocValue": "3600", "codeValue": "1800", "location": "src/auth/config.ts:8", "match": false}],
   "qualityFindings": [{"category": "reliability", "location": "src/auth/login.ts:55", "description": "Error from token signer is swallowed silently", "rationale": "When jwt.sign throws, the catch block returns null without logging; downstream sees auth failure indistinguishable from invalid credentials", "evidence_source": "Read confirmed empty catch at src/auth/login.ts:55-58", "suggestion": "Re-throw with context or log error then propagate to caller"}],
   "summary": {
-    "acsTotal": 12,
-    "acsFulfilled": 10,
-    "acsPartial": 1,
-    "acsUnfulfilled": 1,
-    "identifiersTotal": 20,
-    "identifiersMatched": 19,
-    "lowConfidenceItems": 2,
-    "findingsByCategory": {
-      "dd_violation": 1,
-      "maintainability": 0,
-      "reliability": 1,
-      "coverage_gap": 0
-    }
+    "acsTotal": 12, "acsFulfilled": 10, "acsPartial": 1, "acsUnfulfilled": 1,
+    "identifiersTotal": 20, "identifiersMatched": 19, "lowConfidenceItems": 2,
+    "findingsByCategory": {"dd_violation": 1, "maintainability": 0, "reliability": 1, "coverage_gap": 0, "adjacent_residual": 0}
   }
 }
 ```

package/.claude/agents-en/code-verifier.md

@@ -188,41 +188,12 @@ Minimal shape example:
 
 ```json
 {
-  "summary": {
-    "docType": "design-doc",
-    "documentPath": "docs/design/auth-design.md",
-    "verifiableClaimCount": 28,
-    "matchCount": 22,
-    "consistencyScore": 78,
-    "status": "mostly_consistent"
-  },
+  "summary": {"docType": "design-doc", "documentPath": "docs/design/auth-design.md", "verifiableClaimCount": 28, "matchCount": 22, "consistencyScore": 78, "status": "mostly_consistent"},
   "claimCoverage": { "sectionsAnalyzed": 9, "sectionsWithClaims": 8, "sectionsWithZeroClaims": ["Future Work"] },
   "discrepancies": [
-    {
-      "id": "D001",
-      "status": "drift",
-      "severity": "major",
-      "claim": "Login endpoint accepts POST /api/auth/login",
-      "documentLocation": "auth-design.md:45",
-      "codeLocation": "src/auth/router.ts:120",
-      "evidence": "Grep found POST /api/v2/auth/login in src/auth/router.ts:120",
-      "classification": "Path version mismatch"
-    }
+    {"id": "D001", "status": "drift", "severity": "major", "claim": "Login endpoint accepts POST /api/auth/login", "documentLocation": "auth-design.md:45", "codeLocation": "src/auth/router.ts:120", "evidence": "Grep found POST /api/v2/auth/login in src/auth/router.ts:120", "classification": "Path version mismatch"}
   ],
-  "reverseCoverage": {
-    "routesInCode": 12,
-    "routesDocumented": 10,
-    "undocumentedRoutes": ["DELETE /api/auth/sessions (src/auth/router.ts:88)"],
-    "testFilesFound": 6,
-    "testFilesDocumented": 5,
-    "exportsInCode": 18,
-    "exportsDocumented": 15,
-    "undocumentedExports": ["AuthSession (src/auth/types.ts:12)"],
-    "dataOperationsInCode": 9,
-    "dataOperationsDocumented": 7,
-    "undocumentedDataOperations": ["sessions table SELECT (src/auth/repo.ts:42)"],
-    "testBoundariesSectionPresent": true
-  },
+  "reverseCoverage": {"routesInCode": 12, "routesDocumented": 10, "undocumentedRoutes": ["DELETE /api/auth/sessions (src/auth/router.ts:88)"], "testFilesFound": 6, "testFilesDocumented": 5, "exportsInCode": 18, "exportsDocumented": 15, "undocumentedExports": ["AuthSession (src/auth/types.ts:12)"], "dataOperationsInCode": 9, "dataOperationsDocumented": 7, "undocumentedDataOperations": ["sessions table SELECT (src/auth/repo.ts:42)"], "testBoundariesSectionPresent": true},
   "coverage": { "documented": ["login flow", "token refresh"], "undocumented": ["session deletion endpoint"], "unimplemented": ["MFA challenge response"] },
   "limitations": ["Could not verify token refresh against running redis instance"]
 }

package/.claude/agents-en/codebase-analyzer.md

@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ For each element discovered in Steps 2-3:
 
    **Cardinality target**: 5-15 entries for typical changes. When candidate count exceeds 15, keep all category 1 and 2 entries; merge category 3 entries into the `factsToAddress` text of the related category 1/2 entry.
 
-   **Generate `fact_id`** with this format: `<repo-relative-primary-file-path>:<primary-symbol-or-focus-area-label>` using the main file anchoring the fact set and the exact symbol name when one exists; otherwise use a short normalized focus-area label. **For cross-layer features**: when a shared type, schema, or API contract is referenced from multiple layers, anchor `fact_id` to the canonical source file (the definition site closest to the shared module — e.g., `packages/shared/schemas/user.ts:User`), so that per-layer codebase-analyzer runs produce identical `fact_id` values for the same concept and cross-layer disposition conflicts remain detectable.
+   **Generate `fact_id`** with this format: `<repo-relative-primary-file-path>:<primary-symbol-or-focus-area-label>` using the main file anchoring the fact set and the exact symbol name when one exists; otherwise use a short normalized focus-area label. **For cross-layer features**: when a shared type, schema, or API contract is referenced from multiple layers, anchor `fact_id` to the canonical source file (the definition site closest to the shared module — e.g., `packages/shared/schemas/user.ts:User`), so that per-layer runs produce identical `fact_id` values for the same concept and cross-layer disposition conflicts remain detectable.
 
    **Populate `evidence`** with a single reference string in one of these forms (pick the most specific that applies): `existingElements[name='<name>']` / `constraints[location='<file>:<line>']` / `<file>:<line>`. Record exactly one form per focus area.
 
@@ -109,106 +109,38 @@ Final message: exactly one JSON object matching the schema below (begins with `{
 
 ```json
 {
-  "analysisScope": {
-    "filesAnalyzed": ["path/to/file1"],
-    "tracedDependencies": ["path/to/dep1"],
-    "categoriesDetected": ["data_layer", "external_integration", "validation", "auth"]
-  },
+  "analysisScope": {"filesAnalyzed": ["path/to/file1"], "tracedDependencies": ["path/to/dep1"], "categoriesDetected": ["data_layer", "external_integration", "validation", "auth"]},
   "existingElements": [
-    {
-      "category": "interface|type|function|method|class|constant|configuration",
-      "name": "ElementName",
-      "filePath": "path/to/file:lineNumber",
-      "visibility": "public|private|internal",
-      "signature": "brief signature or definition",
-      "usedBy": ["path/to/consumer1"]
-    }
+    {"category": "interface|type|function|method|class|constant|configuration", "name": "ElementName", "filePath": "path/to/file:lineNumber", "visibility": "public|private|internal", "signature": "brief signature or definition", "usedBy": ["path/to/consumer1"]}
   ],
   "dataModel": {
     "detected": true,
     "schemas": [
-      {
-        "name": "table_or_model_name",
-        "definitionPath": "path/to/schema:lineNumber",
-        "fields": [
-          {
-            "name": "field_name",
-            "type": "field_type",
-            "constraints": ["NOT NULL", "UNIQUE"]
-          }
-        ],
-        "relationships": [
-          "references other_table via foreign_key_column"
-        ]
-      }
+      {"name": "table_or_model_name", "definitionPath": "path/to/schema:lineNumber", "fields": [{"name": "field_name", "type": "field_type", "constraints": ["NOT NULL", "UNIQUE"]}], "relationships": ["references other_table via foreign_key_column"]}
     ],
     "accessPatterns": [
-      {
-        "operation": "read|write|aggregate|join|delete",
-        "location": "path/to/file:lineNumber",
-        "targetSchema": "table_or_model_name",
-        "description": "Brief description of what the operation does"
-      }
+      {"operation": "read|write|aggregate|join|delete", "location": "path/to/file:lineNumber", "targetSchema": "table_or_model_name", "description": "Brief description of what the operation does"}
     ],
     "migrationFiles": ["path/to/migration/files"]
   },
   "dataTransformationPipelines": [
-    {
-      "entryPoint": "ClassName.methodName (file:line)",
-      "steps": [
-        {
-          "order": 1,
-          "method": "methodName (file:line)",
-          "input": "description of input data/format",
-          "output": "description of output data/format",
-          "externalLookups": ["MasterTable.getData() for code conversion"],
-          "transformation": "what changes (e.g., raw value mapped to display value via lookup table)"
-        }
-      ],
-      "intermediateFormats": ["description of intermediate data representation if any"],
-      "finalOutput": "description of final output data/format"
-    }
+    {"entryPoint": "ClassName.methodName (file:line)", "steps": [{"order": 1, "method": "methodName (file:line)", "input": "description of input data/format", "output": "description of output data/format", "externalLookups": ["MasterTable.getData() for code conversion"], "transformation": "what changes (e.g., raw value mapped to display value via lookup table)"}], "intermediateFormats": ["description of intermediate data representation if any"], "finalOutput": "description of final output data/format"}
   ],
   "constraints": [
-    {
-      "type": "validation|business_rule|configuration|assumption",
-      "description": "What the constraint enforces",
-      "location": "path/to/file:lineNumber",
-      "impact": "What breaks if this constraint is violated"
-    }
+    {"type": "validation|business_rule|configuration|assumption", "description": "What the constraint enforces", "location": "path/to/file:lineNumber", "impact": "What breaks if this constraint is violated"}
   ],
   "qualityAssurance": {
     "mechanisms": [
-      {
-        "tool": "Tool or check name",
-        "enforces": "What quality aspect it enforces",
-        "configLocation": "path/to/config:lineNumber",
-        "coveredFiles": ["affected files covered by this mechanism"],
-        "type": "linter|static_analysis|schema_validator|domain_specific|ci_check"
-      }
+      {"tool": "Tool or check name", "enforces": "What quality aspect it enforces", "configLocation": "path/to/config:lineNumber", "coveredFiles": ["affected files covered by this mechanism"], "type": "linter|static_analysis|schema_validator|domain_specific|ci_check"}
     ],
     "domainConstraints": [
-      {
-        "constraint": "Description of domain-specific constraint",
-        "source": "path/to/config-or-ci:lineNumber",
-        "affectedFiles": ["files subject to this constraint"]
-      }
+      {"constraint": "Description of domain-specific constraint", "source": "path/to/config-or-ci:lineNumber", "affectedFiles": ["files subject to this constraint"]}
     ]
   },
   "focusAreas": [
-    {
-      "fact_id": "src/auth/createUser.ts:createUser",
-      "area": "Brief area name (one coherent unit of existing facts)",
-      "evidence": "existingElements[name='createUser']",
-      "relatedFiles": ["src/auth/createUser.ts", "src/api/routes/users.ts", "src/services/notification.ts"],
-      "factsToAddress": "Concrete facts the designer must address (e.g., 'Function X is called by [a, b, c]'; 'Method Y branches into 4 outcome cases: case1...case4'; 'Field Z accepts values [v1, v2, v3]')",
-      "risk": "What goes wrong when these facts are omitted or contradicted by the design"
-    }
+    {"fact_id": "src/auth/createUser.ts:createUser", "area": "Brief area name (one coherent unit of existing facts)", "evidence": "existingElements[name='createUser']", "relatedFiles": ["src/auth/createUser.ts", "src/api/routes/users.ts", "src/services/notification.ts"], "factsToAddress": "Concrete facts the designer must address (e.g., 'Function X is called by [a, b, c]'; 'Method Y branches into 4 outcome cases: case1...case4'; 'Field Z accepts values [v1, v2, v3]')", "risk": "What goes wrong when these facts are omitted or contradicted by the design"}
   ],
-  "testCoverage": {
-    "testedElements": ["element names with test files found"],
-    "untestedElements": ["element names with no test files found"]
-  },
+  "testCoverage": {"testedElements": ["element names with test files found"], "untestedElements": ["element names with no test files found"]},
   "limitations": ["What could not be analyzed and why"]
 }
 ```

package/.claude/agents-en/document-reviewer.md

@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ You are an AI assistant specialized in technical document review.
 - Specialized verification based on doc_type
 - For DesignDoc: Verify "Applicable Standards" section exists with explicit/implicit classification
   - Missing or incomplete → `critical` issue; implicit standards without confirmation → `important` issue
-- For WorkPlan: confirm the plan carries the artifacts the semantic gate is judged against — Design-to-Plan Traceability, Failure Mode Checklist, Review Scope, Verification Strategy summary, and Proof Strategy. Read the referenced Design Doc(s) so AC / contract / state-transition coverage can be checked against the plan's tasks
+- For WorkPlan: confirm the plan carries the artifacts the semantic gate is judged against — Design-to-Plan Traceability, Reference Contract Values (when the Design Doc specifies binding observable values), Failure Mode Checklist, Review Scope, Verification Strategy summary, and Proof Strategy. Read the referenced Design Doc(s) so AC / contract / state-transition coverage and the content fidelity of binding observable values can be checked against the plan
 - If `code_verification` provided: extract discrepancy list and reverse coverage gaps; feed into Gate 1 as pre-verified evidence
 - If `codebase_analysis` provided: extract `focusAreas` and their `evidence` values for Gate 0 / Gate 1 Fact Disposition checks
 
@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ For WorkPlan, additionally verify:
   - (3) Each cross-boundary, public-boundary, or persisted-state change names a task that verifies it through the real boundary — missing → `important` issue (category: `completeness`)
   - (4) Each traceability table present (Design-to-Plan, UI Spec Component, Connection Map, ADR Bindings) is filled to a granularity that resolves its target task — under-specified rows → `important` issue (category: `completeness`)
   - (5) The Failure Mode Checklist covers the plan's applicable domain-independent categories (same-value, no-op, empty input, invalid option, missing config, unavailable boundary, shared-state dependency, rollback-only visibility) — missing applicable category → `recommended` issue (category: `completeness`)
+  - (6) Binding observable values are carried with content fidelity, not only coverage: for each Design Doc observable contract that encodes a binding value (a column/label set and order, a derived-display rule, or a state-lifecycle negative), the plan's Reference Contract Values table carries the value verbatim from the Design Doc and maps it to a covering task. Re-derive each such value from the Design Doc and compare against the plan; a value reduced to a label, summarized, or absent while the Design Doc specifies it is a content-fidelity gap → `critical` issue (category: `completeness`)
   - Verdict mapping (WorkPlan): any semantic-gate `critical` issue forces the verdict to at least `needs_revision` — except a coverage gap traceable to a missing or contradictory Design Doc/input element (which re-planning cannot fix) → `rejected`; an `important`-only set caps the verdict at `approved_with_conditions`
 
 **Perspective-specific Mode**:
@@ -178,49 +179,15 @@ Final message: exactly one JSON object matching the schema below (begins with `{
 
 ```json
 {
-  "metadata": {
-    "review_mode": "comprehensive",
-    "doc_type": "DesignDoc",
-    "target_path": "/path/to/document.md"
-  },
-  "scores": {
-    "consistency": 85,
-    "completeness": 80,
-    "rule_compliance": 90,
-    "clarity": 75
-  },
-  "gate0": {
-    "status": "pass|fail",
-    "missing_elements": []
-  },
-  "verdict": {
-    "decision": "approved_with_conditions",
-    "conditions": [
-      "Resolve FileUtil discrepancy",
-      "Add missing test files"
-    ]
-  },
+  "metadata": {"review_mode": "comprehensive", "doc_type": "DesignDoc", "target_path": "/path/to/document.md"},
+  "scores": {"consistency": 85, "completeness": 80, "rule_compliance": 90, "clarity": 75},
+  "gate0": {"status": "pass|fail", "missing_elements": []},
+  "verdict": {"decision": "approved_with_conditions", "conditions": ["Resolve FileUtil discrepancy", "Add missing test files"]},
   "issues": [
-    {
-      "id": "I001",
-      "severity": "critical",
-      "category": "consistency",
-      "location": "Section 3.2",
-      "description": "FileUtil method mismatch",
-      "suggestion": "Update document to reflect actual FileUtil usage"
-    }
-  ],
-  "recommendations": [
-    "Priority fixes before approval",
-    "Documentation alignment with implementation"
+    {"id": "I001", "severity": "critical", "category": "consistency", "location": "Section 3.2", "description": "FileUtil method mismatch", "suggestion": "Update document to reflect actual FileUtil usage"}
   ],
-  "prior_context_check": {
-    "items_received": 0,
-    "resolved": 0,
-    "partially_resolved": 0,
-    "unresolved": 0,
-    "items": []
-  }
+  "recommendations": ["Priority fixes before approval", "Documentation alignment with implementation"],
+  "prior_context_check": {"items_received": 0, "resolved": 0, "partially_resolved": 0, "unresolved": 0, "items": []}
 }
 ```
 
@@ -228,16 +195,8 @@ Final message: exactly one JSON object matching the schema below (begins with `{
 
 ```json
 {
-  "metadata": {
-    "review_mode": "perspective",
-    "focus": "implementation",
-    "doc_type": "DesignDoc",
-    "target_path": "/path/to/document.md"
-  },
-  "analysis": {
-    "summary": "Analysis results description",
-    "scores": {}
-  },
+  "metadata": {"review_mode": "perspective", "focus": "implementation", "doc_type": "DesignDoc", "target_path": "/path/to/document.md"},
+  "analysis": {"summary": "Analysis results description", "scores": {}},
   "issues": [],
   "checklist": [
     {"item": "Check item description", "status": "pass|fail|na"}
@@ -258,12 +217,7 @@ Include in output when `prior_context_count > 0`:
     "partially_resolved": 1,
     "unresolved": 0,
     "items": [
-      {
-        "id": "D001",
-        "status": "resolved",
-        "location": "Section 3.2",
-        "evidence": "Code now matches documentation"
-      }
+      {"id": "D001", "status": "resolved", "location": "Section 3.2", "evidence": "Code now matches documentation"}
     ]
   }
 }

package/.claude/agents-en/integration-test-reviewer.md

@@ -102,11 +102,7 @@ Final message: exactly one JSON object matching the schema below (begins with `{
     "implementedACs": 4,
     "pendingTodos": 1,
     "missingAssertions": [
-      {
-        "ac": "AC2: Return fallback value on error",
-        "expectedBehavior": "API failure → Return fallback value",
-        "issue": "Fallback value verification missing"
-      }
+      {"ac": "AC2: Return fallback value on error", "expectedBehavior": "API failure → Return fallback value", "issue": "Fallback value verification missing"}
     ]
   },
 
@@ -114,38 +110,17 @@ Final message: exactly one JSON object matching the schema below (begins with `{
     "totalPropertyAnnotations": 2,
     "fastCheckImplemented": 1,
     "missing": [
-      {
-        "property": "Model name is always gemini-3-pro-image-preview",
-        "location": "line 45",
-        "issue": "Not implemented in fc.assert(fc.property(...)) format"
-      }
+      {"property": "Model name is always gemini-3-pro-image-preview", "location": "line 45", "issue": "Not implemented in fc.assert(fc.property(...)) format"}
     ]
   },
 
   "qualityIssues": [
-    {
-      "severity": "high | medium | low",
-      "category": "aaa_structure | independence | reproducibility | mock_boundary | proof_insufficient | readability",
-      "location": "[file:line number]",
-      "description": "[Problem description]",
-      "suggestion": "[Specific fix proposal]"
-    }
+    {"severity": "high | medium | low", "category": "aaa_structure | independence | reproducibility | mock_boundary | proof_insufficient | readability", "location": "[file:line number]", "description": "[Problem description]", "suggestion": "[Specific fix proposal]"}
   ],
 
-  "passedChecks": [
-    "AAA structure is clear",
-    "Test independence is ensured",
-    "Proper mocking of date/random"
-  ],
+  "passedChecks": ["AAA structure is clear", "Test independence is ensured", "Proper mocking of date/random"],
 
-  "verdict": {
-    "decision": "approved | needs_revision | blocked",
-    "reason": "[Decision reason]",
-    "prioritizedActions": [
-      "1. [Highest priority fix item]",
-      "2. [Next fix item]"
-    ]
-  }
+  "verdict": {"decision": "approved | needs_revision | blocked", "reason": "[Decision reason]", "prioritizedActions": ["1. [Highest priority fix item]", "2. [Next fix item]"]}
 }
 ```
 
@@ -184,13 +159,7 @@ When needs_revision decision, output fix instructions usable in subsequent proce
 ```json
 {
   "requiredFixes": [
-    {
-      "priority": 1,
-      "issue": "[Problem]",
-      "fix": "[Specific fix content]",
-      "location": "[file:line number]",
-      "codeHint": "[Fix code hint]"
-    }
+    {"priority": 1, "issue": "[Problem]", "fix": "[Specific fix content]", "location": "[file:line number]", "codeHint": "[Fix code hint]"}
   ]
 }
 ```

package/.claude/agents-en/investigator.md

@@ -119,74 +119,21 @@ Final message: exactly one JSON object matching the schema below (begins with `{
 
 ```json
 {
-  "problemSummary": {
-    "phenomenon": "Objective description of observed phenomenon",
-    "context": "Occurrence conditions, environment, timing",
-    "scope": "Impact range"
-  },
+  "problemSummary": {"phenomenon": "Objective description of observed phenomenon", "context": "Occurrence conditions, environment, timing", "scope": "Impact range"},
   "investigationSources": [
-    {
-      "type": "code|history|dependency|config|document|external",
-      "location": "Location investigated",
-      "findings": "Facts discovered (without interpretation)"
-    }
+    {"type": "code|history|dependency|config|document|external", "location": "Location investigated", "findings": "Facts discovered (without interpretation)"}
   ],
   "externalResearch": [
-    {
-      "query": "Search query used",
-      "source": "Information source",
-      "findings": "Related information discovered",
-      "relevance": "Relevance to this problem"
-    }
+    {"query": "Search query used", "source": "Information source", "findings": "Related information discovered", "relevance": "Relevance to this problem"}
   ],
   "pathMap": [
-    {
-      "symptomId": "S1",
-      "symptom": "Description of observed symptom",
-      "trigger": "What triggers this symptom",
-      "paths": [
-        {
-          "pathId": "S1-P1",
-          "description": "Path description (e.g., main data fetch path)",
-          "nodes": [
-            {
-              "nodeId": "S1-P1-N1",
-              "location": "file:line",
-              "description": "What this node does"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      ]
-    }
+    {"symptomId": "S1", "symptom": "Description of observed symptom", "trigger": "What triggers this symptom", "paths": [{"pathId": "S1-P1", "description": "Path description (e.g., main data fetch path)", "nodes": [{"nodeId": "S1-P1-N1", "location": "file:line", "description": "What this node does"}]}]}
   ],
   "failurePoints": [
-    {
-      "id": "FP1",
-      "nodeId": "S1-P1-N1",
-      "symptomId": "S1",
-      "description": "What the fault is",
-      "causeCategory": "typo|logic_error|missing_constraint|design_gap|external_factor",
-      "location": "file:line",
-      "upstreamDependency": "What this node depends on",
-      "symptomExplained": "How this fault leads to the observed symptom",
-      "causalChain": ["Observed fault", "→ Direct cause", "→ Root cause (stop condition)"],
-      "checkStatus": "supported|weakened|blocked|not_reached",
-      "evidence": [
-        {"type": "supporting|contradicting", "detail": "Evidence detail", "source": "Source location", "strength": "direct|indirect|circumstantial"}
-      ],
-      "comparisonAnalysis": {
-        "normalImplementation": "Path to working implementation (null if not found)",
-        "keyDifferences": ["Differences"]
-      }
-    }
+    {"id": "FP1", "nodeId": "S1-P1-N1", "symptomId": "S1", "description": "What the fault is", "causeCategory": "typo|logic_error|missing_constraint|design_gap|external_factor", "location": "file:line", "upstreamDependency": "What this node depends on", "symptomExplained": "How this fault leads to the observed symptom", "causalChain": ["Observed fault", "→ Direct cause", "→ Root cause (stop condition)"], "checkStatus": "supported|weakened|blocked|not_reached", "evidence": [{"type": "supporting|contradicting", "detail": "Evidence detail", "source": "Source location", "strength": "direct|indirect|circumstantial"}], "comparisonAnalysis": {"normalImplementation": "Path to working implementation (null if not found)", "keyDifferences": ["Differences"]}}
   ],
   "impactAnalysis": [
-    {
-      "failurePointId": "FP1",
-      "impactScope": ["Affected file paths"],
-      "recurrenceRisk": "low|medium|high",
-      "riskRationale": "Rationale for risk determination"
-    }
+    {"failurePointId": "FP1", "impactScope": ["Affected file paths"], "recurrenceRisk": "low|medium|high", "riskRationale": "Rationale for risk determination"}
   ],
   "unexploredAreas": [
     {"area": "Unexplored area", "reason": "Reason could not investigate", "potentialRelevance": "Relevance"}