create-anpunkit 2.2.0 → 2.3.0

package/template/.cursor/commands/overview.md

@@ -1,162 +0,0 @@
-Caveman ULTRA mode.
-
-Recommended: run from plan mode (Shift+Tab). Planning agents are read-only by
-tool grant; plan mode adds a read-only gate on the main session too. Optional.
-
-Goal: stand up a fresh project workspace with a well-grounded plan.
-
----
-
-## Steps
-
-### Round 1 — Initial grill
-
-1. Run the `grill-me` skill to interrogate me. Goal: understand initial scope.
-   Cover: project purpose, success criteria, external services, Azure services
-   needed (type + sizing), region, deployment target (Azure or local for E2E),
-   known constraints, unknowns. ALSO establish:
-   - **has_frontend**: is there a browser-facing UI? If yes, what is the frontend
-     root path (e.g. `src/web/`, `app/`)? This drives the mandatory-E2E path match.
-   Do not stop early. Do not write OVERVIEW.md yet.
-
-Store the round-1 answers as working context — do NOT write OVERVIEW.md yet.
-
----
-
-### Design research
-
-2. Extract DESIGN TOPICS from the round-1 answers. These are things we need
-   to verify before planning:
-   - Each external service mentioned: what does it support at the relevant tier?
-     Quotas, rate limits, known gaps?
-   - Azure services: any sizing or SKU constraints relevant to the use case?
-   - Auth patterns: any MSAL/Entra constraints for this scenario?
-   - Each external DATASOURCE: its DATA UNDERSTANDING (see step 4).
-   - Any other architectural assumption in the round-1 answers worth verifying.
-
-3. Dispatch `researcher` in DESIGN mode with the DESIGN TOPICS list.
-   It returns a terse summary + file paths. For every external datasource it
-   drafts a DATA UNDERSTANDING to `docs/research/datasource-<name>.md`:
-   grain (one row = what?), the fields likely under test with their meaning and
-   real-world nullability/range, a sample-fixture shape, and the assumption that
-   if wrong makes a test meaningless. Read the design-<slug>.md files only if needed.
-
----
-
-### RESEARCH REVIEW (v2.1 — read-and-confirm, not a grill)
-
-4. Surface the design-research findings to me DIRECTLY, phrased as FALSIFIABLE
-   CLAIMS about my systems — not a passive findings dump. For example:
-   "I understand your Tableau extract refreshes nightly and the API is read-only;
-   the `orders` grain is one row per line-item; `status` is never null in practice."
-   For each external datasource, present its drafted DATA UNDERSTANDING for me to
-   confirm or correct. Then:
-   - Minor corrections -> fold forward as seed context for round-2 grill.
-   - A MATERIAL error (wrong service tier, wrong data model, wrong grain) ->
-     re-dispatch `researcher` with the correction, then re-present. Do not carry
-     a known-wrong research file into grill or OVERVIEW.md.
-   A confirmed datasource understanding is recorded as the BASELINE in its
-   `datasource-<name>.md`. (Per-phase delta-confirms happen later in `/phase`.)
-
----
-
-### Round 2 — Research-informed re-grill
-
-5. Run `grill-me` again — a second focused pass. Seed it with:
-   - The round-1 answers (already established — do not re-ask these)
-   - The design-research key findings and new questions raised
-   - The RESEARCH REVIEW corrections
-
-   This pass MUST explicitly cover DATA STRUCTURE and DATAFLOW, especially the
-   STATE FLOW of each key object: what are the core entities, what states does
-   each move through, what transition triggers each change, who writes it, and
-   does any state map to an external system. The re-grill asks whatever else it
-   needs for complete understanding. Do not re-ask what round 1 established.
-
----
-
-### Write OVERVIEW.md + DATAFLOW.md
-
-6. Write docs/OVERVIEW.md from the COMBINED output of round-1 + design-research
-   + research review + round-2. Include:
-   - Project purpose and success criteria
-   - Scope and constraints (informed by research findings)
-   - External services with confirmed capabilities/limits
-   - "Azure services" section: every service with expected SKU
-   - Deployment target (azure-deployed or local-docker for E2E)
-   - `has_frontend: true|false` and, if true, the frontend root path
-   - Known risks / open questions (if any remain)
-
-   OVERVIEW.md is written HERE — after the re-grill, not before.
-
-7. Write docs/DATAFLOW.md — a state-transition table per key object, driven by the
-   round-2 data/state-flow grill. The data-side analogue of ENDPOINTS.md. Columns:
- ```
- # Dataflow — <project name>
- > Maintained from /overview; updated each phase that changes an object lifecycle.
- > Each transition row is one testable unit (drives the CLOSE coverage gate).
-
- | object | states | transition (from→to) | trigger | who writes | external system |
- |--------|--------|----------------------|---------|------------|-----------------|
- | Order  | draft,submitted,fulfilled | draft→submitted | POST /orders/submit | order-svc | — |
- ```
-   Any row whose `external system` is populated ties to a `datasource-<name>.md`.
-
----
-
-### Plan
-
-8. Hand OVERVIEW.md + DATAFLOW.md + design-research findings to the `planner`
-   subagent. PLAN.md MUST:
-   - Start with Phase 0 (infra setup) as the first entry (always).
-   - End with a final code phase that contains the deploy task block.
-   - For any phase whose `changes` touch the frontend root: include ≥1
-     UI-existence acceptance criterion naming the specific user-visible
-     interactive element the phase introduces (not "page renders 200").
-   - Map each phase to the DATAFLOW transitions it is expected to make reachable.
-
-   The planner ALSO writes the up-front SKELETON spec files (v2.2, §5.44/§5.51):
-   one `docs/spec-phase-<n>.md` per public-surface phase (skip Phase 0 + pure
-   infra/config/doc phases), enumerating the case NAMES — happy path, each named
-   edge, each named failure + error code — for every `dataflow:` transition and
-   every `acceptance` criterion, with `TBD` values. The generated header transcludes
-   that phase's `acceptance:` line + in-scope `DATAFLOW.md` transition rows verbatim.
-
-8b. STAMP each skeleton's staleness hash: for every `docs/spec-phase-<n>.md` the
-   planner wrote, run `bash scripts/spec-staleness.sh stamp <n>`. This embeds the
-   hash of the transcluded acceptance line + transition rows so phase-time
-   `/phase` can detect upstream drift. (Values are filled per phase by `spec-author`.)
-
-9. Create docs/STATE.md:
-```
-
-# STATE
-
-phase: 0 (pending)
-completed: project bootstrapped — design research, research review, double grill (incl. data/state flow) done
-next: run /infra to provision Azure infrastructure
-blocker: none
-
-```
-10. Create docs/ISSUES.md with header `# Issues` and `## Archived` section.
-
-11. Create empty docs/HISTORY.md.
-
-12. Create docs/INFRA.md from the template (populated by /infra).
-
-13. Create docs/ENDPOINTS.md:
- ```
- # Endpoints — <project name>
- > Maintained by implementer. Updated each phase.
- > Base URL: (populated after deployment phase)
- ```
-
-Then stop and show me PLAN.md + DATAFLOW.md for approval before any phase starts.
-EXTEND the approval surface (v2.2, §5.51 — one confirmation, no new gate): for each
-public-surface phase, list the transition/acceptance ids it covers and the enumerated
-case NAMES (no values). I confirm the case-name set is COMPLETE here — these names
-are the up-front behavioral contract; values get filled + reviewed per phase at
-`/phase` SPEC REVIEW.
-
-Remind me: "Run `/infra` next to provision the Azure environment (Phase 0) and
-run the one-time AUTH PROOF before starting Phase 1."

package/template/.cursor/commands/phase.md

@@ -1,296 +0,0 @@
-Caveman ULTRA mode. You are the ORCHESTRATOR. Route work to subagents —
-you do NOT implement, fill specs, or debug yourself.
-
-Note: subagents cannot talk to the user. Only YOU can.
-
-Target phase: $ARGUMENTS  (default: the phase marked pending in docs/PLAN.md)
-
----
-
-## 0. PRE-FLIGHT
-
-a. INFRA CHECK (phases > 0):
-   - Read docs/INFRA.md. If Phase 0 not done -> STOP.
-     Tell me: "Phase 0 (infra) not complete. Run `/infra` first."
-   - Exception: if $ARGUMENTS is "0", tell me to run `/infra` directly.
-
-b. PHASE STATE CHECK: Read docs/STATE.md and docs/PLAN.md.
-   - No phase in progress, requested is next pending -> START at step 1.
-   - Same phase in-progress -> RESUME from STATE.md "next action".
-   - Different phase in-progress -> STOP. Tell me which phase is open.
-   - Out of dependency order -> STOP. Warn, proceed only if I confirm.
-   - Phase not in PLAN.md -> STOP. Suggest /overview or /replan.
-
-c. FINAL PHASE CHECK: Read docs/PLAN.md. Is this the last phase (no further
-   pending phases after this one)? Record this as IS_FINAL_PHASE=true/false.
-
-d. AUTH LIVENESS GATE (hard rule 16): if this phase will run a boundary/E2E suite,
-   confirm every credential it needs is live NOW.
-   - If INFRA.md has no `AUTH PROOF: PASS` marker -> STOP: "Auth never proven
-     reusable. Run `/infra` first."
-   - Run `scripts/auth-setup.sh --check` (Entra token obtainable + not expired)
-     and, for each external system this phase touches (docs/DATAFLOW.md external
-     rows + docs/ENDPOINTS.md auth column), confirm its credential is obtainable
-     headlessly. Any failure -> boundary/E2E is BLOCKED; tell me what to run; the
-     MOCK suite may still proceed.
-
-e. FRONTEND TRIGGER (hard rule 13): read docs/OVERVIEW.md `has_frontend` + the
-   frontend root. Set FRONTEND_PHASE=true iff `has_frontend: true` AND this
-   phase's `changes` (docs/PLAN.md) include any path under the frontend root.
-   This is a PATH MATCH, not a judgment call. Record FRONTEND_PHASE — it gates the
-   `ui` boundary run + evidence at CLOSE.
-
----
-
-## 1. RESEARCH + TDD APPLICABILITY
-
-Dispatch `researcher` in IMPL mode scoped to this phase.
-Returns terse summary + path. Read the file only if needed.
-Unknowns block the phase -> re-dispatch narrowed. No guessing.
-
-DATASOURCE DELTA (hard rule 15): if this phase tests against an external
-datasource, compare what it touches to the confirmed BASELINE in
-docs/research/datasource-<name>.md. If it touches a NEW table/column beyond the
-baseline -> surface my understanding of just that delta as a falsifiable claim;
-WAIT for confirm; append it to datasource-<name>.md. If it touches only confirmed
-data -> proceed with a one-line note, no stop. Boundary/E2E against an UNCONFIRMED
-datasource is HARD-BLOCKED (mock still runs). The confirmed baseline is what
-`spec-author` grounds fixtures in.
-
-Then classify the phase:
-
-  `TDD_PHASE` = the phase adds or changes a PUBLIC CALLABLE SURFACE (endpoint,
-  exported function/class, CLI command, message contract) assertable from the
-  acceptance spec. Size is NOT the criterion.
-
-- Clear public surface -> `TDD_PHASE=true` -> run the TDD path (§2 → §3 → §4 → §5 → §6 → §7).
-- Pure infra/config/doc, no public surface -> `TDD_PHASE=false` -> run the
-  non-TDD path (§2N → §3N).
-- AMBIGUOUS -> default `TDD_PHASE=true`, but STATE the classification + the reason
-  to me, so I can override to non-TDD BEFORE SPEC fill fires. (Hard rule 11: never
-  downgrade a TDD phase just to dodge the gates.)
-
-=====================================================================
-## TDD PATH  (TDD_PHASE=true)
-=====================================================================
-
-## 2. SPEC FILL + STALENESS
-
-a. SKELETON CHECK: confirm docs/spec-phase-<n>.md exists (planner generated it at
-   /overview). If MISSING (planner classified it non-TDD, or it's a new phase from
-   /replan): generate the skeleton NOW from this phase's PLAN.md `acceptance` +
-   `dataflow:` transitions in the planner skeleton format (generated header + named
-   `TBD` rows), then `bash scripts/spec-staleness.sh stamp <n>` to stamp its hash.
-
-b. Dispatch `spec-author`. It fills each case row with a real input payload
-   (`fixtures/<case-id>-input.json`), concrete expected output
-   (`fixtures/<case-id>-expected.json`), matcher tokens for volatile fields,
-   `error-code` for failures, and `selector/assert/value` `ui` descriptors —
-   grounded in the RESEARCH findings + the confirmed datasource baseline.
-
-c. CASE-SET-DIVERGENCE (hard re-entry, hard rule 12 / §5.52): if `spec-author`
-   returns `CASE-SET-DIVERGENCE` (a required case can't be filled from real facts,
-   or research revealed an unlisted/contradicted case) -> STOP. Surface the finding.
-   I amend the up-front case-name contract in the skeleton; you re-stamp
-   (`bash scripts/spec-staleness.sh stamp <n>`); then re-dispatch `spec-author` to
-   re-fill from scratch. AI never amends the case-name set — I own the contract.
-
-d. STALENESS (hard rule 17): run `bash scripts/spec-staleness.sh <n>`. Nonzero
-   (upstream PLAN acceptance line / DATAFLOW rows drifted since the skeleton was
-   stamped, e.g. via /replan) -> regenerate the skeleton header from current
-   PLAN/DATAFLOW, re-stamp, re-dispatch `spec-author`. Do NOT hand-edit the hash.
-
-## 3. SPEC REVIEW — human gate (hard rule 12)
-
-STOP. Surface the FILLED cases to me as FALSIFIABLE CLAIMS in plain language, e.g.:
-  - "POST /orders/submit with an empty line-item list → 422 EMPTY_ORDER."
-  - "Successful submit of a 3-line order → 201; order.id is a UUID; order.status is
-    'submitted'."
-Re-run `bash scripts/spec-staleness.sh <n>` at entry (nonzero -> back to §2d).
-SCAFFOLD cannot begin until I confirm. Classify any rejection WITH me (§5.50):
-  - WRONG EXPECTED -> fix the case row + `fixtures/<case-id>-expected.json`; no
-    re-research. (You may patch the fixture directly per my correction.)
-  - WRONG INPUT SHAPE -> re-dispatch `spec-author` with the correction.
-  - NEW CASE or CONTRADICTED CASE -> hard re-entry (§2c): I amend the skeleton, you
-    re-stamp, re-confirm the amended case(s) + any case sharing their `covers` id
-    (the staleness hash certifies the unchanged remainder — not re-read), re-fill.
-Loop until I approve. Unskippable on TDD phases.
-
-## 4. SCAFFOLD
-
-Dispatch `implementer` in SCAFFOLD mode: interface stubs only (signatures +
-types; bodies raise NotImplementedError / return 501); NO logic, NO tests, NO
-edits to the spec or fixtures. Returns the stub files + the interface surface.
-
-## 5. RED
-
-Dispatch `test-author` to EMIT the boundary harness from the locked spec `data`
-rows: one deep-equality assertion per case against `fixtures/<case-id>-expected.json`
-via the kit comparator `tests/helpers/spec-assert.*`, each citing its case with a
-`# spec: <case-id>` comment. It does NOT author assertions — it generates them from
-the spec. Place contract/ENDPOINTS/transition tests in `tests/regression/`,
-phase-local in `tests/phase-<n>/`.
-
-If FRONTEND_PHASE (and the phase has `ui` cases): also dispatch `e2e-runner` to EMIT
-Playwright assertions from each `ui` case's `fixtures/<case-id>-ui.json` descriptor,
-each citing `// spec: <case-id>`. Run the suites.
-
-RED GATE = every case test COLLECTS cleanly AND FAILS (assertion / NotImplemented).
-- Any test PASSES on stubs -> STOP (spec trivial or emitter wrong); show me.
-- Collection / import / syntax error -> stub mismatch; re-dispatch SCAFFOLD to
-  fix SIGNATURES (not logic); re-run.
-
-## 6. CONFORMANCE GATE (hard rule 18) — replaces the v2.1 human TEST REVIEW
-
-Run `bash scripts/spec-conformance.sh <n>`. It loud-fails (and BLOCKS GREEN) if:
-  - any `TBD` marker remains in docs/spec-phase-<n>.md or a referenced fixture, OR
-  - any case-id in the spec table has no boundary test citing it (`# spec: <case-id>`).
-Nonzero -> fix the gap (re-dispatch `spec-author` for a stray TBD, or `test-author`/
-`e2e-runner` for a missing citation) and re-run. GREEN cannot start until it passes.
-
-## 7. GREEN + BOUNDARY/E2E
-
-Dispatch `implementer` in FILL mode with the FILLED docs/spec-phase-<n>.md + its
-fixtures + research + the generated test file paths (it MAY read the tests — frozen
-before logic, no overfit — but must NOT edit tests, spec, or fixtures). Fill to
-green against the spec. Budget 3, WARN@2, STUCK@3.
-
-Run the BOUNDARY suite (real HTTP/CLI/message; `TEST_MODE=real`). If FRONTEND_PHASE,
-`e2e-runner` runs its emitted `ui` specs — MANDATORY (hard rule 13) — reads INFRA.md
-target, runs `scripts/e2e-stack.sh up` / Playwright / `down`, and captures a
-screenshot at EACH UI-existence assertion regardless of pass/fail to
-docs/evidence/e2e-phase-<n>/, with a summary in docs/research/e2e-<slug>.md.
-
-PHASE GATE (rule 5) -> go to §8/§9/§10 (see GATE below).
-
-=====================================================================
-## NON-TDD PATH  (TDD_PHASE=false)
-=====================================================================
-
-## 2N. IMPLEMENT
-
-Dispatch `implementer` (legacy mode) with phase spec + research summary.
-Returns STUCK -> go to ESCALATE.
-If IS_FINAL_PHASE: phase spec includes the deploy task; confirm the return
-includes "deployed URL" before proceeding.
-
-## 3N. TEST (blind)
-
-Dispatch `test-author`. It writes MOCK + boundary suites from the acceptance
-spec — never reads the logic. (No spec file, SPEC REVIEW, or conformance gate on
-the non-TDD path — no public surface to contract. e2e-runner only if FRONTEND_PHASE.)
-
-=====================================================================
-
-## GATE (both paths)
-
-PHASE GATE = current-phase BOUNDARY suite passes AND (FRONTEND_PHASE) the `ui`
-boundary passes WITH evidence captured AND the accumulated mock regression corpus
-stays green AND every docs/ENDPOINTS.md entry has a regression test AND (TDD)
-`spec-conformance.sh` passed AND every REACHABLE docs/DATAFLOW.md transition has a
-filled case in the phase spec (all checked at CLOSE).
-- GATE PASS -> go to CLOSE.
-- GATE BLOCKED (SERVICE UNAVAILABLE, STACK NOT READY, AZURE UNAVAILABLE, FLAKE)
-  -> tell me, wait. Not a code bug. For AZURE UNAVAILABLE: suggest `/infra verify`.
-- GATE FAIL (LOGIC FAIL) -> go to FIX.
-
----
-
-## 8. FIX
-
-Dispatch `debugger` (isolated context) on the specific failure.
-- FIXED -> re-run the boundary suite (and the regression corpus).
-- SERVICE UNAVAILABLE -> tell me, wait. Suggest `/infra verify` if Azure.
-- WARN (2 attempts failed) -> relay immediately, then let debugger finish attempt 3.
-- STUCK -> go to ESCALATE.
-
----
-
-## 9. ESCALATE — circuit breaker. Mode B.
-
-FIRST STUCK: STOP. Present to me: the problem, 3 failed hypotheses, the
-debugger's recommendation, the debug file path. Ask what to do. Wait. Options:
-  (a) "re-research" -> /unstuck
-  (b) hint -> re-dispatch debugger with hint, budget 3
-  (c) "skip" / "re-slice" -> mark blocked, dispatch planner
-
-SECOND STUCK: STOP completely. Full summary — every hypothesis, current state,
-what to try next. Hand control to me.
-
----
-
-## 10. CLOSE
-
-REGRESSION + COVERAGE GATES (before closing — all FAIL HARD, do not close):
-- Run `bash scripts/regression.sh` (mock corpus). A failure BLOCKS close -> route to FIX.
-- ENDPOINTS COVERAGE: every `docs/ENDPOINTS.md` entry MUST have >=1 test in
-  `tests/regression/`. Zero coverage -> FAIL HARD.
-- DATAFLOW COVERAGE (hard rule 14, re-seamed v2.2): every `docs/DATAFLOW.md`
-  transition whose trigger is REACHABLE in the code shipped so far MUST have >=1
-  FILLED CASE in docs/spec-phase-<n>.md. Zero coverage on a reachable transition ->
-  FAIL HARD. Unreachable transitions list as PENDING (not failed). IF
-  IS_FINAL_PHASE: any transition still PENDING -> FAIL HARD. (The case→test half is
-  already enforced by `spec-conformance.sh` at §6 — every case-id is cited by a
-  boundary test, which by placement lands in tests/regression/.)
-- EVIDENCE (FRONTEND_PHASE only, hard rule 13): docs/evidence/e2e-phase-<n>/ must
-  contain at least the per-UI-existence-assertion screenshots. Empty -> FAIL HARD.
-- IF IS_FINAL_PHASE: additionally run `bash scripts/regression.sh --real` (full real
-  corpus). A failure blocks close.
-
-Mark phase `done` in docs/PLAN.md.
-
-ARCHITECTURE / DATAFLOW SELF-CHECK:
-- Did this phase add/remove/rename an agent, hook, or command, or change a
-  workflow rule? YES -> run `/log-decision`. NO -> state why not.
-- Did this phase add/change an object's STATE LIFECYCLE? YES -> update
-  docs/DATAFLOW.md (hard rule 9) in this CLOSE, and confirm new reachable
-  transitions are covered by a filled case. NO -> state why not.
-
-IF IS_FINAL_PHASE — FINAL CLOSE sequence:
-
-  a. Run `/synthesize` — pass the signal that this is the final phase so the
-     synthesizer runs the extended pass (OVERVIEW.md + README.md update).
-
-  b. Read docs/ENDPOINTS.md. Surface a "READY TO USE" summary to me:
-     ```
-     ✅ PROJECT COMPLETE
-
-     Deployed at: <base URL from docs/INFRA.md "Deployed base URL">
-
-     ## Endpoints
-     <paste the full docs/ENDPOINTS.md table>
-
-     ## Quick start
-     - Base URL: <URL>
-     - Auth: <Bearer token / API key / none — from ENDPOINTS.md>
-     - Health check: GET <base URL>/health
-
-     ## Docs
-     - Full endpoint catalogue: docs/ENDPOINTS.md
-     - Object/state flow: docs/DATAFLOW.md
-     - Infrastructure: docs/INFRA.md
-     - Project history: docs/HISTORY.md
-     ```
-  Tell me the project is complete and ready to use.
-
-ELSE (not final phase):
-
-  Run `/synthesize`.
-  Tell me phase done + the next phase. Recommend `/clear` then `/phase` next.
-
----
-
-## STATE CHECKPOINTING
-
-After each step, update docs/STATE.md:
-```
-
-phase: <n> (in progress)
-tdd: <true|false>
-frontend_phase: <true|false>
-completed: <steps done so far>
-next: <exact next step>
-blocker: <none or open issue>
-
-```
-Keep STATE.md small — overwrite, do not append.

package/template/.cursor/commands/quick.md

@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-Caveman ULTRA mode. Apply `karpathy-guidelines` skill.
-
-Purpose: skip the orchestration tax for a 5-line fix.
-
-Use `/quick` when ALL hold:
-- change is small (under 30 lines) and obvious
-- no new vertical slice
-- no external service contract change
-- not mid-phase
-
-If any fail -> STOP, tell me, recommend `/phase`.
-(Hard rule 11: never route phase-worthy work through `/quick` to dodge the RED gate.)
-
-Steps:
-1. grep docs/ISSUES.md for anything related.
-2. Make the change. Smallest diff that works.
-3. Run it — lint/typecheck/smoke. Show me result.
-4. REGRESSION GUARD: run `scripts/regression.sh` (mock corpus). A break BLOCKS the
-   `/quick` — surface it to me and stop. No agent chain is added.
-5. Error you cannot fix in 2 tries -> STOP. Recommend `/phase`.
-6. Change revealed a bug -> `/log-issue`.
-7. ARCHITECTURE SELF-CHECK: touched an agent, hook, command, or workflow rule?
-   YES -> `/log-decision`.
-
-No STATE.md rewrite, no synthesize, no /clear needed.

package/template/.cursor/commands/replan.md

@@ -1,73 +0,0 @@
-Caveman ULTRA mode.
-
-Recommended: run from plan mode (Shift+Tab). Optional; the command stops for
-your approval regardless.
-
-Use when PLAN.md no longer matches reality. Change: $ARGUMENTS
-
----
-
-## Steps
-
-1. PRE-FLIGHT. Read docs/STATE.md and docs/PLAN.md.
-   - Phase in progress -> tell me which. Ask: revise around it, or is it the
-     thing being changed? Do not silently rewrite a mid-execution phase.
-   - Done phases are FROZEN. /replan never edits or reorders done phases.
-   - Phase 0 (infra) is ALWAYS frozen once done.
-
-2. DESIGN RESEARCH CHECK. Scan $ARGUMENTS for signals that design research
-   is warranted before re-planning:
-   - A new external service is mentioned (Stripe, Twilio, a new Azure service, etc.)
-   - The change involves architecture (a new integration pattern, auth change, etc.)
-   - A service tier or quota change is implied
-   - A new external DATASOURCE or a change to an object's STATE LIFECYCLE
-
-   If ANY of these signals are present: dispatch `researcher` in DESIGN mode
-   with the specific new service/pattern as the DESIGN TOPICS list. For a new
-   datasource, it drafts a DATA UNDERSTANDING; surface it to me as a falsifiable
-   claim and confirm (baseline) before proceeding. Show me the key findings
-   before step 3.
-
-   If none: proceed directly to step 3 (impl-research may still be dispatched
-   in step 3 for non-trivial changes per the original logic).
-
-3. IMPL RESEARCH if needed. If the change is non-trivial but design research
-   was not needed, dispatch `researcher` in IMPL mode to ground the re-plan
-   in facts.
-
-4. RE-PLAN. Dispatch `planner` with the change + current PLAN.md + DATAFLOW.md.
-   It must:
-   - Keep done phases untouched.
-   - Insert / cut / split / merge / reorder only PENDING phases.
-   - Place new phases in correct DEPENDENCY order.
-   - Keep every phase a vertical slice with its own acceptance spec.
-   - Preserve the UI-existence criterion on any frontend-touching phase.
-   - Ensure the LAST pending phase still contains the deploy task block.
-   - Renumber pending phases if needed; update STATE.md `phase:` pointer.
-
-5. RECONCILE THE REGRESSION CORPUS (scoped to `tests/regression/`):
-   - A CUT phase -> retire its regression tests.
-   - A MERGE -> consolidate the merged phases' regression tests.
-   - A REORDER -> keep the tests as-is (contracts are phase-independent).
-   Do NOT touch phase-local `tests/phase-<n>/` here beyond renumbering dirs.
-   After reconciling, run `scripts/regression.sh --real` to confirm the
-   reconciled corpus still passes against live services. A failure -> surface it
-   and stop before approval.
-
-6. RECONCILE DATAFLOW.md (v2.1). If the re-plan adds, cuts, or re-scopes objects
-   or transitions, update docs/DATAFLOW.md in step:
-   - A CUT/removed object or transition -> remove its row(s) and retire the
-     matching regression test(s).
-   - A new object/transition -> add the row(s); mark them PENDING until the phase
-     that makes them reachable runs. The deploy-last / "no PENDING at final phase"
-     invariant (hard rule 14) still holds.
-   - A reorder must not strand a transition as permanently unreachable.
-
-7. SHOW ME the revised phase list + the regression-corpus changes + the
-   DATAFLOW.md changes, and STOP for approval.
-
-8. ARCHITECTURE SELF-CHECK: re-planning is not normally a kit-architecture
-   change. Only run /log-decision if the workflow itself changed (rare).
-
-Report what changed: phases added / cut / split / reordered, regression tests
-retired / consolidated, and DATAFLOW rows added / removed.