dev-booster 1.16.7 → 1.16.9

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "dev-booster",
-  "version": "1.16.7",
+  "version": "1.16.9",
   "description": "Reusable AI development kit with manual boosters, governance, and project bootstrap",
   "type": "module",
   "scripts": {

package/template/.devbooster/boosters/audit.md

@@ -7,9 +7,9 @@ This booster is active by default.
 If the user invokes this booster alone, or uses it only to activate the mode:
 - Do NOT stay passive.
 - Immediately begin the pre-flight.
-- Your first duty is to verify whether lint and typecheck are configured, operational, and honest.
-- If lint or typecheck is broken, limited, noisy, bypassed, partially disabled, or pointed at the wrong scope, begin minimal recovery immediately.
-- Only pause when a change becomes structurally risky (for example: installing new dependencies, broad config redesign, or Lot 2 code fixes).
+- Your first duty is to make lint and typecheck operational, honest, and runnable.
+- Do NOT stop at diagnosis when the issue is a removable bypass, stale config, wrong scope, wrong runtime, or other low-risk setup problem.
+- Only pause when a change becomes structurally risky (for example: installing new dependencies, broad config redesign, or deep Lot 2 code fixes).
 
 Use this activation response format:
 
@@ -22,136 +22,145 @@ Status: Running Pre-Flight
 Goal: make lint and typecheck operational in the terminal, detect bypasses, normalize the setup, and classify findings by risk.
 ```
 
+Keep activation chat output minimal.
+Do not dump logs, file lists, or long reasoning in chat.
+
 ## 1. OBJECTIVE
-The booster must:
-- make lint run correctly from the terminal
-- make typecheck run correctly from the terminal when the project uses TypeScript
+This booster is focused on static audit health:
+- lint
+- typecheck
+
+It must:
 - treat the terminal as the official source of truth
-- respect the real project stack already documented in `.devbooster/rules/PROJECT.md`
-- detect common bypasses and suppressions that hide static-analysis debt
-- normalize the setup with minimal, conservative changes
-- classify findings into safe fixes versus deep-review items
+- respect the real project context already documented in `.devbooster/rules/PROJECT.md`
+- detect and remove masking that hides warnings or errors
+- normalize the setup with minimal conservative changes
+- classify findings into `Lot 1` and `Lot 2`
+- keep the artifact as the detailed source of truth
 
 This booster is not a broad modernization flow.
-It must do the operational rice-and-beans work first.
-It is focused on static audit health: lint + typecheck.
-
-## 2. PRIMARY CONTEXT SOURCE (MANDATORY)
-Use context in this order:
-1. `.devbooster/rules/PROJECT.md` → primary source of stack and architecture
-2. `.devbooster/rules/FRONTEND.md` → only if frontend findings dominate
-3. `.devbooster/rules/BACKEND.md` → only if backend/tooling findings dominate
+
+## 2. CONTEXT LOADING RULES
+### Primary context order
+1. `.devbooster/rules/PROJECT.md`
+2. `.devbooster/rules/FRONTEND.md` (only if frontend findings dominate)
+3. `.devbooster/rules/BACKEND.md` (only if backend/tooling findings dominate)
 4. `.devbooster/rules/USER_PREFERENCES.md`
 
-Do NOT re-bootstrap the project or repeat broad stack discovery if `PROJECT.md` is already filled with project-specific context.
-Only inspect additional files when needed to execute audit reliably.
+Do NOT re-bootstrap the project if `PROJECT.md` is already populated.
 
-## 3. MINIMAL BASE LOAD
-Load only the minimum at the start:
+### Minimal base load
+Start with only:
 - `.devbooster/rules/PROJECT.md`
 - `.devbooster/rules/USER_PREFERENCES.md`
 - `.devbooster/hub/personas/skill_lint-and-validate.md`
 
-Do not load frontend/backend personas or extra skills during activation unless the first audit pass or setup findings justify it.
+### Lazy loading
+Load extra context only if justified by findings:
 
-## 4. LAZY LOADING RULES
-After the first real audit pass, load additional context only if needed.
-
-### Frontend-heavy findings
-Load only when most findings are in React / Next / Vite / UI code:
+#### Frontend-heavy findings
 - `.devbooster/rules/FRONTEND.md`
 - `.devbooster/hub/personas/agent_frontend-specialist.md`
-- `.devbooster/hub/skills/nextjs-react-expert/SKILL.md` (when React / Next findings justify it)
+- `.devbooster/hub/skills/nextjs-react-expert/SKILL.md`
 
-Use `FRONTEND.md` not only for stack context, but also to preserve the frontend coding patterns the project expects.
-If `FRONTEND.md` is still generic, empty, or clearly missing useful project-specific guidance, ignore it and continue with file-local context plus the other active rules.
+Use `FRONTEND.md` both for stack context and to preserve the project's frontend coding patterns.
+If it is generic, empty, or not useful, ignore it.
 
-### Backend/tooling-heavy findings
-Load only when most findings are in scripts, Node tooling, configs, services, or backend packages:
+#### Backend/tooling-heavy findings
 - `.devbooster/rules/BACKEND.md`
 - `.devbooster/hub/personas/agent_backend-specialist.md`
 - `.devbooster/hub/skills/nodejs-best-practices/SKILL.md`
 
-Use `BACKEND.md` not only for stack context, but also to preserve the backend and tooling patterns the project expects.
-If `BACKEND.md` is still generic, empty, or clearly missing useful project-specific guidance, ignore it and continue with file-local context plus the other active rules.
+Use `BACKEND.md` both for stack context and to preserve the project's backend/tooling patterns.
+If it is generic, empty, or not useful, ignore it.
 
-### Legacy/config-conflict findings
-Load only when audit is being blocked by unclear legacy choices, suppressions, runtime mismatch, or config drift:
+#### Legacy/config-conflict findings
 - `.devbooster/hub/personas/agent_code-archaeologist.md`
 - `.devbooster/hub/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md`
 
-## 5. PRE-FLIGHT (MANDATORY AND ACTIVE)
-Start working immediately.
+## 3. AUDIT DISCIPLINE
+The booster has only two missions:
+- run lint correctly
+- run typecheck correctly
 
-### Step A — Align runtime before Node-based commands
-First, check whether the project's current terminal runtime is already healthy.
+Signals such as:
+- monorepo / workspace
+- package manager choice
+- `.nvmrc`
+- `tsconfig.*.json`
+- package-local scripts
+
+exist only to help choose the correct:
+- runtime
+- package manager
+- command
+- project scope
+
+They are not separate workstreams.
+If a scenario exists but does not materially affect lint or typecheck execution, coverage, or trustworthiness, do not turn it into noise.
+
+## 4. PRE-FLIGHT
+Start working immediately.
 
+### Step A — Align runtime
 Before any `npm`, `npx`, `node`, `tsc`, `next`, lint, or typecheck command:
-- if the required runtime and package manager are already working correctly in the current project terminal context, do NOT run `nvm use`
-- do not assume the package manager is always `npm`; inspect the project and use `pnpm`, `yarn`, `bun`, or `npm` according to the real setup
-- if the required Node-based runtime is unavailable or clearly misaligned, then check whether `.nvmrc` exists
+- if the required runtime and package manager already work in the current project terminal context, do NOT run `nvm use`
+- do not assume the package manager is always `npm`; use `pnpm`, `yarn`, `bun`, or `npm` according to the real setup
+- if the required Node-based runtime is unavailable or clearly misaligned, check whether `.nvmrc` exists
 - only if `.nvmrc` exists and runtime is not healthy, run `nvm use` and try again
-- if `.nvmrc` does not exist, do NOT run `nvm use`; continue with the available runtime strategy and report the blocker if the required runtime or package manager is still unavailable
+- if `.nvmrc` does not exist, do NOT run `nvm use`
 
 If this project required `nvm use` once to become healthy, then every new terminal execution that depends on Node must run `nvm use` again before the actual command.
 This repeat rule applies only to projects that actually needed NVM alignment.
 
-### Step B — Check whether audit tooling exists
-Only after runtime is aligned, inspect what is necessary to answer:
-- which package manager the project actually uses
-- whether this is a single app or a monorepo / workspace
-- whether lint and typecheck live at the root, package level, or both
-- is there a `lint` script?
-- is there a `typecheck` script or equivalent check command?
-- is ESLint config present?
-- is `tsconfig.json` or some `tsconfig.*.json` variant present?
-- is the project using framework wrappers such as `next lint`?
-- are the terminal commands actually runnable in the correct scope?
-
-These checks exist to choose the correct runtime, package manager, command, and project scope for the same two missions: lint and typecheck.
-They are not separate correction tracks by themselves.
-If a scenario check does not materially affect lint or typecheck execution, coverage, or trustworthiness, do not turn it into noise for the user.
-
-If this is a monorepo or workspace, do not assume the root command is the correct command.
-Find the right package/scope first.
-
-### Step C — Check whether lint is honest
-Do not trust the presence of a script alone.
-Inspect for common bypasses.
-This audit must prefer honest enforcement over preserving broad project-wide suppressions.
-If the user activated this booster, the default assumption is that they want full visibility of warnings and errors.
-
-Inspect for common bypasses:
-
-#### Framework-level bypasses
-When relevant, inspect files such as:
+### Step B — Find the correct audit path
+Inspect only what is necessary to determine:
+- package manager
+- single app vs monorepo / workspace
+- whether lint/typecheck live at root, package level, or both
+- `lint` script or equivalent
+- `typecheck` script or equivalent
+- ESLint config presence
+- `tsconfig.json` or `tsconfig.*.json` presence
+- whether framework wrappers such as `next lint` are in use
+- whether commands are runnable in the correct scope
+
+If this is a monorepo/workspace, do not assume root is the correct target.
+Find the correct package/scope first.
+
+### Step C — Remove masking and bypasses
+Do not trust passing commands alone.
+Inspect and normalize masking such as:
+
+#### Framework-level masking
+Check files such as:
 - `next.config.js`
 - `next.config.mjs`
 - `next.config.ts`
 
-Look for settings such as:
+Look for:
 - `eslint.ignoreDuringBuilds`
 - other project-wide lint-relaxing switches
 
-If these switches are clearly being used to suppress enforcement globally, remove or normalize them during pre-flight before the first audit report.
+If they clearly suppress enforcement globally, remove or normalize them during pre-flight.
+Do NOT ask permission for clearly abusive masking.
 
-#### ESLint-level bypasses
-Inspect:
+#### ESLint-level masking
+Check:
 - `eslint.config.*`
 - `.eslintrc*`
 - `.eslintignore`
 
 Look for:
-- broad or suspicious ignores
-- rules disabled globally without clear reason
+- broad/suspicious ignores
+- globally disabled rules without clear reason
 - overrides that nullify important checks
 - scope that is too narrow or too broad
 
-If a global ESLint disable or broad override is clearly masking repository-wide results, remove or normalize it during pre-flight and rerun the audit before presenting Round 1 findings.
-Do not leave clearly abusive global masking in place just because it was added by a previous developer.
+If global masking is clearly abusive, remove or normalize it during pre-flight and rerun before reporting Round 1.
 
-#### Inline suppressions in code
-Search for patterns such as:
+#### Inline suppressions
+Search for:
 - `eslint-disable`
 - `eslint-disable-next-line`
 - `eslint-disable-line`
@@ -164,29 +173,32 @@ Flag especially:
 - suppressions around hook dependency rules
 - suppressions with no explanation
 
-### Step D — Check whether typecheck is honest and stable
-Inspect:
+If a suppression is clearly abusive, stale, or only there to lazily silence the tool, remove it during pre-flight or Lot 1 instead of merely reporting it.
+
+### Step D — Stabilize typecheck
+Inspect when relevant:
 - `tsconfig.json`
 - `tsconfig.*.json`
 - framework-generated type includes such as `.next/types/**/*.ts`
-- project references, path aliases, and package-local TS configs when relevant
+- project references
+- path aliases
+- package-local TS configs
 
 Look for:
 - broken include paths
 - stale framework-generated type references
 - invalid project references
-- path alias issues caused by config drift
-- typecheck commands that depend on a runtime not aligned in the shell
-- projects where `tsc --noEmit` at the root is wrong and `tsc -p <tsconfig>` is required instead
+- alias drift
+- wrong `tsc` target
+- cases where `tsc --noEmit` at root is wrong and `tsc -p <tsconfig>` is required
 
-If the project does not use TypeScript, do not invent a typecheck failure.
-Treat that as a no-typecheck scenario, not as a broken setup.
+If the project does not use TypeScript, treat that as a no-typecheck scenario, not a failure.
 
-If typecheck failure is caused by setup/configuration, treat it as a fixable Setup Issue before moving on.
-If typecheck is being globally masked or indirectly weakened by stale config, invalid references, or broad exclusions, normalize that setup first and rerun before presenting findings.
+If typecheck is broken because of setup/configuration, fix that first.
+Do NOT stop at reporting removable masking or stale config.
 
 ### Step E — Determine initial state
-Classify the setup as one of:
+Classify the starting point as one of:
 - **Operational**
 - **Operational but Masked**
 - **Limited Coverage**
@@ -194,9 +206,7 @@ Classify the setup as one of:
 - **Broken**
 - **Missing**
 
-## 6. NORMALIZATION RULES
-Normalize audit intentionally, not blindly.
-
+## 5. NORMALIZATION RULES
 ### Core rules
 1. Terminal is the source of truth.
 2. Coverage must be explicit, never accidental.
@@ -205,100 +215,111 @@ Normalize audit intentionally, not blindly.
 5. Prefer minimal changes over opinionated redesign.
 6. Do not install new dependencies unless truly required and approved.
 7. Do not disable rules just to reduce noise.
-8. Remove suspicious bypasses when they are clearly hiding enforcement without justification.
-9. If lint or typecheck is failing because runtime is misaligned, fix runtime usage first.
-10. If typecheck is failing because configuration is stale or inconsistent, attempt minimal conservative repair before reporting code findings.
+8. Remove suspicious masking when it is clearly hiding enforcement.
+9. If lint/typecheck is failing because runtime is misaligned, fix runtime usage first.
+10. If typecheck is failing because configuration is stale or inconsistent, attempt conservative repair before reporting code findings.
 
-### Valid normalization actions
-These are allowed without extra confirmation when low-risk:
+### Allowed low-risk normalization
+Without extra confirmation, you may:
 - fix `lint` script wiring
 - fix `typecheck` script wiring
-- select the correct package manager command for the project
-- select the correct workspace/package scope for lint and typecheck
+- select the correct package manager command
+- select the correct workspace/package scope
 - switch from a misleading wrapper command to the real ESLint CLI
 - narrow or widen lint scope intentionally
 - adjust ignores for generated/build artifacts
-- normalize `tsconfig` includes when they are clearly stale or broken
-- choose the correct `tsconfig` target when the root one is not the real app config
-- remove obviously abusive global bypass flags
+- normalize stale or broken `tsconfig` includes
+- choose the correct `tsconfig` target
+- remove abusive global bypass flags
 - remove clearly unjustified global rule disables or broad masking overrides
-- remove clearly unjustified inline disables when the safe fix is straightforward
+- remove clearly unjustified inline disables when safe
 
-Only apply the normalization that is necessary to make lint and typecheck truthful in the real project scope.
-Do not treat the presence of monorepo/workspace/package-manager/tsconfig variants as problems by default.
+Only normalize what is necessary to make lint and typecheck truthful in the real project scope.
 
-### Pause and ask only when needed
+### Ask before
 Ask before:
 - installing packages
 - redesigning shared lint/type architecture
 - changing team-wide rules in a controversial way
-- applying deep code fixes from Lot 2
-
-## 7. EXECUTION FLOW
-Follow this order:
-
-### Phase 1 — Make audit runnable
-If lint or typecheck is missing, broken, masked, noisy, or scoped incorrectly:
-- repair the minimal setup
-- remove or neutralize obvious bypasses
-- remove clearly abusive global masking before Round 1
-- choose the correct package manager and scope
-- rerun until the terminal commands are trustworthy
-
-The goal here is not to "fix monorepo" or "fix package manager" as separate workstreams.
-The goal is to use those signals to reach the correct lint and typecheck execution path.
-If one of these scenario signals exists but does not block or weaken the audit, simply continue.
-
-### Phase 2 — Run the first real audit round
-Once operational, run:
-- the official lint command
-- the official typecheck command, when TypeScript is present
-
-This first round must stay fast and pragmatic.
-
-### Phase 3 — Classify Round 1 findings
-Always split results into:
-- **Setup Issues** → config, scope, parser, wrapper mismatch, bypasses, broken scripts, stale tsconfig entries, runtime misalignment, wrong package manager, wrong workspace/package target
-- **Lint Findings** → lint-only findings
-- **Typecheck Findings** → type-only findings
-- **Lot 1 — Safe Fixes** → low-risk, behavior-preserving fixes
-- **Lot 2 — Needs Deeper Analysis** → not safe to change based only on the first pass
-
-### Phase 4 — Propose Lot 1 execution
-After Round 1, ask directly whether you should apply Lot 1 now.
-Do not be vague.
-The expected intent is:
-- Lot 1 is safe
-- Lot 2 was kept conservative on purpose
-
-### Phase 5 — Apply Lot 1
+- applying deep Lot 2 code fixes
+
+## 6. EXECUTION FLOW
+This booster runs in 3 stages.
+
+### Stage 1 — Setup only
+Goal: make the environment healthy and honest.
+
+Do this first:
+- align runtime
+- choose package manager and scope
+- stabilize lint
+- stabilize typecheck
+- remove abusive masking
+- rerun until commands are trustworthy
+
+Round 1 must NOT be reported as complete until this setup-only normalization pass has happened.
+
+When setup is complete:
+- generate/update the artifact
+- summarize briefly in chat
+- ask:
+
+`Setup concluído. Posso continuar para a varredura completa?`
+
+### Stage 2 — Round 1 scan and classification
 If the user approves:
-- fix Lot 1
-- rerun lint and typecheck
+- run the official lint command
+- run the official typecheck command when TypeScript is present
+- classify findings into:
+  - **Setup Issues**
+  - **Lint Findings**
+  - **Typecheck Findings**
+  - **Lot 1 — Safe Fixes**
+  - **Lot 2 — Needs Deeper Analysis**
 - update the artifact
-- report what was resolved and what remains in Lot 2
+- summarize briefly in chat
+- ask:
+
+`Posso corrigir o Lote 1, que é o mais seguro?`
 
-### Phase 6 — Offer Round 2
-After Lot 1 is complete, use this short transition:
+By the time you classify Round 1, clearly abusive masking should already be gone.
+Do not stop after a generic diagnosis without explicitly producing `Lot 1` and `Lot 2`.
+
+### Stage 3 — Safe correction, then deeper analysis
+#### Stage 3A — Apply Lot 1
+If the user approves:
+- fix `Lot 1`
+- rerun lint and typecheck
+- absorb any newly surfaced safe follow-up items into `Lot 1` automatically
+- if a newly surfaced item is no longer clearly safe, move it to `Lot 2`
+- repeat this loop until the safe queue is exhausted
+- update the artifact after each meaningful pass
+- summarize briefly in chat
+
+`Lot 1` is only complete when no safe fixes remain after rechecking.
+
+Then ask:
 
 `Rodada 1 concluída.`
 
 `Agora vou fazer uma rodada mais aprofundada no Lote 2 para refinar o que ainda é seguro corrigir. Posso prosseguir?`
 
-### Phase 7 — Deep analysis of Lot 2
-If the user approves Round 2:
+#### Stage 3B — Deep analysis of Lot 2
+If the user approves:
 - inspect the affected files more deeply
-- read the full file when needed
+- read full files when needed
 - use more context and slower reasoning
-- separate Lot 2 into:
-  - findings that are now safe enough to fix after deeper analysis
-  - findings that still require human review
-
-### Phase 8 — Load specialists only if justified
-Use the findings distribution to decide whether frontend/backend/legacy specialists should be loaded.
+- separate `Lot 2` into:
+  - items now safe enough to fix
+  - items that still require human review
+- apply only what became safe
+- update the artifact
+- summarize briefly in chat
 
-## 8. LOT CLASSIFICATION RULES
+When only risky or ambiguous items remain, stop and hand control back to the user.
+That is the natural end of the booster flow.
 
+## 7. LOT RULES
 ### Lot 1 — Safe Fixes
 Typical examples:
 - autofixable ESLint formatting output
@@ -306,12 +327,10 @@ Typical examples:
 - clearly unused variables
 - trivial `const` improvements
 - import ordering
-- mechanical low-risk fixes from ESLint autofix
-- small suppression removals where the code remains correct without behavioral risk
+- mechanical low-risk ESLint fixes
+- small suppression removals where behavior stays unchanged
 - conservative tsconfig cleanup when the issue is obviously stale/generated-path drift
 
-Apply these when genuinely safe, then rerun audit.
-
 ### Lot 2 — Needs Deeper Analysis
 Typical examples:
 - `react-hooks/exhaustive-deps`
@@ -321,70 +340,105 @@ Typical examples:
 - accessibility issues requiring markup decisions
 - anything likely to change render behavior, execution order, or developer intent
 
-Do NOT force these blindly in Round 1.
-They must first be treated as uncertain items.
-Only after a deeper file-level review may you decide whether some of them became safe enough to fix.
+Do NOT force Lot 2 blindly in Round 1.
+Only after deeper file-level review may you decide that some items became safe enough to fix.
 
-## 9. SPECIAL CASES
-When relevant, explain that:
+## 8. SPECIAL CASES
+When relevant, explain only the impact, not a long theory. Examples:
 - new lint errors may reflect increased coverage, not newly introduced bugs
-- `next lint` may inspect a narrower slice of the repository
-- `eslint .` may become noisy if scope and ignores were never normalized
-- the right solution is explicit scope and honest enforcement, not hidden bypasses
-- typecheck failures caused by stale framework-generated paths are setup issues first, not necessarily code defects
-- monorepo and workspace projects may require package-local audit commands rather than root-level commands
-- the correct package manager and the correct tsconfig target matter as much as the code itself
+- `next lint` may inspect a narrower slice than the real ESLint CLI path
+- `eslint .` may become noisy if scope/ignores were never normalized
+- typecheck failures caused by stale framework-generated paths are setup issues first
+- monorepo/workspace projects may require package-local audit commands rather than root-level commands
+- the correct package manager and tsconfig target matter as much as the code itself
 
-## 10. OUTPUT STRUCTURE (MANDATORY)
-Your response must use this structure:
+## 9. OUTPUT RULES
+The artifact is the primary source of truth.
+Chat is only the executive summary.
+Do not dump detailed file lists, raw terminal transcripts, or exhaustive reasoning in chat unless the user explicitly asks.
+
+Use this compact chat structure:
 
 ```md
 ## 🧽 Audit Report: [scope]
 
-### 1. Pre-Flight Status
-- Project context source: `PROJECT.md`
-- Initial state: [Operational / Operational but Masked / Limited Coverage / Excessive / Noisy Coverage / Broken / Missing]
-- Official lint command: [...]
-- Official typecheck command: [...]
-- Package manager / scope used: [...]
-- Bypass signals found: [...]
-- Runtime alignment: [...]
-- Global masking normalized before Round 1: [yes/no + summary]
-
-### 2. Setup Actions
-- [What was changed to make audit trustworthy]
-- [Which bypasses were removed, preserved, or left for review]
-- [Which runtime or tsconfig issues were corrected]
-- [Only mention scenario checks such as monorepo/workspace/package-manager variance when they materially affected the audit path]
-
-### 3. Audit Results
-- Setup Issues: [...]
-- Lint Findings: [...]
-- Typecheck Findings: [...]
-- Lot 1 — Safe Fixes: [...]
-- Lot 2 — Needs Deeper Analysis: [...]
-
-### 4. Outcome
-- [What is now working]
-- [What was auto-fixed]
-- [What still requires deeper analysis or human review]
+### 1. Status
+- State: [Operational / Operational but Masked / Limited Coverage / Excessive / Noisy Coverage / Broken / Missing]
+- Lint: [passed/failed + short count]
+- Typecheck: [passed/failed + short count]
+- Setup: [short summary of what was normalized]
+
+### 2. Findings
+- Setup Issues: [short count/summary]
+- Lot 1 — Safe Fixes: [short count/summary]
+- Lot 2 — Needs Deeper Analysis: [short count/summary]
+
+### 3. Artifact
+- 📝 Registo em `@booster-generated/audit/<slug>.md`
+
+### 4. Next Step
+- [short next action or question]
 ```
 
-## 11. SAFETY BOUNDARIES
+All deeper detail must go into the artifact.
+
+## 10. SAFETY BOUNDARIES
 - Do not overwrite unrelated project conventions.
-- Do not claim lint or typecheck is healthy unless terminal execution was actually verified in the correct runtime, package manager, and project scope.
-- Do not silently preserve abusive bypasses just because a command happens to pass.
-- Do not present Round 1 findings on top of clearly abusive global masking that should have been removed first.
+- Do not claim lint or typecheck is healthy unless terminal execution was actually verified in the correct runtime, package manager, and scope.
+- Do not silently preserve abusive bypasses just because a command passes.
+- Do not present Round 1 findings on top of masking that should already have been removed.
 - Do not auto-fix Lot 2 without strong local justification.
 - Do not turn this booster into a whole-project refactor.
 - Do not invent auxiliary work just because a scenario pattern exists; stay focused on lint and typecheck.
 
-## ARTIFACT GENERATION
-During your execution, create a state file at `@booster-generated/audit/<slug>.md` tracking the history, decisions, rules, and outcomes in dense, non-conversational format.
-
-- **Uniqueness rule:** If the slug already exists in `@booster-generated/audit/`, generate a new variation of the name instead of overwriting
+## 11. ARTIFACT GENERATION (CRITICAL — NEVER SKIP)
+During execution, create a state file at `@booster-generated/audit/<slug>.md` tracking history, decisions, rules, and outcomes in dense, non-conversational format.
+
+This artifact is mandatory and fundamental to this booster.
+You must treat it as a hard requirement, not as a suggestion.
+
+Create it even when:
+- there is only one finding
+- setup is already healthy
+- the audit result is small
+- the user stops after Stage 1 or Round 1
+
+Create it before presenting the first substantial audit result.
+Then keep it updated on every relevant pass of the flow.
+This is not optional.
+
+You MUST update the artifact after:
+- the setup-only pass is completed
+- Round 1 scan/classification is completed
+- `Lot 1` is approved and executed
+- each meaningful Lot 1 recheck loop
+- deeper `Lot 2` analysis begins
+- deeper analysis reclassifies findings
+- new fixes are applied
+- the user changes the audit state with follow-up decisions
+- any point where the state of the audit materially changes
+
+Treat this file as the persistent audit trail for the session.
+It must preserve:
+- environment/runtime health
+- what was found
+- what was removed
+- what was changed
+- what was partially resolved
+- what was intentionally left untouched
+- what still needs review
+- what remains pending for the user
+
+The artifact, not the chat, is the detailed memory of the audit.
+If something breaks later, this file must explain what was done and why.
+
+- **Uniqueness rule:** If the slug already exists in `@booster-generated/audit/`, generate a new variation instead of overwriting
 - **Notification rule:** After writing, notify the user with: 📝 Registo em `@booster-generated/audit/<slug>.md`
 
+Do NOT skip artifact creation for small audits.
+Do NOT wait for the user to remind you about the artifact.
+Do NOT postpone artifact creation until the end.
 Do NOT update this file silently in the background.
+Do NOT advance the audit flow while forgetting to reflect the new state in the artifact.
 
-**Reply:** On activation, immediately enter pre-flight mode, use `PROJECT.md` as the primary source of truth, realign runtime only when needed and repeat `nvm use` on each new terminal execution only for projects that actually required NVM alignment, make lint and typecheck operational in the terminal, detect bypasses, normalize only what is necessary, run a fast Round 1, classify findings into Setup Issues / Lint Findings / Typecheck Findings / Lot 1 / Lot 2, and answer in the active conversation language. After Lot 1 is resolved, offer the short Round 2 transition exactly as specified above.
+**Reply:** On activation, immediately enter pre-flight mode, use `PROJECT.md` as the primary source of truth, realign runtime only when needed and repeat `nvm use` on each new terminal execution only for projects that actually required NVM alignment, make lint and typecheck operational in the terminal, remove clearly abusive masking and bypasses as part of the default audit mission, create the artifact before the first substantial report, and keep chat concise. Put detailed analysis, file-by-file findings, command-level notes, and reasoning into the artifact. Always follow the 3-stage flow above, and keep the artifact updated on every meaningful audit pass.