devmethod-ai 0.2.0 → 0.3.1

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
Files changed (76) hide show
  1. package/.agents/skills/decision-architecture/SKILL.md +10 -0
  2. package/.agents/skills/decision-architecture/assets/ADR.md +6 -3
  3. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/SKILL.md +2 -0
  4. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/assets/CADRAGE.md +11 -0
  5. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/assets/EXISTANT.md +14 -0
  6. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/assets/OPPORTUNITES.md +10 -0
  7. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/assets/PROJECT_PROFILE.md +3 -2
  8. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/assets/REGLES.md +6 -0
  9. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/assets/START_HERE.md +2 -0
  10. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/delivery-planning.md +11 -0
  11. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/exploration.md +11 -0
  12. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/mission-context.md +31 -4
  13. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/operating-commands.md +12 -4
  14. package/.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/work-sizing.md +1 -1
  15. package/.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/SKILL.md +5 -1
  16. package/.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/assets/MISSION.md +1 -1
  17. package/.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/assets/PLAN.md +20 -0
  18. package/.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/assets/REPRISE.md +10 -0
  19. package/.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/assets/REVIEW.md +34 -0
  20. package/.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/assets/SLICE.md +5 -0
  21. package/.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/assets/TICKET.md +21 -0
  22. package/.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/references/review-workflow.md +29 -0
  23. package/COMPATIBILITY.md +1 -1
  24. package/README.md +35 -14
  25. package/START_HERE.md +2 -0
  26. package/dist/cli.js +122 -90
  27. package/dist/review-app.js +462 -0
  28. package/dist/review-browser.js +567 -0
  29. package/dist/review-cli.js +68 -0
  30. package/dist/review-model.js +101 -0
  31. package/dist/review-open.js +19 -0
  32. package/dist/review-ui.css +782 -0
  33. package/dist/review.js +13 -0
  34. package/docs/ADR-007-conversation-and-mission-ownership.md +13 -0
  35. package/docs/ADR-008-review-presentation.md +13 -0
  36. package/docs/MISSIONS.md +1 -1
  37. package/docs/RELEASE-0.2.0.md +14 -3
  38. package/docs/RELEASE-0.3.0.md +24 -0
  39. package/docs/RELEASE-0.3.1.md +15 -0
  40. package/docs/REVIEW-GUIDE.md +68 -0
  41. package/docs/REVIEW-SOURCES.md +13 -0
  42. package/docs/REVIEW-VALIDATION.md +34 -0
  43. package/docs/REVIEWS.md +75 -0
  44. package/docs/VISUAL-WORKFLOW.md +1 -1
  45. package/docs/WORKFLOW-0.3-VALIDATION.md +32 -0
  46. package/docs/WORKFLOW-0.3.md +34 -0
  47. package/docs/images/devmethod-delivery.svg +1 -1
  48. package/docs/images/devmethod-flow.svg +1 -1
  49. package/docs/images/review-correction.jpg +0 -0
  50. package/docs/images/review-coverage.jpg +0 -0
  51. package/docs/images/review-interface-desktop.jpg +0 -0
  52. package/docs/images/review-interface-mobile.jpg +0 -0
  53. package/docs/media/review-extension/README.md +21 -0
  54. package/docs/media/review-extension/scenes.json +70 -0
  55. package/docs/media/visual-chain/README.md +8 -2
  56. package/docs/media/visual-chain/devmethod-du-besoin-au-produit.fr.srt +65 -1
  57. package/docs/media/visual-chain/video-preview.jpg +0 -0
  58. package/docs/missions/review-media-0.3.1.md +11 -0
  59. package/docs/missions/workflow-0.3-reviews/interface/REVIEW.md +109 -0
  60. package/docs/missions/workflow-0.3-reviews/interface/review.json +255 -0
  61. package/docs/missions/workflow-0.3.md +19 -0
  62. package/examples/mission-dialogue/PROJECT_PROFILE.md +9 -0
  63. package/examples/mission-dialogue/architecture/decisions/001-storage.md +7 -0
  64. package/examples/mission-dialogue/docs/missions/first-save/PLAN.md +13 -0
  65. package/examples/mission-dialogue/docs/missions/first-save/REPRISE.md +6 -0
  66. package/examples/mission-dialogue/docs/missions/first-save/tickets/SAVE-1.md +14 -0
  67. package/examples/mission-dialogue/docs/missions/legacy-copy.md +9 -0
  68. package/examples/mission-dialogue/docs/produit/REGLES.md +5 -0
  69. package/examples/review/README.md +14 -0
  70. package/examples/review/REVIEW.md +98 -0
  71. package/examples/review/review-demo.html +1351 -0
  72. package/examples/review/review.json +199 -0
  73. package/package.json +2 -2
  74. package/scripts/build-review.mjs +8 -0
  75. package/scripts/media/review-extension/extend.py +100 -0
  76. package/scripts/package-smoke.mjs +20 -5
package/dist/review.js ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
1
+ import fs from 'node:fs';
2
+ import { createHash } from 'node:crypto';
3
+ import { sanitizedReview, redactReviewText } from './review-model.js';
4
+ export function renderReviewHTML(input) {
5
+ const review = input.review == null ? null : sanitizedReview(input.review);
6
+ const legacy = input.legacy == null ? null : redactReviewText(input.legacy);
7
+ const script = fs.readFileSync(new URL('./review-browser.js', import.meta.url), 'utf8');
8
+ const css = fs.readFileSync(new URL('./review-ui.css', import.meta.url), 'utf8');
9
+ const scriptHash = createHash('sha256').update(script).digest('base64');
10
+ const payload = JSON.stringify({ review, legacy, currentRevision: input.currentRevision ?? null, changedTargets: input.changedTargets ?? [] }).replace(/</g, '\\u003c').replace(/>/g, '\\u003e').replace(/&/g, '\\u0026');
11
+ return `<!doctype html>
12
+ <html lang="fr"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><meta name="referrer" content="no-referrer"><meta http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy" content="default-src 'none'; script-src 'sha256-${scriptHash}'; style-src 'unsafe-inline'; img-src data:; connect-src 'none'; font-src 'none'; object-src 'none'; base-uri 'none'; form-action 'none'"><title>DevMethod · Review</title><style>${css}</style></head><body><div id="app"><p class="loading">Chargement de la review…</p></div><noscript>Activez JavaScript pour les filtres et la consultation. Le rapport Markdown reste disponible via le CLI.</noscript><script id="review-data" type="application/json">${payload}</script><script>${script}</script></body></html>\n`;
13
+ }
package/docs/ADR-007-conversation-and-mission-ownership.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
1
+ # ADR 007: Conversation before commitment and single-owner mission records
2
+
3
+ Status: accepted for this implementation, 2026-09-13, under the user's explicit specification and authorization to implement and release this scope.
4
+
5
+ The request explicitly selects research before product commitment, conversational structural decisions, delivery-scope discussion and a proposed multi-file mission layout. It preserves approved design, existing trackers, lightweight fixes and legacy missions. These requirements settle this kit change; they do not delegate future adopters' product decisions.
6
+
7
+ Keep guidance and Markdown templates in the six existing skills. An executable decision state machine or automatic tracker migration would add schemas, commands and compatibility risk without meeting a requested runtime need. A single larger mission template alone would retain ownership ambiguity for substantial work. Use PLAN for mission goals/order, tickets for task state and evidence, REPRISE for a dated handoff; link other domain owners. Preserve the legacy template and optional JSON schemas.
8
+
9
+ The installer already walks Markdown assets and references, profiles host paths and hashes the complete selected payload. New resources require distribution regression tests, not installer logic changes. The initial scope extended CLI help to distinguish model stages from offline JSON inspectors. The subsequently authorized review interface adds its own result/presentation contract; this does not change the mission/context schemas. No changes to the design module or its approved directions.
10
+
11
+ The inspected downstream correction established the need for conversation before architecture detail and explicit choice/delegation, not merely a PROPOSED ADR. Integrate that generic intent with the requested constraints and planning rules, without downstream project facts.
12
+
13
+ Revisit if real adoption reveals unresolved ownership, missing resources in host subsets, migration friction or repeated conversational failures. Automated content/distribution checks cannot certify model behavior; record scenario walkthroughs separately from fresh native-host transcripts.
package/docs/ADR-008-review-presentation.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
1
+ # ADR 008: Versioned review results and local presentation
2
+
3
+ Status: accepted through explicit user delegation, 2026-09-13.
4
+
5
+ The user explicitly requested a versioned validated review record, common derived counters/report/interface, safe local browser consultation from the npm package, legacy Markdown support and the supplied visual direction. The existing kit accepts strict TypeScript, Node.js >=22, no runtime dependencies, offline operation and no automatic migrations.
6
+
7
+ The implemented shared components are independent of the final opening mode: a pure format-1 model/validator used by Node and the browser, derived Markdown, and an HTML rendering with bundled CSS/program/data. The CLI can generate that required report artifact. It does not execute checks or read arbitrary evidence paths. Explicit reviewed raster data and HTTPS navigation avoid exposing the project filesystem. Text is rendered as text; CSP pins the shipped program. Legacy Markdown stays historical text.
8
+
9
+ The decision brief was presented in conversation: a self-contained HTML report is portable and offline, requires no service lifecycle and matches existing dependency constraints. A loopback server is an alternative for future live refresh and controlled local-resource access, but adds process, route and filesystem security responsibilities. Recommendation: self-contained HTML for this release, with snapshot freshness and deliberately included evidence; revisit if real usage requires live refresh or local evidence linking. No account, external hosting or dashboard scope is introduced.
10
+
11
+ The user explicitly delegated this choice in conversation (“je te delegue le choix”), on 2026-09-13. Under that delegation, select the self-contained offline HTML report. `review --output report.html --open` requests opening through the operating system's browser handler, with fixed executable/argument boundaries and no shell. Opening failure preserves the generated report and explains manual recovery. No server is needed. Revisit this decision if live refresh or controlled local evidence access becomes an actual requirement.
12
+
13
+ Browser verification found and corrected a real focus-loss defect. Direct file:// reopening is blocked by the browser tool's URL policy; that limitation remains recorded, without a workaround or a claim of successful offline-browser reopening. The opening adapter is checked without launching a browser; the remaining offline reopening limitation must stay explicit in release evidence. Publication follows the authorized repository gates.
package/docs/MISSIONS.md CHANGED
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
2
2
 
3
3
  A mission is one authorized user outcome with observable acceptance, scope/exclusions, invariants, selected sources, uncertainties, dependencies, ownership, verification, stop conditions and an exact next action. Quick work can keep this inline. Standard work benefits from a reusable record. Major work splits dependent missions after resolving structural decisions. JSON is optional; it does not replace your tracker or project policy.
4
4
 
5
- For storage, status ownership and criterion-to-review links, follow [mission context](../.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/mission-context.md). Prefer existing conventions; the fallback is one `docs/missions/<mission-id>.md` with plan, evidence and latest handoff sections. This is guidance for the agent, not a new CLI tracker, auto-discovery path or schema validation feature.
5
+ For storage, status ownership and criterion-to-review links, follow [mission context](../.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/mission-context.md). Prefer existing conventions; substantial work without conventions uses a proposed `docs/missions/<mission-id>/PLAN.md`, `tickets/<ticket-id>.md` and dated `REPRISE.md`, with `preuves/` only when useful. Existing single-file `docs/missions/<mission-id>.md` records remain supported. See [migration and ownership](WORKFLOW-0.3.md). This is guidance for the agent, not a new CLI tracker, auto-discovery path or schema validation feature.
6
6
 
7
7
  Move Quick to Standard when a second component, uncertain dependency or changed contract needs an explicit record. Move to Major for structural decisions or migrations. Failed verification returns to implementation or design at the affected boundary; preserve the failure. Evaluation/status reads do not imply implementation, review does not imply integration, and integration does not imply publication.
8
8
 
package/docs/RELEASE-0.2.0.md CHANGED
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
1
  # DevMethod 0.2.0 — visual design through verified delivery
2
2
 
3
- Status: candidate prepared for maintainer review. Not published on npm. The registry still serves 0.1.0 under `latest`; npm authentication is required to publish this candidate. GitHub updates and package preparation are separate from publication.
3
+ Status: published on npm as `devmethod-ai@0.2.0` under `latest`. The registry archive matches the reviewed candidate and passed package smoke after publication.
4
4
 
5
5
  ## Changes
6
6
 
@@ -14,13 +14,13 @@ Image generation requires an available host tool; it is not bundled. The film co
14
14
 
15
15
  ## Adopt without overwriting project work
16
16
 
17
- Until publication, use a reviewed GitHub revision:
17
+ To pin a reviewed GitHub revision:
18
18
 
19
19
  ```sh
20
20
  npx --yes --package=github:montassarkhalloufi/DevMethod#<reviewed-commit> devmethod init --tool codex --dest ../devmethod-staging
21
21
  ```
22
22
 
23
- After the registry confirms publication, the versioned command will be:
23
+ Install the published version:
24
24
 
25
25
  ```sh
26
26
  npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.2.0 init --tool codex --dest ../devmethod-staging
@@ -35,3 +35,14 @@ Local candidate checks passed: locked installation, 72 core tests, 24 greenfield
35
35
  Native workflow evidence is retained in the [Lisière execution record](media/visual-chain/execution.fr.md) and [visual pilot](../examples/visual-pilot/README.md). The release reuses that evidence for the unchanged skills; it does not claim fresh model runs.
36
36
 
37
37
  Publish only the reviewed archive with an explicit `latest` tag for an authorized final release. After publication, download the registry tarball, compare its integrity and run package smoke again. Keep 0.1.0 available as a rollback reference.
38
+
39
+ ## Exact published artifact — 2026-09-13
40
+
41
+ - Release preparation and review: [PR #17](https://github.com/montassarkhalloufi/DevMethod/pull/17), merged as `f374c5a02f2e339c47e126a8f8e5c2f28d785f9d`.
42
+ - [Platform CI](https://github.com/montassarkhalloufi/DevMethod/actions/runs/34767104314): Linux, macOS and Windows passed.
43
+ - [Fullstack CI](https://github.com/montassarkhalloufi/DevMethod/actions/runs/34767104287): passed.
44
+ - Archive: `devmethod-ai-0.2.0.tgz`, 230 files. SHA-256: `f8fa3ffe9c6d9cb0072dd3540a016dd8d36a582bde386a816eb5bd9bda0eca07`.
45
+ - npm SHA-1: `5e40705ce120987e3e3c271d1d00bca1a5be39a3`.
46
+ - npm integrity: `sha512-vV6DGt8v6xu6p42s7IaGKPPwcOMTBuUnH97E8W+FR809YFQtUw+n1hTZdoF3+5bq8tAvyslYMNGzAuBQ8bXVTg==`.
47
+
48
+ After browser authentication, npm confirmed publication. The fresh registry download matched the reviewed archive byte for byte and passed installation smoke for all host layouts, subset installation, preservation of customizations and context/planning checks. The `latest` tag is 0.2.0; 0.1.0 remains available. This post-publication record is not inside the immutable published archive.
package/docs/RELEASE-0.3.0.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
1
+ # DevMethod 0.3.0 — research and decisions before commitment
2
+
3
+ Release scope: 0.3.0. Offline HTML was selected under explicit user delegation in [ADR 008](ADR-008-review-presentation.md). GitHub and npm provide publication status.
4
+
5
+ Open the packaged demo: `npx devmethod-ai@0.3.0 review --demo --output review-demo.html --open`.
6
+
7
+ This minor release extends the workflow and its distributed resources while retaining the public CLI contracts, six skills, fourteen stages, JSON schemas and existing mission compatibility. The exact publication and CI evidence is recorded in the release PR and GitHub release; package metadata alone is not proof of publication.
8
+
9
+ - explore researches existing solutions proportionately, traces dated sources, distinguishes claims and hypotheses, and discusses what to do next.
10
+ - architecture presents credible options and recommendations in conversation before dependent detail; explicit choice or scoped delegation is recorded. Open decisions keep plans conditional.
11
+ - plan discusses useful delivery scope, learning, trade-offs and uncertain effort before tickets; milestones carry demonstrations, exit criteria and authorized continuation.
12
+ - New optional research/product and PLAN/TICKET/REPRISE templates provide one owner per fact, progressive reading and ticket-owned verification. Existing single-file missions and trackers remain supported.
13
+ - Review adds official-source/version-aware inspection guidance, validated format-1 results, derived Markdown and a functional local browser viewer. Findings and checks remain distinct; the viewer covers search/filters, evidence, coverage, source provenance, exports, responsive keyboard navigation and historical/invalid states.
14
+ - The design module and approved visual workflow remain unchanged. Installer resource discovery and integrity manifest formats stay compatible; the new review CLI presents results without executing repository checks. See [review usage and limits](REVIEWS.md).
15
+
16
+ ## Adoption and migration
17
+
18
+ Use `npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.0 init --tool codex --dest ../devmethod-staging` after registry publication; choose claude or cursor as needed. Compare staged files and update-preview results before adoption. Do not overwrite divergent skills, profiles or existing instructions. See [explicit migration steps](WORKFLOW-0.3.md#non-destructive-migration). No migration or empty project document creation runs automatically.
19
+
20
+ ## Verification and limits
21
+
22
+ Required local checks: locked install, complete test suite/build, greenfield tests, local Markdown links, committed build drift, actual package inspection and smoke from its archive. Platform CI validates installation on Linux, macOS and Windows and runs the fullstack fixture. These do not certify coding-agent behavior.
23
+
24
+ The [scenario record](WORKFLOW-0.3-VALIDATION.md) is an authored workflow walkthrough plus manual inspection, not fresh native-host transcripts. No native-host parity or comparative improvement claim is made. Keep 0.2.0 available as a rollback reference. Publication uses the reviewed archive and explicit latest tag; no CI publishing workflow exists.
package/docs/RELEASE-0.3.1.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
1
+ # DevMethod 0.3.1 — review documentation and film
2
+
3
+ This patch makes the 0.3 review capability visible in the GitHub/npm README, provides a step-by-step guide with actual interface captures, and distributes the fictional example as JSON, generated Markdown and standalone HTML. CLI behavior and the format-1 contract are unchanged.
4
+
5
+ The existing Lisière 4K film is extended to approximately **4 min 03 s**. Its original footage, narration and ending are retained; six narrated review-interface scenes are inserted before the ending. The added example is clearly fictional and separate from the Lisière pilot. French subtitles, the preview image and montage provenance are updated. The video is linked from npm and hosted on GitHub, rather than included in the npm tarball.
6
+
7
+ ```sh
8
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.1 review --demo --output review-demo.html --open
9
+ ```
10
+
11
+ [Review guide](REVIEW-GUIDE.md) · [Example](../examples/review/README.md) · [Extended film](media/visual-chain/README.md) · [0.3 functional changes](RELEASE-0.3.0.md)
12
+
13
+ Validation covers the unchanged CLI test suite, document links, derivation of the example Markdown/HTML, archive resources and preserved installation behavior. Media checks inspect the encoded frames, subtitle timing, duration and audio/video streams. The new chapter is a narrated screenshot montage, not a continuous browser recording or an independently executed review of Lisière. Direct offline browser reopening remains unverified under the tool policy described in the 0.3 review evidence.
14
+
15
+ GitHub release and npm registry metadata are the publication evidence; see the associated PR for the exact revision, archive integrity and final check results.
package/docs/REVIEW-GUIDE.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
1
+ # From a review record to the browser
2
+
3
+ DevMethod 0.3 adds a review workflow and an offline browser interface. Version 0.3.1 expands the documentation and the existing narrated film with this journey. The CLI presents recorded results; it does not inspect code or run tests on your behalf.
4
+
5
+ ## Try the packaged example
6
+
7
+ Use Node.js 22+ from a normal project directory, with a fresh output filename:
8
+
9
+ ```sh
10
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.1 review --demo --output review-demo.html --open
11
+ ```
12
+
13
+ The OS opens the generated standalone HTML in your browser. No local server, account or source checkout is required. npx may download the package first. On a headless system, omit `--open` and transfer the HTML to your desktop. If automatic opening fails, the output is preserved for manual opening. Paths containing symlink components are rejected; on macOS use the canonical `/private/tmp/...` instead of `/tmp/...` for a temporary `--dest`.
14
+
15
+ The **Atelier de lecture** record is deliberately fictional. It contains two illustrative findings: a confirmed moderate accessibility problem and an unverified minor performance risk. Its three checks have separate outcomes: one passed, one failed, one not executed. They are not findings from the Lisière pilot or evidence that this fictional product was tested.
16
+
17
+ ![Actual desktop review interface, displaying fictional example data](images/review-interface-desktop.jpg)
18
+
19
+ 1. In **Constats**, search for `silencieux`. One finding remains; the severity and coverage cards still describe the whole review.
20
+ 2. Select **R-01**. **Preuve** explains its trigger, expected and observed behavior, and labels its explanatory diagram.
21
+ 3. Open **Correction** for the proposed change, trade-offs and required verification. A ticket link is shown only when supplied; the demo's link is explicitly illustrative.
22
+ 4. Open **Couverture** to distinguish check outcomes and reasons for missing verification. Counts of tests and findings are independent.
23
+ 5. Open **Sources** to inspect version, provenance, consultation and limits. The example's reference is marked **non vérifiée**, not presented as research actually performed.
24
+ 6. Use **Exporter le rapport** for HTML, Markdown or JSON. The HTML snapshot retains selection, filters and detail section. Open your exported file again to resume; a different inspected revision still requires reassessment of affected evidence.
25
+ 7. On mobile, return from the detail to the list without losing your filters. Keyboard focus and text labels complement the severity colors.
26
+
27
+ ![Coverage is independent of findings](images/review-coverage.jpg)
28
+
29
+ ![Correction includes the expected verification](images/review-correction.jpg)
30
+
31
+ ## Produce a real review
32
+
33
+ Within the coding agent, ask the workflow to review the authorized ticket. This is an illustrative skill request, not a CLI command or a claimed recorded agent run:
34
+
35
+ ```text
36
+ $project-foundation review TASK-1
37
+ Inspect the actual stack and versions, the diff, accepted decisions and ticket criteria.
38
+ Consult applicable official sources and verify the provenance of any suggested skill.
39
+ Record checks, findings, evidence, limitations and the inspected revision in review.json.
40
+ Fix confirmed issues within the authorized scope, then record their new verification.
41
+ ```
42
+
43
+ For a substantial review, use one results owner:
44
+
45
+ ```text
46
+ docs/missions/first-save/reviews/review-01/
47
+ review.json # validated, versioned results
48
+ REVIEW.md # generated from those results
49
+ preuves/ # only necessary, reviewed evidence
50
+ ```
51
+
52
+ The [format contract](REVIEWS.md) defines required fields and path/link/privacy boundaries. Start from the [complete fictional JSON](../examples/review/review.json) to understand the shape, replacing **all** illustrative facts with actual observations. Do not label a suspect risk confirmed or a known source consulted without evidence. A failed check and a finding are different objects. Tickets reference finding IDs rather than copying their content.
53
+
54
+ ```sh
55
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.1 review \
56
+ --review docs/missions/first-save/reviews/review-01/review.json \
57
+ --output review-first-save.html \
58
+ --markdown docs/missions/first-save/reviews/review-01/REVIEW.md \
59
+ --open
60
+ ```
61
+
62
+ Output files must be new; select another name if a report exists. The [packaged example](../examples/review/README.md) also contains generated HTML and Markdown for comparison. Existing Markdown can be opened with `--legacy path/to/REVIEW.md`; missing structured fields remain unknown.
63
+
64
+ ## Watch the journey
65
+
66
+ The [extended existing 4K film](media/visual-chain/README.md) retains the Lisière footage and narration, then inserts a review-interface chapter before the original conclusion. The added chapter is a narrated montage of actual browser screenshots, not a continuous screen recording or a fresh review of Lisière. [Montage sources and provenance](media/review-extension/README.md).
67
+
68
+ The [verification record](REVIEW-VALIDATION.md) distinguishes automated tests, real browser observations and illustrative workflows. Export bytes and state were inspected; direct `file://` reopening was blocked by the browser tool, so that end-to-end check is not claimed as passed. Automatic redaction is heuristic: inspect evidence before distributing it.
package/docs/REVIEW-SOURCES.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
1
+ # Sources inspected for the review interface
2
+
3
+ Consulted 2026-09-13. Installed compiler: TypeScript 5.9.3; @types/node 22.20.2 (package-lock.json). Package baseline Node.js >=22, CI Node.js 22; local runtime Node.js 24.18.0. Keep NodeNext/ES2022 and existing strictness; no version migration is required.
4
+
5
+ | Source | Publisher / provenance | Applicable version and use | Limits |
6
+ |---|---|---|---|
7
+ | [Node filesystem documentation](https://nodejs.org/download/release/v22.17.0/docs/api/fs.html) | Node.js official site | Node 22 baseline, bounded regular-file reads and exclusive output creation | Path validation remains application responsibility; not a concurrency sandbox |
8
+ | [TypeScript 5.9 notes](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-5-9.html) | TypeScript official site | Installed 5.9.3; preserve project NodeNext configuration and DOM typing | Newer compiler documentation is not a migration requirement |
9
+ | [DOM textContent](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Node/textContent) | MDN Web Docs, web-platform documentation | Text rendering of untrusted report content | Setting safe text does not validate navigation destinations |
10
+ | [Tabs pattern](https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/tabs/) | W3C WAI | Keyboard focus, selection and panel association | Authoring guidance, not proof of an accessibility audit |
11
+ | [TypeScript maintainer skills](https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript-Maintainer-Skills) | Microsoft-owned repository; inspected README and intended scope | Compiler-issue maintenance, not a general application review skill | Discovered, not installed or executed; not adopted for this app |
12
+
13
+ Searches included Node.js organization skill sources and Microsoft TypeScript maintainer skill sources. No suitable general Node.js/application review skill was verified in this search. That is a bounded search result, not proof no such skill exists. Use relevant official documentation directly. No third-party skill was automatically installed. A reference in an example fixture is labelled unverified unless that example actually records consultation.
package/docs/REVIEW-VALIDATION.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
1
+ # Review interface verification
2
+
3
+ This record distinguishes automated checks, browser interactions and authored workflow scenarios. Exact candidate revision, package digest and platform CI are recorded in PR #19 and the release after the complete expanded candidate is verified.
4
+
5
+ ## Automated checks
6
+
7
+ The format tests cover required/versioned fields, unknown fields, duplicate/dangling IDs, consultation dates, resolution evidence, counts independent from filters, policy-derived conclusions, selective changed-target signalling, link protocols, text redaction, unsafe image types and derived Markdown. Renderer tests cover inert JSON embedding, script CSP and absent remote program/style loads. CLI tests cover generated reports, output preflight/conflict preservation, bounded explicit paths, symlink refusal, legacy reading, invalid JSON without source disclosure, empty and packaged demo modes.
8
+
9
+ These tests check code, not whether a reviewing model follows the workflow or whether author-supplied evidence is true.
10
+
11
+ ## Browser inspection — 2026-09-13
12
+
13
+ Real Codex in-app browser at 1586×992 and 390×844: inspected the implemented rendering against the user-approved artistic reference, composed filters, selected findings, evidence/correction tabs, coverage, mobile list/detail return and absence of horizontal overflow. A real focus-loss defect was observed when selecting a finding updated the hash and rebuilt the page twice. The fix uses a single render and restores focus; verified focus on detail-title and keyboard ArrowRight to the Correction tab. Mobile back restores the selected result and retains query/confidence filters.
14
+
15
+ Imported an adversarial JSON fixture through the real file picker: HTML-like title displayed literally, no script dialog or console warning/error. Unit tests independently verify redaction and escaped report embedding. Inspected a changed-revision page with targeted C-01/R-01 reassessment and an empty-viewer page. Also verified invalid-format, legacy inert Markdown, partial and blocked states, missing-finding mobile recovery, and an embedded real JPEG screenshot. Chrome produced an actual HTML download: inspected the last downloaded file, validated its format-1 data, saved query/selected finding/detail section and CSP program hash. The browser download-event listener timed out despite the actual file being created. Direct file:// reopening was rejected by the browser tool policy and was not bypassed; no successful offline-browser reopen is claimed. Post-package checks belong to the final candidate evidence.
16
+
17
+ ## Authored workflow scenarios
18
+
19
+ | Scenario | Expected response under the revised workflow |
20
+ |---|---|
21
+ | Official docs describe a newer incompatible version | Keep installed version and accepted conventions; find matching docs, record compatibility limits; no automatic migration |
22
+ | “Official” skill lacks reliable publisher provenance | Mark unverified, do not install/execute; use verified documentation independently |
23
+ | No suitable official skill found | Record the bounded search limitation and consult official docs directly |
24
+ | Suspected issue cannot be reproduced | Keep suspected confidence and verification next step; no demonstrated vulnerability claim |
25
+ | Automated tests pass but visual defect is observed | Record the actual screenshot/interaction finding and its impact; automated success does not override it |
26
+ | A check cannot run | Record blocked or not-run with reason; preserve unrelated executed results |
27
+ | A correction is applied | Retain original evidence and require fresh relevant verification before resolved |
28
+ | No findings with limited coverage | State verified scope and uncovered surfaces; no completeness inference |
29
+
30
+ These are authored scenario walkthroughs, not transcripts of new authenticated model executions.
31
+
32
+ The [actual structured review](missions/workflow-0.3-reviews/interface/review.json) records the observed focus defect, original and post-fix evidence, and the blocked offline-browser check. Its [Markdown report](missions/workflow-0.3-reviews/interface/REVIEW.md) is generated from that source. This is separate from the fictional interface demo.
33
+
34
+ Actual rendering (fictional demo data): [desktop capture](images/review-interface-desktop.jpg), [mobile capture](images/review-interface-mobile.jpg). The user reference image is a design source, not an execution result.
package/docs/REVIEWS.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
1
+ # Review results, reports and browser consultation
2
+
3
+ The agent's `project-foundation review` stage performs project-aware inspection under [the review workflow](../.agents/skills/scoped-delivery/references/review-workflow.md). The CLI `devmethod review` only validates and presents recorded results. It never runs repository commands, discovers evidence on disk, or performs the review itself.
4
+
5
+ ## Use the installed package
6
+
7
+ After 0.3.0 publication, from a temporary or project directory:
8
+
9
+ ```sh
10
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.0 review --demo --output review.html
11
+ ```
12
+
13
+ Open the generated `review.html` in a browser. It includes the browser program, styles and explicitly included data, independent of the DevMethod checkout. The demo is fictional, with different findings from the artistic reference. It is not evidence of a real product review.
14
+
15
+ For a real review, paths are relative to `--dest` (current directory by default):
16
+
17
+ ```sh
18
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.0 review --review docs/missions/my-mission/reviews/review-1/review.json --output review.html --markdown REVIEW.md
19
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.0 review --review review.json --json
20
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.0 review --review review.json --current-revision inspected-new-revision --changed-targets save-status --output recheck.html
21
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.0 review --legacy old-review.md --output historical.html
22
+ npx --yes devmethod-ai@0.3.0 review --output empty-viewer.html
23
+ ```
24
+
25
+ Existing outputs are never overwritten. Choose a fresh path for a newer snapshot. `--json` validates/reports without writing unless output flags are also explicitly given. Exit 0 means valid presentation/inspection, **not** a passed review; inspect `status`/`summary`. Exit 2 means invalid invocation, result schema or filesystem input/output. Missing revisions remain unknown. `--changed-targets` compares exact logical target names; it does not infer all semantic dependencies. Independent historical checks are preserved.
26
+
27
+ ## One versioned source
28
+
29
+ Use existing conventions, or `docs/missions/<mission-id>/reviews/<review-id>/review.json`, with generated `REVIEW.md` and deliberately included `preuves/`. Tickets link stable finding IDs; the report and UI derive results from the JSON. Do not maintain another independent score or status table.
30
+
31
+ Format 1 is validated by the same pure model in the CLI and browser. See the [complete fictional example](../examples/review/review.json) and [compiled validator](../dist/review-model.js). Unknown formats, unknown/missing fields, duplicate IDs, invalid destinations and dangling references are rejected with errors that omit source contents. Arrays are bounded to 256 items, text fields to 16,384 characters, and input to 4 MiB. Image data has a separate limit of approximately 1 MiB per PNG/JPEG.
32
+
33
+ | Object | Required fields and ownership |
34
+ |---|---|
35
+ | Review | format, id, title, project, mission, tickets, date, scope, exclusions, revision, technologies, sources, checks, findings, evidence, limits, policy, summary |
36
+ | revision | commit (recorded revision label), dirty (explicit uncommitted changes); no automatic Git execution |
37
+ | technologies | name, version, detectedFrom (actual manifest/lockfile/source evidence) |
38
+ | ticket | id, title, url (HTTPS or null; local/unpublished destinations remain unavailable) |
39
+ | source | id, title, kind (documentation/skill/project), publisher, technology, version, url, consultedAt, access (consulted/unavailable/unverified), usage, compatibility, provenance; consulted requires a date |
40
+ | check | id, title, domain, kind (automated/manual), status (passed/failed/not-run/blocked/out-of-scope), result, reason, evidenceIds, revision, targets; unexecuted/excluded checks need a reason |
41
+ | finding | id, title, domain, severity (critical/major/moderate/minor), severityReason, confidence (confirmed/suspected), resolution (open/in-progress/resolved/accepted-risk), location, trigger, expected, observed, impact, reproduction, evidenceIds, correction, tradeoffs, sourceIds, ticketIds, verification, resolutionEvidenceIds, targets |
42
+ | location | path or component description, line (positive integer or null), component (text or null); display metadata, never arbitrary file access |
43
+ | evidence | id, title, kind (text/log/screenshot/diagram), content (text alternative or excerpt), url (HTTPS or null), image (null or explicit PNG/JPEG object) |
44
+ | image | mime=image/png or image/jpeg, base64, alt, origin=captured/explanatory, privacyReviewed=true; only deliberately included reviewed images, not filesystem paths or remote images |
45
+ | policy | blockingSeverities, requireAllChecks, rationale; project-owned explicit policy, no numeric risk score |
46
+
47
+ A confirmed finding still needs evidence or reproduction. A resolved finding requires resolution evidence IDs; schema validation checks the references, **not the truth of execution or whether the fix really works**. Authors must retain the original evidence and supply fresh verification. Closing a panel never changes resolution. Finding counts include all resolution states and stay independent from filtered results; uncertain unresolved findings have a separate count. Failed-check counts are separate from finding counts.
48
+
49
+ A blocking confirmed open finding or a failed check requires corrections. Otherwise a blocked check yields blocked; no passed checks, an unresolved suspected finding, or required unrun checks yields incomplete. Otherwise the conclusion is ready **on the verified scope**, with exclusions and limits still visible. This conclusion does not authorize integration/deployment or replace repository policy.
50
+
51
+ ## Browser journey
52
+
53
+ Use Constats to search and combine domain/severity/confidence/resolution filters. Select a finding with keyboard or pointer; its header shows severity, confidence, resolution, impact and location. Preuve shows reproduction, expected/observed behavior, text logs, PNG/JPEG images or explanatory flow text. Correction shows proposed action/trade-offs/verification and a ticket link only when supplied. Références shows provenance, actual consultation and compatibility.
54
+
55
+ Couverture groups controls by domain, with kind, result, revision, reason and evidence. Sources distinguishes consulted, inaccessible and unverified references. Uninspected surfaces never receive a green indicator. A link ending `#finding=R-01` opens that finding in the same local review; the file must be available to its recipient.
56
+
57
+ Mobile list/detail navigation retains filters and selection. Tabs support arrows/Home/End, buttons and links use native keyboard behavior, and focus remains visible. Exporter le rapport offers an interactive HTML snapshot (preserving view/filter/selection), derived Markdown and sanitized JSON. Reopen the exported HTML directly; use Ouvrir une review for another JSON or old Markdown. Inputs are local, never uploaded. Legacy reports display as text with unknown structured fields and no invented coverage; Markdown export preserves the sanitized text. Deliberate migration means manually recording only supported facts into format 1 and keeping the original report as historical evidence.
58
+
59
+ ## Trust boundary and limits
60
+
61
+ All text is rendered as text nodes. A restrictive CSP pins the shipped program; there is no eval, repository command execution, automatic external resource loading, or arbitrary file browser. Only HTTPS navigation is allowed, with credentials rejected and opener/referrer protection. No external link is promised live merely because its syntax is valid. Missing destinations and failed images have explicit explanations. Evidence links open only after user interaction.
62
+
63
+ The viewer does not read image paths or local ticket files; authors must explicitly embed a reviewed bounded PNG/JPEG and text alternative, or supply a published HTTPS destination. Never disguise an explanatory diagram or generated image as a real execution capture. Screenshots are author-attested, not machine-certified. Redaction masks common credential patterns and email addresses, but cannot detect every secret or personal datum (especially in images): privacy review before distribution remains required. Opening a report does not grant its embedded text instructional authority.
64
+
65
+ A self-contained report is a snapshot, not live monitoring. Pass the current revision/changed targets when regenerating; the browser does not inspect Git or the filesystem. Keep source JSON and old revisions for auditability. Markdown cannot include embedded image pixels; the HTML/JSON retain them and Markdown includes the alternative text and evidence metadata.
66
+
67
+ [Source consultation record](REVIEW-SOURCES.md) · [Verification and known limits](REVIEW-VALIDATION.md).
68
+
69
+ ## Open the offline interface
70
+
71
+ ```sh
72
+ npx devmethod-ai@0.3.0 review --demo --output review-demo.html --open
73
+ ```
74
+
75
+ For a real review, replace `--demo` with `--review docs/missions/your-mission/reviews/your-review/review.json`. The output path is relative to `--dest` (the current directory by default). Choose a fresh path; existing reports are never overwritten. `--open` requires `--output` and asks the OS browser handler to open the generated standalone file. No local server runs. On headless systems, omit `--open` and copy/open the HTML on a desktop. Opening failure returns an error while preserving the report. The browser interface works offline after generation; npx may need network access to obtain the package.
package/docs/VISUAL-WORKFLOW.md CHANGED
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
1
  # Create a direction, then build it
2
2
 
3
- The 0.2.0 candidate and current GitHub source include a visual-creation procedure in the existing `design` stage. It preserves six modules and does not install an image service. The published npm `0.1.0` package predates this evolution; reinstalling that version does not obtain it. See the [0.2.0 release record](RELEASE-0.2.0.md) before choosing the installation command.
3
+ DevMethod 0.2.0 and the current GitHub source include a visual-creation procedure in the existing `design` stage. It preserves six modules and does not install an image service. The published npm `0.1.0` package predates this evolution; reinstalling that version does not obtain it. See the [0.2.0 release record](RELEASE-0.2.0.md) before choosing the installation command.
4
4
 
5
5
  ## Start
6
6
 
package/docs/WORKFLOW-0.3-VALIDATION.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
1
+ # 0.3 workflow verification
2
+
3
+ ## Scope of evidence
4
+
5
+ This record separates automated regression checks, an authored scenario walkthrough and manual inspection. A textual assertion or the walkthrough below does not prove conversational compliance by a model. No fresh authenticated Codex, Claude Code or Cursor behavior run is claimed for 0.3.0. Prior native evidence remains historical for its recorded revisions.
6
+
7
+ ## Scenario walkthrough — 2026-09-13
8
+
9
+ Method: inspect the revised stage contracts, trace the input through its responsible stage and check the expected next action against templates and the fictional linked fixture. These are authored simulations, not captured user/model executions.
10
+
11
+ | Input / scenario | Expected route and inspected outcome |
12
+ |---|---|
13
+ | New product with unclear alternatives | explore opens research guidance; compares direct, adjacent and informal alternatives, dates claims and presents a synthesis before framing |
14
+ | Isolated technical correction | work-sizing Quick keeps inline readiness and focused checks; no market research or mission scaffold |
15
+ | Research tools unavailable | disclose access limit, distinguish supplied evidence from hypotheses, propose research; no invented results |
16
+ | Sources contradict | retain both dated claims and their scope; state uncertainty and resolution experiment; missing feature stays unverified |
17
+ | User refuses architecture recommendation | return to objection and viable options; no dependent architecture built around the rejected option |
18
+ | User proposes alternative | evaluate it on the same cost, operating, durability and user criteria; revise recommendation if warranted |
19
+ | User explicitly delegates storage choice | record delegation scope/source and chosen rationale; detail dependent architecture without reconfirmation |
20
+ | Ambiguous “ok” after several options | clarify only if needed to select dependent work; no inferred adoption |
21
+ | plan invoked with open storage | fictional PLAN remains conditional and SAVE-1 points directly to architecture; no correct-course detour |
22
+ | Accepted decision changes | link replacement and impacted contracts/tickets; reassess readiness and invalidate dependent evidence/review only |
23
+ | Resume multi-file mission | profile → PLAN → SAVE-1 → linked rule and decision; REPRISE is a dated pointer, ticket owns blocker/evidence |
24
+ | Resume legacy single file | legacy-copy retains scope, task, criterion and handoff inline; no move required |
25
+ | First useful delivery / scope edit | delivery-planning requests useful outcome/learning, real scope choices and effort uncertainty; milestones carry demos, exits and authorized continuation |
26
+ | Existing approved design | design-to-code files unchanged; foundation only links product and decision owners |
27
+
28
+ ## Automated and manual checks
29
+
30
+ Automated tests exercise the installer across three host profiles, actual resource/manifest/link completeness, subset installation, all-or-nothing divergence preservation, and unchanged legacy/multi-file mission bytes. Package smoke checks the archive, help and resources, three host layouts and optional upgrade from an actual prior tarball. The existing JSON and resumption suites still apply without schema changes.
31
+
32
+ Manual inspection covers the downstream skill diff, generic intent without project content, owner uniqueness, migration instructions, design-module diff and final change review. Exact test counts, revisions, platform CI results and package integrity belong in the release PR/release evidence, not in an independently maintained ticket-status table.
package/docs/WORKFLOW-0.3.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
1
+ # Research, decisions and mission ownership
2
+
3
+ DevMethod 0.3.0 keeps six skills, fourteen workflow stages and the existing JSON inspector schemas. The `design-to-code` module is unchanged. This update changes model guidance, not a deterministic conversational engine.
4
+
5
+ ## Before committing to a solution
6
+
7
+ `explore` researches direct, adjacent and informal alternatives when product uncertainty warrants it. Use dated traceable sources, distinguish facts, interpretations and hypotheses, and separate testimonials from demonstrated trends. Not finding a feature is not proof of absence or opportunity. Discuss a synthesis and whether to continue, reposition, reduce, deepen or abandon. Unavailable research must be disclosed; a technical fix does not inherit a competitive-study requirement. See [exploration guidance](../.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/exploration.md).
8
+
9
+ `frame` owns the resulting need, scope, success criteria and business rules. Preserve approved design and its existing workflow.
10
+
11
+ `architecture` collects constraints and compares credible options in the conversation before detailing dependent architecture. The user may challenge, supply alternatives, choose or explicitly delegate. Record the choice/delegation and rationale in the decision owner. Silence, an ambiguous “ok”, invoking `plan` or a PROPOSED label does not replace this exchange. Preserve accepted decisions, scoped delegations and autonomy for routine reversible details.
12
+
13
+ `plan` discusses the first useful outcome and learning, actual scope alternatives, benefits, exclusions, risks, dependencies and uncertain effort. Record priorities, milestone demonstrations, exit and continuation conditions under current authorization. Detail near-term vertical slices. With open architecture, make the plan conditional and resume the discussion directly in architecture. Changed decisions require reassessing dependent tickets and evidence. See [delivery planning](../.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/delivery-planning.md).
14
+
15
+ ## Proposed storage, only without an existing convention
16
+
17
+ For substantial work, [mission context](../.agents/skills/project-foundation/references/mission-context.md) defines the full proposed tree: compact PROJECT_PROFILE; docs/exploration/{EXISTANT,OPPORTUNITES}; docs/produit/{CADRAGE,REGLES}; docs/missions/<mission-id>/{PLAN,REPRISE,tickets/,preuves/}; design/; architecture/decisions/.
18
+
19
+ Each fact has one current owner. The profile links context; research owns sources and hypotheses; product owns need and rules; PLAN owns mission outcome, milestones/order and ticket links; tickets own scope, dependencies, status, acceptance and revision-labelled verification. REPRISE is the latest dated handoff, not a second status register. Bulky artifacts go in preuves when needed. Any status table is generated from tickets and labelled with its revision/time, never maintained independently. Do not create empty documents by ritual.
20
+
21
+ Read progressively: profile, active mission, active ticket, necessary references. Compare actual code and changed dependencies with evidence before resuming. A plan, ready ticket, verified implementation, integration and deployment are distinct states.
22
+
23
+ ## Non-destructive migration
24
+
25
+ Existing `docs/missions/<mission-id>.md` records, inline Quick work and existing trackers remain valid. No automatic move, rewrite or JSON schema migration occurs.
26
+
27
+ 1. Install the new kit into a fresh staging directory and compare using `update-preview` and a content diff. Keep customized skills, filled profiles and existing instructions; divergent files still block init before writes.
28
+ 2. Keep the legacy mission as the active entry until extraction is useful. Inspect candidate target paths for existing content. Reconcile divergence intentionally; never overwrite it.
29
+ 3. Extract outcome/milestones into PLAN, executable task fields and evidence into tickets, and the dated handoff into REPRISE only as needed. Keep stable criterion IDs, exact source links and historical revisions. Replace extracted live fields in the old location with links so ownership stays unique.
30
+ 4. Verify links, criteria and the active ticket from the new entry. Update the profile's entry link after the comparison. Git retains history; avoid a duplicate live status table.
31
+
32
+ Installed resources live under each selected skill's assets/references. They are templates, not files automatically scaffolded into docs. Foundation includes the research/product resources even when delivery is not selected; resolve scoped-delivery by name when its templates are needed. The three host profiles transform skill paths and generate integrity manifests from the full selected payload. No manifest format change is needed.
33
+
34
+ The CLI `mission`, `context`, `context-check`, `resume` and `plan` still take explicit JSON paths. They do not parse Markdown mission directories, accept decisions or execute tickets. See the [fictional linked mission](../examples/mission-dialogue/PROJECT_PROFILE.md) and [verification scenarios](WORKFLOW-0.3-VALIDATION.md).
package/docs/images/devmethod-delivery.svg CHANGED
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
3
3
  <defs><marker id="arrow" markerWidth="8" markerHeight="8" refX="6" refY="3" orient="auto"><path d="M0 0L6 3L0 6" fill="#ddac86"/></marker></defs>
4
4
  <rect width="1200" height="650" rx="28" fill="#10272b"/><g font-family="Arial, sans-serif">
5
5
  <text x="52" y="65" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="16" letter-spacing="3">DEVMETHOD / THE DELIVERY LOOP</text><text x="52" y="117" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="36" font-weight="700">A finished slice needs evidence</text>
6
- <text x="52" y="154" fill="#b9ccc4" font-size="20">Design approval guides the work. Tests and browser checks verify the result.</text>
6
+ <text x="52" y="154" fill="#b9ccc4" font-size="20">Accepted decisions guide the work. Structured review connects checks, findings and evidence.</text>
7
7
  <rect x="52" y="203" width="320" height="157" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="74" y="250" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="24" font-weight="700">Accepted references</text><text x="74" y="293" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Scope · design · architecture</text><text x="74" y="325" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Plan and readiness</text><rect x="440" y="203" width="320" height="157" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="462" y="250" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="24" font-weight="700">Implement and review</text><text x="462" y="293" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Build the real interactions</text><text x="462" y="325" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Review code, risks and tests</text><rect x="828" y="203" width="320" height="157" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="850" y="250" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="24" font-weight="700">Verify the result</text><text x="850" y="293" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Run the agreed checks</text><text x="850" y="325" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Compare UI with the design</text><g stroke="#ddac86" stroke-width="3" fill="none" marker-end="url(#arrow)"><path d="M378 281h54"/><path d="M766 281h54"/><path d="M988 365v75"/><path d="M600 450v-78"/><path d="M930 365v40H210v35"/></g>
8
8
  <rect x="828" y="452" width="320" height="117" rx="16" fill="#24483f" stroke="#74b49a"/><text x="850" y="490" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="23" font-weight="700">Checks pass → deliver</text><text x="850" y="526" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Integrate within permissions</text><text x="850" y="552" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Record evidence and handoff</text>
9
9
  <rect x="52" y="452" width="708" height="117" rx="16" fill="#3b3531" stroke="#ddac86"/><text x="74" y="491" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="23" font-weight="700">Failed check or changed constraint → correct</text><text x="74" y="526" fill="#decbbb" font-size="18">Fix the slice or revisit the affected design / architecture decision.</text><text x="74" y="552" fill="#decbbb" font-size="18">If blocked, preserve a checkpoint; do not mark the slice delivered.</text>
package/docs/images/devmethod-flow.svg CHANGED
@@ -8,6 +8,6 @@
8
8
  <rect x="424" y="202" width="352" height="183" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="448" y="237" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="17" font-weight="700">02</text><text x="448" y="278" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="23" font-weight="700">Design the experience</text><text x="448" y="316" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="18">Design</text><text x="448" y="350" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="17">Directions → master → screens</text>
9
9
  <rect x="796" y="202" width="352" height="183" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="820" y="237" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="17" font-weight="700">03</text><text x="820" y="278" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="23" font-weight="700">Choose the architecture</text><text x="820" y="316" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="18">Architecture</text><text x="820" y="350" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="17">Technologies, boundaries, trade-offs</text>
10
10
  <rect x="52" y="409" width="352" height="183" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="76" y="444" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="17" font-weight="700">04</text><text x="76" y="485" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="23" font-weight="700">Prepare a useful slice</text><text x="76" y="523" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="18">Plan · ready</text><text x="76" y="557" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="17">Dependencies and acceptance checks</text>
11
- <rect x="424" y="409" width="352" height="183" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="448" y="444" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="17" font-weight="700">05</text><text x="448" y="485" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="23" font-weight="700">Build and improve</text><text x="448" y="523" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="18">Implement · review</text><text x="448" y="557" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="17">Working behavior, tests and fixes</text>
11
+ <rect x="424" y="409" width="352" height="183" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="448" y="444" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="17" font-weight="700">05</text><text x="448" y="485" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="23" font-weight="700">Build and improve</text><text x="448" y="523" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="18">Implement · review</text><text x="448" y="557" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="17">Findings · evidence · corrections</text>
12
12
  <rect x="796" y="409" width="352" height="183" rx="16" fill="#1a363a" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="820" y="444" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="17" font-weight="700">06</text><text x="820" y="485" fill="#fff9ef" font-size="23" font-weight="700">Verify and deliver</text><text x="820" y="523" fill="#eeb88e" font-size="18">Verify · integrate · handoff</text><text x="820" y="557" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="17">Evidence, delivery and resumption</text>
13
13
  <path d="M52 630h1096" stroke="#49615e"/><text x="52" y="664" fill="#c6d7ce" font-size="18">Adapt the depth to the project. Revisit decisions when constraints or checks change.</text><text x="52" y="694" fill="#9fb8af" font-size="16">Skill guidance for your coding agent · Image generation requires an available host tool.</text></g></svg>
package/docs/images/review-coverage.jpg ADDED
Binary file
package/docs/media/review-extension/README.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
1
+ # Ajout de la review au film existant
2
+
3
+ Le film principal conserve les séquences et la narration de Lisière provenant du tag `v0.3.0`. Six séquences de review sont insérées à 171,52 secondes, avant la conclusion originale. Aucun cadrage, choix artistique ni parcours de Lisière n'a été recréé.
4
+
5
+ Les captures proviennent de l'interface réelle, inspectée dans le navigateur à 1586 × 992 : constats, recherche « silencieux », correction, couverture, sources et menu d'export. Elles affichent la fixture **Atelier de lecture**, dont les résultats sont fictifs et explicitement signalés. Ce chapitre n'affirme pas qu'une review structurée de Lisière a été exécutée.
6
+
7
+ Le complément est un montage de captures avec transitions et narration française macOS Thomas, comme le film existant ; ce n'est pas une capture vidéo continue des interactions. Les plans conservent le contenu des captures, avec un redimensionnement proportionnel et un habillage explicatif. La commande d'ouverture affichée est documentée et testée séparément ; la limite de vérification `file://` reste dans le [guide](../../REVIEW-GUIDE.md).
8
+
9
+ [Film et sous-titres](../visual-chain/README.md) · [Scènes ajoutées et empreinte de l'original](scenes.json) · [Script de montage](../../../scripts/media/review-extension/extend.py)
10
+
11
+ Le script extrait le film original depuis le tag immuable `v0.3.0`, génère seulement les nouveaux plans, décale les sous-titres et déplace la conclusion après le chapitre. Il nécessite Python avec Pillow, ffmpeg/ffprobe et la voix macOS Thomas. Exécuter depuis la racine : `python3 scripts/media/review-extension/extend.py`. Le cache de travail est `/private/tmp/devmethod-review-film`. Les empreintes des images, des voix et des paramètres d’encodage déclenchent la régénération des plans modifiés. Le script de montage se lance depuis un clone Git comprenant les médias ; le paquet npm suffit uniquement pour utiliser la review.
12
+
13
+ La vidéo 4K est hébergée sur GitHub et liée depuis npm ; elle n'alourdit pas l'archive npm. Les captures explicatives, le guide et l'exemple de review sont distribués. Les captures sont des observations du navigateur ; la synthèse vocale n'est pas un enregistrement humain.
14
+
15
+ ## Vérifications du montage final
16
+
17
+ - Durée mesurée : **243,216 secondes** ; 3840 × 2160, 25 images/s, H.264, audio AAC mono 48 kHz et sous-titres français intégrés.
18
+ - Décodage complet du MP4 terminé sans erreur. Les six nouveaux plans, un plan original et la conclusion déplacée ont été extraits du fichier encodé et inspectés visuellement.
19
+ - Les nouvelles captures montrent réellement les onglets et le filtre annoncé ; leur cadrage a été corrigé avant montage.
20
+ - Les sous-titres d’origine sont conservés, la conclusion est décalée et les nouvelles phrases sont synchronisées aux durées des voix générées.
21
+ - Pas de revendication d’écoute humaine intégrale ni de nouvel enregistrement continu de l’application.
package/docs/media/review-extension/scenes.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
1
+ {
2
+ "baseTag": "v0.3.0",
3
+ "baseSHA256": "6d803f75ec4a0fcef70f188216977ac878846d7ffb84000fb281d8001dc092c0",
4
+ "insertionSeconds": 171.52,
5
+ "baseDuration": 177.509,
6
+ "duration": 243.216,
7
+ "method": "Original footage and narration retained; review screenshot chapter inserted before original ending. Re-encoded splice tracks; no original scene regenerated.",
8
+ "scenes": [
9
+ {
10
+ "title": "La review devient consultable",
11
+ "capture": "findings.jpg",
12
+ "command": "npx devmethod-ai@0.3.1 \\\n review --demo \\\n --output review.html --open",
13
+ "explanation": "Une interface locale pour relier constats, preuves et corrections.",
14
+ "note": "HTML autonome hors ligne. La commande présente des résultats enregistrés ; elle ne réalise pas la review.",
15
+ "voice": "Dev Method ajoute maintenant une interface de review. Voici sa démonstration fictive, distincte des résultats réels du pilote Lisière. Cette commande ouvre un rapport local.",
16
+ "duration": 11.36,
17
+ "start": 171.52
18
+ },
19
+ {
20
+ "title": "Retrouver le constat utile",
21
+ "capture": "filtered.jpg",
22
+ "command": "Constats → Rechercher\n« silencieux »",
23
+ "explanation": "Rechercher, filtrer et sélectionner sans confondre gravité et confiance.",
24
+ "note": "Un constat confirmé et un risque à vérifier restent distincts. Les compteurs décrivent toute la review.",
25
+ "voice": "La recherche isole un constat. Les filtres distinguent domaine, gravité, confiance et résolution. Un risque à vérifier reste une hypothèse, pas un défaut confirmé.",
26
+ "duration": 11.32,
27
+ "start": 182.88
28
+ },
29
+ {
30
+ "title": "Comprendre, puis corriger",
31
+ "capture": "correction.jpg",
32
+ "command": "Preuve → Correction\n→ Vérification attendue",
33
+ "explanation": "Du scénario observé à la correction et à sa nouvelle vérification.",
34
+ "note": "Le ticket complète le constat. Fermer le panneau ne résout jamais le problème.",
35
+ "voice": "Chaque constat relie scénario, preuve, impact et correction. La vérification attendue et le ticket restent accessibles. Masquer un résultat ne le marque pas comme résolu.",
36
+ "duration": 11.04,
37
+ "start": 194.2
38
+ },
39
+ {
40
+ "title": "Voir la couverture réelle",
41
+ "capture": "coverage.jpg",
42
+ "command": "Couverture\nRéussi · Échec · Non exécuté",
43
+ "explanation": "Les contrôles ont leur propre statut, indépendant du nombre de constats.",
44
+ "note": "Une zone non inspectée ne devient pas verte. La révision et les limites restent visibles.",
45
+ "voice": "La couverture sépare les contrôles réussis, en échec et non exécutés. L’absence de constat ne prouve pas que tout a été vérifié.",
46
+ "duration": 8.6,
47
+ "start": 205.23999999999998
48
+ },
49
+ {
50
+ "title": "Vérifier les références",
51
+ "capture": "sources.jpg",
52
+ "command": "Sources\nVersion → Provenance → Usage",
53
+ "explanation": "Une référence connue n’est pas automatiquement une source consultée.",
54
+ "note": "La démonstration signale sa référence non vérifiée. Une vraie review consigne sa consultation et ses limites.",
55
+ "voice": "Les sources indiquent technologie, version, provenance et usage. Ici, la référence est clairement non vérifiée : cette démonstration ne prétend pas l’avoir consultée.",
56
+ "duration": 11.44,
57
+ "start": 213.83999999999997
58
+ },
59
+ {
60
+ "title": "Exporter et reprendre",
61
+ "capture": "export.jpg",
62
+ "command": "Exporter le rapport\nHTML · Markdown · JSON",
63
+ "explanation": "Une source structurée commune pour l’interface et les rapports.",
64
+ "note": "Conserver la révision, les preuves et les limites. Le HTML exporté conserve aussi l’état de consultation.",
65
+ "voice": "Exportez la même review en HTML, Markdown ou JSON. Les résultats partagent une source commune. Le rapport conserve la révision, les preuves et les limites pour la reprise.",
66
+ "duration": 11.92,
67
+ "start": 225.27999999999997
68
+ }
69
+ ]
70
+ }