devrites 5.3.0 → 5.5.0

package/pack/generated/omp/skills/rite-vet/reference/anti-patterns.md

@@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
 # /rite-vet: anti-patterns
 
-Universal rationalizations + red flags live in
-[`../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/anti-patterns.md`](../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/anti-patterns.md): read it when the
-reluctance is broader than this phase. Below are the vet-specific ones.
+Read [universal anti-patterns](../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/anti-patterns.md).
 
 Authority: `.omp/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/acceptance-preserving-reslice.md`.
 
@@ -16,15 +14,15 @@ Authority: `.omp/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/acceptance-preserving-r
 
 | Excuse | Rebuttal |
 |---|---|
-| "I'll write all the findings into `eng-review.md` and let the user read it." | The artifact is the *output* of an interactive review, not a substitute for it. A material finding's path to "done" goes **through `AskUserQuestion`**, one at a time, with a recommendation + why. Dumping findings into one write and moving on is the exact failure this skill exists to prevent. |
+| "I'll write all the findings into `eng-review.md` and let the user read it." | Fold verified behavior-preserving findings together and recheck affected closure. Ask human-owned choices with recommendations and await answers. Recording alone resolves nothing; never silently change acceptance or mark unresolved choices READY. |
 | "The plan doesn't handle X: flag it." (without checking) | Quote the line first. If you can't quote where the plan handles X, you also can't be sure it doesn't: force confidence ≤4 and suppress. The "field/case doesn't exist" finding is the most common false positive; the verification gate exists to kill it. |
-| "It's an obvious fix. I'll just edit the plan." | Verified plan hardening is Vet's job; topology uses the marked action. |
+| "It's an obvious fix. I'll just edit the plan." | Vet hardens verified plans; topology uses the marked action. |
 | "This dimension is thin but the others are strong: net it's fine." | The gate is the **floor**, not the average. A plan `broken` on test-coverage does not pass because it's `strong` on architecture. |
-| "I can see it's adequate. I'll note the band, the evidence is obvious." | Cite the quoted evidence **before** the band. Score-first-justify-later is how a reviewer waves through a plan it already likes. |
-| "8+ files but it all needs to change: proceed." | The complexity smell is a **STOP-and-ask**, not a note. Name the overbuilt part, propose the smaller version that still meets acceptance, and let the human decide before any axis runs. Maybe it's justified (record *why*) but the gate fires first. |
+| "I can see it's adequate. I'll note the band, the evidence is obvious." | Cite quoted evidence **before** the band; never score first and rationalize later. |
+| "8+ files but it all needs to change: proceed." | Apply `review-axes.md` §0: justify complexity against the smallest contract-complete alternative; fold technical reductions through the marked action. File count does not justify design or require a pause. Ask only for changed scope, behavior, or risk policy. |
 | "There's no test for this, but the user can add one later." | Coverage is designed **now**, before the code, so the build writes tests alongside it. A deferred test is a test that misses the boundary cases writing-it-now would expose. Regressions are non-negotiable. Critical, no question. |
 | "Performance looks fine." | "Looks fine" is not a measurement. A perf finding is "measure X against budget Y" or it's nothing: don't recommend speculative tuning, and don't wave past an N+1 you can quote. |
-| "Cross-model agrees, so apply it." | Cross-model consensus is a strong *signal*, not an approval. Every cross-model finding is informational until the human approves it (or, in AFK, until the gate ceiling clears a hardening-only change). |
+| "Cross-model agrees, so apply it." | Consensus is a signal, not proof or approval. Verify the finding against source, then use the same technical-hardening or human-owned decision route; model agreement never authorizes a scope, acceptance, or policy change. |
 
 ## Reslice classifier rationalizations
 
@@ -36,6 +34,10 @@ Authority: `.omp/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/acceptance-preserving-r
 - A finding raised with confidence ≥7 but **no quoted source line**, that defeats the verification gate.
 - Acceptance/product-behavior growth auto-applied in AFK, or an orthogonal human-owned gate that did not pause.
 - A failure-mode table with rows but no verdict column filled: a "no test + no handling + silent" row not marked Critical.
-- The reviewer loop running past 3 iterations, or the reviewer / cross-model being handed the author's reasoning (defeats the fresh-context point).
+- Repeating an exhausted causal failure under the shared no-progress rule in
+  [`afk-hitl.md`](../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/afk-hitl.md), or stopping a
+  distinct cause solely because the total review round exceeds three.
+- The reviewer / cross-model being handed the author's reasoning as independent
+  evidence (defeats the fresh-context point).
 - The skill writing code, implementing a slice, or running the build. That's `/rite-build`. Vet reviews and hardens the plan; it never implements.
 - Re-litigating the **spec's** scope/ambition, that was `/rite-temper`. Vet challenges *implementation* scope only.

package/pack/generated/omp/skills/rite-vet/reference/depth.md

@@ -1,10 +1,8 @@
 # Depth calibration: always vet, scale the rigor (never skip)
 
-`/rite-vet` runs on **every** plan: every feature deserves a correct engineering plan, not
-just the big ones. What changes with stakes is the *depth*, never *whether* it runs: a simple,
-reversible plan gets a fast **light pass**; a big or risky one gets the **full pass**. There is
-no skip. This shared definition is used by both the standalone `/rite-vet` and the always-run
-`/rite-autocomplete` step, so they agree on how deep to go.
+`/rite-vet` runs on **every** plan. Simple reversible work gets a **light pass**;
+big/risky work gets a **full pass**, never a skip. Standalone Vet and Autocomplete
+use these same depth rules.
 
 A four-section deep-dive on a one-file reversible plan is wasteful; rubber-stamping a
 migration-touching plan is dangerous. Match the effort to the stakes, but **always** leave a
@@ -55,6 +53,7 @@ triggers above, **never skipped**. Under the AFK gate ceiling:
   failure-mode coverage, tightened scope, reuse-over-rebuild, dependency-order fixes
   (these never grow acceptance). Record the rationale in `decisions.md`.
 - **Topology findings:** marked action; slice count alone never pauses.
-- **Always pause:** irreversible-risk findings, and any axis still below bar after the
-  ≤3-iteration reviewer loop.
+- **Stops:** human-owned irreversible-risk findings pause. Technical recovery follows
+  [the canonical retry contract](../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/afk-hitl.md#retry-cap-no-progress-loops-and-self-resolve),
+  with no depth-specific round limit; no-progress exhaustion blocks, never grants readiness.
 - **Cross-model** is off by default; it runs only if `--cross-model` was explicitly armed.

package/pack/generated/omp/skills/rite-vet/reference/review-axes.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # Vet review: scope, four axes, and outputs
 
-Run blocking §0, then the four axes and required outputs. Apply
-[`eng-lenses.md`](eng-lenses.md) throughout; calibrate every finding before presenting it.
+Run blocking §0, four axes, and outputs with [`eng-lenses.md`](eng-lenses.md);
+calibrate findings before presentation.
 
 Authority: `.omp/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/acceptance-preserving-reslice.md`.
 
@@ -15,25 +15,28 @@ Authority: `.omp/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/acceptance-preserving-r
 
 ## §0. Scope challenge (blocking gate)
 
-Before reviewing implementation details, check whether the plan includes more work than
-the settled spec requires.
+Before implementation review, check for work beyond the settled spec.
 
-1. **What exists?** Find existing code/flows for each sub-problem (use the index per
-   [`tooling.md`](../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md)). Can the plan capture their outputs instead of building parallel work?
-   Reuse → extend → build new; list missed reuse.
+1. **What exists?** Find reusable code/flows via
+   [`tooling.md`](../../devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md). Reuse → extend →
+   build new; list missed reuse instead of planning parallel work.
 2. **Minimum diff.** Find the smallest contract-complete change. Flag non-blocking work;
    use the marked action for topology cuts.
 3. **Complexity smell.** **>8 files** or **>2 new services/modules/classes** needs a justified
    complexity gate; otherwise harden to the smallest contract-complete plan. Use the
    marked action for topology reduction.
-4. **Built-in check.** For each new pattern/infra/concurrency approach, dispatch
-   `devrites-source-driven` to verify current framework/runtime support and cite it. Custom
+   **Feature ceiling.** A plan over the
+   [feature ceiling](../../rite-plan/reference/slicing.md#feature-ceiling-split-an-epic-never-override-the-budget)
+   (over-budget `tasks.md`/`plan.md` from slice or AC count) is a scope finding, not a
+   `Budget override`: route to `/rite-plan course-correct` (`MVP cut`) with the
+   continuation sequence named; do not vet the whole epic.
+4. **Built-in check.** For each new pattern/infra/concurrency approach, invoke
+   `devrites-source-driven` inline to verify current framework/runtime support and cite it. Custom
    work where a built-in suffices is a scope-reduction finding.
 5. **Completeness.** Find edge/error/test shortcuts; prefer the complete option when the
    extra work is small, and flag small savings that leave known gaps.
-6. **Distribution check.** If the plan introduces a new artifact (CLI binary, package, container,
-   deployable), does it include how it gets built / published / installed? If distribution is
-   deferred, say so explicitly in "NOT in scope": don't let it silently drop.
+6. **Distribution check.** New artifacts (binary/package/container/deployable) need
+   build/publish/install plans or explicit deferral in "NOT in scope".
 7. **Applicability check.** Compare `spec.md`'s topology/data/integration/security/delivery
    decisions with live seams. A false `not applicable` or an `applies` row without the
    focused standard's owner, failure/recovery, deployment order, and proof output is `broken`.
@@ -49,15 +52,18 @@ the settled spec requires.
 > **STOP discipline.** Fold technical reduction into the plan; ask and stop only for a
 > human-owned choice.
 
-If the smell does not trip, present the §0 findings and proceed to Axis 1.
+After justifying complexity or folding the contract-preserving reduction, present
+the §0 findings and proceed to Axis 1. A human-owned unresolved choice still pauses.
 
 ---
 
-## Four axes (one at a time, at most 8 findings each)
+## Four axes (complete inventory, bounded presentation)
 
 Fold verified technical findings into the plan; present each human-owned decision in one
 `AskUserQuestion` packet. Combine support only for one owner/trade-off. HITL pauses; AFK
 uses `depth.md`. Never invent findings.
+Report every supported Critical/Important before repair. Group duplicates; compact
+presentation never caps the inventory or hides the ninth substantive defect.
 
 ### 1. Architecture
 
@@ -138,6 +144,25 @@ Tag each finding `[severity] (confidence: N/10) <plan/task/spec ref> — finding
 Quote supporting lines. Without them confidence is ≤4 and suppressed; never inflate it.
 `devrites-plan-reviewer` follows this rule.
 
+## Finding kind: contract or mechanism
+
+Tag every Critical/Important `kind: contract` or `kind: mechanism`; root confirms the tag
+at reconciliation.
+
+- **contract** — a *guarantee* (acceptance, interface, boundary, ownership, data shape,
+  ordering/durability, failure outcome, dependency choice) an implementer could build
+  differently and still pass the planned tests → plan text → `NEEDS REPLAN` + Plan repair.
+- **mechanism** — *how* a pinned clause is achieved (syscall order, fsync/rename shape,
+  lock scope, retry shape, parser detail): a test discriminates the wrong implementation
+  → root adds one named case row to `test-plan.md` (input → observable outcome + the
+  mutant that must fail) plus its `traceability.md` ref, re-emits the readiness binding,
+  rechecks mechanically (anchor, ID parity). No Plan repair, no reviewer redispatch;
+  Build's RED test proves it. Prove in code, not in prose.
+
+Mechanism becomes `contract` only when the plan asserts the opposite mechanism or the
+clause is a public/shared seam. **Failing case:** round after round of prose pins on
+already-pinned clauses.
+
 ---
 
 ## Present human-owned decisions

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "devrites",
-  "version": "5.3.0",
+  "version": "5.5.0",
   "description": "DevRites: a disciplined senior-engineer workflow pack for Claude Code and Codex",
   "license": "SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE",
   "homepage": "https://github.com/ViktorsBaikers/DevRites#readme",

package/scripts/codex-generate.sh

@@ -71,6 +71,12 @@ gen_codex_agent() {
     _body_codex="$TMP_GEN_DIR/codex-agent-body-$(basename "$_src").codex.md"
     awk 'NR==1 && $0=="---"{fm=1; next} fm && $0=="---"{fm=0; body=1; next} body{print}' "$_src" > "$_body_tmp"
     gen_codex_markdown_file "$_body_tmp" "$_body_codex"
+    # The body is embedded in a TOML literal string; a literal ''' would
+    # terminate it early and silently corrupt the generated agent. Refuse.
+    if grep -q "'''" "$_body_codex"; then
+      echo "gen_codex_agent: $(basename "$_src") body contains ''' (unrepresentable in a TOML literal string)" >&2
+      return 1
+    fi
     cat "$_body_codex"
     printf "\n%s\n" "'''"
   } > "$_out"