freeharness 0.4.1

package/node_modules/@freeharness/sdd/dist/vendor/openspec/generation/templates/workflows/update-change.js

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+import { STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE } from './store-selection.js';
+export function getUpdateChangeSkillTemplate() {
+    return {
+        name: 'openspec-update-change',
+        description: "Update an OpenSpec change by revising its existing planning artifacts and keeping them coherent with one another. Use when the user wants to revise a change's plan, fold new decisions into it, or reconcile its artifacts after an edit. Never edits code.",
+        instructions: `Revise a change's existing planning artifacts and keep them coherent. Never edit code.
+
+${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+\`/opsx:continue\` is an optional workflow and may not be installed. Before suggesting it anywhere below, verify that it is available. If it is unavailable, \`openspec status --change "<name>" --json\` shows the next artifact and \`openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json\` explains how to create it.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Select the change**
+
+   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
+   - Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
+   - Auto-select if only one active change exists
+   - If ambiguous, run \`openspec list --json\` to get available changes sorted by most recently modified, and ask the user to select one
+
+   When prompting, present the top 3-4 most recently modified changes as options, showing:
+   - Change name
+   - Schema (from \`schema\` field if present, otherwise "spec-driven")
+   - Status (e.g., "0/5 tasks", "complete", "no tasks")
+   - How recently it was modified (from \`lastModified\` field)
+
+   Mark the most recently modified change as "(Recommended)" since it's likely what the user wants to update.
+
+   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., \`/opsx:update <other>\`).
+
+2. **Get the change's artifacts**
+   \`\`\`bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   \`\`\`
+   Parse the JSON to understand current state. The response includes:
+   - \`schemaName\`: The workflow schema being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - \`artifacts\`: Array of artifacts with their status ("done", "skipped", "ready", "blocked")
+   - \`isPlanningComplete\`: Boolean indicating if all planning artifacts are complete. Older CLI versions expose the same value as \`isComplete\`.
+   - \`planningHome\`, \`changeRoot\`, \`artifactPaths\`, and \`actionContext\`: path and scope context. Use these instead of assuming repo-local paths.
+
+   The artifact ids and paths come from the active schema - do NOT assume them, and do NOT branch on hardcoded artifact names. Custom schemas must work unchanged.
+
+   The files to edit are \`artifactPaths.<id>.existingOutputPaths\` - the concrete files that exist on disk, already glob-expanded for glob artifacts (e.g. \`specs/**/*.md\`). Do NOT write to \`resolvedOutputPath\`: for a glob artifact it is still the glob pattern, not a real file.
+
+3. **Understand the request**
+   - If the user asked for a specific revision ("the design now uses X"), that is the starting edit.
+   - If they only said "update" / "make this coherent", treat it as a coherence review: read the existing artifacts and check them against each other for contradictions, gaps, and duplication.
+
+4. **Read and reconcile**
+   - Read the artifact(s) the request touches and the change's other existing artifacts.
+   - Apply the requested edit. Then check every other existing artifact against it - in ANY direction: an edit to a later artifact may require revising an earlier one, not only the other way around. Build order is a useful reading order, not a constraint on which artifacts may be revised.
+   - Note everything that is now inconsistent, missing, or contradictory.
+   - Revise only files that already exist (\`existingOutputPaths\`). Do NOT create artifacts that don't exist yet, and do NOT invent new files under a glob artifact - note them and point the user to \`/opsx:continue\` to create them.
+   - If the change is already coherent, say so and make no edits.
+
+5. **Confirm and apply, one artifact at a time**
+   - Show each proposed revision and why. Write only after the user confirms.
+   - If the user rejects a revision, do not write it - leave that artifact unchanged.
+   - When a substantial rewrite is needed, get that artifact's rules and template first:
+     \`\`\`bash
+     openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json
+     \`\`\`
+
+6. **Point to the next step (guidance only - NEVER act on it)**
+   - Artifacts still missing -> suggest \`/opsx:continue\` to create them.
+   - Change already implemented (tasks checked off / already applied) -> the code may no longer match the revised plan; suggest \`/opsx:apply\` to carry the delta into code.
+   - Everything done and implemented -> suggest \`/opsx:archive\`.
+
+**Output**
+
+After each invocation, show:
+- Which artifacts were revised (and which proposed revisions were rejected)
+- Anything deferred to \`/opsx:continue\` (not-yet-created artifacts or files)
+- Where the change stands and the recommended next command
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Planning artifacts only - NEVER edit implementation code. If the revised plan implies code changes, stop and point to \`/opsx:apply\`.
+- Use the artifact ids and paths reported by \`openspec status\`; never branch on hardcoded artifact names.
+- Edit only the concrete files in \`existingOutputPaths\`; never write to a glob \`resolvedOutputPath\`.
+- Do not advance the build frontier: no new artifacts, no new files under glob artifacts - that is \`/opsx:continue\`'s job.
+- Confirm every edit with the user before writing.
+- If the request changes the change's *intent* rather than refining it, first verify whether the optional \`/opsx:new\` workflow is available. If it is, recommend starting fresh with \`/opsx:new\` (the "Update vs. Start Fresh" heuristic). If it is unavailable, ask for a distinct unused change name and recommend \`openspec new change "<new-change-name>"\` instead.`,
+        license: 'MIT',
+        compatibility: 'Requires openspec CLI.',
+        metadata: { author: 'openspec', version: '1.0' },
+    };
+}
+export function getOpsxUpdateCommandTemplate() {
+    return {
+        name: 'OPSX: Update',
+        description: "Update a change - revise existing planning artifacts and keep them coherent (Experimental)",
+        category: 'Workflow',
+        tags: ['workflow', 'artifacts', 'experimental'],
+        content: `Revise a change's existing planning artifacts and keep them coherent. Never edit code.
+
+${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after \`/opsx:update\` (e.g., \`/opsx:update add-auth\`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+\`/opsx:continue\` is an optional workflow and may not be installed. Before suggesting it anywhere below, verify that it is available. If it is unavailable, \`openspec status --change "<name>" --json\` shows the next artifact and \`openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json\` explains how to create it.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Select the change**
+
+   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
+   - Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
+   - Auto-select if only one active change exists
+   - If ambiguous, run \`openspec list --json\` to get available changes sorted by most recently modified, and ask the user to select one
+
+   When prompting, present the top 3-4 most recently modified changes as options, showing:
+   - Change name
+   - Schema (from \`schema\` field if present, otherwise "spec-driven")
+   - Status (e.g., "0/5 tasks", "complete", "no tasks")
+   - How recently it was modified (from \`lastModified\` field)
+
+   Mark the most recently modified change as "(Recommended)" since it's likely what the user wants to update.
+
+   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., \`/opsx:update <other>\`).
+
+2. **Get the change's artifacts**
+   \`\`\`bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   \`\`\`
+   Parse the JSON to understand current state. The response includes:
+   - \`schemaName\`: The workflow schema being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - \`artifacts\`: Array of artifacts with their status ("done", "skipped", "ready", "blocked")
+   - \`isPlanningComplete\`: Boolean indicating if all planning artifacts are complete. Older CLI versions expose the same value as \`isComplete\`.
+   - \`planningHome\`, \`changeRoot\`, \`artifactPaths\`, and \`actionContext\`: path and scope context. Use these instead of assuming repo-local paths.
+
+   The artifact ids and paths come from the active schema - do NOT assume them, and do NOT branch on hardcoded artifact names. Custom schemas must work unchanged.
+
+   The files to edit are \`artifactPaths.<id>.existingOutputPaths\` - the concrete files that exist on disk, already glob-expanded for glob artifacts (e.g. \`specs/**/*.md\`). Do NOT write to \`resolvedOutputPath\`: for a glob artifact it is still the glob pattern, not a real file.
+
+3. **Understand the request**
+   - If the user asked for a specific revision ("the design now uses X"), that is the starting edit.
+   - If they only said "update" / "make this coherent", treat it as a coherence review: read the existing artifacts and check them against each other for contradictions, gaps, and duplication.
+
+4. **Read and reconcile**
+   - Read the artifact(s) the request touches and the change's other existing artifacts.
+   - Apply the requested edit. Then check every other existing artifact against it - in ANY direction: an edit to a later artifact may require revising an earlier one, not only the other way around. Build order is a useful reading order, not a constraint on which artifacts may be revised.
+   - Note everything that is now inconsistent, missing, or contradictory.
+   - Revise only files that already exist (\`existingOutputPaths\`). Do NOT create artifacts that don't exist yet, and do NOT invent new files under a glob artifact - note them and point the user to \`/opsx:continue\` to create them.
+   - If the change is already coherent, say so and make no edits.
+
+5. **Confirm and apply, one artifact at a time**
+   - Show each proposed revision and why. Write only after the user confirms.
+   - If the user rejects a revision, do not write it - leave that artifact unchanged.
+   - When a substantial rewrite is needed, get that artifact's rules and template first:
+     \`\`\`bash
+     openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json
+     \`\`\`
+
+6. **Point to the next step (guidance only - NEVER act on it)**
+   - Artifacts still missing -> suggest \`/opsx:continue\` to create them.
+   - Change already implemented (tasks checked off / already applied) -> the code may no longer match the revised plan; suggest \`/opsx:apply\` to carry the delta into code.
+   - Everything done and implemented -> suggest \`/opsx:archive\`.
+
+**Output**
+
+After each invocation, show:
+- Which artifacts were revised (and which proposed revisions were rejected)
+- Anything deferred to \`/opsx:continue\` (not-yet-created artifacts or files)
+- Where the change stands and the recommended next command
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Planning artifacts only - NEVER edit implementation code. If the revised plan implies code changes, stop and point to \`/opsx:apply\`.
+- Use the artifact ids and paths reported by \`openspec status\`; never branch on hardcoded artifact names.
+- Edit only the concrete files in \`existingOutputPaths\`; never write to a glob \`resolvedOutputPath\`.
+- Do not advance the build frontier: no new artifacts, no new files under glob artifacts - that is \`/opsx:continue\`'s job.
+- Confirm every edit with the user before writing.
+- If the request changes the change's *intent* rather than refining it, first verify whether the optional \`/opsx:new\` workflow is available. If it is, recommend starting fresh with \`/opsx:new\` (the "Update vs. Start Fresh" heuristic). If it is unavailable, ask for a distinct unused change name and recommend \`openspec new change "<new-change-name>"\` instead.`
+    };
+}

package/node_modules/@freeharness/sdd/dist/vendor/openspec/generation/templates/workflows/verify-change.d.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+/**
+ * Skill Template Workflow Modules
+ *
+ * This file is generated by splitting the legacy monolithic
+ * templates file into workflow-focused modules.
+ */
+import type { SkillTemplate, CommandTemplate } from '../types.js';
+export declare function getVerifyChangeSkillTemplate(): SkillTemplate;
+export declare function getOpsxVerifyCommandTemplate(): CommandTemplate;

package/node_modules/@freeharness/sdd/dist/vendor/openspec/generation/templates/workflows/verify-change.js

@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+import { STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE } from './store-selection.js';
+export function getVerifyChangeSkillTemplate() {
+    return {
+        name: 'openspec-verify-change',
+        description: 'Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.',
+        instructions: `Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
+
+${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Select the change**
+
+   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
+   - Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
+   - Auto-select if only one active change exists
+   - If ambiguous, run \`openspec list --json\` to get available changes and ask the user to select one
+
+   When prompting, show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists).
+   Include the schema used for each change if available.
+   Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".
+
+   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., \`/opsx:verify <other>\`).
+
+2. **Check status to understand the schema**
+   \`\`\`bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   \`\`\`
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - \`schemaName\`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - \`planningHome\`, \`changeRoot\`, \`artifactPaths\`, and \`actionContext\`: path and scope context
+   - Which artifacts exist for this change
+
+3. **Get planning context and load artifacts**
+
+   \`\`\`bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   \`\`\`
+
+   This returns the change directory and \`contextFiles\` (artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths). Read all available artifacts from \`contextFiles\`.
+
+4. **Initialize verification report structure**
+
+   Create a report structure with three dimensions:
+   - **Completeness**: Track tasks and spec coverage
+   - **Correctness**: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
+   - **Coherence**: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
+
+   Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
+
+5. **Verify Completeness**
+
+   **Task Completion**:
+   - If \`contextFiles.tasks\` exists, read every file path in it
+   - Parse checkboxes: \`- [ ]\` (incomplete) vs \`- [x]\` (complete)
+   - Count complete vs total tasks
+   - If incomplete tasks exist:
+     - Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
+     - Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"
+
+   **Spec Coverage**:
+   - If delta specs exist in \`contextFiles.specs\`:
+     - Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
+     - For each requirement:
+       - Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
+       - Assess if implementation likely exists
+     - If requirements appear unimplemented:
+       - Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"
+
+6. **Verify Correctness**
+
+   **Requirement Implementation Mapping**:
+   - For each requirement from delta specs:
+     - Search codebase for implementation evidence
+     - If found, note file paths and line ranges
+     - Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
+     - If divergence detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"
+       - Recommendation: "Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X"
+
+   **Scenario Coverage**:
+   - For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
+     - Check if conditions are handled in code
+     - Check if tests exist covering the scenario
+     - If scenario appears uncovered:
+       - Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: <description>"
+
+7. **Verify Coherence**
+
+   **Design Adherence**:
+   - If \`contextFiles.design\` exists:
+     - Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
+     - Verify implementation follows those decisions
+     - If contradiction detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"
+       - Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
+   - If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
+
+   **Code Pattern Consistency**:
+   - Review new code for consistency with project patterns
+   - Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
+   - If significant deviations found:
+     - Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
+     - Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
+
+8. **Generate Verification Report**
+
+   **Summary Scorecard**:
+   \`\`\`markdown
+   ## Verification Report: <change-name>
+
+   ### Summary
+   | Dimension    | Status           |
+   |--------------|------------------|
+   | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
+   | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
+   | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
+   \`\`\`
+
+   **Issues by Priority**:
+
+   1. **CRITICAL** (Must fix before archive):
+      - Incomplete tasks
+      - Missing requirement implementations
+      - Each with specific, actionable recommendation
+
+   2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
+      - Spec/design divergences
+      - Missing scenario coverage
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
+      - Pattern inconsistencies
+      - Minor improvements
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   **Final Assessment**:
+   - If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
+   - If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
+   - If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."
+
+**Verification Heuristics**
+
+- **Completeness**: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
+- **Correctness**: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
+- **Coherence**: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
+- **False Positives**: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
+- **Actionability**: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable
+
+**Graceful Degradation**
+
+- If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
+- If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
+- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
+- Always note which checks were skipped and why
+
+**Output Format**
+
+Use clear markdown with:
+- Table for summary scorecard
+- Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
+- Code references in format: \`file.ts:123\`
+- Specific, actionable recommendations
+- No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"`,
+        license: 'MIT',
+        compatibility: 'Requires openspec CLI.',
+        metadata: { author: 'openspec', version: '1.0' },
+    };
+}
+export function getOpsxVerifyCommandTemplate() {
+    return {
+        name: 'OPSX: Verify',
+        description: 'Verify implementation matches change artifacts before archiving',
+        category: 'Workflow',
+        tags: ['workflow', 'verify', 'experimental'],
+        content: `Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
+
+${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after \`/opsx:verify\` (e.g., \`/opsx:verify add-auth\`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Select the change**
+
+   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
+   - Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
+   - Auto-select if only one active change exists
+   - If ambiguous, run \`openspec list --json\` to get available changes and ask the user to select one
+
+   When prompting, show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists).
+   Include the schema used for each change if available.
+   Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".
+
+   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., \`/opsx:verify <other>\`).
+
+2. **Check status to understand the schema**
+   \`\`\`bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   \`\`\`
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - \`schemaName\`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - \`planningHome\`, \`changeRoot\`, \`artifactPaths\`, and \`actionContext\`: path and scope context
+   - Which artifacts exist for this change
+
+3. **Get planning context and load artifacts**
+
+   \`\`\`bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   \`\`\`
+
+   This returns the change directory and \`contextFiles\` (artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths). Read all available artifacts from \`contextFiles\`.
+
+4. **Initialize verification report structure**
+
+   Create a report structure with three dimensions:
+   - **Completeness**: Track tasks and spec coverage
+   - **Correctness**: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
+   - **Coherence**: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
+
+   Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
+
+5. **Verify Completeness**
+
+   **Task Completion**:
+   - If \`contextFiles.tasks\` exists, read every file path in it
+   - Parse checkboxes: \`- [ ]\` (incomplete) vs \`- [x]\` (complete)
+   - Count complete vs total tasks
+   - If incomplete tasks exist:
+     - Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
+     - Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"
+
+   **Spec Coverage**:
+   - If delta specs exist in \`contextFiles.specs\`:
+     - Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
+     - For each requirement:
+       - Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
+       - Assess if implementation likely exists
+     - If requirements appear unimplemented:
+       - Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"
+
+6. **Verify Correctness**
+
+   **Requirement Implementation Mapping**:
+   - For each requirement from delta specs:
+     - Search codebase for implementation evidence
+     - If found, note file paths and line ranges
+     - Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
+     - If divergence detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"
+       - Recommendation: "Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X"
+
+   **Scenario Coverage**:
+   - For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
+     - Check if conditions are handled in code
+     - Check if tests exist covering the scenario
+     - If scenario appears uncovered:
+       - Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: <description>"
+
+7. **Verify Coherence**
+
+   **Design Adherence**:
+   - If \`contextFiles.design\` exists:
+     - Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
+     - Verify implementation follows those decisions
+     - If contradiction detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"
+       - Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
+   - If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
+
+   **Code Pattern Consistency**:
+   - Review new code for consistency with project patterns
+   - Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
+   - If significant deviations found:
+     - Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
+     - Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
+
+8. **Generate Verification Report**
+
+   **Summary Scorecard**:
+   \`\`\`markdown
+   ## Verification Report: <change-name>
+
+   ### Summary
+   | Dimension    | Status           |
+   |--------------|------------------|
+   | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
+   | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
+   | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
+   \`\`\`
+
+   **Issues by Priority**:
+
+   1. **CRITICAL** (Must fix before archive):
+      - Incomplete tasks
+      - Missing requirement implementations
+      - Each with specific, actionable recommendation
+
+   2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
+      - Spec/design divergences
+      - Missing scenario coverage
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
+      - Pattern inconsistencies
+      - Minor improvements
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   **Final Assessment**:
+   - If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
+   - If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
+   - If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."
+
+**Verification Heuristics**
+
+- **Completeness**: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
+- **Correctness**: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
+- **Coherence**: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
+- **False Positives**: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
+- **Actionability**: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable
+
+**Graceful Degradation**
+
+- If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
+- If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
+- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
+- Always note which checks were skipped and why
+
+**Output Format**
+
+Use clear markdown with:
+- Table for summary scorecard
+- Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
+- Code references in format: \`file.ts:123\`
+- Specific, actionable recommendations
+- No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"`
+    };
+}

package/node_modules/@freeharness/sdd/dist/vendor/openspec/validation/constants.d.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+/**
+ * Validation threshold constants
+ */
+export declare const MIN_WHY_SECTION_LENGTH = 50;
+export declare const MIN_PURPOSE_LENGTH = 50;
+export declare const MAX_WHY_SECTION_LENGTH = 1000;
+export declare const MAX_REQUIREMENT_TEXT_LENGTH = 500;
+export declare const MAX_DELTAS_PER_CHANGE = 10;
+export declare const PURPOSE_PLACEHOLDER_PREFIX = "TBD - created by archiving change ";
+export declare const PURPOSE_PLACEHOLDER_SUFFIX = ". Update Purpose after archive.";
+export declare const VALIDATION_MESSAGES: {
+    readonly SCENARIO_EMPTY: "Scenario text cannot be empty";
+    readonly REQUIREMENT_EMPTY: "Requirement text cannot be empty";
+    readonly REQUIREMENT_NO_SHALL: "Requirement must contain SHALL or MUST keyword";
+    readonly REQUIREMENT_NO_SCENARIOS: "Requirement must have at least one scenario";
+    readonly SPEC_NAME_EMPTY: "Spec name cannot be empty";
+    readonly SPEC_PURPOSE_EMPTY: "Purpose section cannot be empty";
+    readonly SPEC_NO_REQUIREMENTS: "Spec must have at least one requirement";
+    readonly CHANGE_NAME_EMPTY: "Change name cannot be empty";
+    readonly CHANGE_WHY_TOO_SHORT: "Why section must be at least 50 characters";
+    readonly CHANGE_WHY_TOO_LONG: "Why section should not exceed 1000 characters";
+    readonly CHANGE_WHAT_EMPTY: "What Changes section cannot be empty";
+    readonly CHANGE_NO_DELTAS: "Change must have at least one delta";
+    readonly CHANGE_SKIP_SPECS_CONFLICT: "skip_specs is set in .openspec.yaml but spec files exist under specs/. Remove skip_specs or delete the delta spec files";
+    readonly CHANGE_SKIP_SPECS_ACCEPTED: "skip_specs is set in .openspec.yaml: change declares no spec-level behavior changes, zero deltas accepted";
+    readonly CHANGE_SKIP_SPECS_INVALID_METADATA: "skip_specs is set but .openspec.yaml is not valid change metadata, so the marker is not honored. Fix the metadata";
+    readonly CHANGE_TOO_MANY_DELTAS: "Consider splitting changes with more than 10 deltas";
+    readonly DELTA_SPEC_EMPTY: "Spec name cannot be empty";
+    readonly DELTA_DESCRIPTION_EMPTY: "Delta description cannot be empty";
+    readonly PURPOSE_TOO_BRIEF: "Purpose section is too brief (less than 50 characters)";
+    readonly PURPOSE_IS_PLACEHOLDER: string;
+    readonly REQUIREMENT_TOO_LONG: "Requirement text is very long (>500 characters). Consider breaking it down.";
+    readonly DELTA_DESCRIPTION_TOO_BRIEF: "Delta description is too brief";
+    readonly DELTA_MISSING_REQUIREMENTS: "Delta should include requirements";
+    readonly GUIDE_NO_DELTAS: "No deltas found. Ensure your change has a specs/ directory with capability folders (e.g. specs/http-server/spec.md) containing .md files that use delta headers (## ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED/RENAMED Requirements) and that each requirement includes at least one \"#### Scenario:\" block. If this change intentionally modifies no specs (pure refactor, tooling, docs), set \"skip_specs: true\" in the change's .openspec.yaml instead. Tip: run \"openspec change show <change-id> --json --deltas-only\" to inspect parsed deltas.";
+    readonly GUIDE_MISSING_SPEC_SECTIONS: "Missing required sections. Expected headers: \"## Purpose\" and \"## Requirements\". Example:\n## Purpose\n[brief purpose]\n\n## Requirements\n### Requirement: Clear requirement statement\nUsers SHALL ...\n\n#### Scenario: Descriptive name\n- **WHEN** ...\n- **THEN** ...";
+    readonly GUIDE_MISSING_CHANGE_SECTIONS: "Missing required sections. Expected headers: \"## Why\" and \"## What Changes\". Ensure deltas are documented in specs/ using delta headers.";
+    readonly GUIDE_SCENARIO_FORMAT: "Scenarios must use level-4 headers. Convert bullet lists into:\n#### Scenario: Short name\n- **WHEN** ...\n- **THEN** ...\n- **AND** ...";
+};

package/node_modules/@freeharness/sdd/dist/vendor/openspec/validation/constants.js

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+/**
+ * Validation threshold constants
+ */
+// Minimum character lengths
+export const MIN_WHY_SECTION_LENGTH = 50;
+export const MIN_PURPOSE_LENGTH = 50;
+// Maximum character/item limits
+export const MAX_WHY_SECTION_LENGTH = 1000;
+export const MAX_REQUIREMENT_TEXT_LENGTH = 500;
+export const MAX_DELTAS_PER_CHANGE = 10;
+// The Purpose `openspec archive` writes into a main spec it creates when the
+// delta introduced the capability without a usable `## Purpose`. Named here, and
+// composed from these two halves at the write site, so validation recognises the
+// placeholder through the same definition that produces it: a second, hand-copied
+// spelling would stop matching the day the wording changed, and a check that
+// matches nothing looks exactly like a check that found nothing.
+export const PURPOSE_PLACEHOLDER_PREFIX = 'TBD - created by archiving change ';
+export const PURPOSE_PLACEHOLDER_SUFFIX = '. Update Purpose after archive.';
+// Validation messages
+export const VALIDATION_MESSAGES = {
+    // Required content
+    SCENARIO_EMPTY: 'Scenario text cannot be empty',
+    REQUIREMENT_EMPTY: 'Requirement text cannot be empty',
+    REQUIREMENT_NO_SHALL: 'Requirement must contain SHALL or MUST keyword',
+    REQUIREMENT_NO_SCENARIOS: 'Requirement must have at least one scenario',
+    SPEC_NAME_EMPTY: 'Spec name cannot be empty',
+    SPEC_PURPOSE_EMPTY: 'Purpose section cannot be empty',
+    SPEC_NO_REQUIREMENTS: 'Spec must have at least one requirement',
+    CHANGE_NAME_EMPTY: 'Change name cannot be empty',
+    CHANGE_WHY_TOO_SHORT: `Why section must be at least ${MIN_WHY_SECTION_LENGTH} characters`,
+    CHANGE_WHY_TOO_LONG: `Why section should not exceed ${MAX_WHY_SECTION_LENGTH} characters`,
+    CHANGE_WHAT_EMPTY: 'What Changes section cannot be empty',
+    CHANGE_NO_DELTAS: 'Change must have at least one delta',
+    CHANGE_SKIP_SPECS_CONFLICT: 'skip_specs is set in .openspec.yaml but spec files exist under specs/. Remove skip_specs or delete the delta spec files',
+    CHANGE_SKIP_SPECS_ACCEPTED: 'skip_specs is set in .openspec.yaml: change declares no spec-level behavior changes, zero deltas accepted',
+    CHANGE_SKIP_SPECS_INVALID_METADATA: 'skip_specs is set but .openspec.yaml is not valid change metadata, so the marker is not honored. Fix the metadata',
+    CHANGE_TOO_MANY_DELTAS: `Consider splitting changes with more than ${MAX_DELTAS_PER_CHANGE} deltas`,
+    DELTA_SPEC_EMPTY: 'Spec name cannot be empty',
+    DELTA_DESCRIPTION_EMPTY: 'Delta description cannot be empty',
+    // Warnings
+    PURPOSE_TOO_BRIEF: `Purpose section is too brief (less than ${MIN_PURPOSE_LENGTH} characters)`,
+    PURPOSE_IS_PLACEHOLDER: 'Purpose section is still a placeholder rather than a Purpose anyone wrote (the sentence `openspec archive` ' +
+        'writes for a new capability, or a `TBD`/`TODO` marker left in its place). Replace it with what this ' +
+        'capability is for, editing the main spec directly: a `## Purpose` in a delta is read only when the ' +
+        'capability is created, so it cannot replace this one.',
+    REQUIREMENT_TOO_LONG: `Requirement text is very long (>${MAX_REQUIREMENT_TEXT_LENGTH} characters). Consider breaking it down.`,
+    DELTA_DESCRIPTION_TOO_BRIEF: 'Delta description is too brief',
+    DELTA_MISSING_REQUIREMENTS: 'Delta should include requirements',
+    // Guidance snippets (appended to primary messages for remediation)
+    GUIDE_NO_DELTAS: 'No deltas found. Ensure your change has a specs/ directory with capability folders (e.g. specs/http-server/spec.md) containing .md files that use delta headers (## ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED/RENAMED Requirements) and that each requirement includes at least one "#### Scenario:" block. If this change intentionally modifies no specs (pure refactor, tooling, docs), set "skip_specs: true" in the change\'s .openspec.yaml instead. Tip: run "openspec change show <change-id> --json --deltas-only" to inspect parsed deltas.',
+    GUIDE_MISSING_SPEC_SECTIONS: 'Missing required sections. Expected headers: "## Purpose" and "## Requirements". Example:\n## Purpose\n[brief purpose]\n\n## Requirements\n### Requirement: Clear requirement statement\nUsers SHALL ...\n\n#### Scenario: Descriptive name\n- **WHEN** ...\n- **THEN** ...',
+    GUIDE_MISSING_CHANGE_SECTIONS: 'Missing required sections. Expected headers: "## Why" and "## What Changes". Ensure deltas are documented in specs/ using delta headers.',
+    GUIDE_SCENARIO_FORMAT: 'Scenarios must use level-4 headers. Convert bullet lists into:\n#### Scenario: Short name\n- **WHEN** ...\n- **THEN** ...\n- **AND** ...',
+};

package/node_modules/@freeharness/sdd/dist/vendor/openspec/validation/delta-resolution.d.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+/** One delta header that does not resolve in the current main spec. */
+export interface UnresolvedDeltaHeader {
+    /** Delta operation the header belongs to. */
+    operation: 'MODIFIED' | 'REMOVED' | 'RENAMED';
+    /** The requirement header (RENAMED: the FROM side). */
+    header: string;
+    /** Capability id relative to the specs root (forward slashes). */
+    specId: string;
+    /** Delta file path relative to the change's specs/ dir, e.g. `auth/spec.md`. */
+    entryPath: string;
+    /** Change id whose ADDED block declares the header, when one is in flight. */
+    addedBy?: string;
+    /** The finding as printed by validate and archive. */
+    message: string;
+}
+/**
+ * Builds the printed message for one unresolved header.
+ * @param operation Delta operation.
+ * @param header Requirement header.
+ * @param specId Capability id.
+ * @param addedBy In-flight change that ADDs the header, when known.
+ * @returns Message text.
+ */
+export declare function unresolvedHeaderMessage(operation: UnresolvedDeltaHeader['operation'], header: string, specId: string, addedBy?: string): string;
+/**
+ * Lists the MODIFIED / REMOVED / RENAMED headers of a change that do not exist
+ * in the current main specs. A RENAMED whose FROM is gone but whose TO exists is
+ * an already-synced rename and resolves.
+ * @param changeDir Absolute change directory.
+ * @param mainSpecsDir Absolute openspec/specs directory.
+ * @param changesDir Absolute openspec/changes directory, for the ADDED-elsewhere
+ *   attribution; omitted = no attribution.
+ * @returns Unresolved headers in delta-file order.
+ */
+export declare function findUnresolvedDeltaHeaders(changeDir: string, mainSpecsDir: string, changesDir?: string): Promise<UnresolvedDeltaHeader[]>;