mindforge-cc 8.2.0 → 10.0.0

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.mindforge/plugins/plugin-schema.md

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-# MindForge Plugin System — Schema v1.0.0
-
-## Philosophy
-Plugins extend MindForge without modifying the core framework files.
-They are first-class citizens: versioned, validated, injection-guarded, and audited.
-
-## Package naming convention
-`mindforge-plugin-[category]-[name]`
-
-Examples:
-- `mindforge-plugin-jira-advanced`    — Advanced Jira sprint and velocity commands
-- `mindforge-plugin-testing-playwright` — Playwright E2E testing skill and commands
-- `mindforge-plugin-cloud-aws`        — AWS deployment patterns and runbooks
-- `mindforge-plugin-design-figma`     — Figma design review integration
-
-## What a plugin can provide
-
-| Component | Description | File location |
-|---|---|---|
-| Commands | New slash commands | `commands/[name].md` |
-| Skills | New skill packs | `skills/[name]/SKILL.md` |
-| Personas | New agent personas | `personas/[name].md` |
-| Hooks | Lifecycle event handlers | `hooks/[hook-name].md` |
-
-## `plugin.json` manifest (required in every plugin package)
-
-### Required fields
-- `name` (string) — package name
-- `version` (semver)
-- `mindforge_plugin_api_version` (string, must be `1.0.0` for v1.x.x)
-- `min_mindforge_version` (string)
-- `commands` (array of command file paths)
-- `skills` (array of SKILL.md paths)
-- `permissions` (object, see below)
-
-### Permissions — advisory model
-The permission system is advisory, not OS‑enforced. Permissions are:
-- **Declared** in `plugin.json` before installation
-- **Displayed** to the user for review at install time
-- **Recorded** in `AUDIT.jsonl` with plugin name as the agent field
-- **Enforced** through MindForge governance (plan‑first, audit, gates)
-
-The permission declaration is a statement of intent — it enables trust
-decisions, not OS‑level sandboxing.
-
-Example permissions object:
-```json
-\"permissions\": {
-  \"read_state\": true,
-  \"write_state\": false,
-  \"network\": false,
-  \"network_access\": false,
-  \"file_system_write\": false
-}
-```
-
-### Reserved command names (v1.0.0)
-These names are permanently reserved for MindForge built‑ins. If a plugin
-declares a command with one of these names, it must be renamed at install time:
-
-```
-help, init-project, plan-phase, execute-phase, verify-phase, ship,
-next, quick, status, debug, skills, review, security-scan, map-codebase,
-discuss-phase, audit, milestone, complete-milestone, approve, sync-jira,
-sync-confluence, health, retrospective, profile-team, metrics, init-org,
-install-skill, publish-skill, pr-review, workspace, benchmark, update,
-migrate, plugins, tokens, release
-```

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.mindforge/pr-review/ai-reviewer.md

@@ -1,266 +0,0 @@
-# MindForge — AI PR Review Engine
-
-## Purpose
-Use the Claude API directly to perform intelligent, contextual code reviews
-on pull request diffs. Goes beyond static analysis to provide reasoning-based
-feedback that understands architectural context.
-
-## Review philosophy
-The AI reviewer has three goals:
-1. Catch what static analysis misses (logic errors, design flaws, missing edge cases)
-2. Confirm that the PR delivers what it claims (requirements traceability)
-3. Maintain code quality standards consistently across all reviewers
-
-The AI reviewer does NOT replace human reviewers — it prepares them.
-It surfaces issues, explains context, and asks questions.
-Human reviewers make final decisions.
-
-## Claude API integration
-
-```javascript
-// pr-review/ai-review-runner.js
-
-const ANTHROPIC_API_KEY = process.env.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY;
-if (!ANTHROPIC_API_KEY) {
-  console.error('ANTHROPIC_API_KEY not set — AI review unavailable');
-  process.exit(0); // Graceful skip, not failure
-}
-
-async function runAIReview(diff, context) {
-  const response = await fetch('https://api.anthropic.com/v1/messages', {
-    method: 'POST',
-    headers: {
-      'Content-Type': 'application/json',
-      'x-api-key': ANTHROPIC_API_KEY,
-      'anthropic-version': '2023-06-01',
-    },
-    body: JSON.stringify({
-      model: 'claude-sonnet-4-6',
-      max_tokens: 4096,
-      system: buildSystemPrompt(context),
-      messages: [
-        { role: 'user', content: buildReviewPrompt(diff, context) }
-      ],
-    }),
-  });
-
-  if (!response.ok) {
-    const err = await response.text();
-    throw new Error(`Claude API error ${response.status}: ${err}`);
-  }
-
-  const data = await response.json();
-  return data.content[0].text;
-}
-```
-
-## System prompt construction
-
-```javascript
-function buildSystemPrompt(context) {
-  return `You are a senior code reviewer performing a pull request review for the project: ${context.projectName}.
-
-## Your review context
-Tech stack: ${context.techStack}
-Architecture pattern: ${context.architecturePattern}
-Coding conventions: ${context.conventions}
-Security requirements: ${context.securityRequirements}
-
-## Your review approach
-1. Read the diff carefully — understand the INTENT of each change, not just the change itself
-2. Check if the implementation matches the stated PR purpose
-3. Look for: logic errors, missing error handling, security issues, performance concerns
-4. Evaluate: code clarity, convention adherence, test coverage
-5. Flag: anything that seems to contradict the architecture or conventions
-
-## Output format
-Produce a structured review in this exact format:
-
-### Summary
-[2-3 sentences: what this PR does and overall quality assessment]
-
-### Findings
-For each finding, use exactly:
-**[CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW]** \`file:line\` — [Issue description]
-> [Specific recommendation]
-
-### Positive observations
-[What was done well — be genuine, not perfunctory]
-
-### Questions for the author
-[Numbered questions about unclear decisions or assumptions]
-
-### Verdict
-[APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | COMMENT] — [one sentence rationale]
-
-Be direct. Be specific. Cite line numbers. Do not be vague.
-Do not flag issues that are stylistic preferences when conventions permit them.
-Do not repeat findings from the automated checks (secret detection, type errors) — focus on logic and design.`;
-}
-```
-
-## Review prompt construction
-
-```javascript
-function buildReviewPrompt(diff, context) {
-  return `Please review this pull request diff.
-
-## PR Information
-Title: ${context.prTitle}
-Author: ${context.prAuthor}
-Branch: ${context.branch} → ${context.base}
-Files changed: ${context.filesChanged}
-
-## Requirements being addressed
-${context.requirements || 'No specific requirements listed'}
-
-## Architectural context
-${context.architectureContext || 'See ARCHITECTURE.md for system design'}
-
-## The diff
-\`\`\`diff
-${diff}
-\`\`\`
-
-Focus your review on correctness, security, and architectural alignment.
-Do not comment on formatting issues handled by the linter.`;
-}
-```
-
-## Context loading
-
-Before calling the API, load review context:
-```javascript
-function extractConventionsSections(raw) {
-  const sections = [];
-  const forbidden = raw.match(/##\s+Forbidden patterns[\s\S]*?(?=\n##\s+|$)/i);
-  const naming = raw.match(/##\s+Naming conventions[\s\S]*?(?=\n##\s+|$)/i);
-  if (forbidden) sections.push(forbidden[0]);
-  if (naming) sections.push(naming[0]);
-  return sections.join('\n\n').slice(0, 2000);
-}
-
-function loadReviewContext() {
-  const projectMd = readFile('.planning/PROJECT.md');
-  const archMd    = readFile('.planning/ARCHITECTURE.md');
-  const convMd    = readFile('.mindforge/org/CONVENTIONS.md');
-  const secMd     = readFile('.mindforge/org/SECURITY.md');
-
-  return {
-    projectName:         extractField(projectMd, 'NAME') || 'Unknown',
-    techStack:           extractTechStack(projectMd),
-    architecturePattern: extractField(archMd, '## Architectural pattern') || 'Unknown',
-    conventions:         extractConventionsSections(convMd) || convMd.slice(0, 2000),
-    securityRequirements: secMd.slice(0, 1500),
-  };
-}
-```
-
-## Rate limiting and cost management
-
-```javascript
-// Review request limits to control API costs
-// maxDailyReviews is configurable via MINDFORGE.md: AI_REVIEW_DAILY_LIMIT
-const REVIEW_LIMITS = {
-  maxDiffSize: 12000,       // Characters — larger diffs get truncated by file
-  maxFilesReviewed: 20,     // Review the 20 most-changed files
-  cacheTtlMinutes: 60,      // Cache reviews for the same commit SHA
-  maxDailyReviews: 50,      // Stop AI reviews after 50 per day (configurable)
-};
-
-const AI_REVIEW_LOG = path.join(projectRoot, '.mindforge', 'metrics', 'ai-review-usage.jsonl');
-
-function logAIReview(prSha) {
-  const entry = JSON.stringify({
-    timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
-    pr_sha: prSha,
-    date: new Date().toISOString().slice(0, 10),
-    model: 'claude-sonnet-4-6',
-  }) + '\n';
-
-  // Create parent directory if it doesn't exist
-  const dir = path.dirname(AI_REVIEW_LOG);
-  if (!fs.existsSync(dir)) fs.mkdirSync(dir, { recursive: true });
-
-  fs.appendFileSync(AI_REVIEW_LOG, entry);
-}
-
-// Before calling API: check daily limit
-function checkDailyLimit(maxReviews) {
-  if (!fs.existsSync(AI_REVIEW_LOG)) return true; // No log = no limit hit
-
-  const today = new Date().toISOString().slice(0, 10);
-  let count = 0;
-
-  const lines = fs.readFileSync(AI_REVIEW_LOG, 'utf8').split('\n').filter(Boolean);
-  for (const line of lines) {
-    try {
-      const entry = JSON.parse(line);
-      if (entry.date === today) count++;
-    } catch {
-      continue; // Skip malformed lines — don't let parse errors break the limit check
-    }
-  }
-
-  return count < maxReviews;
-}
-```
-
-## Diff truncation strategy (file-based)
-
-```javascript
-function buildDiffForReview(fullDiff) {
-  const MAX_CHARS = 12000;
-  const MAX_FILES = 20;
-
-  if (fullDiff.length <= MAX_CHARS) return fullDiff;
-
-  // Prefer showing fewer complete files over more truncated ones
-  // Sort files by change size (largest first — most important to review)
-  const fileDiffs = splitDiffByFile(fullDiff);
-  const sortedFiles = fileDiffs.sort((a, b) => b.content.length - a.content.length);
-
-  let result = '';
-  let fileCount = 0;
-  for (const fileDiff of sortedFiles.slice(0, MAX_FILES)) {
-    if (result.length + fileDiff.content.length > MAX_CHARS) break;
-    result += fileDiff.content + '\n';
-    fileCount++;
-  }
-
-  const omitted = sortedFiles.length - fileCount;
-  if (omitted > 0) {
-    result += `\n[${omitted} file(s) omitted from review — diff too large. Run review with --diff on individual files.]\n`;
-  }
-
-  return result;
-}
-
-function splitDiffByFile(diff) {
-  const files = [];
-  const parts = diff.split(/^diff --git/m).filter(Boolean);
-  for (const part of parts) {
-    const header = part.match(/^a\/(.+) b\//);
-    files.push({
-      filename: header ? header[1] : 'unknown',
-      content: 'diff --git' + part,
-    });
-  }
-  return files;
-}
-```
-
-## Output formatting for GitHub
-
-```javascript
-function formatForGitHub(aiReview, summary) {
-  return `## 🤖 MindForge AI Code Review
-
-${aiReview}
-
----
-*Generated by MindForge AI Review Engine v${VERSION}*
-*Model: claude-sonnet-4-6 | Context: PROJECT.md + ARCHITECTURE.md + CONVENTIONS.md*
-*This review supplements but does not replace human code review.*`;
-}
-```

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.mindforge/pr-review/finding-formatter.md

@@ -1,46 +0,0 @@
-# MindForge — PR Review Finding Formatter
-
-## Purpose
-Convert AI review output into structured findings for GitHub, JSON, or Markdown.
-
-## Supported outputs
-
-### GitHub Markdown
-```
-## 🤖 MindForge AI Code Review
-
-### Summary
-...
-
-### Findings
-**[HIGH]** `src/api/auth.ts:47` — Missing token expiry validation
-> Add expiry validation before accepting the token.
-```
-
-### JSON
-```json
-{
-  "summary": "...",
-  "findings": [
-    {
-      "severity": "HIGH",
-      "file": "src/api/auth.ts",
-      "line": 47,
-      "description": "Missing token expiry validation",
-      "recommendation": "Add expiry validation before accepting the token"
-    }
-  ],
-  "verdict": "REQUEST_CHANGES"
-}
-```
-
-### GitHub annotations
-```
-::warning file=src/api/auth.ts,line=47::Missing token expiry validation
-```
-
-## Formatting rules
-- Always preserve severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
-- Include file and line number when present
-- Do not auto-invent line numbers
-- Keep recommendations actionable and specific

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.mindforge/pr-review/review-prompt-templates.md

@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
-# MindForge — PR Review Prompt Templates
-
-## Specialised review templates by change type
-
-### Security-focused review (for Tier 3 changes)
-Used when: PR includes auth, payment, PII, or security changes.
-Additional system prompt addition:
-```
-SECURITY REVIEW MODE ACTIVE.
-Apply the OWASP Top 10 checklist systematically to this diff.
-Flag every instance of:
-- A01: Access control bypasses
-- A02: Cryptographic weaknesses (weak algorithms, insecure storage)
-- A03: Injection vectors (SQL, NoSQL, OS, LDAP)
-- A07: Authentication failures (session management, credential handling)
-Any CRITICAL security finding must be listed first, before other findings.
-```
-
-### Database migration review
-Used when: PR includes database schema changes.
-Additional prompt addition:
-```
-DATABASE MIGRATION REVIEW MODE.
-For this migration, verify:
-1. Migration is reversible — is there a DOWN migration?
-2. Migration is non-blocking — does it avoid full table locks?
-3. New columns with NOT NULL have either a DEFAULT or a two-phase migration
-4. No data-loss operations without explicit confirmation in PR description
-5. New indexes are added CONCURRENTLY (PostgreSQL) to avoid table locks
-6. Foreign key constraints are added with VALIDATE separately from creation
-```
-
-### API breaking change review
-Used when: PR changes existing API endpoints or response schemas.
-Additional prompt addition:
-```
-API BREAKING CHANGE REVIEW MODE.
-Verify:
-1. Is this change documented as breaking in the PR description?
-2. Is the API version incremented appropriately?
-3. Are existing clients given a deprecation period?
-4. Is a migration guide included for API consumers?
-5. Do integration tests cover both old and new API contracts?
-```

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.mindforge/production/compatibility-layer.md

@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-# MindForge Production — Cross-Version Compatibility Layer
-
-## Purpose
-Allow newer MindForge engines to operate safely against older state files
-and plugin manifests without breaking workflows or corrupting data.
-
-## Compatibility principles
-1. **Read old, write new**: old schemas must remain readable; writes should
-   upgrade only when explicitly requested (via `/mindforge:migrate`).
-2. **Never block on older schema**: warn, suggest migration, continue.
-3. **Preserve unknown fields**: never delete fields you do not recognize.
-
-## State file compatibility
-### HANDOFF.json
-- If `schema_version` is missing, treat as legacy and warn once per session.
-- If `schema_version` < current and delta > patch, suggest `/mindforge:migrate`.
-- Add default values at runtime (do not write) for missing fields.
-
-### AUDIT.jsonl
-- Treat unknown `event` types as opaque and pass through.
-- If `session_id` is missing in legacy entries, display as `unknown`.
-
-### MINDFORGE.md
-- Enforce non-overridable keys (ADR-013) regardless of file version.
-- If a setting has changed formats (e.g., percent -> decimal), prefer migration.
-
-## Plugin compatibility
-Plugin compatibility is enforced at install/validate time:
-1. `plugin_api_version` must be `1.0.0` for v1.x.x.
-2. `min_mindforge_version` must be <= current version.
-3. If incompatible, skip plugin and report to user; do not fail session start.
-
-## SDK compatibility
-- SDK clients should tolerate missing optional fields in responses.
-- New event types should be additive (never remove existing types in 1.x.x).
-
-## Version policy
-- Backwards-incompatible changes require a MAJOR bump (ADR-020).
-- Additive changes must be documented in CHANGELOG.md and reference docs.

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.mindforge/production/migration-engine.md

@@ -1,52 +0,0 @@
-# MindForge Production — Migration Engine
-
-## Purpose
-Provide a safe, repeatable path for upgrading `.planning/` state files across
-MindForge versions without losing data or breaking governance.
-
-The migration engine is the authoritative source for state schema upgrades:
-- `HANDOFF.json`
-- `STATE.md`
-- `AUDIT.jsonl`
-- `MINDFORGE.md` (only when format changes are required)
-
-## Entry points
-- CLI: `node bin/migrations/migrate.js --from <version> --to <version>`
-- Command: `/mindforge:migrate [--from vX.Y.Z] [--to vA.B.C] [--dry-run]`
-- Update flow: `/mindforge:update --apply` (auto-runs migration)
-
-## Version chain
-Migrations are applied in order using `bin/migrations/schema-versions.js`.
-Supported range:
-- `0.1.0` -> `0.5.0`
-- `0.5.0` -> `0.6.0`
-- `0.6.0` -> `1.0.0`
-
-## Backup and recovery
-Before any migration:
-1. Create `.planning/backup-<timestamp>/`
-2. Copy `HANDOFF.json`, `STATE.md`, `AUDIT.jsonl`, `MINDFORGE.md` if present
-3. Abort if backup fails
-
-If migration fails:
-- Restore files from backup
-- Surface error with next steps
-
-## Schema version source of truth
-`HANDOFF.json.schema_version` is the authoritative indicator of state schema.
-If missing, the current package version is used as a fallback.
-
-## Safety rules
-- Never mutate or delete `.planning/` files on `--dry-run`
-- If a file is missing, skip it (do not create new state files)
-- Preserve unknown fields for forward compatibility
-
-## CI behavior
-- In CI, migrations should be non-interactive
-- Backup directories may be auto-deleted after successful migration
-  to avoid disk accumulation in shared runners
-
-## Troubleshooting
-- If a migration fails, run `/mindforge:migrate --dry-run` to inspect plan
-- If `AUDIT.jsonl` has invalid lines, they are preserved (not modified)
-- If `MINDFORGE.md` value conversion fails, the file is left unchanged

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.mindforge/production/production-checklist.md

@@ -1,76 +0,0 @@
-# MindForge v2.0.0 — Production Readiness Checklist
-
-## Policy: ALL 65 items must be ✅ before tagging v2.0.0
-
-This is not a "should" list — it is a hard gate.
-No item can be marked ✅ without:
-1. The specific verification step executed successfully
-2. The verifier's git email recorded
-3. The date verified recorded
-
-Document completed checks in `.planning/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`.
-
----
-
-## SECTION A — Installation & Upgrade (10 points)
-... (existing items A01-A10)
-
-## SECTION B — Command Coverage (10 points)
-... (existing items B01-B10)
-
-## SECTION C — Governance Gates (10 points)
-... (existing items C01-C10)
-
-## SECTION D — Documentation (10 points)
-... (existing items D01-D10)
-
-## SECTION E — Test Coverage (10 points)
-... (existing items E01-E10)
-
-## SECTION F — v2.0.0 Features (10 points)
-
-| # | Check | Verification step | ✅/❌ | Verified by | Date |
-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| F01 | `/mindforge:new-runtime` scaffolds commands in both .claude and .agent | Run command, check both dirs | | | |
-| F02 | `--gemini` installs GEMINI.md with correct context substitution | Run install --gemini, verify filename and content | | | |
-| F03 | `--cursor` and `--copilot` entry files contain usage preambles | Run install, verify preambles in rule files | | | |
-| F04 | Migration 1.0.0 → 2.0.0 backfills `runtime` in AUDIT.jsonl | Run migration on v1 audit, verify backfill | | | |
-| F05 | Migration 1.0.0 → 2.0.0 backfills `model_group` in tokens | Run migration, verify token-usage.jsonl | | | |
-| F06 | Migration creates automatic backup before modification | Verify `.planning/.backups/` exists with files | | | |
-| F07 | Installer correctly handles the `--runtime <name>` explicit flag | Run with --runtime opencode, verify install | | | |
-| F08 | Install `--all` targets 6 distinct runtimes correctly | Run --all, verify 6 locations | | | |
-| F09 | ADRs 039-041 are present and indexed | Verify ADR files and index entry | | | |
-| F10 | Self-building skills (Day 13) features pass regression tests | Run self-building-skills.test.js | | | |
-
-## SECTION G — final packaging (5 points)
-
-| # | Check | Verification step | ✅/❌ | Verified by | Date |
-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| G01 | package.json version === 2.0.0 | `node -e "console.log(require('./package.json').version)"` | | | |
-| G02 | SDK package.json version === 2.0.0 | `node -e "console.log(require('./sdk/package.json').version)"` | | | |
-| G03 | Git tag v2.0.0 exists and points to HEAD | `git show v2.0.0 --no-patch` | | | |
-| G04 | CHANGELOG.md has v2.0.0 entry with release highlights | `grep -n "2.0.0" CHANGELOG.md` | | | |
-| G05 | `npm publish --dry-run` is clean | Run dry-run, verify file list | | | |
-
----
-
-## Checkbox summary (for quick audits)
-- [ ] A01-A10
-- [ ] B01-B10
-- [ ] C01-C10
-- [ ] D01-D10
-- [ ] E01-E10
-- [ ] F01-F10
-- [ ] G01-G05
- [ ] E10
-- [ ] F01
-- [ ] F02
-- [ ] F03
-- [ ] F04
-- [ ] F05
-
----
-
-## Release gate procedure
-
-When ALL 50 items show ✅:

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.mindforge/production/token-optimiser.md

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-# MindForge Production — Token Usage Optimiser
-
-## Purpose
-Measure, profile, and systematically reduce Claude API token consumption.
-Token efficiency impacts both cost and session quality — a session that
-exhausts its context on large file reads has less capacity for reasoning.
-
-## Token consumption model
-
-### Where tokens are spent in a typical MindForge session
-
-| Component | Typical estimate | Notes |
-|---|---|---|
-| Session startup (CLAUDE.md + ORG.md + PROJECT.md + STATE.md) | 4,000–9,000 | Fixed per session |
-| Each skill injected (full) | 2,500–6,000 | Depends on skill complexity |
-| Each skill injected (summary) | 300–600 | When > 3 skills loaded |
-| PLAN file per task | 400–1,800 | Lean plans save 800+ tokens |
-| File reading per task | 1,500–50,000 | Biggest variable cost |
-| Agent reasoning + response | 1,500–8,000 | |
-| Verify step + output | 400–1,500 | |
-
-**Note:** These are estimates based on typical MindForge projects.
-Actual values depend on file sizes, code complexity, and model verbosity.
-Run `/mindforge:tokens` to see measured estimates for your project.
-
-### Token efficiency threshold
-
-| Efficiency | Meaning | Action |
-|---|---|---|
-| > 45% | Excellent — agent spending time on reasoning and output | No action |
-| 35–45% | Good — healthy balance | No action |
-| 20–35% | Acceptable — room to optimise | Review high-cost sessions |
-| < 20% | Poor — most tokens spent on reading, not reasoning | Apply optimisations below |
-
-## Token usage logging
-
-Token profiles are written to `.planning/token-usage.jsonl`.
-All values are **estimates** (not measured) unless otherwise noted.
-Every entry must include `measured: false` to avoid confusion.
-
-### Estimation rules
-- `code_reading_tokens` = sum of file sizes read / 4
-  (Average 4 characters per token is a reasonable proxy for code.)
-- `plan_tokens` = PLAN file size / 4
-- `summary_tokens` = SUMMARY file size / 4
-- `useful_output_tokens` = sum of SUMMARY file sizes / 4
-  (SUMMARY files are the best proxy for verified output.)
-
-### Example entry
-```json
-{
-  "timestamp": "2026-03-22T08:10:00.000Z",
-  "phase": 1,
-  "plan": "02",
-  "measured": false,
-  "token_estimates": {
-    "startup": 6200,
-    "code_reading": 18400,
-    "plan": 900,
-    "summary": 600,
-    "agent_output": 4200,
-    "total": 30300
-  },
-  "useful_output_tokens": 600,
-  "efficiency": 0.20,
-  "flags": []
-}
-```