nexus-agents 12.1.0 → 12.2.0

package/dist/{chunk-TVEEKAHD.js → chunk-JZQ4XZKS.js}

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ import {
 
 // src/version.ts
 import semver from "semver";
-var VERSION = true ? "12.1.0" : "dev";
+var VERSION = true ? "12.2.0" : "dev";
 var NODE_ENGINE_RANGE = ">=24";
 function isNodeVersionSupported(version) {
   return semver.satisfies(version, NODE_ENGINE_RANGE);
@@ -2615,4 +2615,4 @@ export {
   DEFAULT_CONSENSUS_CONFIG,
   ConsensusMetricsSchema
 };
-//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-TVEEKAHD.js.map
+//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-JZQ4XZKS.js.map

package/dist/{chunk-CMLYAL7G.js → chunk-MDLDQCYX.js}

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ import {
   toolSuccess,
   withProgressHeartbeat,
   wrapToolWithTimeout
-} from "./chunk-TVEEKAHD.js";
+} from "./chunk-JZQ4XZKS.js";
 import {
   getToolMemory
 } from "./chunk-ITUUK6GW.js";
@@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ Reject with findings (severity may be critical, high, medium, low, or info):
 }
 \`\`\`
 
-A finding only triggers strict request_changes if its severity is medium or higher, all 4 gate fields = "passed" AND named_assertion is substantive (>10 chars naming a concrete failure, not just "passed"). Non-security low/info findings are reported but do not corroborate a verified blocker. Security-role findings are treated as at least medium. Request_changes votes still count toward soft blocking regardless of severity. Findings missing any of those gate checks surface as informational only \u2014 they do not block on their own. The 2026-04-25 audit (#2225) found a 100% false-positive rate when this gate wasn't enforced. If you're approving the diff, OMIT the findings field entirely. If reviewing a non-diff proposal, ignore this section.
+A finding only triggers strict request_changes if its severity is medium or higher, all 4 gate fields = "passed" AND named_assertion is substantive (>10 chars naming a concrete failure, not just "passed"). Flag ONLY concrete, reachable, medium-or-higher severity defects. Forbid style preferences, formatting, nits, and speculative or theoretical concerns that cannot be reached in practice. Non-security low/info findings are reported but do not corroborate a verified blocker. Security-role findings are treated as at least medium. Request_changes votes still count toward soft blocking regardless of severity. Findings missing any of those gate checks surface as informational only \u2014 they do not block on their own. The 2026-04-25 audit (#2225) found a 100% false-positive rate when this gate wasn't enforced. If you're approving the diff, OMIT the findings field entirely. If reviewing a non-diff proposal, ignore this section.
 
 History note: an earlier prompt asked for YAML inside reasoning; that format was lossy across JSON serialization (#2245). Use the top-level JSON array above.`;
 }
@@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ Workflow-test assessment (include in your reasoning):
 - Workflow integration: Does this fit existing CI/build/test pipelines?
 - Incremental verifiability: Can progress be measured at each step?
 
-When rejecting, classify your reasons using categories: YAGNI, DRY_VIOLATION, OVER_ENGINEERING, SCOPE_CREEP, SECURITY_RISK, MISALIGNED, INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE.
+When rejecting, classify your reasons using categories: YAGNI, DRY_VIOLATION, OVER_ENGINEERING, SCOPE_CREEP, SECURITY_RISK, MISALIGNED, INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE. Flag ONLY concrete, reachable defects of medium or higher severity. Forbid style, formatting, nits, and speculative concerns.
 
 If you cannot read the artifact under review \u2014 a shell, sandbox, or repository read fails \u2014 answer "abstain" and begin your reasoning with "UNVERIFIABLE: could not read the artifact"; never vote on the description alone.
 ${prReviewModeAddendum()}`;
@@ -554,12 +554,11 @@ Workflow-test assessment (include in your reasoning):
 - Workflow integration: Will this actually work in existing pipelines?
 - Incremental verifiability: Can we tell if it's working at each stage?
 
-When rejecting, you MUST classify your reasons using categories: YAGNI, DRY_VIOLATION, OVER_ENGINEERING, SCOPE_CREEP, SECURITY_RISK, MISALIGNED, INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE.
+When rejecting, you MUST classify your reasons using categories: YAGNI, DRY_VIOLATION, OVER_ENGINEERING, SCOPE_CREEP, SECURITY_RISK, MISALIGNED, INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE. Flag ONLY concrete, reachable defects of medium or higher severity. Forbid style, formatting, nits, and speculative concerns.
 
 If you cannot read the artifact under review \u2014 a shell, sandbox, or repository read fails \u2014 answer "abstain" and begin your reasoning with "UNVERIFIABLE: could not read the artifact"; never vote on the description alone.
 
-IMPORTANT: Your job is to find legitimate concerns, not to reject everything.
-If after genuine scrutiny you find no significant issues, you MAY approve.
+IMPORTANT: Your job is to find legitimate, reachable concerns with concrete impact, not to reject everything or raise speculative hypotheticals. Forbid style/nitpicking/theoretical concerns that have no observable defect. Flag ONLY concrete, reachable, medium-or-higher severity defects. If after genuine scrutiny you find no significant issues, you MAY approve.
 But your default posture is skeptical \u2014 look for what others might miss.
 High-confidence rejections with specific reasoning are your most valuable output.
 ${prReviewModeAddendum()}`;
@@ -9997,4 +9996,4 @@ export {
   CONSENSUS_VOTE_TOOL_SCHEMA,
   registerConsensusVoteTool
 };
-//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-CMLYAL7G.js.map
+//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-MDLDQCYX.js.map