nexus-agents 2.55.1 → 2.57.0

package/dist/{chunk-BPMQRYGU.js → chunk-BOZ26RIB.js}

@@ -2,10 +2,13 @@ import {
   CUSTOM_API_BASE_URL_ENV,
   PROVIDER_ENV_KEYS,
   validateCustomApiBaseUrl
-} from "./chunk-R66AWJJ7.js";
+} from "./chunk-YU4NABXM.js";
+import {
+  CUSTOM_API_DEFAULT_MODEL
+} from "./chunk-H43PABG4.js";
 import {
   SessionMemory
-} from "./chunk-NYNBDP7M.js";
+} from "./chunk-7Y36JLES.js";
 import {
   AdaptiveMemoryBackend,
   HybridMemoryBackend,
@@ -14,7 +17,7 @@ import {
   getMemoryEntry,
   memoryExists,
   memoryRowToEntry
-} from "./chunk-3IDJSFWT.js";
+} from "./chunk-TFEFN37P.js";
 import {
   stringifyValue,
   tokenizeFiltered
@@ -26,7 +29,7 @@ import {
   getAvailableClis,
   isCliAvailable,
   withTimeout
-} from "./chunk-RSUCXOQM.js";
+} from "./chunk-SXWZS2V4.js";
 import {
   AgentError,
   CACHE_TIMEOUTS,
@@ -69,10 +72,11 @@ import {
   ok,
   recordRateLimitEvent,
   registerPersistentOutcomeStoreFactory,
+  resolveCliAlias,
   resolveVoteTimeout,
   toRateLimitError,
   validateTimeout
-} from "./chunk-UOUJZIKH.js";
+} from "./chunk-R2Y57PM3.js";
 import {
   OUTCOMES_FILE,
   ensureLearningDir
@@ -1458,6 +1462,16 @@ function emitToolAudit(auditLogger, toolName, ctx, result, durationMs) {
     durationMs
   });
 }
+function emitToolAuditException(auditLogger, toolName, ctx, durationMs) {
+  const actor = actorFromContext(ctx);
+  auditLogger.logToolInvocation({
+    toolName,
+    outcome: "error",
+    actor,
+    requestId: ctx.requestId,
+    durationMs
+  });
+}
 function emitPolicyAudit(auditLogger, toolName, ctx, reason) {
   const actor = actorFromContext(ctx);
   auditLogger.logPolicyDecision({
@@ -1551,31 +1565,42 @@ function createSecureHandler(handler, config) {
       requestLogger
     );
     if (preCheckError) return preCheckError;
-    const execStartTime = getTimeProvider().now();
-    try {
-      const result = await executeHandler(
-        handler,
-        sanitizedArgs,
-        { requestContext, logger: requestLogger },
-        requestLogger
+    return executeAndAudit(handler, sanitizedArgs, requestContext, requestLogger, config);
+  };
+}
+async function executeAndAudit(handler, sanitizedArgs, requestContext, requestLogger, config) {
+  const execStartTime = getTimeProvider().now();
+  try {
+    const result = await executeHandler(
+      handler,
+      sanitizedArgs,
+      { requestContext, logger: requestLogger },
+      requestLogger
+    );
+    sanitizeToolResult(result, requestLogger);
+    if (config.auditLogger) {
+      emitToolAudit(
+        config.auditLogger,
+        config.toolName,
+        requestContext,
+        result,
+        getTimeProvider().now() - execStartTime
       );
-      sanitizeToolResult(result, requestLogger);
-      if (config.auditLogger) {
-        emitToolAudit(
-          config.auditLogger,
-          config.toolName,
-          requestContext,
-          result,
-          getTimeProvider().now() - execStartTime
-        );
-      }
-      return result;
-    } catch (error) {
-      const message = error instanceof Error ? error.message : "Unknown error";
-      requestLogger.error("Tool execution failed", error instanceof Error ? error : void 0);
-      return internalError(message, requestContext.requestId);
     }
-  };
+    return result;
+  } catch (error) {
+    const message = error instanceof Error ? error.message : "Unknown error";
+    requestLogger.error("Tool execution failed", error instanceof Error ? error : void 0);
+    if (config.auditLogger) {
+      emitToolAuditException(
+        config.auditLogger,
+        config.toolName,
+        requestContext,
+        getTimeProvider().now() - execStartTime
+      );
+    }
+    return internalError(message, requestContext.requestId);
+  }
 }
 
 // src/mcp/tools/tool-result.ts
@@ -1609,7 +1634,8 @@ var VOTER_ROLES = {
   devex: "Developer Experience - evaluates usability, documentation, and developer workflow",
   ai_ml: "AI/ML Engineer - evaluates AI/ML aspects, model selection, and learning capabilities",
   pm: "Product Manager - evaluates business value, user impact, and resource allocation",
-  catfish: "Contrarian Analyst - deliberately challenges proposals to prevent agreement bias (arXiv:2505.21503)"
+  catfish: "Contrarian Analyst - deliberately challenges proposals to prevent agreement bias (arXiv:2505.21503)",
+  scope_steward: "Scope Steward - asks whether to build at all; checks existing tools, biases toward kill-the-feature (#2185)"
 };
 
 // src/cli-adapters/cli-to-model-adapter.ts
@@ -2406,15 +2432,15 @@ async function collectStream(stream, options = {}) {
 
 // src/adapters/claude-adapter-types.ts
 var CLAUDE_MODELS = {
-  OPUS_4: "claude-opus-4-20250514",
-  SONNET_4: "claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
-  HAIKU_4: "claude-haiku-4-5-20251001"
+  OPUS_4: getCliModelName("claude-opus"),
+  SONNET_4: getCliModelName("claude-sonnet"),
+  HAIKU_4: getCliModelName("claude-haiku")
 };
 var CLAUDE_MODEL_ALIASES = {
   "claude-opus-4": CLAUDE_MODELS.OPUS_4,
   "claude-sonnet-4": CLAUDE_MODELS.SONNET_4,
   "claude-haiku-4": CLAUDE_MODELS.HAIKU_4,
-  // Legacy alias
+  // Legacy alias — pre-4.x users routed to the current haiku.
   "claude-haiku-3": CLAUDE_MODELS.HAIKU_4
 };
 var DEFAULT_MAX_TOKENS = 4096;
@@ -2493,7 +2519,9 @@ function mapTool(tool) {
   };
 }
 function resolveModelId(modelId) {
-  return CLAUDE_MODEL_ALIASES[modelId] ?? modelId;
+  const registryId = resolveCliAlias(modelId);
+  if (registryId !== void 0) return getCliModelName(registryId);
+  return modelId;
 }
 function getModelCapabilities(modelId) {
   const capabilities = [
@@ -3142,7 +3170,7 @@ function tryCustomOpenAiAdapter(logger11) {
   if (customKey === void 0 || customBaseUrl === void 0 || customBaseUrl === "") {
     return null;
   }
-  const customModelId = process.env["NEXUS_CUSTOM_MODEL"] ?? "gpt-4o";
+  const customModelId = process.env["NEXUS_CUSTOM_MODEL"] ?? CUSTOM_API_DEFAULT_MODEL;
   logger11.info("Using custom-openai SDK adapter", {
     model: customModelId,
     baseUrl: customBaseUrl
@@ -3908,6 +3936,10 @@ var UnifiedAdapterRegistry = class {
   // --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   // Public API
   // --------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  /** Logger used by this registry. Exposed so singleton helpers can warn. */
+  getLogger() {
+    return this.logger;
+  }
   /**
    * Get adapter for a task category. Uses pre-computed routing.
    * Falls back to default adapter if category unknown.
@@ -3959,9 +3991,11 @@ var UnifiedAdapterRegistry = class {
    * Falls back to default adapter if model not recognized.
    */
   getAdapterForModel(modelPreference) {
-    const model = DEFAULT_MODEL_CAPABILITIES.models.find(
-      (m) => m.id === modelPreference || m.cliAlias === modelPreference || m.cliModelName === modelPreference || modelPreference.startsWith(m.id)
+    const exact = DEFAULT_MODEL_CAPABILITIES.models.find(
+      (m) => m.id === modelPreference || m.cliAlias === modelPreference || m.cliModelName === modelPreference
     );
+    const prefix = exact ?? [...DEFAULT_MODEL_CAPABILITIES.models].filter((m) => modelPreference.startsWith(m.id)).sort((a, b) => b.id.length - a.id.length)[0];
+    const model = prefix;
     if (model !== void 0) {
       this.logger.debug("Model resolved to CLI", {
         model: modelPreference,
@@ -4064,12 +4098,44 @@ function createUnifiedRegistry(config) {
   return new UnifiedAdapterRegistry(config);
 }
 function getGlobalRegistry(config) {
-  globalRegistry ??= new UnifiedAdapterRegistry(config);
+  if (globalRegistry === void 0) {
+    globalRegistry = new UnifiedAdapterRegistry(config);
+    return globalRegistry;
+  }
+  if (config !== void 0 && Object.keys(config).length > 0) {
+    globalRegistry.getLogger().warn(
+      "UnifiedAdapterRegistry singleton already initialized; provided config ignored. Call resetGlobalRegistry() first if reconfiguration is intentional.",
+      { providedKeys: Object.keys(config) }
+    );
+  }
   return globalRegistry;
 }
 
 // src/cli/voter-prompts.ts
 var DEFAULT_PROJECT = "nexus-agents";
+function prReviewModeAddendum() {
+  return `
+PR-review mode \u2014 if you are reviewing a code diff (not a proposal) AND you have at least one concrete defect that justifies blocking the merge, populate the OPTIONAL TOP-LEVEL "findings" field on your JSON response. NOT inside reasoning \u2014 top-level. The schema:
+
+"findings": [
+  {
+    "summary": "One-line summary",
+    "location": "path/file.ext:LINE",
+    "severity": "critical" | "high" | "medium" | "low",
+    "gate": {
+      "reread_cited_line": "passed",
+      "traced_call_path": "passed",
+      "named_assertion": "Concrete failing assertion \u2014 what test would fail and how. Substantive, not 'passed'.",
+      "ruled_out_language_non_issue": "passed"
+    },
+    "claim": "What is wrong and why it justifies blocking."
+  }
+]
+
+A finding only triggers strict request_changes if all 4 gate fields = "passed" AND named_assertion is substantive (>10 chars naming a concrete failure, not just "passed"). Findings missing any of those 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.`;
+}
 function voterFooter() {
   return `
 Workflow-test assessment (include in your reasoning):
@@ -4077,7 +4143,8 @@ 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.
+${prReviewModeAddendum()}`;
 }
 function architectPrompt(project) {
   return `You are a Software Architect voting on technical proposals for the ${project} project.
@@ -4170,7 +4237,67 @@ When rejecting, you MUST classify your reasons using categories: YAGNI, DRY_VIOL
 IMPORTANT: Your job is to find legitimate concerns, not to reject everything.
 If after genuine scrutiny you find no significant issues, you MAY approve.
 But your default posture is skeptical \u2014 look for what others might miss.
-High-confidence rejections with specific reasoning are your most valuable output.`;
+High-confidence rejections with specific reasoning are your most valuable output.
+${prReviewModeAddendum()}`;
+}
+function scopeStewardPrompt(project) {
+  return `You are a Scope Steward voting on proposals for the ${project} project.
+
+Your job is to gate against build-when-buy-would-do and feature sprawl.
+The originating case (2026-04-24): a 6-role panel approved building a USB flasher
+CLI without anyone flagging that Rufus already solves the problem better, for the
+same audience, with 100M+ installs of battle-tested code. This role exists to
+catch that class of mistake.
+
+Your evaluation criteria \u2014 work through these mandatory checks in your reasoning:
+
+1. **Existing-tool check.** Search your knowledge for tools, libraries, or
+   services that already solve the stated problem. Name them concretely
+   (not "there might be alternatives" \u2014 actual names: Rufus, ripgrep,
+   esbuild, etc.). If you can't name an alternative, say so explicitly.
+
+2. **Build-vs-buy math.** For each existing tool you named: what would we
+   LOSE by adopting it (license, dependency surface, integration cost)?
+   What would we GAIN by building our own (tighter integration, no extra
+   binary, etc.)? Default lean: BUY. Building is justified only when the
+   loss column is concrete and the gain column is load-bearing.
+
+3. **Mission alignment.** Does this proposal serve the project's stated
+   mission, or is it scope drift? If drift, name the drift specifically.
+
+4. **Kill-the-feature option.** For every proposal, explicitly evaluate
+   "what if we just didn't do this?" as a ranked option. Many proposals
+   don't need to be built. Make the no-build case before the build case.
+
+5. **Sprawl audit.** Check whether similar functionality already exists
+   in the codebase. If it does, recommend extending \u2014 not forking. The
+   anti-sprawl policy in CLAUDE.md is specifically the rule this role
+   enforces.
+
+Default bias: REJECT proposals where an existing tool fits, even if our
+own implementation would be marginally nicer. Only approve when the
+existing-tool check fails AND the kill-the-feature option is worse AND
+mission alignment is clear AND no comparable in-codebase functionality
+exists.
+
+Few-shot example of a textbook rejection:
+> Proposal: "Add an aegis-boot subcommand to flash bootable USB sticks."
+> Steward response: "REJECT (DON'T-BUILD). Rufus has solved this for the
+> same audience for 10+ years with 100M+ installs and battle-tested code.
+> Adopting Rufus loses nothing material; building our own loses
+> maintenance bandwidth indefinitely. Mission alignment: aegis-boot's
+> mission is verifiable boot, not USB tooling. Kill option clearly wins.
+> No prior in-codebase functionality. Recommend: point users at Rufus in
+> the docs and stop here."
+
+${voterFooter()}
+
+When rejecting, you MUST classify reasons (YAGNI, DRY_VIOLATION,
+OVER_ENGINEERING, SCOPE_CREEP, MISALIGNED). The steward's most common
+categories are SCOPE_CREEP, YAGNI, and OVER_ENGINEERING.
+
+You CAN approve. But your default posture is: "this should not be built;
+prove me wrong with the build-vs-buy math."`;
 }
 function getVoterPrompts(project = DEFAULT_PROJECT) {
   return {
@@ -4179,7 +4306,8 @@ function getVoterPrompts(project = DEFAULT_PROJECT) {
     devex: devexPrompt(project),
     ai_ml: aiMlPrompt(project),
     pm: pmPrompt(project),
-    catfish: catfishPrompt(project)
+    catfish: catfishPrompt(project),
+    scope_steward: scopeStewardPrompt(project)
   };
 }
 var VOTER_SYSTEM_PROMPTS = getVoterPrompts();
@@ -4189,7 +4317,8 @@ var SIMULATED_VOTE_REASONING = {
   devex: "Assessed developer experience and workflow impact.",
   ai_ml: "Analyzed AI/ML capabilities and learning potential.",
   pm: "Evaluated business value and resource requirements.",
-  catfish: "Challenged proposal assumptions and identified potential risks."
+  catfish: "Challenged proposal assumptions and identified potential risks.",
+  scope_steward: "Checked existing tools, build-vs-buy math, kill-the-feature option; bias toward not shipping."
 };
 
 // src/cli/voter-response.ts
@@ -4203,6 +4332,18 @@ var SyntheticVoteError = class extends Error {
     this.name = "SyntheticVoteError";
   }
 };
+var RawFindingSchema = z2.object({
+  summary: z2.string().min(1).max(500).describe("One-line summary of the issue"),
+  location: z2.string().min(1).max(200).describe("path/file.ext:line"),
+  severity: z2.enum(["critical", "high", "medium", "low"]).default("medium"),
+  gate: z2.object({
+    reread_cited_line: z2.enum(["passed", "failed", "skipped"]).default("skipped"),
+    traced_call_path: z2.enum(["passed", "failed", "skipped"]).default("skipped"),
+    named_assertion: z2.string().default("").describe("Concrete failing assertion \u2014 substantive, not a rubber-stamp word"),
+    ruled_out_language_non_issue: z2.enum(["passed", "failed", "skipped"]).default("skipped")
+  }),
+  claim: z2.string().min(1).max(2e3).describe("What is wrong and why it justifies blocking")
+});
 var VoteResponseSchema = z2.object({
   decision: z2.enum(["approve", "reject", "abstain"]).describe("Your vote decision"),
   reasoning: z2.string().min(10).max(4e3).describe("Explanation for your vote (10-4000 chars)"),
@@ -4219,8 +4360,48 @@ var VoteResponseSchema = z2.object({
       "MISALIGNED",
       "INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE"
     ])
-  ).optional().describe("Rejection reason categories when decision is reject")
+  ).optional().describe("Rejection reason categories when decision is reject"),
+  /** Top-level structured findings for PR-review mode (#2245 v4 follow-up).
+   * Replaces the YAML-in-reasoning encoding that proved lossy. */
+  findings: z2.array(RawFindingSchema).optional().describe("Structured findings (PR review only)")
 });
+var VOTE_PROMPT_EXAMPLES = `Example approve response:
+{
+  "decision": "approve",
+  "reasoning": "The proposal aligns with architectural patterns. Testability: high \u2014 unit tests can verify each component. Workflow integration: fits existing CI pipeline.",
+  "confidence": 0.85,
+  "conditions": ["Add unit tests before merge"]
+}
+
+Example reject response:
+{
+  "decision": "reject",
+  "reasoning": "This adds speculative abstractions for hypothetical future needs. Testability: unclear \u2014 no concrete test plan provided.",
+  "confidence": 0.80,
+  "rejectionCategories": ["YAGNI", "OVER_ENGINEERING"]
+}
+
+Example PR-review request_changes response with structured findings:
+{
+  "decision": "reject",
+  "reasoning": "Off-by-one in clampPageSize and missing null guard on response.timing \u2014 both visible in the diff.",
+  "confidence": 0.9,
+  "rejectionCategories": ["INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE"],
+  "findings": [
+    {
+      "summary": "Off-by-one in clampPageSize",
+      "location": "packages/nexus-agents/src/api/pagination.ts:18",
+      "severity": "high",
+      "gate": {
+        "reread_cited_line": "passed",
+        "traced_call_path": "passed",
+        "named_assertion": "Test would assert clampPageSize(50, 100) === 50; this returns 49.",
+        "ruled_out_language_non_issue": "passed"
+      },
+      "claim": "Function name says 'clamp to range' but returns requested-1 in the in-range path."
+    }
+  ]
+}`;
 function buildVotePrompt(proposal) {
   return `Evaluate the following proposal and provide your vote.
 
@@ -4238,22 +4419,9 @@ Respond with a JSON object containing:
 - confidence: Number between 0 and 1
 - conditions: Optional array of conditions for approval
 - rejectionCategories: Required when rejecting. Array of categories from: YAGNI, DRY_VIOLATION, OVER_ENGINEERING, SCOPE_CREEP, SECURITY_RISK, MISALIGNED, INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE
+- findings: PR-REVIEW MODE ONLY. Optional top-level array of structured findings \u2014 see "PR-review mode" in the system prompt. OMIT this field entirely when reviewing a non-diff proposal or when approving a diff.
 
-Example approve response:
-{
-  "decision": "approve",
-  "reasoning": "The proposal aligns with architectural patterns. Testability: high \u2014 unit tests can verify each component. Workflow integration: fits existing CI pipeline.",
-  "confidence": 0.85,
-  "conditions": ["Add unit tests before merge"]
-}
-
-Example reject response:
-{
-  "decision": "reject",
-  "reasoning": "This adds speculative abstractions for hypothetical future needs. Testability: unclear \u2014 no concrete test plan provided.",
-  "confidence": 0.80,
-  "rejectionCategories": ["YAGNI", "OVER_ENGINEERING"]
-}`;
+${VOTE_PROMPT_EXAMPLES}`;
 }
 function extractJsonFromResponse(text) {
   const codeBlockMatch = /```(?:json)?\s*([\s\S]*?)```/i.exec(text);
@@ -4286,6 +4454,17 @@ function createFallbackVote(output, _role, reason) {
     // Mark as synthetic
   };
 }
+function buildParsedVote(data) {
+  return {
+    decision: data.decision,
+    reasoning: data.reasoning,
+    confidence: data.confidence,
+    ...data.conditions !== void 0 ? { conditions: data.conditions } : {},
+    ...data.rejectionCategories !== void 0 ? { rejectionCategories: data.rejectionCategories } : {},
+    ...data.findings !== void 0 ? { findings: data.findings } : {},
+    source: "parsed"
+  };
+}
 function parseVoteResponse(output, role, options) {
   const allowSyntheticVote = options?.allowSyntheticVote ?? false;
   try {
@@ -4293,15 +4472,7 @@ function parseVoteResponse(output, role, options) {
     const parsed = JSON.parse(jsonStr);
     const validated = VoteResponseSchema.safeParse(parsed);
     if (validated.success) {
-      return {
-        decision: validated.data.decision,
-        reasoning: validated.data.reasoning,
-        confidence: validated.data.confidence,
-        ...validated.data.conditions !== void 0 ? { conditions: validated.data.conditions } : {},
-        ...validated.data.rejectionCategories !== void 0 ? { rejectionCategories: validated.data.rejectionCategories } : {},
-        source: "parsed"
-        // Real vote from LLM
-      };
+      return buildParsedVote(validated.data);
     }
     const reason = `Validation failed: ${validated.error.issues.map((e) => e.message).join(", ")}`;
     if (!allowSyntheticVote) {
@@ -4370,8 +4541,10 @@ var ROLE_VOTE_DISTRIBUTIONS = {
   // Technical focus
   pm: [55, 25, 20],
   // Business focus - generally supportive
-  catfish: [20, 65, 15]
+  catfish: [20, 65, 15],
   // Deliberately contrarian - challenges proposals (arXiv:2505.21503)
+  scope_steward: [25, 60, 15]
+  // Default-bias toward not shipping (#2185)
 };
 function selectWeightedDecision(weights) {
   const random = getRandomProvider();
@@ -4422,7 +4595,12 @@ async function executeSingleVoteAttempt(role, proposal, adapter, timeoutMs) {
       { role: "system", content: VOTER_SYSTEM_PROMPTS[role] },
       { role: "user", content: buildVotePrompt(proposal) }
     ],
-    maxTokens: 500,
+    // 500 was correct for short proposal-style votes but caused mid-string
+    // truncation ("Unterminated string in JSON at position N") in #2241 v3
+    // when voters review code diffs — the JSON envelope + reasoning + YAML
+    // findings block routinely exceed 500 tokens. Bumped to 2000 (#2245);
+    // refine per use case if needed.
+    maxTokens: 2e3,
     temperature: 0.3
     // Low temperature for consistent evaluations
   };
@@ -4711,6 +4889,18 @@ var RejectionCategorySchema = z3.enum([
   "INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE"
 ]);
 var REJECTION_CATEGORIES = RejectionCategorySchema.options;
+var FindingShapeSchema = z3.object({
+  summary: z3.string().min(1).max(500),
+  location: z3.string().min(1).max(200),
+  severity: z3.enum(["critical", "high", "medium", "low"]).default("medium"),
+  gate: z3.object({
+    reread_cited_line: z3.enum(["passed", "failed", "skipped"]).default("skipped"),
+    traced_call_path: z3.enum(["passed", "failed", "skipped"]).default("skipped"),
+    named_assertion: z3.string().default(""),
+    ruled_out_language_non_issue: z3.enum(["passed", "failed", "skipped"]).default("skipped")
+  }),
+  claim: z3.string().min(1).max(2e3)
+});
 var VoteSchema = z3.object({
   decision: VoteDecisionSchema,
   reasoning: z3.string().min(1).describe("Explanation for the vote"),
@@ -4718,6 +4908,9 @@ var VoteSchema = z3.object({
   conditions: z3.array(z3.string()).optional().describe("Conditions for approval"),
   /** Structured rejection categories for reject→refine→re-vote loops (Issue #1213). */
   rejectionCategories: z3.array(RejectionCategorySchema).optional().describe("Rejection reason categories when decision is reject"),
+  /** Pre-verified PR-review findings (#2245 v4 follow-up). Optional;
+   * populated only when the voter emits the structured top-level array. */
+  findings: z3.array(FindingShapeSchema).optional().describe("PR-review findings (pre-verified)"),
   timestamp: z3.iso.datetime().optional()
 });
 var ProposalSchema = z3.object({
@@ -5940,11 +6133,21 @@ var ConsensusEngine = class {
       ambiguityBand: this.quorumConfig.ambiguityBand
     });
     if (!ambiguous) return false;
-    const newVoters = await this.voterExpansionCallback(
-      proposalId,
-      required.length,
-      this.quorumConfig.votersPerExpansion
-    );
+    let newVoters;
+    try {
+      newVoters = await this.voterExpansionCallback(
+        proposalId,
+        required.length,
+        this.quorumConfig.votersPerExpansion
+      );
+    } catch (err2) {
+      const error = err2 instanceof Error ? err2 : new Error(String(err2));
+      this.logger.warn("Incremental quorum: expansion callback threw; closing as-is", {
+        proposalId,
+        errorMessage: error.message
+      });
+      return false;
+    }
     if (newVoters.length === 0) {
       this.logger.info("Incremental quorum: no additional voters available", { proposalId });
       return false;
@@ -12478,7 +12681,7 @@ function strategyToAlgorithm(strategy) {
   return strategy;
 }
 function getVoterRoles(quickMode) {
-  return quickMode ? ["architect", "security", "pm"] : ["architect", "security", "devex", "ai_ml", "pm", "catfish"];
+  return quickMode ? ["architect", "security", "scope_steward"] : ["architect", "security", "devex", "ai_ml", "pm", "catfish", "scope_steward"];
 }
 function createEmptyConsensusResult(proposal, algorithm) {
   const now = (/* @__PURE__ */ new Date()).toISOString();
@@ -12604,7 +12807,7 @@ async function processVotesWithCascade(votes, opts) {
 var CONTRARIAN_ESCALATION_THRESHOLD = 0.8;
 async function runContrarianCheck(proposal, log) {
   try {
-    const { executeExpert } = await import("./expert-bridge-KHHE42JP.js");
+    const { executeExpert } = await import("./expert-bridge-LT7PKUPS.js");
     const prompt = [
       "You are a contrarian analyst. Your job is to find reasons this proposal should be REJECTED.",
       "Look for: YAGNI (not needed), MISALIGNED (wrong tech/architecture), SECURITY_RISK, SCOPE_CREEP.",
@@ -12812,10 +13015,10 @@ function registerConsensusVoteTool(server, deps) {
     strategy: VotingStrategySchema.optional().describe(
       "Voting strategy: simple_majority (default), supermajority, unanimous, proof_of_learning, or higher_order"
     ),
-    quickMode: z19.boolean().optional().default(false).describe("Use 3 agents instead of 6"),
+    quickMode: z19.boolean().optional().default(false).describe("Use 3 agents instead of 7"),
     simulateVotes: z19.boolean().optional().default(false).describe("Use simulated votes")
   };
-  const description = "Execute multi-model consensus voting on a proposal. Uses 6 specialized agent roles (architect, security, devex, ai_ml, pm, catfish) to vote on proposals with configurable strategies. Supports higher_order strategy for Bayesian-optimal aggregation with correlation awareness (Issue #514).";
+  const description = "Execute multi-model consensus voting on a proposal. Uses 7 specialized agent roles (architect, security, devex, ai_ml, pm, catfish, scope_steward) to vote on proposals with configurable strategies. Supports higher_order strategy for Bayesian-optimal aggregation with correlation awareness (Issue #514).";
   const secureHandler = createSecureHandler(createConsensusVoteHandler(depsWithNotifier), {
     toolName: "consensus_vote",
     rateLimiter: deps.rateLimiter,
@@ -12895,6 +13098,7 @@ export {
   createSecureHandler,
   createMcpNotifier,
   NOOP_NOTIFIER,
+  abortSignalStorage,
   withProgressHeartbeat,
   withAccessPolicy,
   getToolTimeout,
@@ -12976,4 +13180,4 @@ export {
   CONSENSUS_VOTE_OUTPUT_SCHEMA,
   registerConsensusVoteTool
 };
-//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-BPMQRYGU.js.map
+//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-BOZ26RIB.js.map