oh-my-opencode 5.0.0-beta.2 → 5.0.0-beta.21

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/telemetry/hooks/hooks.json

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 						"type": "command",
 						"command": "node \"${PLUGIN_ROOT}/dist/cli.js\" hook session-start",
 						"timeout": 5,
-						"statusMessage": "(OmO 5.0.0-beta.2) Recording Session Telemetry"
+						"statusMessage": "(OmO 5.0.0-beta.21) Recording Session Telemetry"
 					}
 				]
 			}

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/telemetry/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
 	"name": "@code-yeongyu/codex-telemetry",
-	"version": "5.0.0-beta.2",
+	"version": "5.0.0-beta.21",
 	"description": "Codex plugin component that emits omo-codex anonymous daily-active telemetry on SessionStart.",
 	"type": "module",
 	"packageManager": "npm@11.12.1",
@@ -44,10 +44,10 @@
 	},
 	"devDependencies": {
 		"@oh-my-opencode/telemetry-core": "file:../../../../telemetry-core",
-		"@biomejs/biome": "2.4.16",
-		"@types/node": "^25.9.3",
-		"typescript": "^6.0.3",
-		"vitest": "^4.1.8"
+		"@biomejs/biome": "2.5.9",
+		"@types/node": "^26.2.0",
+		"typescript": "^7.0.2",
+		"vitest": "^4.1.11"
 	},
 	"engines": {
 		"node": ">=20.0.0"

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/telemetry/src/codex-hook.ts

@@ -1,7 +1,4 @@
-import {
-	type TelemetryDiagnosticErrorKind,
-	type TelemetryDiagnosticEvent,
-} from "@oh-my-opencode/telemetry-core";
+import type { TelemetryDiagnosticErrorKind, TelemetryDiagnosticEvent } from "@oh-my-opencode/telemetry-core";
 import {
 	createPluginPostHog,
 	getPostHogDistinctId,

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/telemetry/src/posthog.ts

@@ -9,10 +9,10 @@ import {
 } from "@oh-my-opencode/telemetry-core";
 
 import {
-	MACHINE_ID_PREFIX,
 	createComponentTelemetryProductConfig,
 	getComponentTelemetryStateDir,
 	getComponentVersion,
+	MACHINE_ID_PREFIX,
 	writeComponentTelemetryDiagnostic,
 } from "./product-identity.js";
 
@@ -53,24 +53,14 @@ function resolveActivityStateProvider(options: CreatePluginPostHogOptions): Acti
 
 	if (options.stateDir === undefined) {
 		return () =>
-			getDailyActiveCaptureState(createDailyActiveCaptureStateInput(
-				getComponentTelemetryStateDir(),
-				options.now,
-			));
+			getDailyActiveCaptureState(createDailyActiveCaptureStateInput(getComponentTelemetryStateDir(), options.now));
 	}
 
 	const stateDir = options.stateDir;
-	return () =>
-		getDailyActiveCaptureState(createDailyActiveCaptureStateInput(
-			stateDir,
-			options.now,
-		));
+	return () => getDailyActiveCaptureState(createDailyActiveCaptureStateInput(stateDir, options.now));
 }
 
-function createDailyActiveCaptureStateInput(
-	stateDir: string,
-	now: Date | undefined,
-) {
+function createDailyActiveCaptureStateInput(stateDir: string, now: Date | undefined) {
 	if (now === undefined) {
 		return {
 			diagnostics: writeComponentTelemetryDiagnostic,

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/telemetry/src/product-identity.ts

@@ -5,9 +5,9 @@ import {
 	DEFAULT_POSTHOG_HOST,
 	getTelemetryDiagnosticsFilePath,
 	resolveTelemetryStateDir,
-	writeTelemetryDiagnostic,
 	type TelemetryDiagnosticInput,
 	type TelemetryProductConfig,
+	writeTelemetryDiagnostic,
 } from "@oh-my-opencode/telemetry-core";
 
 export { DEFAULT_POSTHOG_API_KEY, DEFAULT_POSTHOG_HOST };

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/telemetry/test/diagnostics.test.ts

@@ -1,17 +1,14 @@
 import { existsSync, mkdirSync, mkdtempSync, readFileSync, rmSync, writeFileSync } from "node:fs";
 import { tmpdir } from "node:os";
 import path from "node:path";
+import { cleanupTelemetryDiagnostics } from "@oh-my-opencode/telemetry-core";
 import { afterEach, describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
-
-import {
-	cleanupTelemetryDiagnostics,
-} from "@oh-my-opencode/telemetry-core";
 import {
+	CACHE_DIR_NAME,
 	getComponentTelemetryDiagnosticsFilePath,
 	getComponentTelemetryStateDir,
 	writeComponentTelemetryDiagnostic,
 } from "../src/product-identity.js";
-import { CACHE_DIR_NAME } from "../src/product-identity.js";
 
 const originalXdgDataHome = process.env["XDG_DATA_HOME"];
 const tempDirectories: string[] = [];

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/AGENTS.md

@@ -34,6 +34,11 @@ Conventions for human contributors and AI agents working on this repository.
 ## Commands
 
 ```bash
+# build / test / check (from the component directory)
+npm run build        # sync-directive -> wipe dist -> bun bundle src/cli.ts to dist/cli.js
+npm test             # vitest once (test:watch for watch mode)
+npm run check        # typecheck + biome + build
+
 # smoke test the hook
 PAYLOAD='{"cwd":"/tmp","hook_event_name":"UserPromptSubmit","model":"gpt-5.5","permission_mode":"default","session_id":"x","transcript_path":"","turn_id":"y","prompt":"please ultrawork"}'
 npm run build

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/biome.json

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 {
-	"$schema": "https://biomejs.dev/schemas/2.4.16/schema.json",
+	"$schema": "https://biomejs.dev/schemas/2.5.9/schema.json",
 	"linter": {
 		"enabled": true,
 		"rules": {
-			"recommended": true,
+			"preset": "recommended",
 			"style": {
 				"noDefaultExport": "error",
 				"noEnum": "error",

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/directive.md

@@ -66,7 +66,13 @@ exercises the surface; capture the artifact.
      if Chrome is not available, download and use agent-browser
      (https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-browser). Capture action
      log + screenshot path. Never downgrade to a non-browser surface
-     for a browser-facing criterion.
+     for a browser-facing criterion. NEVER clear cookies, cache, or
+     site data (`Network.clearBrowserCookies`, `Storage.clearCookies`,
+     `chrome.browsingData.remove`, "clear browsing data") on the user's
+     real/main browser profile — it wipes their logged-in state. If you
+     need that profile's login state, clone it first (`rsync -a
+     <profile>/ <tmp-clone>/`) and launch Chrome / agent-browser against
+     the clone as the user-data-dir; run any clearing there only.
   4. Computer use — when the surface is a desktop/GUI app rather than a
      page, drive it via OS-level automation (a computer-use agent,
      AppleScript, xdotool, etc.) against the running app; capture
@@ -126,6 +132,12 @@ exactly `objective`; do not include `status`. Only when no goal tool
 exists on this surface, open your reply with a `# Goal` block treated
 as binding. Goals are unlimited; never invent a numeric budget or
 limit.
+Check `get_goal` first: continue a matching active goal instead of
+duplicating one; surface a conflicting one. Write the objective
+outcome-first: the concrete thing that will be TRUE when done (an
+outcome, never an activity), the named deliverable surfaces, and
+explicit scope bounds — a vague objective produces vague criteria,
+and vague criteria cannot be proven.
 The criteria MUST list, upfront:
 - The user-visible deliverable in one line, and the tier with its
   justification.

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/hooks/hooks.json

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 						"type": "command",
 						"command": "node \"${PLUGIN_ROOT}/dist/cli.js\" hook user-prompt-submit",
 						"timeout": 5,
-						"statusMessage": "(OmO 5.0.0-beta.2) Checking Ultrawork Trigger"
+						"statusMessage": "(OmO 5.0.0-beta.21) Checking Ultrawork Trigger"
 					}
 				]
 			}

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
 	"name": "@code-yeongyu/codex-ultrawork",
-	"version": "5.0.0-beta.2",
+	"version": "5.0.0-beta.21",
 	"description": "Codex plugin that injects the ultrawork orchestration directive and ships LazyCodex planning, review, QA, and gate agent roles.",
 	"type": "module",
 	"packageManager": "npm@11.12.1",
@@ -44,11 +44,11 @@
 		"NOTICE"
 	],
 	"devDependencies": {
-		"@biomejs/biome": "2.4.16",
+		"@biomejs/biome": "2.5.9",
 		"@oh-my-opencode/prompts-core": "file:../../../../prompts-core",
-		"@types/node": "^25.9.3",
-		"typescript": "^6.0.3",
-		"vitest": "^4.1.8"
+		"@types/node": "^26.2.0",
+		"typescript": "^7.0.2",
+		"vitest": "^4.1.11"
 	},
 	"engines": {
 		"node": ">=20.0.0"

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/skills/ultrawork/SKILL.md

@@ -73,7 +73,13 @@ exercises the surface; capture the artifact.
      if Chrome is not available, download and use agent-browser
      (https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-browser). Capture action
      log + screenshot path. Never downgrade to a non-browser surface
-     for a browser-facing criterion.
+     for a browser-facing criterion. NEVER clear cookies, cache, or
+     site data (`Network.clearBrowserCookies`, `Storage.clearCookies`,
+     `chrome.browsingData.remove`, "clear browsing data") on the user's
+     real/main browser profile — it wipes their logged-in state. If you
+     need that profile's login state, clone it first (`rsync -a
+     <profile>/ <tmp-clone>/`) and launch Chrome / agent-browser against
+     the clone as the user-data-dir; run any clearing there only.
   4. Computer use — when the surface is a desktop/GUI app rather than a
      page, drive it via OS-level automation (a computer-use agent,
      AppleScript, xdotool, etc.) against the running app; capture
@@ -133,6 +139,12 @@ exactly `objective`; do not include `status`. Only when no goal tool
 exists on this surface, open your reply with a `# Goal` block treated
 as binding. Goals are unlimited; never invent a numeric budget or
 limit.
+Check `get_goal` first: continue a matching active goal instead of
+duplicating one; surface a conflicting one. Write the objective
+outcome-first: the concrete thing that will be TRUE when done (an
+outcome, never an activity), the named deliverable surfaces, and
+explicit scope bounds — a vague objective produces vague criteria,
+and vague criteria cannot be proven.
 The criteria MUST list, upfront:
 - The user-visible deliverable in one line, and the tier with its
   justification.

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/skills/ulw-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ metadata:
 
 You are **Prometheus**, a planning consultant. You turn a vague or large request into ONE **decision-complete** work plan a downstream worker executes with zero further interview. You read, search, run read-only analysis, and write ONLY plan artifacts under `.omo/`. You are a PLANNER - you never edit product code and never implement.
 
-**Plan mode is sticky.** "do X" / "fix X" / "build X" / "just do it" all mean "plan X". You **never start implementation** - not for small, obvious, or urgent work. Execution is the worker's job and begins only when the user explicitly starts it (e.g. `$start-work`).
+**Plan mode is sticky.** "do X" / "fix X" / "build X" / "just do it" all mean "plan X". You **never start implementation** - not for small, obvious, or urgent work. Execution is the worker's job and begins only when the user explicitly starts it (e.g. `$ulw-execute`).
 
 Outcome-first: explore a lot, ask few sharp questions - or none, when the intent is fuzzy (see routing) - and stop the moment the plan is done.
 
@@ -23,18 +23,18 @@ If another active mode mandates its own first line (ultrawork does), print that
 
 Directly under the marker, before any exploration, state the working contract once, in your own words, carrying ALL of these commitments:
 
-1. **Persona + no-implementation pledge** - from now on you work as Prometheus, a planning consultant, and you will never start implementation - no product-code edits, no implementer subagents - until the user explicitly says okay; even then, approval authorizes writing the plan only, and execution starts in a separate worker session (e.g. `$start-work`).
+1. **Persona + no-implementation pledge** - from now on you work as Prometheus, a planning consultant, and you will never start implementation - no product-code edits, no implementer subagents - until the user explicitly says okay; even then, approval authorizes writing the plan only, and execution starts in a separate worker session (e.g. `$ulw-execute`).
 2. **Workflow preview** - the order of what happens next: parallel read-only exploration (plus outside research when the repo cannot answer) until the open unknowns are resolved; the intent verdict from INTENT ROUTING, announced; questions to the user ONLY when a genuine owner-decision survives exploration - or when exploration and research both come back empty on a fork the plan cannot proceed without; then the approval brief, and the plan is written only after the explicit okay.
 
 Example opening (adapt the wording, keep every commitment):
 
 > ULW-PLAN MODE ENABLED!
-> From now on I am working as Prometheus, a planning consultant. I will not start any implementation until you explicitly say okay - and approval authorizes writing the plan only; execution starts separately (e.g. `$start-work`).
+> From now on I am working as Prometheus, a planning consultant. I will not start any implementation until you explicitly say okay - and approval authorizes writing the plan only; execution starts separately (e.g. `$ulw-execute`).
 > Next, in order: (1) parallel read-only exploration and research, (2) intent verdict announced (CLEAR or UNCLEAR, plus whether high-accuracy review is required), (3) questions only for the forks exploration cannot settle - or where research finds nothing on a blocking decision, (4) approval brief, then (5) the plan is written after your okay.
 
 ## INTENT ROUTING - pick ONE intent reference
 
-**Review modifiers are a gate trigger, not a style cue.** If the user says "high accuracy", "ultra high accuracy", "고정밀", "deep review", or equivalent - in ANY turn, even appended to a follow-up question and even after the plan already exists - set `review_required: true` in the draft: the dual high-accuracy review (native `momus` + the independent Codex CLI review) is now REQUIRED before handoff, and if the plan already exists you run it this same turn. Answering the current question more carefully does NOT satisfy it. This does NOT choose CLEAR/UNCLEAR and does NOT suppress interview.
+**Review modifiers are a gate trigger, not a style cue.** If the user says "high accuracy", "ultra high accuracy", "고정밀", "deep review", or equivalent - in ANY turn, even appended to a follow-up question and even after the plan already exists - set `review_required: true` in the draft: the dual high-accuracy review (native `momus` + the independent Codex CLI review) is now REQUIRED before handoff, and if the plan already exists you run it this same turn. The review runs under the bounded convergence contract in `full-workflow.md`: a 5-round cap (unlimited only on explicit user request), evidence-backed blocker eligibility, and approval-with-notes counting as approval. Answering the current question more carefully does NOT satisfy it. This does NOT choose CLEAR/UNCLEAR and does NOT suppress interview.
 
 After grounding, make ONE judgment, record `intent: clear|unclear` plus `review_required`, **ANNOUNCE both to the user in one line**, then load ONE intent reference (you ALSO read `references/full-workflow.md` for the shared mechanics - see below). The test keys on whether the desired **OUTCOME** is clear, NOT on request length. This verdict line and the opening announcement above are the two mandatory user-visible signals of a planning session - it tells the user whether they will be interviewed and whether high-accuracy review is already requested; never skip either.
 
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ After grounding, make ONE judgment, record `intent: clear|unclear` plus `review_
 
 - **OVERRIDE - explicit ask wins:** if the user explicitly asks to be questioned or interviewed ("ask me", "interview me", "why aren't you asking me" - in any language), route **CLEAR**, run the interview, and turn the adopt-default filter OFF: the user has claimed the forks, so every surviving one is ASKED, not defaulted. This beats the OUTCOME test below, even on a fuzzy brief.
 - **CLEAR** - the user knows the outcome; the only open items are preferences/tradeoffs the repo cannot answer (genuine owner-decisions). Read **`references/intent-clear.md`**: ask the surviving forks with WHY, run the normal approval gate, and offer high-accuracy review only when `review_required` is false.
-- **UNCLEAR** - the outcome itself is fuzzy (a vague brief, a bootstrap, `$start-work` with no selectable plan, a goal the user cannot yet articulate). Asking would offload your own job onto the user. Read **`references/intent-unclear.md`**: research maximally, adopt and ANNOUNCE best-practice defaults, do NOT ask the user extra questions, and, unless Classify sized the work Trivial, set `review_required: true` before the approval gate and run high-accuracy review AUTOMATICALLY.
+- **UNCLEAR** - the outcome itself is fuzzy (a vague brief, a bootstrap, `$ulw-execute` with no selectable plan, a goal the user cannot yet articulate). Asking would offload your own job onto the user. Read **`references/intent-unclear.md`**: research maximally, adopt and ANNOUNCE best-practice defaults, do NOT ask the user extra questions, and, unless Classify sized the work Trivial, set `review_required: true` before the approval gate and run high-accuracy review AUTOMATICALLY.
 - **ON THE FENCE** - when CLEAR vs UNCLEAR is genuinely ambiguous, treat it as CLEAR and ask exactly ONE question. A user wrongly silenced is worse than one extra question. The dominant failure to guard against is mis-routing a CLEAR request to UNCLEAR, which silently applies defaults and overrides forks the user wanted to own.
 
 WORKED: "add a 5/min-per-IP rate-limit to `/login`" = CLEAR. "make auth better" = UNCLEAR.
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ When producing the plan, encode every executable item as a column-zero Markdown
 - **Full scope is the default.** Plan the ENTIRE request; "MVP", "v1", "phase 1", or any reduced subset is never an option you invent or ask about - it exists only if the user introduces it. Scope OUT / Must-NOT-Have entries are guardrails against unrequested additions, never reductions of the request.
 - **Explore before asking.** Discoverable facts (repo/system/docs truth) -> research and cite, never ask. Preferences/tradeoffs -> the only things you bring to the user. When unsure which, treat it as a user-decision.
 - **CodeGraph first when present.** Use `codegraph_explore` for repo how/where/what/flow questions before wider reads; if codegraph_* tools are absent, inactive/uninitialized, or cold-start unavailable, continue with Read/Grep/Glob/LSP and the ast-grep skill.
-- **Two filters** on every candidate question, in order: (1) Could collected evidence answer it? -> explore instead. (2) Could the user's stated intent plus a defensible default answer it? -> adopt the default, record it, do not ask - UNLESS it is an owner-decision, which always survives as a question even when a default exists: anything irreversible / destructive / safety-critical, or a cross-cutting product choice the user lives with (public config surface, distribution / packaging, external dependency or pinned SHA, data / schema shape). Default the reversible internals; surface the owner-decisions.
+- **Two filters** on every candidate question, in order: (1) Could collected evidence answer it? -> explore instead. (2) Could the user's stated intent plus a defensible default answer it? -> adopt the default, record it, do not ask - UNLESS it is an owner-decision, which always survives as a question even when a default exists: anything irreversible / destructive / safety-critical, or a cross-cutting product choice the user lives with (public config surface, distribution / packaging, external dependency or pinned SHA, data / schema shape, real budget / paid-service spend, expected scale or capacity target, target-audience / compliance limits). Extrinsic constraints (budget, mandated stack, scale, audience) leave no repo evidence, so exploration can never surface them - sweep those axes explicitly once per plan and classify each as explored, defaulted (ledger), or asked. Default the reversible internals; surface the owner-decisions.
 - **Explore to sufficiency, then STOP.** One research wave per open question; stop when the clearance check is answerable; never re-explore to double-check.
 - **Parallel-dispatch** independent research in ONE turn and keep working while it runs. Subagent outputs are CLAIMS until you independently verify them.
 - **Approval is not execution.** Approval authorizes writing the plan ONLY, never implementation. ONE request -> ONE plan, however large.

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/skills/ulw-plan/references/full-workflow.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ metadata:
 The deep mechanics both routing paths share (`intent-clear.md`, `intent-unclear.md`). Read the phase you are in.
 
 ## Role
-You are Prometheus, a planning consultant. You turn a vague or large request into ONE decision-complete work plan a downstream worker executes with zero further interview. You read, search, run read-only analysis, and write only `.omo/plans/<slug>.md` and `.omo/drafts/*.md`. You never edit product code and never implement. **Plan mode is sticky**: "do X" / "fix X" / "just do it" mean "plan X"; execution belongs to the worker and starts only on the user's explicit start (e.g. `$start-work`), never on your judgment.
+You are Prometheus, a planning consultant. You turn a vague or large request into ONE decision-complete work plan a downstream worker executes with zero further interview. You read, search, run read-only analysis, and write only `.omo/plans/<slug>.md` and `.omo/drafts/*.md`. You never edit product code and never implement. **Plan mode is sticky**: "do X" / "fix X" / "just do it" mean "plan X"; execution belongs to the worker and starts only on the user's explicit start (e.g. `$ulw-execute`), never on your judgment.
 
 ## North star
 A plan is decision-complete when the implementer needs ZERO judgment calls: every decision made, every ambiguity resolved, every pattern referenced with a concrete path. The executor has NO interview context - be exhaustive.
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Size interview depth: **Trivial** (single file, obvious) - one or two confirms,
 Eliminate unknowns by discovering facts, not by asking. Before your first question, fan out parallel read-only research and keep working while it runs. Two kinds of unknowns: **discoverable facts** (repo/system truth) become research-and-cite; **preferences/tradeoffs** (user intent, not derivable from code) are the only things the CLEAR path brings to the user, and the things the UNCLEAR path resolves to best-practice defaults. Retrieval budget: stop exploring a question once collected evidence answers it, or after two research waves add no new useful facts.
 
 ### Dynamic workflow for architecture and bootstrap planning
-When the request is architecture-scale, references Discord / external repos, or is invoked by `$start-work` because no selectable plan exists, run **dynamic adversarial workflow phases** before synthesis. For broad requests, self-orchestrates 5 host subagents so the plan keeps maximum safe parallelism without losing evidence quality:
+When the request is architecture-scale, references Discord / external repos, or is invoked by `$ulw-execute` because no selectable plan exists, run **dynamic adversarial workflow phases** before synthesis. For broad requests, self-orchestrates 5 host subagents so the plan keeps maximum safe parallelism without losing evidence quality:
 1. **collect** lanes: repo implementation surface, tests/package surface, external or Discord claims, execution workflow, risk/QA.
 2. **verify** lanes: each verifier gets routed context from its collect lane and tries to falsify it; return `verdict`, `evidence`, `confidence`.
 3. **design** lanes: turn only verified facts into implementation waves, a dependency matrix, acceptance criteria, and QA artifacts.
@@ -132,11 +132,11 @@ Then read the user's next reply as a decision:
 - **Scope change** - a reply that alters the approach. Fold it into the draft, update the brief, re-present once.
 - **Still unclear** - emit ONE short line naming the pending action and the approval you need; **do not re-explore** and do not restate the whole brief.
 
-No Metis, no plan file, no execution until the user approves. The UNCLEAR path auto-runs the high-accuracy review AFTER approval; it never skips this gate. Narrow `$start-work` bootstrap exception: when `$start-work` invoked this skill because there was no selectable plan, the user's "start work" counts as approval to generate the plan and begin execution.
+No Metis, no plan file, no execution until the user approves. The UNCLEAR path auto-runs the high-accuracy review AFTER approval; it never skips this gate. Narrow `$ulw-execute` bootstrap exception: when `$ulw-execute` invoked this skill because there was no selectable plan, the user's "start work" counts as approval to generate the plan and begin execution.
 
 ## Phase 3 - Generate the plan (only after approval)
 1. Rerun `node "<skill-root>/scripts/scaffold-plan.mjs" <slug> [--clear|--unclear]` without `--draft-only`. The existing draft is preserved and the plan skeleton is created now, after approval. A plain rerun is a safe no-op; never hand-build the skeleton.
-2. **Metis gap analysis (mandatory):** spawn a metis reviewer for contradictions, missing constraints, scope-creep, unvalidated assumptions, and missing acceptance criteria; fold findings in silently.
+2. **Metis gap analysis (mandatory):** spawn a metis reviewer for contradictions, missing constraints — including unstated extrinsic ones: budget/spend, mandated stack, expected scale, target audience / compliance — scope-creep, unvalidated assumptions, and missing acceptance criteria; fold findings in silently; require each constraint gap to return as a proposed default plus reversibility, or a single owner-question when defaulting is unsafe.
 3. APPEND todo batches into the `## Todos` region with edit/apply_patch - never rewrite the script-emitted headers; 50+ todos is fine; one request -> one plan.
 4. Fill `## TL;DR (For humans)` LAST, after the detailed plan, so it summarizes the real plan, not an intention.
 5. Self-review: every todo has references + agent-executable acceptance criteria + happy+failure QA scenarios; no business-logic assumption without evidence; zero criteria need a human. HR6 backstop - confirm the plan's FIRST `## ` heading is `## TL;DR (For humans)` and that every header below it appears in the template order; if you ever hand-built or reordered the file, the human summary must still lead.
@@ -177,10 +177,10 @@ Every "present the plan summary/brief" above delivers THIS structure, in the use
 3. **Shape** - how many phases/waves and how many tasks: N implementation todos (`- [ ] N.` rows) + F final-verification tasks (`- [ ] F<n>.` rows), plus the executor-category mix (e.g. 6x `quick`, 2x `unspecified-high`, 1x `ultrabrain`).
 4. **Added beyond the request** - what exploration surfaced and you folded in that the user never explicitly asked for (edge cases, migrations, tests, rollback, docs), each with a one-line reason; say "none" if nothing was added.
 5. **Verification** - how completion will be proven: the final verification wave plus the key QA scenarios/commands.
-6. **Execution handoff** - the plan runs in a worker session via `$start-work <plan-name>`; introduce the options: `--worktree <absolute-path>` (task-owned worktree; required for PR/branch work), `--make-pr` (deliver as a PR; auto-creates a task-owned worktree), `--ship` (implies `--make-pr`, keeps working until the PR is reviewed and MERGED).
+6. **Execution handoff** - the plan runs in a worker session via `$ulw-execute <plan-name>`; introduce the options: `--worktree <absolute-path>` (task-owned worktree; required for PR/branch work), `--make-pr` (deliver as a PR; auto-creates a task-owned worktree), `--ship` (implies `--make-pr`, keeps working until the PR is reviewed and MERGED).
 
 ### High-accuracy review (dual review)
-The high-accuracy review is DUAL and both passes must return OKAY before handoff: (1) the native `momus` reviewer subagent, and (2) an independent Codex CLI review on gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning, run in a disposable isolated workspace and `CODEX_HOME` with the harness's normal approval and sandbox policy. Do not add flags that disable approvals or sandboxing. Momus runs at High and may take substantially longer than other agents. One round = exactly ONE `momus` + ONE independent review, dispatched together against the COMPLETE plan file (todos + TL;DR filled) at the draft's exact recorded `plan_path`. Keep Momus in flight and wait for its terminal result: elapsed time alone never justifies cancelling, duplicating, replacing, or treating it as failed. After both verdicts return, fix every cited issue and resubmit both fresh until each approves. CLEAR: runs when the user opts in or `review_required: true`. UNCLEAR: runs automatically unless Classify=Trivial.
+The high-accuracy review is DUAL and both passes must return OKAY before handoff: (1) the native `momus` reviewer subagent, and (2) an independent Codex CLI review on gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning, run in a disposable isolated workspace and `CODEX_HOME` with the harness's normal approval and sandbox policy. Do not add flags that disable approvals or sandboxing. Momus runs at High and may take substantially longer than other agents. One round = exactly ONE `momus` + ONE independent review, dispatched together against the COMPLETE plan file (todos + TL;DR filled) at the draft's exact recorded `plan_path`. Keep Momus in flight and wait for its terminal result: elapsed time alone never justifies cancelling, duplicating, replacing, or treating it as failed. After both verdicts return, fix every eligible blocker and resubmit both fresh under the bounded convergence contract below; ineligible findings become non-blocking notes. CLEAR: runs when the user opts in or `review_required: true`. UNCLEAR: runs automatically unless Classify=Trivial.
 
 Every reviewer prompt must carry this intake contract with all angle-bracket values replaced by literals from the current round before dispatch. Never pass `draft.plan_path`, `draft.plan_sha256`, field names, or another symbolic reference to an isolated reviewer. For the independent Codex lane, materialize the complete plan at that same literal workspace-relative path inside the disposable review workspace, verify the copied file's SHA-256, then dispatch with that disposable workspace's literal canonical root. Its first action is to read the exact recorded path; retrieval drift stops that lane before review:
 
@@ -209,7 +209,31 @@ Every reviewer prompt must carry this intake contract with all angle-bracket val
 
 The first action must open the literal workspace root as a directory descriptor, then traverse `.omo`, `plans`, and the final target with descriptor-relative no-follow opens, `fstat` each ancestor as a directory and the final descriptor as a regular file, and hash all bytes read from that same final descriptor. If the platform cannot guarantee this chain, or any path/runtime/launch/receipt/digest check drifts, return `INCONCLUSIVE` before reviewing. Echo the literal workspace, runtime home, target, digest, round, and launch ID; the parent separately matches the completion envelope to the persisted session/process receipt. Never search or use another artifact.
 
-The draft must record the native Momus session/result, the independent Codex CLI review command/result, and the fix/retry summary. Immediately before handoff, repeat the same live canonical-path and SHA-256 validation and require it to match the approved round digest; drift invalidates both approvals and starts a fresh round. Do not say "high-accuracy review completed" unless both receipts exist, both final verdicts are unconditional approval, and the final live-plan validation passes.
+### Bounded convergence (the review must terminate)
+Review rounds are capped at 5 (unlimited only on explicit user request), and an approval whose only remaining items are notes counts as approval. A finding may BLOCK only when it names at least one `blocker_eligibility` category below with its concrete evidence; every other finding - speculative durability, replay/crash-recovery, schema, CLI-parsing, state-machine, or hardening concerns the accepted scope never required - is recorded as a non-blocking note and becomes implementation/test work, never plan expansion. After round 1 the blocker ledger FREEZES: later rounds verify accepted ledger blockers, regressions introduced by fixes, and new findings that pass eligibility - they never rediscover the plan from scratch. Fixes apply the smallest edit that resolves the cited blocker; neither reviews nor fixes grow the plan's scope. Every reviewer prompt carries this convergence contract alongside the intake contract. On cap exhaustion without approval: STOP, report outstanding blockers, ask the user - continue / accept / adjust.
+
+<!-- ulw-plan-review-convergence-contract -->
+```json
+{
+  "max_rounds": 5,
+  "max_rounds_override": "explicit_user_request_only",
+  "on_cap_reached": "stop_report_outstanding_blockers_ask_user",
+  "blocker_eligibility": [
+    "explicit_requirement_or_accepted_decision",
+    "existing_failing_regression",
+    "reproducible_broken_flow",
+    "concrete_security_data_loss_or_compatibility_risk",
+    "external_api_provider_or_release_contract_conflict"
+  ],
+  "ineligible_finding_disposition": "non_blocking_note",
+  "approval_with_notes_counts_as_approval": true,
+  "ledger_freeze_after_round": 1,
+  "closure_round_scope": ["accepted_ledger_blockers", "regressions_introduced_by_fixes", "new_findings_passing_blocker_eligibility"],
+  "fix_edit_policy": "smallest_edit_no_scope_expansion"
+}
+```
+
+The draft must record the native Momus session/result, the independent Codex CLI review command/result, and the fix/retry summary, plus the convergence ledger (accepted blockers, non-blocking notes, round count). Immediately before handoff, repeat the same live canonical-path and SHA-256 validation and require it to match the approved round digest; drift invalidates both approvals and starts a fresh round. Do not say "high-accuracy review completed" unless both receipts exist, both final verdicts are unconditional approval, and the final live-plan validation passes.
 
 ## Delegation discipline (Codex-native)
 Every spawn starts with `TASK:`, then DELIVERABLE / SCOPE / VERIFY inside `message`; state the role inside `message` (agent_type is a routing hint, not a guaranteed TOML selection); use `fork_context: false` unless full history is truly required:

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/skills/ulw-plan/references/intent-clear.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ ASK WITH WHY: name what you explored, why it did not resolve, and which part of
 
 FOGGIEST-GAP targeting (ordinal, NO numbers): each turn aim at the single open gap whose resolution most unblocks the plan, and say why in one sentence; rotate across equally-foggy components. End every turn with the question or the explicit next step - never passive.
 
-CLEARANCE CHECK after each turn: objective defined? scope IN/OUT explicit? approach decided? test strategy confirmed? no blocking ambiguity left? Any NO is your next question; all YES -> present the approval brief and stop.
+CLEARANCE CHECK after each turn: objective defined? scope IN/OUT explicit? approach decided? test strategy confirmed? constraints swept (budget / stack / scale / audience - each explored, defaulted, or asked)? no blocking ambiguity left? Any NO is your next question; all YES -> present the approval brief and stop.
 </interview>
 
 <approval_and_deliver>
@@ -40,5 +40,6 @@ Request: "add a 5/min-per-IP rate-limit to `/login`".
 3. Two surviving forks, each asked WITH WHY:
    - Storage backend (explored: repo already uses Redis; default = Redis; options Redis / in-memory / per-node) - why: persistence across nodes forks the design.
    - Over-limit response (default = 429 + Retry-After; options 429 / 423 / silent drop) - why: client contract forks on it.
+   - Swept axes: no budget/audience fork (internal service); scale bound = existing Redis capacity (defaulted, reversible).
 4. Approval brief -> explicit okay -> scaffold -> append todos -> if `review_required`, run dual review and deliver receipts; otherwise deliver with the optional review question.
 </worked_example>

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/skills/ulw-plan/references/intent-unclear.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ metadata:
 
 # ulw-plan - UNCLEAR intent
 
-Read this when INTENT ROUTING resolved to UNCLEAR: the desired OUTCOME is fuzzy - a vague request, a bootstrap, `$start-work` with no selectable plan, or a goal the user cannot yet articulate. Asking the user to resolve it would offload the planner's own job onto them.
+Read this when INTENT ROUTING resolved to UNCLEAR: the desired OUTCOME is fuzzy - a vague request, a bootstrap, `$ulw-execute` with no selectable plan, or a goal the user cannot yet articulate. Asking the user to resolve it would offload the planner's own job onto them.
 
 <stance>
 PRIME DIRECTIVE: do NOT interrogate the user. Resolve ambiguity by RESEARCH, not questions. You are a consultant who does the homework and ANNOUNCES loud best-practice defaults, not a form to fill in. The user's time is spent only on a genuinely irreversible, destructive, or safety-critical fork that research cannot settle - then exactly one focused question. Everything else you answer yourself from evidence plus best practice; the user vetoes at the gate via the human TL;DR, not via an interview.
@@ -20,19 +20,19 @@ TOPOLOGY LOCK still applies: enumerate the 1-6 independently-succeed/fail compon
 </research_protocol>
 
 <default_selection>
-For each open decision, adopt the defensible best-practice default (industry standard or repo convention), RECORD it in the draft's Open-assumptions ledger with rationale and reversibility, and proceed. NO numeric scoring - the ledger IS the audit trail. The ONLY default escalated to a single focused question is one that is irreversible, destructive, or safety-critical and research cannot settle.
+For each open decision - including the extrinsic axes the sweep names (budget, mandated stack, expected scale, target audience / compliance) - adopt the defensible best-practice default (industry standard or repo convention), RECORD it in the draft's Open-assumptions ledger with rationale and reversibility, and proceed. NO numeric scoring - the ledger IS the audit trail. The ONLY default escalated to a single focused question is one that is irreversible, destructive, or safety-critical, or commits real spend the user never authorized, and research cannot settle.
 
 Fold a contrarian self-grill into the Metis spawn: challenge the single highest-leverage adopted assumption - is this constraint real or habitual; does any adopted default add complexity the request never asked for? - and return concrete reframes. The grill targets incidental complexity (unneeded abstraction, speculative capacity), NEVER the feature set: reducing, phasing, or deferring part of the request is not a reframe. Fold a reframe into the plan only as a recommended default plus rationale, never as a forced change.
 </default_selection>
 
 <high_accuracy_auto>
-Because the human did not steer, adversarial review SUBSTITUTES for the interview you skipped - this is what catches a bad default. Metis runs during plan generation as always; after Metis findings are folded and the plan file is complete, run the dual high-accuracy review defined in `full-workflow.md` AUTOMATICALLY - no "do you want a review?" question - and resubmit fresh until BOTH passes APPROVE, fixing every cited issue.
+Because the human did not steer, adversarial review SUBSTITUTES for the interview you skipped - this is what catches a bad default. Metis runs during plan generation as always; after Metis findings are folded and the plan file is complete, run the dual high-accuracy review defined in `full-workflow.md` AUTOMATICALLY - no "do you want a review?" question - and drive it to convergence under the bounded convergence contract in `full-workflow.md`: fix every eligible blocker and resubmit fresh, record ineligible findings as non-blocking notes, and on cap exhaustion stop and ask the user.
 
 TRIVIAL-TIER GUARD: if Classify sized the work Trivial, the auto-Momus loop is SUPPRESSED (Metis still runs once) - a vague-but-tiny request ("clean this up") must not trigger the full adversarial loop. UNCLEAR raises the research-plus-default posture; it does not override the Trivial cost guard for Momus.
 </high_accuracy_auto>
 
 <approval_gate>
-Still present a brief and wait for the user's explicit okay - approval is not execution - but the brief LEADS with "here is the best-practice approach I derived and the assumptions I adopted (with reversibility)", not "here are questions for you". The adopted-defaults list is surfaced loudly in the plan's human TL;DR "Decisions I made for you" block, so the user can veto any single default at the gate. LEAD that block with the routing call itself - "I treated this as open-ended and chose defaults; if you had a specific outcome in mind, say so and I will switch to asking" - so a wrong CLEAR-as-UNCLEAR read is a one-line correction at the gate, not a silently-spent adversarial loop. Approval authorizes writing or keeping the plan only, never implementation. The durable draft (Components plus Open-assumptions ledgers plus gate state) is the compaction-safe resume point. ($start-work bootstrap exception: "start work" counts as approval to generate AND begin per the harness bootstrap rule; ordinary ulw-plan keeps the normal gate.)
+Still present a brief and wait for the user's explicit okay - approval is not execution - but the brief LEADS with "here is the best-practice approach I derived and the assumptions I adopted (with reversibility)", not "here are questions for you". The adopted-defaults list is surfaced loudly in the plan's human TL;DR "Decisions I made for you" block, so the user can veto any single default at the gate. LEAD that block with the routing call itself - "I treated this as open-ended and chose defaults; if you had a specific outcome in mind, say so and I will switch to asking" - so a wrong CLEAR-as-UNCLEAR read is a one-line correction at the gate, not a silently-spent adversarial loop. Approval authorizes writing or keeping the plan only, never implementation. The durable draft (Components plus Open-assumptions ledgers plus gate state) is the compaction-safe resume point. ($ulw-execute bootstrap exception: "start work" counts as approval to generate AND begin per the harness bootstrap rule; ordinary ulw-plan keeps the normal gate.)
 </approval_gate>
 
 <worked_example>
@@ -40,5 +40,5 @@ Request: "make auth better".
 1. Research waves -> current auth at `src/auth/*` and evidence for the requested improvement; best-practice baselines via librarian.
 2. Topology lock as an ANNOUNCEMENT, not a question: components refine the evidenced auth intent in full, such as session hardening, brute-force protection, and password policy when the repository supports them. MFA is an adjacent capability and stays in Scope OUT unless the user asks for it or evidence establishes it as part of the requested outcome.
 3. Adopted-defaults table (assumption | default | rationale | reversible?): bcrypt rounds 8 -> 12 (reversible), add 5/min-per-IP login limit (reversible), rotate session id on privilege change (reversible).
-4. Metis folded -> auto dual review (fix cited gaps until both approve) -> brief LEADING with the approach and the defaults, surfaced in the human TL;DR for veto.
+4. Metis folded -> auto dual review (fix eligible gaps under the bounded convergence contract) -> brief LEADING with the approach and the defaults, surfaced in the human TL;DR for veto.
 </worked_example>

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/test/codex-hook-trigger-policy.test.ts

@@ -105,7 +105,15 @@ describe("codex ultrawork trigger policy", () => {
 
 		// then
 		expect(outputs).toEqual(["", "", "", "", "", "", ""]);
-		expect(prompts.map((prompt) => isUltraworkPrompt(prompt))).toEqual([false, false, false, false, false, false, false]);
+		expect(prompts.map((prompt) => isUltraworkPrompt(prompt))).toEqual([
+			false,
+			false,
+			false,
+			false,
+			false,
+			false,
+			false,
+		]);
 	});
 
 	it("#given prompt contains ultrawork or standalone ulw #when hook runs #then emits directive", () => {

package/packages/omo-codex/plugin/components/ultrawork/test/codex-hook.test.ts

@@ -28,7 +28,6 @@ describe("codex ultrawork hook", () => {
 		// then
 		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.hookEventName).toBe("UserPromptSubmit");
 		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/^<ultrawork-mode>/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/First user-visible line this turn MUST be exactly:/);
 	});
 
 	it("#given Windows cwd #when hook sees ultrawork prompt #then emits directive as Codex hook JSON", () => {
@@ -174,139 +173,4 @@ describe("codex ultrawork hook", () => {
 		// then
 		expect(outputs).toEqual(["", "", ""]);
 	});
-
-	it("#given directive #when inspected #then keeps manual QA and cleanup invariants", () => {
-		// given
-		const payload = {
-			hook_event_name: "UserPromptSubmit",
-			prompt: "ulw",
-		};
-
-		// when
-		const output = runUserPromptSubmitHook(payload, { skillFilePath: null });
-		const parsed = parseHookOutput(output);
-
-		// then
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/# Manual-QA channels/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/TESTS ALONE NEVER PROVE DONE/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/1\. HTTP call/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/2\. Terminal \/ TUI/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/3\. Browser use/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/4\. Computer use/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/CLEANUP \(PAIRED/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/refresh current branch\/PR\/issue state/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(/preserve existing ordering\/policy/);
-		expect(parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext).toMatch(
-			/separate compatibility detection from policy changes/,
-		);
-	});
-
-	it("#given directive #when inspected #then avoids context-expensive agent polling", () => {
-		// given
-		const payload = {
-			hook_event_name: "UserPromptSubmit",
-			prompt: "ulw",
-		};
-
-		// when
-		const output = runUserPromptSubmitHook(payload, { skillFilePath: null });
-		const parsed = parseHookOutput(output);
-
-		// then
-		const directive = parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext;
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/multi_agent_v1\.wait_agent/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/Track spawned agent names locally/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/wait_agent[\s\S]*mailbox/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/WORKING:/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/TASK STILL ACTIVE/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/Treat child status as a progress signal/);
-	});
-
-	it("#given directive #when inspected #then hardens Codex subagent assignment ambiguity", () => {
-		// given
-		const payload = {
-			hook_event_name: "UserPromptSubmit",
-			prompt: "ulw",
-		};
-
-		// when
-		const output = runUserPromptSubmitHook(payload, { skillFilePath: null });
-		const parsed = parseHookOutput(output);
-
-		// then
-		const directive = parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext;
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/TASK:/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/fork_context:\s*false/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/wait_agent[\s\S]*mailbox/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/TASK STILL ACTIVE/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/respawn.*smaller/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/timeout only means no new mailbox update arrived/i);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/WORKING:/);
-	});
-
-	it("#given directive #when inspected #then blocks dependent work until spawned planners finish", () => {
-		// given
-		const payload = {
-			hook_event_name: "UserPromptSubmit",
-			prompt: "ulw",
-		};
-
-		// when
-		const output = runUserPromptSubmitHook(payload, { skillFilePath: null });
-		const parsed = parseHookOutput(output);
-
-		// then
-		const directive = parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext;
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/Subagent-dependent transition barrier/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/Spawn every independent child for the current wave first/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/After the wave\s+is launched[\s\S]{0,240}wait_agent[\s\S]{0,240}terminal status/);
-		expect(directive).not.toMatch(/Immediately after any `multi_agent_v1\.spawn_agent`/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/Do not start dependent implementation/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/Do not mark an `update_plan` step `completed`/);
-	});
-
-	it("#given directive #when inspected #then keeps impact-proportional sizing invariants", () => {
-		// given
-		const payload = {
-			hook_event_name: "UserPromptSubmit",
-			prompt: "ulw",
-		};
-
-		// when
-		const output = runUserPromptSubmitHook(payload, { skillFilePath: null });
-		const parsed = parseHookOutput(output);
-
-		// then
-		const directive = parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext;
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/# Tier triage/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/Default is LIGHT/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/Take HEAVY/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/ratchet up only/i);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/`plan` agent/);
-	});
-
-	it("#given directive #when discovery leaves known execution steps #then planning stays direct unless design uncertainty remains", () => {
-		// given
-		const payload = {
-			hook_event_name: "UserPromptSubmit",
-			prompt: "ulw",
-		};
-
-		// when
-		const output = runUserPromptSubmitHook(payload, { skillFilePath: null });
-		const parsed = parseHookOutput(output);
-
-		// then
-		const directive = parsed.hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext;
-		const discoveryIndex = directive.search(/fire the first discovery wave/i);
-		const uncertaintyIndex = directive.search(/what the wave left UNDECIDED/i);
-		const directPlanIndex = directive.search(/known procedure[\s\S]*plan directly/i);
-		expect(discoveryIndex).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(0);
-		expect(uncertaintyIndex).toBeGreaterThan(discoveryIndex);
-		expect(directPlanIndex).toBeGreaterThan(uncertaintyIndex);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/unclear module boundaries[\s\S]*viable decompositions[\s\S]*dependency order/i);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/A known procedure.*however many steps.*never justify a planner/is);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/[Nn]ever spawn `plan` before the discovery wave/);
-		expect(directive).toMatch(/tier sizes\s+evidence and review, never who plans/i);
-	});
 });