okstra 0.123.0 → 0.125.0

package/runtime/templates/prd/brief.template.md

@@ -14,14 +14,14 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 # OKSTRA Task Brief
 
 <!--
-이 brief은 okstra 워커(Claude/Codex/Antigravity)가 코드베이스/도메인 사전지식 없이 분석할 수 있도록 준비하는 단일 source-of-truth 문서입니다.
-
-원칙:
-1. 워커는 외부 링크에 접근할 수 없음 → 모든 1차 증거는 inline으로 박을 것 (fenced code block).
-2. 워커는 도메인 용어를 모름 → Domain Glossary로 핵심 용어를 사전 정의.
-3. 운영자(operator)용 정보(okstra.sh 명령, working directory)는 brief에 두지 말 것 — 별도 runbook으로.
-4. Task Type에 따라 작성해야 할 섹션이 다름 → 해당 태스크의 conditional 블록을 채울 것.
-5. 비어 있는 섹션은 `_N/A — <reason>_`로 명시. 침묵은 워커 혼란의 원인.
+This brief is the single source-of-truth document that lets an okstra worker (Claude/Codex/Antigravity) analyze the task without any prior knowledge of the codebase or domain.
+
+Principles:
+1. Workers cannot reach external links → embed every piece of primary evidence inline (fenced code block).
+2. Workers don't know domain terms → predefine the key terms in the Domain Glossary.
+3. Keep operator-facing information (okstra.sh commands, working directory) out of the brief — put it in a separate runbook.
+4. The sections you must fill differ by Task Type → complete that task's conditional block.
+5. Mark empty sections explicitly with `_N/A — <reason>_`. Silence is a source of worker confusion.
 -->
 
 ## Identity
@@ -34,51 +34,51 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 | Task ID | `<TASK-ID>` |
 | Task Type | `requirements-discovery` \| `error-analysis` \| `implementation-planning` \| `final-verification` |
 | Issue / Ticket | `<TASK-ID> · <title in original language> (English: <translation if non-English>)` |
-| Requested Outcome | <한 문장. 이 run이 산출해야 할 핵심 결과물> |
+| Requested Outcome | <one sentence. The key deliverable this run must produce> |
 
 ---
 
 ## Request Summary
 
 - **What is being requested or changed?**
-  <한 문단 또는 bullet 3-5개>
+  <one paragraph, or 3-5 bullets>
 - **Why now?**
-  <비즈니스/기술 트리거. 마감일, 인시던트, 의존 태스크 등>
+  <business/technical trigger. Deadline, incident, dependent task, etc.>
 - **New / Continuation / Reopened?**
-  <One of the three + 직전 run 식별자(있다면)>
+  <One of the three + prior run identifier (if any)>
 - **What decision should this run produce?**
-  <이 run이 답해야 할 핵심 결정 1-3개. 모호하면 워커가 산만해짐>
+  <the 1-3 key decisions this run must answer. Vagueness distracts the worker>
 
 ---
 
 ## Inline Evidence
 
 <!--
-워커는 외부 URL/Notion/Linear/Slack에 접근할 수 없습니다. 1차 증거는 모두 여기에 inline 박을 것.
+Workers cannot reach external URLs / Notion / Linear / Slack. Embed all primary evidence inline here.
 -->
 
 ### Symptom / Sample Payload
 
 ```
-<관찰된 현상, 응답 페이로드 샘플, UI 스크린샷 caption 등 — 텍스트로>
+<observed symptom, sample response payload, UI screenshot caption, etc. — as text>
 ```
 
-### Logs / Stack Trace (해당되는 경우)
+### Logs / Stack Trace (if applicable)
 
 ```
-<로그 발췌. 민감정보는 마스킹>
+<log excerpt. Mask sensitive information>
 ```
 
 ### Relevant Code Excerpts
 
 ```typescript
 // path: src/domains/upload/dto/upload-job.view.ts:23-45
-<코드 발췌 — 워커가 파일 전체를 읽지 않아도 핵심을 파악할 수 있어야 함>
+<code excerpt — the worker should grasp the essentials without reading the whole file>
 ```
 
-### External Doc Excerpts (Notion/Linear/Confluence 발췌)
+### External Doc Excerpts (Notion/Linear/Confluence excerpts)
 
-> <원문 인용. 링크는 보조이고 인용이 본체>
+> <quote from the source. The link is secondary; the quote is the substance>
 > -- Source: <doc title + section>
 
 ---
@@ -86,27 +86,27 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 ## Domain Glossary
 
 <!--
-Codex/Antigravity는 이 코드베이스를 모릅니다. 핵심 용어 5-15개를 한 문장씩 정의.
-없는 용어를 워커가 추측하면 분석 품질이 즉시 떨어집니다.
+Codex/Antigravity don't know this codebase. Define 5-15 key terms, one sentence each.
+If a worker guesses at an undefined term, analysis quality drops immediately.
 -->
 
 | Term | Definition |
 |------|-----------|
-| `<도메인 용어 1>` | <1-2 문장 정의> |
-| `<도메인 용어 2>` | <1-2 문장 정의> |
-| `<코드 식별자 1>` | <역할 + 위치 + 다른 entity와의 관계> |
+| `<domain term 1>` | <1-2 sentence definition> |
+| `<domain term 2>` | <1-2 sentence definition> |
+| `<code identifier 1>` | <role + location + relationship to other entities> |
 
 ---
 
 ## Current Context
 
 - **Current behavior or state**:
-  <지금 시스템이 어떻게 동작하는가>
+  <how the system behaves today>
 - **Desired behavior or outcome**:
-  <어떻게 동작해야 하는가>
+  <how it should behave>
 - **Existing related implementation**:
-  - `<file-path>:<line-range>` — <역할 한 줄>
-- **Related code paths** (참조용 — 직접 발췌는 Inline Evidence에):
+  - `<file-path>:<line-range>` — <one-line role>
+- **Related code paths** (for reference — put direct excerpts in Inline Evidence):
   - `<path>`
   - `<path>`
 
@@ -115,74 +115,74 @@ Codex/Antigravity는 이 코드베이스를 모릅니다. 핵심 용어 5-15개
 ## Out of Scope
 
 <!--
-명시적 제외 목록. 워커 scope-creep 방지의 핵심.
+An explicit exclusion list. Central to preventing worker scope-creep.
 -->
 
-이 run에서는 **다루지 않을** 것들:
+Things this run will **not** address:
 
-- <out-of-scope item 1 + 제외 이유>
-- <out-of-scope item 2 + 제외 이유>
-- <별도 ticket/run으로 다룰 항목 — ticket ID 명시>
+- <out-of-scope item 1 + reason for exclusion>
+- <out-of-scope item 2 + reason for exclusion>
+- <item to be handled in a separate ticket/run — specify the ticket ID>
 
 ---
 
 ## Task-Type Focus
 
 <!--
-아래 두 블록 중 현재 task-type에 해당하는 것만 채우고, 나머지는 삭제하세요.
+Of the two blocks below, fill only the one matching the current task-type and delete the rest.
 -->
 
 ### If `requirements-discovery`
 
 - **Why might this be a bugfix?**
-  <증거 또는 "weak signal — none observed">
+  <evidence, or "weak signal — none observed">
 - **Why might this be a feature/improvement?**
-  <증거>
+  <evidence>
 - **Why might this be a refactor/ops?**
-  <증거>
-- **Classification blockers** — 무엇이 분류 확신을 막고 있는가?
-  <evidence gap을 구체적으로>
+  <evidence>
+- **Classification blockers** — what is preventing a confident classification?
+  <the evidence gap, specifically>
 
 ### If `error-analysis`
 
-- **Symptom** — 사용자/시스템이 무엇을 관찰하는가?
-- **Reproduction Steps** — 1-2-3 형식. 환경/사전조건 명시.
+- **Symptom** — what does the user/system observe?
+- **Reproduction Steps** — 1-2-3 format. State the environment/preconditions.
   ```
   1. <env: staging | local | prod>
   2. <action>
   3. <action>
   4. Expected: <…> / Actual: <…>
   ```
-- **Frequency** — 항상 / 간헐적 / 특정 조건에서만 / 1회성?
-- **Blast Radius** — 영향받는 사용자/요청/data 범위
-- **Suspected Cause(s)** — 현재까지의 가설. 각각 신뢰도(High/Med/Low)와 근거.
-- **What has been ruled out** — 이미 검증한 false leads (워커가 같은 길 가지 않게)
+- **Frequency** — always / intermittent / only under specific conditions / one-off?
+- **Blast Radius** — scope of affected users/requests/data
+- **Suspected Cause(s)** — hypotheses so far. Each with confidence (High/Med/Low) and rationale.
+- **What has been ruled out** — false leads already verified (so the worker doesn't retread them)
 
 ---
 
 ## Constraints and Risks
 
-- **Business constraints**: <e.g. 개인정보, SLA — 외부 승인/권한 항목은 적지 말 것 (사용자가 모든 권한을 가진다고 가정)>
-- **Technical constraints**: <e.g. backward-compat, 기존 client, schema>
-- **Delivery constraints**: <마감, 의존 배포, 롤아웃 게이트 — 단, 외부 승인 대기·권한 확인은 일정 요소로 적지 말 것>
-- **Approval / review checkpoints**: _N/A — 사용자가 모든 권한·승인 권한을 보유한다고 가정 (okstra 기본 규칙). 정말로 외부 차단 요소가 있을 때만 구체적으로 기술._
-- **Known assumptions**: <명시적 가정 — 워커가 검증할 항목>
-- **Open uncertainties**: <확인 필요한 것 — 답이 나오면 결정이 잠금 해제됨. 외부 권한·승인 관련 항목은 제외>
+- **Business constraints**: <e.g. PII, SLA — do not list external approval/authorization items (assume the user holds all permissions)>
+- **Technical constraints**: <e.g. backward-compat, existing client, schema>
+- **Delivery constraints**: <deadline, dependent deployment, rollout gate — but do not list waiting on external approval or permission checks as schedule factors>
+- **Approval / review checkpoints**: _N/A — assume the user holds all permission and approval authority (okstra default rule). Describe specifically only when a genuine external blocker exists._
+- **Known assumptions**: <explicit assumptions — items for the worker to verify>
+- **Open uncertainties**: <things to confirm — answering them unlocks a decision. Exclude external permission/approval items>
 
 ---
 
 ## Configuration / Deployment Context
 
 <!--
-이 섹션은 *해당되는 경우에만* 채우세요. DTO 변경, 순수 로직 수정, 문서 작업 등은 보통 _N/A_입니다.
-무관할 때는 본 섹션 전체를 다음 한 줄로 대체:
+Fill this section *only when applicable*. DTO changes, pure logic edits, docs work, etc. are usually _N/A_.
+When irrelevant, replace the entire section with this single line:
 
   _N/A — this task does not touch config or deployment._
 -->
 
-- **Config files in scope**: `<path>` — <어떤 키가 관련>
-- **Current observed values**: <key=value, 출처 명시>
-- **Expected values / invariants**: <변하면 안 되는 것 + 변해야 하는 것>
+- **Config files in scope**: `<path>` — <which keys are relevant>
+- **Current observed values**: <key=value, cite the source>
+- **Expected values / invariants**: <what must not change + what must change>
 - **Deployment manifests in scope**: `<helm chart / k8s manifest / terraform path>`
 - **Rollout invariants**: <e.g. zero-downtime, version skew window>
 
@@ -191,45 +191,45 @@ Codex/Antigravity는 이 코드베이스를 모릅니다. 핵심 용어 5-15개
 ## External Resource Hints (for Lead pre-fetch)
 
 <!--
-okstra Lead가 워커 프롬프트에 inline으로 박아야 할 외부 자원 목록.
-워커는 MCP/외부 도구에 직접 접근하지 않으므로 Lead가 사전에 snapshot해서 prompt에 embed합니다.
+A list of external resources the okstra Lead must embed inline into the worker prompt.
+Workers don't access MCP/external tools directly, so the Lead snapshots them ahead of time and embeds them in the prompt.
 -->
 
 | Resource | Type | Why needed |
 |----------|------|-----------|
-| `<table-name>` | MySQL schema | <어느 분석에서 schema 검증 필요> |
-| `<library@version>` | Library docs (`mcp__test-context7`) | <API 시그니처 확인용> |
-| `<aws-doc-keyword>` | AWS knowledge base | <설계 검증용> |
+| `<table-name>` | MySQL schema | <which analysis needs schema verification> |
+| `<library@version>` | Library docs (`mcp__test-context7`) | <to confirm API signatures> |
+| `<aws-doc-keyword>` | AWS knowledge base | <for design verification> |
 | `/Volumes/.../app/<sibling-project>/<path>` | Cross-project file | <reference impl> |
 
-자원 없음이 명확하면 본 섹션을 `_N/A_`로 표시.
+If it's clear there are no resources, mark this section `_N/A_`.
 
 ---
 
 ## Related Tasks
 
 <!--
-관계 라벨을 반드시 명시: blocker | blocked-by | sibling | follow-up | duplicate | shares-codepath
+You must specify a relation label: blocker | blocked-by | sibling | follow-up | duplicate | shares-codepath
 -->
 
 | Task | Relation | Note |
 |------|----------|------|
-| `DEV-XXXX` | `sibling` | 같은 epic, 같은 코드베이스, 동시 변경 가능성 |
-| `DEV-YYYY` | `blocker` | 이 task는 DEV-YYYY 완료 후에만 시작 가능 |
+| `DEV-XXXX` | `sibling` | same epic, same codebase, possible concurrent changes |
+| `DEV-YYYY` | `blocker` | this task can start only after DEV-YYYY completes |
 
 ---
 
 ## Definition of Done (for this run)
 
 <!--
-Requested Outcome은 큰 그림. 여기서는 "이 run의 산출물이 충족해야 할 검증 가능한 조건"을 적습니다.
+Requested Outcome is the big picture. Here you write "the verifiable conditions this run's output must satisfy."
 -->
 
-이 run의 final report는 다음을 모두 충족해야 합니다:
+This run's final report must satisfy all of the following:
 
-- [ ] <결정 항목 1에 대한 명시적 답변 또는 "결정 불가 + 이유">
-- [ ] <결정 항목 2에 대한 명시적 답변>
-- [ ] <남은 blocking question 목록>
+- [ ] <explicit answer to decision item 1, or "undecidable + reason">
+- [ ] <explicit answer to decision item 2>
+- [ ] <list of remaining blocking questions>
 - [ ] <recommended next phase + reasoning>
 
 ---
@@ -237,13 +237,13 @@ Requested Outcome은 큰 그림. 여기서는 "이 run의 산출물이 충족해
 ## Questions for Workers
 
 <!--
-P0(반드시 답해야 함) / P1(가능하면 답) / P2(보너스)로 우선순위 명시.
+Specify priority as P0 (must answer) / P1 (answer if possible) / P2 (bonus).
 -->
 
-1. **[P0]** <핵심 질문 1>
-2. **[P0]** <핵심 질문 2>
-3. **[P1]** <보조 질문>
-4. **[P2]** <탐색적 질문>
+1. **[P0]** <key question 1>
+2. **[P0]** <key question 2>
+3. **[P1]** <secondary question>
+4. **[P2]** <exploratory question>
 
 ---
 
@@ -261,26 +261,26 @@ P0(반드시 답해야 함) / P1(가능하면 답) / P2(보너스)로 우선순
 ## Notes for Lead (synthesis emphasis)
 
 <!--
-워커 셀렉션(어느 모델을 쓸지)은 task-manifest.json의 recommendedWorkers에서 자동 결정되므로 여기에 적지 마세요.
-이 섹션은 *합성 시 강조점*만 다룹니다.
+Worker selection (which model to use) is decided automatically from recommendedWorkers in task-manifest.json, so don't write it here.
+This section covers *synthesis emphasis* only.
 -->
 
-- **Synthesis priority**: <e.g. 안전성 vs 속도, public/private 경계 정확성, backward compat>
-- **Where worker disagreement matters most**: <consensus가 가장 중요한 지점>
-- **Where reduced confidence is acceptable**: <탐색 영역 — 가설만 나와도 충분>
+- **Synthesis priority**: <e.g. safety vs speed, public/private boundary accuracy, backward compat>
+- **Where worker disagreement matters most**: <the point where consensus matters most>
+- **Where reduced confidence is acceptable**: <exploratory areas — a hypothesis alone is enough>
 
 ---
 
 ## Brief Hygiene Checklist
 
-작성 후 자가 점검:
-
-- [ ] 모든 외부 링크에 대해 inline 발췌가 박혀 있다
-- [ ] Domain Glossary에 코드베이스 무지식 워커가 알아야 할 용어가 모두 있다
-- [ ] Out of Scope가 명시적으로 적혀 있다
-- [ ] Task-Type Focus의 해당 블록만 남아 있다 (다른 블록은 삭제됨)
-- [ ] error-analysis라면 Reproduction Steps가 채워져 있다
-- [ ] Definition of Done이 검증 가능한 체크리스트 형태다
-- [ ] Configuration / Deployment 섹션은 해당 시에만 내용이 있고, 무관 시 `_N/A_`로 닫혀 있다
-- [ ] 한글/영문/원어 ticket title 모두 식별 가능하다
-- [ ] Related Tasks에 관계 라벨이 명시되어 있다
+Self-check after writing:
+
+- [ ] Every external link has an inline excerpt embedded
+- [ ] The Domain Glossary has every term a codebase-blind worker needs to know
+- [ ] Out of Scope is written explicitly
+- [ ] Only the relevant block of Task-Type Focus remains (the other block is deleted)
+- [ ] If error-analysis, Reproduction Steps are filled in
+- [ ] Definition of Done is a verifiable checklist
+- [ ] The Configuration / Deployment section has content only when applicable, and is closed with `_N/A_` when irrelevant
+- [ ] The ticket title is identifiable in Korean/English/original language
+- [ ] Related Tasks have relation labels specified

package/runtime/templates/project-docs/task-index.template.md

@@ -69,4 +69,4 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 
 ## Notes
 
-- 이 문서는 사람이 빠르게 훑어보기 위한 요약입니다. 정본·상세 metadata 는 `task-manifest.json` 을 참조하세요.
+- This document is a summary for humans to skim quickly. For the canonical, detailed metadata, refer to `task-manifest.json`.

package/runtime/templates/reports/error-analysis-input.template.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 - Task ID:
 - Related Tasks:
 - Issue / Ticket:
-  - 값이 비면 워커는 `Task ID`로 폴백한다 (prefix 없이 `8852`처럼). 한 run이 여러 ticket을 동시에 다루면 콤마로 구분 (`TICKET-123, TICKET-456`). 어느 쪽으로도 식별 불가하면 `unknown`을 허용한다.
+  - If left empty, workers fall back to the `Task ID` (without a prefix, like `8852`). When a single run handles multiple tickets at once, separate them with commas (`TICKET-123, TICKET-456`). If neither can be identified, `unknown` is allowed.
 - Task Type: `error-analysis`
 - Requested Outcome:
 

package/runtime/templates/reports/fan-out-unit.template.md

@@ -2,24 +2,24 @@
 ---
 unit-id: {{UNIT_ID}}
 domain: {{DOMAIN}}
-<!-- depends-on 예: [unit-001] (의존 없으면 []) -->
+<!-- depends-on example: [unit-001] (use [] if there are no dependencies) -->
 depends-on: {{DEPENDS_ON}}
 recommended-next-phase: {{NEXT_PHASE}}
 ---
 
 # Fan-out Unit: {{UNIT_ID}} ({{DOMAIN}})
 
-> requirements-discovery fan-out 산출 packet. `okstra-run --task-brief <이 파일 경로>`
-> 로 새 task-key 를 시작한다. 이 파일은 그 run 의 입력 packet 이다.
+> Packet produced by requirements-discovery fan-out. Start a new task-key with `okstra-run --task-brief <this file's path>`.
+> This file is the input packet for that run.
 
 ## Scope
 
-<!-- 이 단위가 다루는 작업 항목 1개를 자족적으로 서술. 다른 단위와 섞지 말 것. -->
+<!-- Self-contained description of the single work item this unit covers. Do not mix it with other units. -->
 
 ## Evidence
 
-<!-- path:line 근거. requirements-discovery 가 file inspection 으로 확인한 위치. -->
+<!-- path:line evidence. Locations that requirements-discovery confirmed via file inspection. -->
 
 ## Depends-on rationale
 
-<!-- depends-on 에 적은 각 unit 에 왜 의존하는지 1줄씩. 없으면 _(none)_ -->
+<!-- One line per unit listed in depends-on explaining why it depends on that unit. Use _(none)_ if there are none. -->

package/runtime/templates/reports/final-verification-input.template.md

@@ -29,18 +29,18 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 - What was supposed to be delivered?
 - What is the intended acceptance decision?
 
-## 검증 모드
+## Verification Mode
 
-- 기본은 **전체-task** 검증입니다(`--stage auto`): 모든 Stage Map stage 가 구현·머지된 뒤 한 번 실행합니다.
-- 특정 stage 만 격리 검증하려면 `--stage N` 으로 **단독-stage** 모드를 씁니다(release-handoff 진입 불가, 부분 검증).
-- worktree / base / head 는 okstra 가 registry 와 `consumers.jsonl` 에서 자동 해소하므로 이 입력서에 수동 기입하지 않습니다.
+- The default is **whole-task** verification (`--stage auto`): it runs once after every Stage Map stage has been implemented and merged.
+- To verify only a specific stage in isolation, use **single-stage** mode with `--stage N` (cannot enter release-handoff; partial verification).
+- okstra automatically resolves worktree / base / head from the registry and `consumers.jsonl`, so do not fill them in manually in this input sheet.
 
 ## Source Implementation Report
 
 - Path (project-relative) to the originating `implementation` final-report:
 - Quoted `Commit list` / `Diff summary` excerpt from the implementation report:
 
-> 보고서 경로가 비거나 누락된 보고서를 가리키면 final-verification 은 status `blocked` 으로 끝내고 `implementation` 또는 `implementation-planning` 으로 라우팅합니다. 검증 대상(worktree/base)은 okstra 가 자동 해소하므로 수동 기입이 어긋나 막히는 일은 없습니다.
+> If the report path is empty or points to a missing report, final-verification ends with status `blocked` and routes to `implementation` or `implementation-planning`. The verification target (worktree/base) is resolved automatically by okstra, so a mismatched manual entry cannot cause a block.
 
 ## Requirement Coverage Source
 
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 - Requirement IDs / acceptance IDs to verify:
 - Requirements intentionally excluded from this verification:
 
-> final-verification 은 위 source 의 각 requirement / acceptance id 마다 Validation Evidence 에 artifact 를 cite 해야 한다. source 가 비면 brief 의 `## Acceptance Criteria` 를 기본 source 로 사용한다.
+> final-verification MUST cite an artifact in Validation Evidence for each requirement / acceptance id in the source above. If the source is empty, use the brief's `## Acceptance Criteria` as the default source.
 
 ## Verification Evidence
 

package/runtime/templates/reports/implementation-input.template.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 - Task ID:
 - Related Tasks:
 - Issue / Ticket:
-  - 값이 비면 워커는 `Task ID`로 폴백한다 (prefix 없이 `8852`처럼). 한 run이 여러 ticket을 동시에 다루면 콤마로 구분 (`TICKET-123, TICKET-456`). 어느 쪽으로도 식별 불가하면 `unknown`을 허용한다.
+  - If left empty, workers fall back to the `Task ID` (without a prefix, like `8852`). When a single run handles multiple tickets at once, separate them with commas (`TICKET-123, TICKET-456`). If neither can be identified, `unknown` is allowed.
 - Task Type: `implementation`
 - Requested Outcome:
 

package/runtime/templates/reports/implementation-planning-input.template.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 - Task ID:
 - Related Tasks:
 - Issue / Ticket:
-  - 값이 비면 워커는 `Task ID`로 폴백한다 (prefix 없이 `8852`처럼). 한 run이 여러 ticket을 동시에 다루면 콤마로 구분 (`TICKET-123, TICKET-456`). 어느 쪽으로도 식별 불가하면 `unknown`을 허용한다.
+  - If left empty, workers fall back to the `Task ID` (without a prefix, like `8852`). When a single run handles multiple tickets at once, separate them with commas (`TICKET-123, TICKET-456`). If neither can be identified, `unknown` is allowed.
 - Task Type: `implementation-planning`
 - Requested Outcome:
 

package/runtime/templates/reports/improvement-discovery-input.template.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 - Task ID:
 - Related Tasks:
 - Issue / Ticket:
-  - 값이 비면 워커는 `Task ID` 로 폴백한다.
+  - If left empty, workers fall back to the `Task ID`.
 - Task Type: `improvement-discovery`
 - Requested Outcome:
 

package/runtime/templates/reports/quick-input.template.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 - Task ID:
 - Related Tasks:
 - Issue / Ticket:
-  - 값이 비면 워커는 `Task ID`로 폴백한다 (prefix 없이 `8852`처럼). 한 run이 여러 ticket을 동시에 다루면 콤마로 구분 (`TICKET-123, TICKET-456`). 어느 쪽으로도 식별 불가하면 `unknown`을 허용한다.
+  - If left empty, workers fall back to the `Task ID` (without a prefix, like `8852`). When a single run handles multiple tickets at once, separate them with commas (`TICKET-123, TICKET-456`). If neither can be identified, `unknown` is allowed.
 - Requested Task Type:
 - Requested Outcome:
 

package/runtime/templates/reports/release-handoff-input.template.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 
 ## Candidate PR Base Branches
 
-- Default options offered to the user: `staging` | `preprod` | `prod` | `main` | `dev` | 직접 입력
+- Default options offered to the user: `staging` | `preprod` | `prod` | `main` | `dev` | custom input
 - Repo-specific preference, if known (e.g. `main` is the integration branch):
 - Branches that MUST NOT be used as a base in this repo (security / freeze rules):
 

package/runtime/templates/reports/schedule.template.md

@@ -20,42 +20,42 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
 
 ## At a Glance
 
-**총 <N>개 task / 예상 소요: <X.X> ~ <Y.Y> days (Effort 합산)**
+**<N> tasks total / estimated effort: <X.X> ~ <Y.Y> days (Effort sum)**
 
 | # | Task ID | Title | Category | Priority | Effort | Days | taskType | Risk | Phase |
 |---|---------|-------|----------|----------|--------|------|----------|------|-------|
 | 1 | <TASK-ID> | <Title> | <category> | <P0~P3> | <S/M/L/XL> | <range> | <taskType> | <risk> | <1/2/3> |
 
-**Effort 분포**: S × <n> / M × <n> / L × <n> / XL × <n>
-**Risk 분포**: Very Low × <n> / Low × <n> / Medium × <n> / Med-High × <n> / High × <n>
-**Repo별 영향**: <repo1> (<n>) / <repo2> (<n>)
+**Effort distribution**: S × <n> / M × <n> / L × <n> / XL × <n>
+**Risk distribution**: Very Low × <n> / Low × <n> / Medium × <n> / Med-High × <n> / High × <n>
+**Impact by repo**: <repo1> (<n>) / <repo2> (<n>)
 
 ---
 
 ## Executive Summary
 
-<2~4 문장 — Phase 분류 요약 + 진행 전략>
+<2-4 sentences — phase-classification summary + execution strategy>
 
-- **Phase 1 (Critical Fixes)**: <n>개 task — <summary>
-- **Phase 2 (Enhancements)**: <n>개 task — <summary>
-- **Phase 3 (Architecture)**: <n>개 task — <summary>
+- **Phase 1 (Critical Fixes)**: <n> tasks — <summary>
+- **Phase 2 (Enhancements)**: <n> tasks — <summary>
+- **Phase 3 (Architecture)**: <n> tasks — <summary>
 
-### Effort Sizing 기준
+### Effort Sizing Criteria
 
-| Size | 기준 | Day(s) |
+| Size | Criteria | Day(s) |
 |------|------|--------|
-| **S** | 1-2 files, 1 repo, 테스트 수정만, DB 변경 없음 | 0.5 - 1 |
-| **M** | 3-5 files, 1 repo, 신규 테스트 포함, DB 변경 없음 | 2 - 3 |
-| **L** | 5-15 files, 2-3 repos, 순차 배포, 패키지 릴리스 포함 가능 | 3 - 5 |
-| **XL** | 15+ files, 3+ repos + infra, frontend 동시 변경, 아키텍처 전환 | 5 - 10 |
-| **XXL** | 작업 더 세분화 필요 | 10 - |
+| **S** | 1-2 files, 1 repo, test changes only, no DB changes | 0.5 - 1 |
+| **M** | 3-5 files, 1 repo, includes new tests, no DB changes | 2 - 3 |
+| **L** | 5-15 files, 2-3 repos, sequential deploy, may include package release | 3 - 5 |
+| **XL** | 15+ files, 3+ repos + infra, concurrent frontend changes, architecture migration | 5 - 10 |
+| **XXL** | needs further decomposition | 10 - |
 
 ---
 
 ## Task Dependency Graph
 
 <!-- Use ONE of:
-     (A) literal `_의존 정보 없음_` when no edges exist (single-task scope or no extracted edges).
+     (A) literal `_none_` when no edges exist (single-task scope or no extracted edges).
      (B) plain ``` fenced adjacency-list block. Each non-empty line is one of:
          - adjacency: `<TASK-ID> -> <TASK-ID>[, <TASK-ID>]*`
          - comment: `# <free prose>` (max one per group)
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ taskType: "{{FM_TASK_TYPE}}"
      - Both endpoints MUST be `TASK-ID` literals (same identifiers as the At a Glance table). Free text is forbidden.
      - Fence MUST be plain ``` with NO language tag. ```mermaid / ```plantuml / ```graphviz / ```dot are all rejected.
      - If only one task is in scope (no dependencies), use Shape A — do NOT emit an empty fence. -->
-_의존 정보 없음_
+_none_
 
 ---
 
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ _의존 정보 없음_
      Render as ASCII inside a fenced ``` block with NO language tag.
      Mermaid / PlantUML / Graphviz are forbidden.
      The axis is RELATIVE DAY-COUNTS (Day 1 / J1, …) — never calendar dates.
-     If day estimates are missing, omit this whole section and replace it with one blockquote: `> _Gantt Chart 생략: <reason>_`. -->
+     If day estimates are missing, omit this whole section and replace it with one blockquote: `> _Gantt Chart omitted: <reason>_`. -->
 
 ```
 Day:            1    5    10   15   20   25   30
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ Phase 3
   <TASK-ID> (<size>)                                  ████  (after <TASK-ID>)
 ```
 
-> 가로축은 **상대 일수**입니다 (Day 1 = Phase 1 시작). 범례: `! crit` = 임계 경로(critical path), `est` = 추정 배분, `█` = 확정 구간, `░` = 상한/불확실 구간.
+> The axis is in **relative day-counts** (Day 1 = Phase 1 start). Legend: `! crit` = critical path, `est` = estimated allocation, `█` = confirmed span, `░` = upper-bound / uncertain span.
 
 ---
 
@@ -136,13 +136,13 @@ Phase 3
 
 ## Phase 2: Enhancements
 
-_없음_ <!-- or repeat per-task block -->
+_none_ <!-- or repeat per-task block -->
 
 ---
 
 ## Phase 3: Architecture
 
-_없음_ <!-- or repeat per-task block -->
+_none_ <!-- or repeat per-task block -->
 
 ---
 
@@ -181,6 +181,6 @@ _없음_ <!-- or repeat per-task block -->
 
 | Code | Description |
 |------|-------------|
-| FC-5 | 결제 게이트웨이 타임아웃 처리 누락 |
+| FC-5 | Missing payment gateway timeout handling |
 -->