okstra 0.46.0 → 0.48.0

package/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-06-04-adversarial-verification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,570 @@
+# 적대적 Phase 5.5 검증 구현 계획
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
+
+**Goal:** `requirements-discovery` / `error-analysis` 두 phase 의 Phase 5.5 convergence 재검증을, 검증자가 다른 워커의 주장을 적극적으로 반박하고 입증 책임을 주장 쪽에 두는 적대적 검증으로 전환한다.
+
+**Architecture:** 새 에이전트·스테이지를 만들지 않는다. manifest `convergence` 블록에 `adversarial` 플래그를 phase-aware 로 주입하고(render.py), convergence skill 이 `adversarial=true` 분기에서 적대적 프롬프트·집계·범위-한정 재조사를 정의한다. verdict 영속 enum 은 유지하고 신규 `disagreeBasis` 필드로 적대성을 기록한다.
+
+**Tech Stack:** Python 3 (okstra_ctl, pytest), Markdown skill/prompt 문서, JSON fixture. 빌드: `tools/build.mjs`(`npm run build`).
+
+**설계 근거:** [`docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-04-adversarial-verification-design.md`](../specs/2026-06-04-adversarial-verification-design.md)
+
+---
+
+## 파일 구조
+
+| 파일 | 책임 | 작업 |
+|---|---|---|
+| [`scripts/okstra_ctl/render.py`](../../../scripts/okstra_ctl/render.py) | manifest `convergence` 블록에 `adversarial`/`verificationMode` phase-aware 주입 | Modify (`_build_convergence_block`, 899–926) |
+| `tests/test_render_convergence_adversarial.py` | render 주입값 단위 테스트 | Create |
+| [`tests/test_convergence_state_contract.py`](../../../tests/test_convergence_state_contract.py) | 상태 스키마 1.2 + `disagreeBasis` + `config.adversarial` 형태 강제 | Modify |
+| `tests/fixtures/convergence/adversarial-contested.json` | 적대적 contested 케이스 fixture | Create |
+| [`skills/okstra-convergence/SKILL.md`](../../../skills/okstra-convergence/SKILL.md) | 적대적 모드 동작 정의(프롬프트·집계·범위·스키마) | Modify |
+| [`prompts/profiles/requirements-discovery.md`](../../../prompts/profiles/requirements-discovery.md) | Phase 5.5 적대적 선언 | Modify |
+| [`prompts/profiles/error-analysis.md`](../../../prompts/profiles/error-analysis.md) | Phase 5.5 적대적 선언 | Modify |
+| [`prompts/profiles/_common-contract.md`](../../../prompts/profiles/_common-contract.md) | Worker interaction model 의 Phase 5.5 설명 갱신 | Modify |
+| [`CHANGES.md`](../../../CHANGES.md) | `사용자 영향:` 항목 | Modify |
+
+작업 순서: render(코드) → contract 테스트/fixture(데이터) → skill 문서(동작) → 프로필/계약 선언 → CHANGES + 빌드 + 전체 검증.
+
+---
+
+### Task 1: render.py — `adversarial`/`verificationMode` phase-aware 주입
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `tests/test_render_convergence_adversarial.py`
+- Modify: `scripts/okstra_ctl/render.py:899-926`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: 실패하는 테스트 작성**
+
+Create `tests/test_render_convergence_adversarial.py`:
+
+```python
+"""_build_convergence_block — adversarial 모드 phase-aware 기본값 단위 테스트.
+
+requirements-discovery / error-analysis 만 adversarial=true + full-reanalysis 를
+받고, 나머지 phase 는 협조적 lightweight 를 유지한다. maxRounds 의 기존 분기는
+adversarial 도입과 무관하게 보존된다.
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import sys
+from pathlib import Path
+
+import pytest
+
+_REPO_ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+sys.path.insert(0, str(_REPO_ROOT / "scripts"))
+
+from okstra_ctl.render import _build_convergence_block  # noqa: E402
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("task_type", ["requirements-discovery", "error-analysis"])
+def test_adversarial_phases_get_adversarial_full_reanalysis(task_type):
+    block = _build_convergence_block({"TASK_TYPE": task_type})
+    assert block["adversarial"] is True
+    assert block["verificationMode"] == "full-reanalysis"
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+    "task_type",
+    [
+        "implementation-planning",
+        "implementation",
+        "final-verification",
+        "release-handoff",
+    ],
+)
+def test_non_adversarial_phases_stay_lightweight(task_type):
+    block = _build_convergence_block({"TASK_TYPE": task_type})
+    assert block["adversarial"] is False
+    assert block["verificationMode"] == "lightweight"
+
+
+def test_maxrounds_unchanged_by_adversarial():
+    assert _build_convergence_block({"TASK_TYPE": "requirements-discovery"})["maxRounds"] == 1
+    assert _build_convergence_block({"TASK_TYPE": "error-analysis"})["maxRounds"] == 2
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: 테스트 실패 확인**
+
+Run: `python3 -m pytest tests/test_render_convergence_adversarial.py -v`
+Expected: FAIL — `KeyError: 'adversarial'` (블록에 키가 아직 없음).
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: 최소 구현**
+
+Modify `_build_convergence_block` body in `scripts/okstra_ctl/render.py` (현재 899–926). 본문 교체:
+
+```python
+    task_type = ctx.get("TASK_TYPE", "")
+    default_max_rounds = 1 if task_type == "requirements-discovery" else 2
+    adversarial_phases = {"requirements-discovery", "error-analysis"}
+    is_adversarial = task_type in adversarial_phases
+    raw_plan_verify = (ctx.get("OKSTRA_PLAN_VERIFICATION", "") or "").strip().lower()
+    plan_verify_enabled = raw_plan_verify != "false"
+    return {
+        "enabled": True,
+        "adversarial": is_adversarial,
+        "maxRounds": default_max_rounds,
+        "verificationMode": "full-reanalysis" if is_adversarial else "lightweight",
+        "planBodyVerification": {
+            "enabled": plan_verify_enabled,
+            "maxRounds": 1,
+            "gating": True,
+        },
+    }
+```
+
+그리고 docstring(900–912)의 defaults 목록에 한 줄 추가 — `- verificationMode "lightweight"` 다음 줄에:
+
+```python
+    - `adversarial` default True for `requirements-discovery` / `error-analysis`
+      (forces `verificationMode` to "full-reanalysis"), False otherwise
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: 테스트 통과 확인**
+
+Run: `python3 -m pytest tests/test_render_convergence_adversarial.py -v`
+Expected: PASS (3 tests / 6 parametrized cases).
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: 커밋**
+
+```bash
+git add scripts/okstra_ctl/render.py tests/test_render_convergence_adversarial.py
+git commit -m "feat(okstra_ctl/render): inject adversarial convergence mode for discovery/error-analysis"
+```
+
+---
+
+### Task 2: convergence 상태 contract 테스트 + 적대적 fixture
+
+스키마를 1.2 로 올리고 `config.adversarial` 와 `votes.<worker>.disagreeBasis` 형태를 강제한다. 기존 1.1 fixture 3개는 그대로 통과해야 한다(신규 필드는 optional).
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `tests/fixtures/convergence/adversarial-contested.json`
+- Modify: `tests/test_convergence_state_contract.py`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: 적대적 fixture 작성 (실패 유발 데이터)**
+
+Create `tests/fixtures/convergence/adversarial-contested.json`. requirements-discovery 스타일(effectiveMaxRounds=1, 단일 라운드=마지막 라운드)로, codex 의 `counter-evidence` 반박 1건이 F-001 을 `contested` 로 강등하는 케이스:
+
+```json
+{
+  "schemaVersion": "1.2",
+  "taskKey": "fixture/adversarial-contested",
+  "config": {
+    "enabled": true,
+    "adversarial": true,
+    "maxRounds": 1,
+    "effectiveMaxRounds": 1,
+    "verificationMode": "full-reanalysis"
+  },
+  "findings": [
+    {
+      "findingId": "F-001",
+      "summary": "Login handler skips input validation",
+      "category": "bug",
+      "ticketIds": ["AD-100"],
+      "originWorker": "claude-worker",
+      "originEvidence": "src/auth/login.ts:42",
+      "classification": "contested",
+      "rounds": [
+        {
+          "round": 1,
+          "votes": {
+            "codex-worker": {
+              "verdict": "disagree",
+              "disagreeBasis": "counter-evidence",
+              "explanation": "src/auth/login.ts:48 already runs validateBody(); the claimed gap does not exist."
+            },
+            "gemini-worker": {
+              "verdict": "agree",
+              "disagreeBasis": null,
+              "explanation": "Re-read login.ts; could not break the claim."
+            }
+          }
+        }
+      ],
+      "consensusWorkers": ["claude-worker", "gemini-worker"],
+      "dissentingWorkers": ["codex-worker"]
+    }
+  ],
+  "roundHistory": [
+    {
+      "round": 1,
+      "inputQueueSize": 1,
+      "resolvedCount": 0,
+      "carriedForwardCount": 1,
+      "dispatches": [
+        {"worker": "codex-worker", "status": "completed", "durationMs": 173004},
+        {"worker": "gemini-worker", "status": "completed", "durationMs": 188210}
+      ],
+      "skippedWorkers": [
+        {"worker": "claude-worker", "reason": "no items to verify"}
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "round2SkippedReason": "max-rounds-1",
+  "finalState": "max-rounds-reached",
+  "totalRounds": 1,
+  "finalClassificationCounts": {
+    "fullConsensus": 0,
+    "partialConsensus": 0,
+    "contested": 1,
+    "workerUnique": 0
+  }
+}
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: 기존 테스트가 새 fixture 에서 깨지는지 확인 (red)**
+
+Run: `python3 -m pytest tests/test_convergence_state_contract.py -k adversarial -v`
+Expected: FAIL — `test_schema_version_is_1_1[adversarial-contested]` 가 `"1.2" == "1.1"` 단언에서 실패.
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: contract 테스트를 1.2 수용 + 적대적 형태 검증으로 갱신**
+
+Edit `tests/test_convergence_state_contract.py`:
+
+(a) 모듈 docstring 첫 줄(1행)을 `(schema v1.1)` → `(schema v1.1 / v1.2)` 로 수정.
+
+(b) `VALID_VERDICTS = {...}` 정의(32행) 바로 다음에 추가:
+
+```python
+VALID_DISAGREE_BASIS = {"counter-evidence", "burden-not-met", None}
+```
+
+(c) `test_schema_version_is_1_1`(40–41행) 전체를 교체:
+
+```python
+def test_schema_version_is_supported(fixture):
+    assert fixture["schemaVersion"] in {"1.1", "1.2"}
+```
+
+(d) 파일 끝에 신규 테스트 2개 추가:
+
+```python
+def test_disagree_basis_is_enum_when_present(fixture):
+    for f in fixture["findings"]:
+        for r in f["rounds"]:
+            for vote in r["votes"].values():
+                if "disagreeBasis" in vote:
+                    assert vote["disagreeBasis"] in VALID_DISAGREE_BASIS
+
+
+def test_adversarial_disagree_carries_basis(fixture):
+    """In an adversarial run every disagree vote must cite a refutation basis."""
+    if not fixture["config"].get("adversarial"):
+        return
+    for f in fixture["findings"]:
+        for r in f["rounds"]:
+            for worker, vote in r["votes"].items():
+                if vote["verdict"] == "disagree":
+                    assert vote.get("disagreeBasis") in {"counter-evidence", "burden-not-met"}, (
+                        f"{f['findingId']} {worker}: adversarial disagree without disagreeBasis"
+                    )
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: 전체 contract 테스트 통과 확인**
+
+Run: `python3 -m pytest tests/test_convergence_state_contract.py -v`
+Expected: PASS — 기존 3 fixture(1.1) + 신규 1 fixture(1.2) 전부 통과. `config.get("adversarial")` 가 1.1 fixture 에서 `None`(falsy) 이라 `test_adversarial_disagree_carries_basis` 는 그들에 대해 no-op.
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: 커밋**
+
+```bash
+git add tests/test_convergence_state_contract.py tests/fixtures/convergence/adversarial-contested.json
+git commit -m "test(convergence): accept schema v1.2 with adversarial config + disagreeBasis"
+```
+
+---
+
+### Task 3: convergence SKILL.md — 적대적 모드 동작 정의
+
+이 Task 는 적대적 *행동*의 authoritative 선언이다(코드 강제 불가, lead/워커 prompt 지시). 다섯 군데를 편집한다. 각 Edit 는 기존 텍스트를 anchor 로 잡는다.
+
+**Files:**
+- Modify: `skills/okstra-convergence/SKILL.md`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Configuration 표에 `adversarial` 행 추가**
+
+Edit — `| `verificationMode` | `"lightweight"` | `"lightweight"` or `"full-reanalysis"` |` 행(48행) 다음에 새 행 삽입:
+
+```markdown
+| `adversarial` | phase-aware: `true` for `requirements-discovery` / `error-analysis`, `false` otherwise | When `true`, Phase 5.5 runs in **adversarial mode** (see §"Adversarial Verification Mode"): verifiers actively try to refute each finding, the burden of proof sits on the claim, and `verificationMode` is forced to `"full-reanalysis"` scoped to the finding's cited evidence. Resolved by `scripts/okstra_ctl/render.py` `_build_convergence_block` and recorded in `config.adversarial` of the convergence state artifact. |
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: 신규 §"Adversarial Verification Mode" 절 추가**
+
+Edit — §"Verification Mode" 의 "Full Re-analysis (opt-in)" 블록 끝(`Disadvantages: 2–3 times the cost, increased time` 줄, 193행) 다음에 새 절 삽입:
+
+```markdown
+
+## Adversarial Verification Mode
+
+Active only when `config.adversarial == true` (default for `requirements-discovery` and `error-analysis`; see §"Configuration"). When `false`, every rule in this section is inert and the collaborative behaviour documented elsewhere in this skill applies unchanged.
+
+In adversarial mode the verifier's job inverts: instead of confirming a peer's finding, the verifier **tries to break it**, and the burden of proof sits on the claim — a finding survives only if refutation attempts fail.
+
+### Scoped full-reanalysis (BLOCKING)
+
+Adversarial mode forces `verificationMode = "full-reanalysis"`, but the re-analysis is **scoped to the evidence the finding under attack cites** (the file paths / line ranges / log lines in its `originEvidence`), plus the immediately surrounding context. The verifier MUST NOT re-read the whole task brief, instruction-set, or `final-report-template.md`. This keeps the documented "single largest avoidable cost in requirements-discovery and error-analysis" (see §"Reverify prompt: required-reading suppression") bounded while making the refutation real rather than a text-only argument.
+
+### Adversarial verdict semantics
+
+The persisted `verdict` enum is unchanged (`agree | disagree | supplement | verification-error`). The prompt-facing labels are adversarial and map down on persistence:
+
+| Prompt label | Persisted `verdict` | Meaning |
+|---|---|---|
+| SURVIVES | `agree` | Actively tried to refute and failed — the claim withstood the attack. |
+| SURVIVES-WITH-CAVEAT | `supplement` | Holds, but a scope limit / extra condition / precondition was found. |
+| REFUTED | `disagree` | The claim was broken (or failed to prove itself). MUST carry a `disagreeBasis`. |
+
+Each `disagree` vote records a new field `disagreeBasis`:
+
+| `disagreeBasis` | Meaning |
+|---|---|
+| `counter-evidence` | The verifier cited contradicting evidence (`file:line` / log line) in `explanation`. A **hard refute**. |
+| `burden-not-met` | The verifier re-inspected the cited evidence and could neither confirm nor refute → the claim failed to prove itself ("when uncertain, lean to rejection"). |
+
+A `disagree` with `disagreeBasis == null` is a contract violation in adversarial mode — every refutation must state which of the two grounds it rests on. Bare "I disagree" without re-inspection is not allowed.
+
+### Adversarial classification (replaces the §"Convergence Algorithm" per-round classifier when `adversarial == true`)
+
+`verification-error` votes are excluded from numerator and denominator exactly as in the collaborative classifier. For each finding `F` in the queue at a round:
+
+```text
+disagrees    = [v for v in non-error votes if v.verdict == "disagree"]
+hard_refutes = [v for v in disagrees if v.disagreeBasis == "counter-evidence"]
+all_others_disagree = (every non-discoverer non-error vote is "disagree")
+
+IF len(disagrees) == 0:
+    resolve F as "full-consensus"   (or "partial-consensus" if any SUPPLEMENT/caveat)
+ELIF all_others_disagree:
+    resolve F as "worker-unique"    # only the discoverer still holds it
+ELIF len(hard_refutes) >= 1:
+    # an evidence-backed refute exists and the roster is split → the claim is disputed
+    carry F forward; at the LAST executed round classify it "contested"
+ELIF burden-not-met disagrees are a majority of non-error votes:
+    carry F forward; at the LAST executed round classify it "contested"
+ELSE:
+    # a lone weak (burden-not-met) doubt against an otherwise-surviving claim
+    resolve F as "partial-consensus"
+```
+
+`contested` remains a **final classification only** (per §"Scope and Terminology"): a disputed finding is carried forward through intermediate rounds and labelled `contested` only at the last executed round. For `requirements-discovery` (`effectiveMaxRounds = 1`) the single round IS the last round, so a split-with-hard-refute finding is labelled `contested` in that one round. The final-classifier block of §"Convergence Algorithm" is unchanged; this section only changes how each round's verdicts resolve into queue actions.
+
+Design intent: one `counter-evidence` refute is enough to deny a claim consensus (it cannot rise above `contested` no matter how many others AGREE), while a single `burden-not-met` doubt does not by itself sink an otherwise-surviving claim — only a majority of burden-not-met doubts does.
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: 적대적 재검증 프롬프트 추가**
+
+Edit — §"Lightweight Re-verification Prompt" 의 코드펜스가 끝나는 지점(283행 `**Verdict**: ...` 다음 ` ``` ` 줄) 다음에 새 하위 절 삽입:
+
+```markdown
+
+### Adversarial Re-verification Prompt
+
+Used instead of the lightweight/full-reanalysis prompt when `config.adversarial == true`. The required anchor headers (§"Required reverify-prompt anchor headers") are identical. The `[Required reading]` clause is suppressed; only the cited-evidence paths of the items under attack are injected (see §"Adversarial Verification Mode" → Scoped full-reanalysis).
+
+```
+You are <worker-role> performing ADVERSARIAL re-verification for <task-key> (round <N>).
+
+## Instructions
+
+Your job is to BREAK each finding below, not to confirm it. For EACH finding,
+open the cited evidence directly and actively search for evidence that the claim
+is wrong, overstated, or unproven. Then respond with exactly one verdict:
+
+- **REFUTED**: You broke the claim. State the basis:
+  - counter-evidence — you found contradicting evidence (give file:line or log line), OR
+  - burden-not-met — you re-inspected the cited evidence and could neither confirm
+    nor refute it (the claim has not proven itself).
+- **SURVIVES**: You actively tried to refute it and failed — the claim withstood the attack.
+- **SURVIVES-WITH-CAVEAT**: It holds, but a scope limit / extra condition / missing
+  precondition exists (state it).
+
+The burden of proof is on the claim. If after inspecting the cited evidence you remain
+uncertain, your verdict is REFUTED with basis = burden-not-met.
+
+Inspect ONLY the evidence each finding cites and its immediate surroundings. Do NOT
+re-read the task brief, instruction-set, or report template.
+
+## Findings to verify
+
+### F-001: <one-line summary>
+**Origin**: <worker role>
+**Cited evidence**: <file paths, line numbers, log lines from origin worker>
+
+### F-002: <one-line summary>
+...
+
+## Response format
+
+### F-001
+**Verdict**: REFUTED | SURVIVES | SURVIVES-WITH-CAVEAT
+**Basis** (only if REFUTED): counter-evidence | burden-not-met
+**Explanation**: <2-3 sentences; for counter-evidence include the file:line you found>
+
+### F-002
+...
+```
+
+When persisting votes, map SURVIVES→`agree`, SURVIVES-WITH-CAVEAT→`supplement`, REFUTED→`disagree`, and copy the stated Basis into `votes.<worker>.disagreeBasis` (null for non-REFUTED verdicts).
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: 스키마(State Artifact)에 `config.adversarial` + `disagreeBasis` + v1.2 반영**
+
+Edit (a) — §"Convergence State Artifact" 예시 JSON 의 `config` 블록에 `adversarial` 추가. `"enabled": true,`(330행 부근) 다음 줄에:
+
+```json
+    "adversarial": false,
+```
+
+Edit (b) — 같은 예시의 `votes` 항목에 `disagreeBasis` 를 한 곳 보여준다. `"codex-worker": { "verdict": "agree", "explanation": "<brief>" },` 를 다음으로 교체:
+
+```json
+            "codex-worker": { "verdict": "agree", "disagreeBasis": null, "explanation": "<brief>" },
+```
+
+Edit (c) — Schema rules 목록(386–401행)의 `schemaVersion` 규칙 줄을 교체:
+
+```markdown
+- `schemaVersion`: literal string `"1.2"` for adversarial-capable runs (`"1.1"` for collaborative-only runs remains valid). Readers MUST accept `"1.0"` / `"1.1"` / `"1.2"` and treat any missing field as `null`.
+```
+
+Edit (d) — 같은 목록의 `config.effectiveMaxRounds` 규칙 줄 **앞에** 새 규칙 줄 추가:
+
+```markdown
+- `config.adversarial`: boolean. `true` when this run used adversarial verification (default for `requirements-discovery` / `error-analysis`). When `true`, `config.verificationMode` is `"full-reanalysis"` (scoped) and every `disagree` vote carries a non-null `disagreeBasis`.
+```
+
+Edit (e) — `findings[].rounds[].votes.<worker>.verdict` 규칙 줄 다음에 새 규칙 줄 추가:
+
+```markdown
+- `findings[].rounds[].votes.<worker>.disagreeBasis`: enum `counter-evidence | burden-not-met | null`. Non-null only when `verdict == "disagree"` AND `config.adversarial == true`; `null` (or absent, treated as null) otherwise. See §"Adversarial Verification Mode".
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: 빌드 + 워크플로 검증으로 문서 정합 확인**
+
+Run: `npm run build && bash validators/validate-workflow.sh`
+Expected: 빌드 성공(`runtime/` 동기화), validator PASS.
+
+- [ ] **Step 6: 커밋**
+
+```bash
+git add skills/okstra-convergence/SKILL.md runtime/
+git commit -m "feat(skills/okstra-convergence): define adversarial Phase 5.5 verification mode"
+```
+
+---
+
+### Task 4: 프로필 + 공통 계약에 적대적 Phase 5.5 선언
+
+**Files:**
+- Modify: `prompts/profiles/requirements-discovery.md`
+- Modify: `prompts/profiles/error-analysis.md`
+- Modify: `prompts/profiles/_common-contract.md`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: requirements-discovery 프로필에 선언 추가**
+
+Edit `prompts/profiles/requirements-discovery.md` — `- Non-goals:` 줄(54행) **앞에** 새 항목 삽입:
+
+```markdown
+- Cross-verification mode:
+  - Phase 5.5 convergence runs in **adversarial mode** for this phase (`convergence.adversarial=true`). Verifiers actively try to refute each worker's finding by directly re-inspecting the cited evidence; the burden of proof sits on the claim. See `skills/okstra-convergence/SKILL.md` §"Adversarial Verification Mode". A single evidence-backed refutation prevents a finding from reaching consensus.
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: error-analysis 프로필에 선언 추가**
+
+Edit `prompts/profiles/error-analysis.md` — `- Non-goals:` 줄(33행) **앞에** 동일 항목 삽입:
+
+```markdown
+- Cross-verification mode:
+  - Phase 5.5 convergence runs in **adversarial mode** for this phase (`convergence.adversarial=true`). Verifiers actively try to refute each root-cause / reproduction claim by directly re-inspecting the cited code, logs, or config; the burden of proof sits on the claim. See `skills/okstra-convergence/SKILL.md` §"Adversarial Verification Mode". A single evidence-backed refutation prevents a finding from reaching consensus.
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: 공통 계약의 Phase 5.5 설명 갱신**
+
+Edit `prompts/profiles/_common-contract.md` — "Worker interaction model" 의 Phase 5.5 항목(17행)에서, 문장 끝 `See `skills/okstra-convergence/SKILL.md` for the round protocol, queue invariants, and final classification (`full-consensus` / `partial-consensus` / `contested` / `worker-unique`).` 다음에 한 문장 추가(같은 bullet 내):
+
+```markdown
+ For `requirements-discovery` and `error-analysis` this phase runs in **adversarial mode** (`convergence.adversarial=true`): verifiers try to refute each finding against its cited evidence and the burden of proof sits on the claim — see that skill's §"Adversarial Verification Mode".
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: 빌드 + 검증**
+
+Run: `npm run build && bash validators/validate-workflow.sh`
+Expected: 빌드 성공, validator PASS.
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: 커밋**
+
+```bash
+git add prompts/profiles/requirements-discovery.md prompts/profiles/error-analysis.md prompts/profiles/_common-contract.md runtime/
+git commit -m "feat(prompts/profiles): declare adversarial Phase 5.5 for discovery/error-analysis"
+```
+
+---
+
+### Task 5: CHANGES.md + 전체 검증 + 최종 커밋
+
+**Files:**
+- Modify: `CHANGES.md`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: CHANGES.md 항목 추가**
+
+Edit `CHANGES.md` — `## 2026-06-04` 헤더(5행) 바로 다음에 새 `###` 블록 삽입(기존 첫 항목 위):
+
+```markdown
+### feat(convergence): requirements-discovery / error-analysis 의 Phase 5.5 를 적대적 검증으로
+
+- 기존 Phase 5.5 재검증은 협조적이었다 — 프롬프트가 `AGREE/DISAGREE/SUPPLEMENT` 를 묻고(동의가 저비용 기본값), 집계는 "다수 AGREE → consensus" 라 입증 책임이 반박자 쪽에 있어, 틀린 주장이라도 아무도 적극 반박하지 않으면 `full-consensus` 로 살아남았다. 라우팅(`requirements-discovery`)·근본원인(`error-analysis`) 처럼 틀린 주장이 다음 phase 전체를 오도하는 두 phase 에서 거짓 합의 비용이 가장 크다. 이제 이 두 phase 의 Phase 5.5 가 **적대적 모드**(`convergence.adversarial=true`)로 돈다 — 검증자는 인용된 증거를 직접 재조사해 주장을 깨뜨리려 시도하고(REFUTED/SURVIVES/SURVIVES-WITH-CAVEAT), 입증 책임은 주장 쪽에 있다(불확실하면 기각). 증거 기반 반박 1건이면 그 주장은 consensus 에 오르지 못한다. 재조사 범위는 finding 이 인용한 증거 파일+인접부로 한정해 비용 폭증을 막았고, maxRounds 는 현행 유지(req-discovery=1, error-analysis=2). 상태 아티팩트는 `config.adversarial` 와 반박 근거(`disagreeBasis ∈ counter-evidence|burden-not-met`)를 기록(schema v1.2). 다른 phase 의 convergence 는 협조적 그대로다.
+- 사용자 영향: 다음 release + `npx -y okstra@latest install` 후 적용. 이제 두 phase 의 교차검증이 워커 주장을 적극 반박해, 근거 약한 합의가 걸러진다. 적대적 *행동* 자체는 lead/워커 prompt 지시(LLM 실행)이며 런타임 강제가 아니다 — 강제되는 것은 상태 아티팩트 형태(contract 테스트)뿐이다. `contested` 는 기각이 아니라 "다툼 있음" 분류이므로 finding 은 리포트에 남고 강등 사유(반대 증거 vs 입증 실패)가 기록된다.
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: 전체 테스트 + 검증 + 빌드 정합**
+
+Run:
+```bash
+npm run build
+python3 -m pytest tests/ -q
+bash validators/validate-workflow.sh
+node bin/okstra --version
+```
+Expected: 빌드 성공, pytest 전부 PASS, validator PASS, 버전 출력.
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: 리뷰어 시점 self-review (Rule 5)**
+
+`git diff main...HEAD` 전체를 처음 보는 리뷰어 관점으로 통독하고, 신규 식별자(`adversarial`, `disagreeBasis`, `Adversarial Verification Mode`, `counter-evidence`, `burden-not-met`)를 `grep -rn` 으로 일관성 확인:
+
+```bash
+grep -rn "disagreeBasis\|adversarial\|Adversarial Verification Mode\|counter-evidence\|burden-not-met" skills/ prompts/ scripts/ tests/ CHANGES.md
+```
+Expected: render.py(주입), skill(정의), 프로필/계약(선언), 테스트/fixture(강제), CHANGES(기록) 모두에서 같은 의미로 등장. 정의되지 않은 곳에서 토큰이 떠다니지 않을 것.
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: 최종 커밋**
+
+```bash
+git add CHANGES.md
+git commit -m "docs(changes): log adversarial Phase 5.5 verification for discovery/error-analysis"
+```
+
+---
+
+## Self-Review (작성자 체크리스트)
+
+**1. Spec coverage**
+- §2.1 phase-조건부 모드 → Task 1(render) + Task 3 Step 1(Configuration 표).
+- §2.2 적대적 프롬프트 → Task 3 Step 3.
+- §2.3 verdict 매핑 + disagreeBasis → Task 3 Step 2/4, Task 2.
+- §2.4 적대적 집계 → Task 3 Step 2.
+- §2.5 범위-한정 full-reanalysis → Task 3 Step 2(Scoped full-reanalysis), Step 3(프롬프트 지시).
+- §3.1 상태 스키마 1.2 → Task 2 + Task 3 Step 4.
+- §3.2 render 주입 → Task 1.
+- §4 변경 파일 6종 → Task 1–5 전부 커버.
+- §5 enforcement 정직성 → Task 2(형태 강제), CHANGES(행동은 prompt 지시 명시).
+- §7 수용 기준 1–5 → Task 5 Step 2 의 전체 검증으로 확인.
+
+**2. Placeholder scan:** 모든 코드/JSON/markdown 블록은 실제 내용. TBD/TODO 없음.
+
+**3. Type/식별자 일관성:** `adversarial`(bool), `disagreeBasis`(enum `counter-evidence|burden-not-met|null`), `verificationMode`("full-reanalysis"), 분류값(`full-consensus|partial-consensus|contested|worker-unique`) — Task 간 동일 철자 사용 확인.