prizmkit 1.1.94 → 1.1.95

package/bundled/dev-pipeline-windows/templates/bootstrap-tier2.md

@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ Wait for Reviewer to return.
 **CP-2**: No CRITICAL issues.
 
 {{IF_CRITIC_ENABLED}}
-### Phase 3.5: Plan Challenge — Critic Agent
+### Phase 3.5: Plan Challenge — Critic Agent(s)
 
 **Guard**: Verify critic agent file exists before spawning:
 ```powershell
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ Gate requirements:
 - Only after a valid `PASS`, write the report path to `.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/test-report-path.txt` and append a 3-5 bullet `## PrizmKit Test Gate` summary to `context-snapshot.md`.
 - If the report verdict is `NEEDS_FIXES`, fix in-scope implementation/test issues and rerun `/prizmkit-test`. If the report is `BLOCKED`, missing, stale, or for the wrong scope/artifact dir, write `failure-log.md` and stop for recovery.
 
-### Phase 5: Review + Test — Reviewer Subagent
+### Phase 5: Review — Reviewer Subagent
 
 Spawn Reviewer subagent (Agent tool, subagent_type="prizm-dev-team-reviewer", run_in_background=false).
 
@@ -302,8 +302,7 @@ Prompt:
 > 2. Read `.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/plan.md` for architecture decisions and completed tasks
 > 3. Read `.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/test-report-path.txt`, then read the referenced `/prizmkit-test` report. Review generated/updated tests, `In-Scope Failures`, `Baseline Failures`, `Out of Scope Gaps`, boundary coverage if present, and the report verdict.
 > 4. Run /prizmkit-code-review with artifact_dir=.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/. The skill runs an internal review-fix loop (Reviewer → filter → Dev fix, max 3 rounds) and writes review-report.md.
-> 5. Run the full test suite using `{{TEST_CMD}}`. When running: `& { {{TEST_CMD}} } 2>&1 | Tee-Object (Join-Path $env:TEMP "review-test-out.txt") | Select-Object -Last 20`, then use Select-String on the file for details — do NOT re-run the suite multiple times.
-> 6. review-report.md will be written to .prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/ by prizmkit-code-review.
+> 5. Do NOT run test suites — the Orchestrator already ran prizmkit-test. Focus on code review and fix strategy.
 > Report: verdict (PASS/NEEDS_FIXES), number of rounds, findings fixed/rejected."
 
 Wait for Reviewer to return.
@@ -323,7 +322,7 @@ Read `review-report.md` and check the Verdict:
 - `PASS` → proceed to next phase
 - `NEEDS_FIXES` → the skill exhausted its max rounds; log the remaining findings and proceed
 
-**CP-3**: Tests pass, review complete.
+**CP-3**: Review complete.
 
 {{IF_BROWSER_INTERACTION}}
 ### Phase 5.5: Browser Verification — MANDATORY
@@ -696,7 +695,7 @@ Remove-Item -Force -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue .prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}
 
 ## Reminders
 
-- Tier 2: orchestrator builds context+plan, Analyzer checks consistency, Dev implements, Reviewer reviews+tests — use direct Agent spawn for agents
+- Tier 2: orchestrator builds context+plan, Analyzer checks consistency, Dev implements, Reviewer reviews — use direct Agent spawn for agents
 - Build context-snapshot.md FIRST; all subagents read it instead of re-reading source files
 - context-snapshot.md is append-only: orchestrator writes Sections 1-4, Dev appends Implementation Log, Reviewer appends Review Notes
 - Gate checks enforce Implementation Log and Review Notes are written before proceeding

package/bundled/dev-pipeline-windows/templates/bootstrap-tier3.md

@@ -266,7 +266,9 @@ Prompt:
 
 **If {{CRITIC_COUNT}} = 3 → Multi-Critic Voting** (skip Single Critic above):
 
-Spawn 3 Critic agents sequentially (each with mode="plan", run_in_background=false), each with a different focus lens:
+**IMPORTANT**: Spawn all 3 Critics in PARALLEL (issue all 3 Agent tool calls in the SAME message turn). Do NOT wait for one before spawning the next.
+
+Spawn Critic-A, Critic-B, Critic-C simultaneously (each with mode="plan", run_in_background=false):
 
 Critic-A prompt (append to base prompt above):
 > "**Focus Lens: Architecture & Scalability.** Prioritize: architectural pattern fit, scalability implications, over-engineering risks, component boundary design.
@@ -280,6 +282,8 @@ Critic-C prompt (append to base prompt above):
 > "**Focus Lens: Security & Performance.** Prioritize: security attack surface, authentication/authorization gaps, performance bottlenecks, resource leaks.
 > Write `.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/challenge-report-C.md`."
 
+Spawn failure cap: for team/config/lock errors, each Critic retries at most once. If 2 or more Critics fail to spawn after retry, perform the plan challenge inline and record the fallback.
+
 After all critics return, read all 3 reports:
 - Challenge raised by **2/3 or more** critics → **must respond** (adjust plan or justify why not)
 - Challenge raised by **1/3 only** → logged in context-snapshot but not blocking
@@ -351,7 +355,7 @@ Gate requirements:
 - Only after a valid `PASS`, write the report path to `.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/test-report-path.txt` and append a 3-5 bullet `## PrizmKit Test Gate` summary to `context-snapshot.md`.
 - If the report verdict is `NEEDS_FIXES`, fix in-scope implementation/test issues and rerun `/prizmkit-test`. If the report is `BLOCKED`, missing, stale, or for the wrong scope/artifact dir, write `failure-log.md` and stop for recovery.
 
-### Phase 5: Review + Test — Reviewer Agent
+### Phase 5: Review — Reviewer Agent
 
 Spawn Reviewer agent (Agent tool, subagent_type="prizm-dev-team-reviewer", run_in_background=false).
 
@@ -363,8 +367,7 @@ Prompt:
 > 2. Read `.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/plan.md` for architecture decisions and completed tasks
 > 3. Read `.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/test-report-path.txt`, then read the referenced `/prizmkit-test` report. Review generated/updated tests, `In-Scope Failures`, `Baseline Failures`, `Out of Scope Gaps`, boundary coverage if present, and the report verdict.
 > 4. Run /prizmkit-code-review with artifact_dir=.prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/. The skill runs an internal review-fix loop (Reviewer → filter → Dev fix, max 3 rounds) and writes review-report.md.
-> 5. Run the full test suite using `{{TEST_CMD}}`. When running tests: `& { {{TEST_CMD}} } 2>&1 | Tee-Object (Join-Path $env:TEMP "review-test-out.txt") | Select-Object -Last 20`, then Select-String `(Join-Path $env:TEMP "review-test-out.txt")` for details — do NOT re-run the suite multiple times.
-> 6. review-report.md will be written to .prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}}/ by prizmkit-code-review.
+> 5. Do NOT run test suites — the Orchestrator already ran prizmkit-test. Focus on code review and fix strategy.
 > Report: verdict (PASS/NEEDS_FIXES), number of rounds, findings fixed/rejected."
 
 Wait for Reviewer to return.
@@ -384,7 +387,7 @@ Read `review-report.md` and check the Verdict:
 - `PASS` → proceed to next phase
 - `NEEDS_FIXES` → the skill exhausted its max rounds; log the remaining findings and proceed
 
-**CP-3**: Integration tests pass, review complete.
+**CP-3**: Review complete.
 
 {{IF_BROWSER_INTERACTION}}
 ### Phase 5.5: Browser Verification — MANDATORY
@@ -774,7 +777,7 @@ Remove-Item -Force -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue .prizmkit/specs/{{FEATURE_SLUG}
 
 ## Reminders
 
-- Tier 3: full team — Dev (implementation) → Reviewer (review + test) — spawn agents directly via Agent tool
+- Tier 3: full team — Dev (implementation) → Reviewer (review) — spawn agents directly via Agent tool
 - context-snapshot.md is append-only: orchestrator writes Sections 1-4, Dev appends Implementation Log, Reviewer appends Review Notes
 - Gate checks enforce Implementation Log and Review Notes are written before proceeding
 - Do NOT use `run_in_background=true` when spawning agents

package/bundled/dev-pipeline-windows/templates/sections/phase-critic-plan-full.md

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ If CRITIC:MISSING — skip this phase entirely and proceed. Log: "Critic agent n
 
 **If {{CRITIC_COUNT}} = 3 → Multi-Critic Voting** (skip Single Critic above):
 
-Spawn 3 Critic agents sequentially (each with mode="plan", run_in_background=false), each with a different focus lens:
+Spawn 3 Critic agents in PARALLEL (issue all 3 Agent tool calls in the SAME message turn). Do NOT wait for one before spawning the next. Each with mode="plan", run_in_background=false:
 
 Critic-A prompt (append to base prompt above):
 > "**Focus Lens: Architecture & Scalability.** Prioritize: architectural pattern fit, scalability implications, over-engineering risks, component boundary design.

package/bundled/dev-pipeline-windows/templates/sections/phase-review-full.md

@@ -23,9 +23,7 @@ Read `review-report.md` and check the Verdict:
 - `PASS` → proceed to next phase
 - `NEEDS_FIXES` → the skill exhausted its max rounds; log the remaining findings and proceed (do not retry externally)
 
-Run the full test suite: `& { {{TEST_CMD}} } 2>&1 | Tee-Object (Join-Path $env:TEMP "review-test-out.txt") | Select-Object -Last 20`
-
-**CP-3**: Review complete, report written, and the Test Failure Recovery Protocol's Success Rule is satisfied.
+**CP-3**: Review complete, report written.
 
 
 **Checkpoint update**: Run the update script to set step `prizmkit-code-review` to `"completed"`:

package/bundled/rules/_rules-metadata.json

@@ -20,6 +20,10 @@
     "general/cohesive-modeling": {
       "description": "Group co-occurring variables/fields/concepts into a cohesive unit (struct/class/interface)",
       "tags": ["general", "design"]
+    },
+    "general/agent-operational-rules": {
+      "description": "Framework-level operational rules for all agents — Edit failure recovery, Read offset safety, test output hygiene, incremental validation",
+      "tags": ["general", "agent", "operational"]
     }
   },
   "presets": {
@@ -30,14 +34,16 @@
         "prizm/prizm-commit-workflow",
         "prizm/prizm-progressive-loading",
         "general/prefer-linux-commands",
-        "general/cohesive-modeling"
+        "general/cohesive-modeling",
+        "general/agent-operational-rules"
       ]
     },
     "minimal": {
-      "description": "Minimal: progressive loading + general rules only",
+      "description": "Minimal: progressive loading + general rules + operational rules",
       "rules": [
         "prizm/prizm-progressive-loading",
-        "general/prefer-linux-commands"
+        "general/prefer-linux-commands",
+        "general/agent-operational-rules"
       ]
     },
     "none": {

package/bundled/rules/general/agent-operational-rules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+name: agent-operational-rules
+description: Framework-level operational rules for AI agents — handling Edit failures, Read offsets, test output hygiene, and escalation. These apply to all agents regardless of role.
+tags: [general, agent, operational]
+---
+
+# Agent Operational Rules
+
+These rules apply to ALL agents in the PrizmKit ecosystem. They cover common operational patterns that prevent wasted context and infinite loops.
+
+## Edit Failure Recovery
+
+When an Edit call fails with 'String to replace not found':
+1. STOP editing immediately — do NOT retry the same Edit.
+2. Run `grep -n` to locate the exact line of the target text.
+3. Read with offset = max(grep_line - 20, 0), limit = 50.
+4. Copy the exact text from the Read result into the Edit old_string.
+5. Never guess or extrapolate an offset — grep first, then read, then edit.
+
+## Read Offset Safety
+
+Before any Read with offset + limit:
+- Compute offset + limit. If the last tool_result for this file shows it has N lines, offset MUST be < N.
+- Never request an offset >= known file length.
+
+## Stale Line Counts (Large Files)
+
+Before editing a large file (>1000 lines), verify you know its current line count from the most recent tool_result. Old line counts from earlier turns may be stale if you have since edited the file.
+
+## Consecutive Read Failures
+
+If 3 consecutive Read calls to the same file return 'shorter than provided offset' or 'Wasted call':
+- STOP all work on that file.
+- Send ESCALATION with the file path, current line count, and the offsets you attempted.
+- The orchestrator will provide the correct content.
+
+## Test Output Hygiene
+
+**Applies to: Dev Agent and any agent that runs tests.** Does NOT apply to Reviewer, Critic, or other agents that do not execute test commands.
+
+When tests fail:
+- Run the test command provided in your task assignment ONCE (e.g., `$TEST_CMD`, `npm test`, `pytest`, etc.).
+- Capture output with `tee` (macOS/Linux) or `Tee-Object` (Windows/PowerShell) to a temp file.
+- Then grep/Select-String that file for failure details.
+- Never re-run the full test suite just to apply a different filter to its output.
+
+**macOS/Linux**:
+```bash
+($TEST_CMD) 2>&1 | tee /tmp/test-out.txt | tail -20
+grep -n "FAIL\|Error\|assert" /tmp/test-out.txt
+```
+
+**Windows/PowerShell**:
+```powershell
+& { {{TEST_CMD}} } 2>&1 | Tee-Object (Join-Path $env:TEMP "test-out.txt") | Select-Object -Last 20
+Select-String -Path (Join-Path $env:TEMP "test-out.txt") -Pattern "FAIL|Error|assert"
+```
+
+Note: `$TEST_CMD` / `{{TEST_CMD}}` is a placeholder set by the pipeline or orchestrator. Use whatever test command is provided in your task assignment. Do NOT hardcode a specific test tool — projects vary.
+
+## Incremental Validation
+
+**Applies to: Dev Agent.** Does NOT apply to Reviewer, Critic, or read-only agents.
+
+After every 3 successful Edit operations on a file:
+- Run the relevant test command for that file once.
+- Validate your changes compile and behave correctly.
+- Do not defer all testing to the end.

package/bundled/skills/_metadata.json

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 {
-  "version": "1.1.94",
+  "version": "1.1.95",
   "skills": {
     "prizm-kit": {
       "description": "Full-lifecycle dev toolkit. Covers spec-driven development, Prizm context docs, code quality, debugging, deployment, and knowledge management.",

package/bundled/skills/feature-planner/SKILL.md

@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ For simple incremental planning, skip detailed Phase 2-3 analysis:
 4. Draft features (title + description + acceptance_criteria + dependencies)
 5. Write draft to `.prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json`, then call the generate script:
    ```bash
-   python3 ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py generate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json --mode incremental
+   python3 ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py generate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json
    ```
 6. If valid → summarize and recommend next step
 7. If invalid → apply fixes to the draft, re-run generate (max 2 attempts, then escalate to full workflow)
@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ Key requirements:
 1. Write a draft JSON to a temporary path (e.g., `.prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json`)
 2. Call the generate script to validate and produce the final file:
 ```bash
-python3 ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py generate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json --mode <new|incremental>
+python3 ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py generate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json
 ```
 The script fills in defaults (`$schema`, `created_at`, `created_by`), validates all fields, and writes the final file only if validation passes. If validation fails, fix the draft and retry.
 

package/bundled/skills/feature-planner/references/error-recovery.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Structured error handling for validation failures, interrupted sessions, and che
 
 ## Validation Failures
 
-When `python3 scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input <file> --mode <mode>` returns errors:
+When `python3 scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input <file>` returns errors:
 
 ### Parse validation output
 Script returns JSON with `"valid": false`, `"errors": [...]`, `"warnings": [...]`

package/bundled/skills/feature-planner/references/incremental-feature-planning.md

@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Keep dependency correctness as first constraint.
 ### Step 5: Validate
 Run:
 ```bash
-python3 ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input feature-list.json --mode incremental
+python3 ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input feature-list.json
 ```
 
 Fix and re-run until pass.

package/bundled/skills/feature-planner/references/new-project-planning.md

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Split into `sub_features` when:
 1. Write `feature-list.json`.
 2. Run:
    ```bash
-   python3 ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input feature-list.json --mode new
+   python3 ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input feature-list.json
    ```
 3. Fix all errors, then re-run.
 

package/bundled/skills/feature-planner/scripts/validate-and-generate.py

@@ -11,12 +11,16 @@ Commands:
   grade       Generate grading results from eval runs (for npm run skill:review)
 
 Usage:
-  python3 validate-and-generate.py validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json [--output validated.json] [--mode new|incremental]
+  python3 validate-and-generate.py validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json [--output validated.json]
   python3 validate-and-generate.py template --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json
-  python3 validate-and-generate.py generate --input draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json [--mode new|incremental]
+  python3 validate-and-generate.py generate --input draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json
   python3 validate-and-generate.py summary --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json [--format markdown|json]
   python3 validate-and-generate.py grade --workspace /.codebuddy/skill-evals/feature-planner-workspace --iteration iteration-1
 
+Mode is determined automatically by --output path:
+  - Output file does NOT exist -> new plan (all features must be "pending")
+  - Output file already exists -> incremental append (existing features keep their status)
+
 Python 3.6+ required. No external dependencies.
 """
 
@@ -38,8 +42,6 @@ VALID_STATUSES = {"pending", "in_progress", "completed", "failed", "skipped", "s
 VALID_COMPLEXITIES = {"low", "medium", "high", "critical"}
 VALID_PRIORITIES = {"critical", "high", "medium", "low"}
 VALID_GRANULARITIES = {"feature", "sub_feature", "auto"}
-VALID_PLANNING_MODES = {"new", "incremental"}
-
 FEATURE_ID_RE = re.compile(r"^F-\d{3}(-[A-Z])?$")
 SUB_FEATURE_ID_RE = re.compile(r"^F-\d{3}-[A-Z]$")
 
@@ -156,13 +158,11 @@ def _detect_cycles(features):
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
-def validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode="new"):
+def validate_feature_list(data, is_new_plan=True):
     """Validate a parsed feature-list data structure.
 
     Returns a dict with keys ``valid``, ``errors``, ``warnings``, ``stats``.
     """
-    if planning_mode not in VALID_PLANNING_MODES:
-        planning_mode = "new"
 
     errors = []
     warnings = []
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ def validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode="new"):
                     label, status, ", ".join(sorted(VALID_STATUSES))
                 )
             )
-        if planning_mode == "new" and status and status != "pending":
+        if is_new_plan and status and status != "pending":
             warnings.append(
                 "{}: status is '{}' (expected 'pending' for new plans)".format(label, status)
             )
@@ -680,7 +680,9 @@ def cmd_validate(args):
         print(json.dumps(result, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False))
         return 2
 
-    result = validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode=args.mode)
+    # Validate input file exists -> incremental mode (existing features keep their status)
+    is_new_plan = False
+    result = validate_feature_list(data, is_new_plan=is_new_plan)
 
     # Print results to stdout
     print(json.dumps(result, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False))
@@ -758,9 +760,11 @@ def cmd_generate(args):
     for feature in data.get("features", []):
         feature.setdefault("status", "pending")
 
-    # Validate
-    mode = getattr(args, "mode", "new") or "new"
-    result = validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode=mode)
+    # Validate. Mode is determined by whether --output file already exists:
+    #   - does NOT exist -> new plan (all features must be "pending")
+    #   - already exists -> incremental append (existing features keep their status)
+    is_new_plan = not os.path.exists(args.output)
+    result = validate_feature_list(data, is_new_plan=is_new_plan)
 
     # Output validation result
     print(json.dumps(result, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False))
@@ -856,7 +860,7 @@ def cmd_grade(args):
             continue
         
         # Run validation
-        result = validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode="new")
+        result = validate_feature_list(data, is_new_plan=True)
         
         # Create grading entry
         grade_entry = {
@@ -916,7 +920,6 @@ def main():
         epilog=(
             "Examples:\n"
             "  %(prog)s validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json\n"
-            "  %(prog)s validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json --mode incremental\n"
             "  %(prog)s validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json --output validated.json\n"
             "  %(prog)s template --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json\n"
             "  %(prog)s generate --input draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json\n"
@@ -938,12 +941,6 @@ def main():
     p_validate.add_argument(
         "--output", help="Path to write validated output (optional)"
     )
-    p_validate.add_argument(
-        "--mode",
-        choices=["new", "incremental"],
-        default="new",
-        help="Validation mode (default: new)",
-    )
 
     # -- template --
     p_template = subparsers.add_parser(
@@ -965,12 +962,6 @@ def main():
     p_generate.add_argument(
         "--output", required=True, help="Path to write final feature-list.json"
     )
-    p_generate.add_argument(
-        "--mode",
-        choices=["new", "incremental"],
-        default="new",
-        help="Validation mode (default: new)",
-    )
 
     # -- summary --
     p_summary = subparsers.add_parser(

package/bundled/skills-windows/feature-planner/SKILL.md

@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ For simple incremental planning, skip detailed Phase 2-3 analysis:
 4. Draft features (title + description + acceptance_criteria + dependencies)
 5. Write draft to `.prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json`, then call the generate script:
    ```powershell
-   Invoke-PrizmPython ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py generate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json --mode incremental
+   Invoke-PrizmPython ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py generate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json
    ```
 6. If valid → summarize and recommend next step
 7. If invalid → apply fixes to the draft, re-run generate (max 2 attempts, then escalate to full workflow)
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ Key requirements:
 1. Write a draft JSON to a temporary path (e.g., `.prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json`)
 2. Call the generate script to validate and produce the final file:
 ```powershell
-Invoke-PrizmPython ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py generate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json --mode <new|incremental>
+Invoke-PrizmPython ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py generate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json
 ```
 The script fills in defaults (`$schema`, `created_at`, `created_by`), validates all fields, and writes the final file only if validation passes. If validation fails, fix the draft and retry.
 

package/bundled/skills-windows/feature-planner/references/error-recovery.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Structured error handling for validation failures, interrupted sessions, and che
 
 ## Validation Failures
 
-When `Invoke-PrizmPython scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input <file> --mode <mode>` returns errors:
+When `Invoke-PrizmPython scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input <file>` returns errors:
 
 ### Parse validation output
 Script returns JSON with `"valid": false`, `"errors": [...]`, `"warnings": [...]`

package/bundled/skills-windows/feature-planner/references/incremental-feature-planning.md

@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Keep dependency correctness as first constraint.
 ### Step 5: Validate
 Run after defining `Invoke-PrizmPython` from the main `SKILL.md`:
 ```powershell
-Invoke-PrizmPython ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input feature-list.json --mode incremental
+Invoke-PrizmPython ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input feature-list.json
 ```
 
 Fix and re-run until pass.

package/bundled/skills-windows/feature-planner/references/new-project-planning.md

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Split into `sub_features` when:
 1. Write `feature-list.json`.
 2. Run the command below after defining `Invoke-PrizmPython` from the main `SKILL.md`:
    ```powershell
-   Invoke-PrizmPython ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input feature-list.json --mode new
+   Invoke-PrizmPython ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/validate-and-generate.py validate --input feature-list.json
    ```
 3. Fix all errors, then re-run.
 

package/bundled/skills-windows/feature-planner/scripts/validate-and-generate.py

@@ -11,12 +11,16 @@ Commands:
   grade       Generate grading results from eval runs (for npm run skill:review)
 
 Usage:
-  python3 validate-and-generate.py validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json [--output validated.json] [--mode new|incremental]
+  python3 validate-and-generate.py validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json [--output validated.json]
   python3 validate-and-generate.py template --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json
-  python3 validate-and-generate.py generate --input draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json [--mode new|incremental]
+  python3 validate-and-generate.py generate --input draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json
   python3 validate-and-generate.py summary --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json [--format markdown|json]
   python3 validate-and-generate.py grade --workspace /.codebuddy/skill-evals/feature-planner-workspace --iteration iteration-1
 
+Mode is determined automatically by --output path:
+  - Output file does NOT exist -> new plan (all features must be "pending")
+  - Output file already exists -> incremental append (existing features keep their status)
+
 Python 3.6+ required. No external dependencies.
 """
 
@@ -38,8 +42,6 @@ VALID_STATUSES = {"pending", "in_progress", "completed", "failed", "skipped", "s
 VALID_COMPLEXITIES = {"low", "medium", "high", "critical"}
 VALID_PRIORITIES = {"critical", "high", "medium", "low"}
 VALID_GRANULARITIES = {"feature", "sub_feature", "auto"}
-VALID_PLANNING_MODES = {"new", "incremental"}
-
 FEATURE_ID_RE = re.compile(r"^F-\d{3}(-[A-Z])?$")
 SUB_FEATURE_ID_RE = re.compile(r"^F-\d{3}-[A-Z]$")
 
@@ -156,13 +158,11 @@ def _detect_cycles(features):
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
-def validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode="new"):
+def validate_feature_list(data, is_new_plan=True):
     """Validate a parsed feature-list data structure.
 
     Returns a dict with keys ``valid``, ``errors``, ``warnings``, ``stats``.
     """
-    if planning_mode not in VALID_PLANNING_MODES:
-        planning_mode = "new"
 
     errors = []
     warnings = []
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ def validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode="new"):
                     label, status, ", ".join(sorted(VALID_STATUSES))
                 )
             )
-        if planning_mode == "new" and status and status != "pending":
+        if is_new_plan and status and status != "pending":
             warnings.append(
                 "{}: status is '{}' (expected 'pending' for new plans)".format(label, status)
             )
@@ -680,7 +680,9 @@ def cmd_validate(args):
         print(json.dumps(result, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False))
         return 2
 
-    result = validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode=args.mode)
+    # Validate input file exists -> incremental mode (existing features keep their status)
+    is_new_plan = False
+    result = validate_feature_list(data, is_new_plan=is_new_plan)
 
     # Print results to stdout
     print(json.dumps(result, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False))
@@ -758,9 +760,11 @@ def cmd_generate(args):
     for feature in data.get("features", []):
         feature.setdefault("status", "pending")
 
-    # Validate
-    mode = getattr(args, "mode", "new") or "new"
-    result = validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode=mode)
+    # Validate. Mode is determined by whether --output file already exists:
+    #   - does NOT exist -> new plan (all features must be "pending")
+    #   - already exists -> incremental append (existing features keep their status)
+    is_new_plan = not os.path.exists(args.output)
+    result = validate_feature_list(data, is_new_plan=is_new_plan)
 
     # Output validation result
     print(json.dumps(result, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False))
@@ -856,7 +860,7 @@ def cmd_grade(args):
             continue
         
         # Run validation
-        result = validate_feature_list(data, planning_mode="new")
+        result = validate_feature_list(data, is_new_plan=True)
         
         # Create grading entry
         grade_entry = {
@@ -916,7 +920,6 @@ def main():
         epilog=(
             "Examples:\n"
             "  %(prog)s validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json\n"
-            "  %(prog)s validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json --mode incremental\n"
             "  %(prog)s validate --input .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json --output validated.json\n"
             "  %(prog)s template --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json\n"
             "  %(prog)s generate --input draft.json --output .prizmkit/plans/feature-list.json\n"
@@ -938,12 +941,6 @@ def main():
     p_validate.add_argument(
         "--output", help="Path to write validated output (optional)"
     )
-    p_validate.add_argument(
-        "--mode",
-        choices=["new", "incremental"],
-        default="new",
-        help="Validation mode (default: new)",
-    )
 
     # -- template --
     p_template = subparsers.add_parser(
@@ -965,12 +962,6 @@ def main():
     p_generate.add_argument(
         "--output", required=True, help="Path to write final feature-list.json"
     )
-    p_generate.add_argument(
-        "--mode",
-        choices=["new", "incremental"],
-        default="new",
-        help="Validation mode (default: new)",
-    )
 
     # -- summary --
     p_summary = subparsers.add_parser(

package/bundled/team/prizm-dev-team.json

@@ -1,33 +1,33 @@
 {
   "name": "prizm-dev-team",
   "team_name": "prizm-dev-team",
-  "description": "PrizmKit-integrated Multi-Agent software development team. 3 specialized agents (Dev, Reviewer, Critic) following PrizmKit spec-driven workflow with pipeline and checkpoints.",
+  "description": "PrizmKit-integrated Multi-Agent software development team. 3 specialized agents (Dev, Reviewer, Critic) following PrizmKit spec-driven workflow. Critic supports parallel 3-critic voting with distinct focus lenses.",
   "lead": "orchestrator",
   "communication": {
     "protocol": "SendMessage",
     "routing": "mesh",
-    "note": "Teammates communicate directly via SendMessage; key messages must also be sent to Orchestrator (the main agent session)"
+    "note": "Teammates communicate directly via SendMessage; key messages must also be sent to Orchestrator (the main AI session). Critic agents operate independently in parallel — they do NOT read each other's reports."
   },
   "members": [
     {
       "name": "dev",
-      "role": "developer", 
+      "role": "developer",
       "agentDefinition": "prizm-dev-team-dev",
-      "prompt": "You are a Dev Agent of the prizm-dev-team. Follow /prizmkit-implement workflow with TDD. Read plan.md/spec.md, implement task-by-task, mark completed tasks [x]. Check .prizmkit/prizm-docs/ TRAPS before implementing.",
+      "prompt": "You are a Dev Agent of the prizm-dev-team. Your complete behavior rules are in your agent definition. Follow /prizmkit-implement workflow with TDD. Read plan.md/spec.md, implement task-by-task, mark completed tasks [x].",
       "subscriptions": ["*"]
     },
     {
       "name": "reviewer",
       "role": "reviewer",
       "agentDefinition": "prizm-dev-team-reviewer",
-      "prompt": "You are the Reviewer Agent of the prizm-dev-team. Run /prizmkit-code-review for diagnosis + fix strategy formulation, write and execute integration tests. Produce structured Fix Instructions (Root Cause, Impact, Fix Strategy, Code Guidance, Verification) so Dev can follow them precisely. review-report.md is written to the artifact directory by /prizmkit-code-review.",
+      "prompt": "You are the Reviewer Agent of the prizm-dev-team. Your complete behavior rules are in your agent definition. Run /prizmkit-code-review for diagnosis + fix strategy formulation. You do NOT run tests — the Orchestrator handles testing.",
       "subscriptions": ["*"]
     },
     {
       "name": "critic",
       "role": "critic",
       "agentDefinition": "prizm-dev-team-critic",
-      "prompt": "You are the Critic Agent of the prizm-dev-team. Challenge plans and implementations for project fitness, style consistency, robustness, and integration quality. Do NOT verify correctness — that is the Reviewer's job. Write challenge-report.md with adversarial findings.",
+      "prompt": "You are the Critic Agent of the prizm-dev-team. Your complete behavior rules are in your agent definition. Challenge plans and implementations for project fitness, style consistency, robustness, and integration quality. Supports parallel 3-critic voting mode. Do NOT verify correctness — that is the Reviewer's job.",
       "subscriptions": ["*"]
     }
   ]

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "prizmkit",
-  "version": "1.1.94",
+  "version": "1.1.95",
   "description": "Create a new PrizmKit-powered project with clean initialization — no framework dev files, just what you need.",
   "type": "module",
   "bin": {