runward 0.12.0 → 0.12.1

package/dist/commands/check.js

@@ -95,6 +95,10 @@ export async function checkCommand(opts) {
             console.log("  " + c.darkGray("ratify each: write the real why + a re-evaluation trigger and set Status: accepted (rename DRAFT→ADR), or remove it. A hypothesis is not a decision."));
             strictGaps += unratified.length;
         }
+        if (checked > 0 && strictGaps === 0) {
+            console.log(section("Semantic check (advisory, above the gate)"));
+            console.log("  " + c.darkGray("the gate proved every CRITICAL/HIGH rule was traced — not that the code applies it. Before you cross, run the verify workflow (runward/workflows/verify.md): an adversarial cite-vs-apply pass, ideally on a different model. Advisory, agent-executed, never blocks the gate (ADR-0007)."));
+        }
     }
     if (opts.coverage) {
         console.log(section("Documentation coverage (advisory)"));

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "runward",
-  "version": "0.12.0",
+  "version": "0.12.1",
   "description": "After the spec: ship and run. A delivery framework for agentic systems — floor first, evolution on evidence, governance from day zero, handover with proof.",
   "keywords": [
     "agentic",

package/templates/targets/AGENTS.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ This project is delivered with the Runward method: floor first, evolution on evi
 
 ## How to work
 
-- Apply the craft rules in `runward/rules/` while building — and confront them at the point of action, not from memory. Each rule declares where it applies (`phases:`); a build phase surfaces its CRITICAL/HIGH rules to open and account for in the deliverable's `Rule conformance` manifest: `applied` with a `file:line` or test, `deviated` with an ADR, `n/a` with a reason. When a rule and a habit conflict, the rule wins; deviating requires an ADR. `runward check --strict` verifies the manifest is complete — it checks that a decision was traced, never the quality of the code; you judge that at the gate.
+- Apply the craft rules in `runward/rules/` while building — and confront them at the point of action, not from memory. Each rule declares where it applies (`phases:`); a build phase surfaces its CRITICAL/HIGH rules to open and account for in the deliverable's `Rule conformance` manifest: `applied` with a `file:line` or test, `deviated` with an ADR, `n/a` with a reason. When a rule and a habit conflict, the rule wins; deviating requires an ADR. `runward check --strict` verifies the manifest is complete — it checks that a decision was traced, never the quality of the code; you judge that at the gate. When the gate is green, run `runward/workflows/verify.md` before crossing: an advisory, adversarial cite-vs-apply pass (ideally on a different model) that judges whether the code an `applied` row points at actually applies the rule or merely cites it. It is advisory — it never blocks the gate (ADR-0007).
 - Consult `runward/decision-matrix.md` before adding any capability: 22 arbitrations, each with a sober default and an explicit trigger. No trigger, no change.
 - Before any structural decision, run `runward/workflows/decision-loop.md`: verify in the real code, check the sourced state of the art, challenge the source, take a durable position, lock it in an ADR — only then edit.
 - One ADR per structural decision, in `runward/adr/`, with a dated re-evaluation trigger. Use the template `runward/adr/ADR-0000-template.md`.