superlab 0.1.26 → 0.1.28

package/lib/i18n.cjs

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 const path = require("node:path");
+const writeContract = require("./lab_write_contract.json");
 
 function codexPrompt(description, argumentHint, body) {
   return `---
@@ -25,7 +26,7 @@ const ZH_CONTENT = {
   [path.join(".codex", "prompts", "lab-idea.md")]: codexPrompt(
     "在进入规格前调研并打磨论文或实验想法",
     "idea 或 research problem",
-    "使用已安装的 `lab` 技能：`.codex/skills/lab/SKILL.md`。\n\n立刻针对用户当前给出的参数执行 `/lab:idea`，不要只推荐别的 `/lab` 阶段。只有在缺少阻塞性前提时，才明确指出缺什么，并且一次最多追问一个问题。\n\n本命令运行 `/lab:idea` 阶段。它必须先用清晰简洁的话定义问题与失败场景，说明现有方法哪里不够、我们的想法为何更好，再做 idea classification、contribution category、breakthrough level 的归类，并收束出至少三个一眼就有意义的点，最后保留进入 `/lab:spec` 前的 approval gate。"
+    "使用已安装的 `lab` 技能：`.codex/skills/lab/SKILL.md`。\n\n立刻针对用户当前给出的参数执行 `/lab:idea`，不要只推荐别的 `/lab` 阶段。只有在缺少阻塞性前提时，才明确指出缺什么，并且一次最多追问一个问题。\n\n本命令运行 `/lab:idea` 阶段。它必须先用白话说明场景、真实问题和为什么重要，再系统梳理现有方法、最接近前作、近期相关论文和评测惯例，默认形成一个约 20 篇来源的文献范围包；如果领域太窄达不到这个数量，必须把理由写清楚。之后再说明当前方法为什么不够、我们的方向大致怎么做、为什么可能更好，并收束出至少三个有意义的点、一个最小实验和进入 `/lab:spec` 前的 approval gate。"
   ),
   [path.join(".codex", "prompts", "lab-framing.md")]: codexPrompt(
     "在写作前收紧方法名、模块名、论文题目和 contribution framing",
@@ -60,13 +61,13 @@ const ZH_CONTENT = {
   [path.join(".codex", "prompts", "lab-write.md")]: codexPrompt(
     "把验证过的研究工件转成论文 section，并按小步方式修订",
     "section or writing target",
-    "使用已安装的 `lab` 技能：`.codex/skills/lab/SKILL.md`。\n\n立刻针对用户当前给出的参数执行 `/lab:write`，不要只推荐别的 `/lab` 阶段。只有在缺少阻塞性前提时，才明确指出缺什么，并且一次最多追问一个问题。\n\n本命令运行 `/lab:write` 阶段。它必须先有来自 `/lab:framing` 的已批准 framing artifact，再读取 `.codex/skills/lab/references/paper-writing/` 下与当前 section 对应的参考文件；如果当前 section 有 bundled example bank，还必须继续读取 `.codex/skills/lab/references/paper-writing/examples/index.md`、对应的 examples index，以及 1-2 个具体 example 文件。然后结合 `paper-review.md` 与 `does-my-writing-flow-source.md`，先写 mini-outline，先规划该 section 需要的表、图和 citation，再只修改一个 section。最终定稿或导出轮次必须运行 `.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_manuscript_delivery.py --paper-dir <deliverables_root>/paper`。第一次进入会产出论文 `.tex` 的路径时，如果 `paper_template_root` 为空，必须先问一次：继续使用默认 LaTeX scaffold，还是先接入模板目录。"
+    `使用已安装的 \`lab\` 技能：\`.codex/skills/lab/SKILL.md\`。\n\n立刻针对用户当前给出的参数执行 \`/lab:write\`，不要只推荐别的 \`/lab\` 阶段。只有在缺少阻塞性前提时，才明确指出缺什么，并且一次最多追问一个问题。\n\n${writeContract.stage_prompt.codex_zh}`
   ),
   [path.join(".claude", "commands", "lab-idea.md")]: claudeCommand(
     "lab-idea",
     "在进入规格前调研并打磨论文或实验想法",
     "idea 或 research problem",
-    "使用已安装的 `lab` 技能：`.claude/skills/lab/SKILL.md`。\n\n立刻针对用户当前给出的参数执行 `idea` 阶段，不要只推荐别的 lab 阶段。只有在缺少阻塞性前提时，才明确指出缺什么，并且一次最多追问一个问题。\n\n本命令运行 lab workflow 的 `idea` 阶段。它必须先用清晰简洁的话定义问题与失败场景，说明现有方法哪里不够、我们的想法为何更好，再做 idea classification、contribution category、breakthrough level 的归类，并收束出至少三个一眼就有意义的点，最后保留进入 `spec` 前的 approval gate。"
+    "使用已安装的 `lab` 技能：`.claude/skills/lab/SKILL.md`。\n\n立刻针对用户当前给出的参数执行 `idea` 阶段，不要只推荐别的 lab 阶段。只有在缺少阻塞性前提时，才明确指出缺什么，并且一次最多追问一个问题。\n\n本命令运行 lab workflow 的 `idea` 阶段。它必须先用白话说明场景、真实问题和为什么重要，再系统梳理现有方法、最接近前作、近期相关论文和评测惯例，默认形成一个约 20 篇来源的文献范围包；如果领域太窄达不到这个数量，必须把理由写清楚。之后再说明当前方法为什么不够、我们的方向大致怎么做、为什么可能更好，并收束出至少三个有意义的点、一个最小实验和进入 `spec` 前的 approval gate。"
   ),
   [path.join(".claude", "commands", "lab-framing.md")]: claudeCommand(
     "lab-framing",
@@ -108,7 +109,7 @@ const ZH_CONTENT = {
     "lab-write",
     "把验证过的研究工件转成论文 section，并按小步方式修订",
     "section or writing target",
-    "使用已安装的 `lab` 技能：`.claude/skills/lab/SKILL.md`。\n\n立刻针对用户当前给出的参数执行 `write` 阶段，不要只推荐别的 lab 阶段。只有在缺少阻塞性前提时，才明确指出缺什么，并且一次最多追问一个问题。\n\n本命令运行 lab workflow 的 `write` 阶段。它必须先有来自 `framing` 阶段的已批准 framing artifact，再读取 `.claude/skills/lab/references/paper-writing/` 下与当前 section 对应的参考文件；如果当前是 `abstract`、`introduction` 或 `method`，还必须继续读取 `.claude/skills/lab/references/paper-writing/examples/index.md`、对应的 examples index，以及 1-2 个具体 example 文件。然后结合 `paper-review.md` 与 `does-my-writing-flow-source.md`，先写 mini-outline，再只修改一个 section。第一次进入会产出论文 `.tex` 的路径时，如果 `paper_template_root` 为空，必须先问一次：继续使用默认 LaTeX scaffold，还是先接入模板目录。"
+    `使用已安装的 \`lab\` 技能：\`.claude/skills/lab/SKILL.md\`。\n\n立刻针对用户当前给出的参数执行 \`write\` 阶段，不要只推荐别的 lab 阶段。只有在缺少阻塞性前提时，才明确指出缺什么，并且一次最多追问一个问题。\n\n${writeContract.stage_prompt.claude_zh}`
   ),
 };
 
@@ -367,27 +368,74 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
 
 ## 必要输出
 
+- 白话场景说明
 - 一句话问题定义
+- 为什么这个问题重要（用白话说明）
 - failure case
 - idea classification
 - contribution category
 - breakthrough level
 - existing methods 总结
+- 最接近前作对照
 - 为什么我们的想法优于现有方法
+- 用白话解释我们准备怎么做
 - 三个一眼就有意义的点
+- 文献范围包，默认目标约 20 篇来源；如果领域太窄不足 20 篇，必须明确解释
 - 进入 \`/lab:spec\` 前的 approval gate
+- 最小实验
+- 批准后把核心问题、重要性、failure case 和方向写回 canonical mission context
 
 ## Evidence Discipline
 
 - 明确区分来源事实与生成假设。
+- 在谈 novelty 前先做文献范围梳理。默认目标是约 20 篇来源，覆盖最接近前作、近期强相关论文、benchmark 或评测论文、survey 或 taxonomy，以及必要的相邻领域工作。
+- 如果真实领域过窄，达不到默认数量，也必须把原因写清楚，而不是静默跳过。
+- \`idea\` 工件必须跟随仓库的 \`workflow_language\`，不能自己换成别的语言。
 - 如果关键前提不清楚，一次只追问一个问题。
 - 在写完整工件前，先给用户一个简洁简介：问题、现有方法的缺口、三个 meaningful points。
 
+## 上下文读取
+
+- \`.lab/config/workflow.json\`
+- \`.lab/context/mission.md\`
+- \`.lab/context/open-questions.md\`
+
+## 上下文写回
+
+- \`.lab/context/mission.md\`
+- \`.lab/context/decisions.md\`
+- \`.lab/context/open-questions.md\`
+
+## 推荐结构
+
+1. 场景
+2. 一句话问题
+3. 为什么重要
+4. 现有方法的失败模式
+5. idea classification、contribution category 和 breakthrough level
+6. 现有方法与共同假设
+7. 文献范围包
+8. 最接近前作对照
+9. 白话方法草图
+10. 为什么这个方向可能更好
+11. 三个有意义的点
+12. 候选路线与推荐
+13. 数据集、baseline 和指标候选
+14. 可证伪假设
+15. 专家式 critique
+16. 修订后的 proposal
+17. approval gate
+18. 最小实验
+
 ## Writing Standard
 
 - 定义要清晰、简洁、明了。
+- 先解释场景、对象和问题价值，再讨论 novelty。
 - 现有方法对照必须显式写出，不能只说“更创新”。
+- 不要只说“比现有方法更好”；要说清楚现有方法在做什么、为什么不够、我们的方向大致怎么做。
+- 不要在没有文献范围包和最接近前作对照的情况下直接下 novelty 判断。
 - 三个 meaningful points 每个都控制在一句直接的话里。
+- 在批准前，必须运行 \`.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_idea_artifact.py --idea <idea-artifact> --workflow-config .lab/config/workflow.json\`。
 `,
   [path.join(".codex", "skills", "lab", "references", "workflow.md")]:
 `# /lab 工作流参考
@@ -433,10 +481,20 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
   [path.join(".lab", ".managed", "templates", "idea.md")]:
 `# Idea 工件
 
+## 场景
+
+- 真实使用场景：
+- 如果这个问题被解决，谁会直接受益：
+
 ## 一句话问题定义
 
 用一句短话说清楚问题。
 
+## 为什么重要
+
+- 为什么它在现实里重要：
+- 如果忽略它，会有什么后果：
+
 ## 失败场景
 
 - 现有方法在哪里失败：
@@ -481,6 +539,32 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
 - Shared assumption:
 - 为什么该假设在这里失效：
 
+## 文献范围包
+
+- 默认目标来源数：
+- 当前已覆盖来源数：
+- 最接近前作 bucket：
+- 近期强相关论文：
+- benchmark 或 evaluation 论文：
+- survey 或 taxonomy：
+- 相邻领域论文：
+- 如果当前少于默认目标，原因是什么：
+
+## 最接近前作对照
+
+- 前作 1：
+  - 引用：
+  - 它做了什么：
+  - 为什么和这里相关：
+  - 对当前问题的局限：
+  - 和我们方向的差异：
+- 前作 2：
+  - 引用：
+  - 它做了什么：
+  - 为什么和这里相关：
+  - 对当前问题的局限：
+  - 和我们方向的差异：
+
 ## 我们哪里不同
 
 - Existing methods rely on:
@@ -488,6 +572,11 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
 - Expected advantage:
 - 需要什么证据才能证明该优势：
 
+## 我们准备怎么做
+
+- 用白话解释这个方向大致怎么工作：
+- 为什么这可能解决失败场景：
+
 ## 三个有意义的点
 
 1. 意义：
@@ -500,6 +589,7 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
 - Benchmark conventions:
 - Typical datasets:
 - Typical metrics:
+- Credible baseline shortlist:
 
 ## 候选方案
 
@@ -523,6 +613,7 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
 - Primary metric:
 - Secondary metrics:
 - Minimum viable experiment:
+- 最快的证伪方式：
 
 ## 批评总结
 
@@ -925,9 +1016,10 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
 
 ## 目标
 
-- Venue or audience:
-- Paper status:
+- 目标会议或读者:
+- 论文状态:
 - 一句话主线：
+- 已批准 framing artifact:
 - Terminology lock:
 
 ## Section 状态
@@ -946,6 +1038,84 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
 - Limitation sources:
 - 哪些 claim 还缺证据：
 
+## 资产覆盖目标
+
+- 核心资产下限:
+- 必需覆盖类别:
+- 当前计划核心资产数:
+- 覆盖风险或缺口:
+
+## 表计划
+
+- 主结果表:
+  - 资产文件:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 作用:
+  - 证据:
+  - 状态:
+- 消融表:
+  - 资产文件:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 作用:
+  - 证据:
+  - 状态:
+
+## 图计划
+
+- 问题设定或 teaser 图:
+  - 资产文件:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 图意图:
+  - 证据:
+  - 状态:
+- 方法总览图:
+  - 资产文件:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 图意图:
+  - 证据:
+  - 状态:
+- 结果总览图:
+  - 资产文件:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 图意图:
+  - 证据:
+  - 状态:
+
+## 分析资产计划
+
+- 分析资产:
+  - 资产文件:
+  - 资产类型:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 资产意图:
+  - 证据:
+  - 状态:
+
+## 引用计划
+
+- 背景锚点:
+  - 引用或来源锚点:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 为什么重要:
+  - 状态:
+- 最接近前作:
+  - 引用或来源锚点:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 为什么重要:
+  - 状态:
+- 指标或 benchmark 来源:
+  - 引用或来源锚点:
+  - 作用章节:
+  - 为什么重要:
+  - 状态:
+
+## 章节到资产映射
+
+- 引言:
+- 方法:
+- 实验:
+- 相关工作:
+
 ## 写作顺序
 
 1. 第一优先 section:
@@ -1050,7 +1220,8 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
   "deliverables_root": "docs/research",
   "paper_template_root": "",
   "paper_template_decision": "unconfirmed",
-  "paper_template_final_reminder_acknowledged": false
+  "paper_template_final_reminder_acknowledged": false,
+  "paper_language_finalization_decision": "unconfirmed"
 }`,
   [path.join(".lab", "context", "mission.md")]:
 `# 研究主线
@@ -1244,7 +1415,7 @@ const ZH_SKILL_FILES = {
 
 - Stop conditions:
 - Escalation conditions:
-- Canonical promotion writeback: update \`.lab/context/data-decisions.md\`、\`.lab/context/decisions.md\`、\`.lab/context/state.md\` and \`.lab/context/session-brief.md\`.
+- Canonical promotion writeback: update \`.lab/context/data-decisions.md\`、\`.lab/context/decisions.md\`、\`.lab/context/state.md\` and \`.lab/context/workflow-state.md\`.
 `,
   [path.join(".lab", "context", "auto-outcome.md")]:
 `# 自动结果
@@ -1378,11 +1549,23 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".lab", "context", "summary.md")] = `# 研究摘要
 
 ## 当前方向
 
-用 5-10 行总结当前批准方向。
-
+- Mission:
+- Approved direction:
+- Active stage:
+- Current objective:
 - Auto mode:
 - Auto objective:
 - Auto decision:
+- Collaborator report mode:
+- Canonical context readiness:
+- Method name:
+- Contribution bullets:
+- Eval objective:
+- Primary metrics:
+- Secondary metrics:
+- Dataset package:
+- Benchmark role:
+- Comparison suite:
 
 ## 最强证据
 
@@ -1408,18 +1591,18 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".lab", "context", "next-action.md")] = `# 下一步动作
 - Action:
 - Success signal:
 
-## 如果成功
+## 完成后
 
 - Next action:
 
-## 如果失败
+## 如果卡住
 
 - Fallback action:
 
-## 是否需要人工决策
+## 升级条件
 
 - Question:
-- 为什么会阻塞：
+- Escalate when:
 `;
 
 ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".lab", "context", "session-brief.md")] = `# 会话简报
@@ -1427,6 +1610,8 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".lab", "context", "session-brief.md")] = `# 会话简报
 ## 当前阶段
 
 - Stage:
+- Current objective:
+- Immediate next action:
 
 ## 主线任务
 
@@ -1435,10 +1620,15 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".lab", "context", "session-brief.md")] = `# 会话简报
 ## 当前最优路径
 
 - 已批准方向：
-- 为什么它是当前主路径：
+- Strongest supported claim:
 - Auto mode:
 - Auto objective:
 - Auto decision:
+- Collaborator report mode:
+- Canonical context readiness:
+- Method name:
+- Primary metrics:
+- Secondary metrics:
 
 ## 主要风险
 
@@ -1573,6 +1763,7 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".codex", "skills", "lab", "stages", "write.md")] = `# \`/l
 
 - 每轮只改一个 section 或一个明确子问题。
 - 最终稿必须是 LaTeX。
+- 普通起草轮次先跟随 \`workflow_language\`。
 - 如果配置了 \`paper_template_root\`，先检查该模板目录，再按其结构起草论文。
 - 已接入的模板目录可能包含用户或上游修改，默认不要改模板文件。
 - 如果没有配置模板且 \`paper_template_decision\` 是 \`unconfirmed\`，在第一次起草 \`.tex\` 之前必须先追问一次：继续使用默认 LaTeX scaffold，还是先接入模板目录。
@@ -1581,20 +1772,36 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".codex", "skills", "lab", "stages", "write.md")] = `# \`/l
 - 如果 \`paper_template_decision\` 已经是 \`default-scaffold\`，就使用交付目录下的默认 LaTeX scaffold。
 - 如果当前是最终导出或最终定稿轮次、\`paper_template_root\` 仍为空、\`paper_template_decision\` 是 \`default-scaffold\`，且 \`paper_template_final_reminder_acknowledged\` 是 \`false\`，就在最终定稿前再提醒一次是否切到模板。
 - 如果用户在最终提醒里仍确认继续使用默认 scaffold，就把 \`paper_template_final_reminder_acknowledged\` 持久化为 \`true\`。
+- 如果当前是最终导出或最终定稿轮次，且 \`workflow_language\` 与 \`paper_language\` 不一致、\`paper_language_finalization_decision\` 还是 \`unconfirmed\`，就必须追问一次：保持当前 workflow language，还是把最终稿转换成 \`paper_language\`。
+- 如果用户选择保持当前 workflow language，就把 \`paper_language_finalization_decision\` 持久化成 \`keep-workflow-language\`。
+- 如果用户选择转换成最终论文语言，就把 \`paper_language_finalization_decision\` 持久化成 \`convert-to-paper-language\`。
+- 如果 \`paper_language_finalization_decision\` 是 \`convert-to-paper-language\`，在接受最终定稿前必须把最终稿转换到 \`paper_language\`。
 - 只加载当前 section guide，不要一次加载全部章节参考。
 - 如果当前 section 是 \`abstract\`、\`introduction\` 或 \`method\`，还必须继续读取本地 example bank：\`references/paper-writing/examples/index.md\`、对应的 examples index，以及 1-2 个具体 example 文件。
 - 如果当前 section 是 \`related work\`、\`experiments\` 或 \`conclusion\`，也要读取对应的本地 example bank：\`references/paper-writing/examples/index.md\`、对应的 examples index，以及 1-2 个具体 example 文件。
 - 例子只能复用结构、段落角色和句法逻辑，不能直接复用原句。
 - 先写 mini-outline 再写 prose。
-- 如果当前 section 带方法或实验 claim，先规划需要的表格、figure placeholders 和 citations，再写 prose。
+- 如果当前 section 带引言、方法、实验、相关工作或结论 claim，先规划需要的表格、figure placeholders 和 citations，再写 prose。
+- 在起草 \`introduction\`、\`method\`、\`experiments\`、\`related work\` 或 \`conclusion\` 之前，必须先运行 \`.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_paper_plan.py --paper-plan .lab/writing/plan.md\`。
+- 如果 \`paper-plan\` 校验失败，就先补 \`.lab/writing/plan.md\`，不能直接跳去写 prose。
+- 普通草稿轮次在改完当前 section 后，必须运行 \`.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_section_draft.py --section <section> --section-file <section-file> --mode draft\` 和 \`.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_paper_claims.py --section-file <section-file> --mode draft\`。
+- 普通草稿轮次里，这两类校验先按 warning 处理；warning 必须写进 write iteration artifact，不能假装没看到。
+- \`paper-plan\` 里还必须写清资产覆盖目标、问题设定或 teaser 图，以及一个额外 analysis asset。
 - 最终定稿或导出轮次里，必须维护非空的 \`references.bib\`，并把关键实验结果物化成真正的 LaTeX 表格：
   - \`<deliverables_root>/paper/tables/main-results.tex\`
   - \`<deliverables_root>/paper/tables/ablations.tex\`
 - 方法或实验章节还必须物化带 caption、label 和图意图的 figure placeholders：
+  - \`<deliverables_root>/paper/figures/problem-setting.tex\`
   - \`<deliverables_root>/paper/figures/method-overview.tex\`
   - \`<deliverables_root>/paper/figures/results-overview.tex\`
+- 还必须额外物化一个分析资产：
+  - \`<deliverables_root>/paper/analysis/analysis-asset.tex\`
+- 论文主文的核心资产覆盖至少应包括：问题设定或 teaser 图、方法总览图、结果总览图、主结果表、消融表，以及一个额外分析资产。
+- 只要论文资产发生变化，就同步更新 \`.lab/writing/plan.md\` 里的表计划、图计划、引用计划和章节到资产映射。
 - 不要把纯 prose section 当成论文交付完成。
 - 论文源码里不要出现绝对本地路径、workflow provenance、shell 日志或 \`+/-\` 这类工程记法；应改成 paper-facing LaTeX 表达。
+- 最终定稿或导出轮次结束前，必须先通过 \`.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_section_draft.py --section <section> --section-file <section-file> --mode final\` 和 \`.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_paper_claims.py --section-file <section-file> --mode final\`。
+- 如果最终轮次的 section 或 claim 校验失败，就继续改正文；不能因为资产齐全就停下。
 - 在最终定稿或导出轮次结束前，必须运行 \`.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_manuscript_delivery.py --paper-dir <deliverables_root>/paper\`；如果失败，就继续补表、图、引用和正文。
 - 如果本地有 LaTeX 工具链，就再跑一次 compile smoke test；如果没有，也要在 write iteration artifact 里记录该限制。
 - 如果缺少 framing artifact，不要继续写作，直接回到 \`/lab:framing\`。
@@ -1746,7 +1953,7 @@ description: 严格研究工作流，覆盖 idea、data、auto、framing、spec
 - 如果缺少的前提会改变结论，一次只追问一个问题。
 - 如果存在多条可行路径，先给 2-3 个方案、trade-offs 和推荐项，再收敛。
 - 如果某个 stage 会决定后续方向，就要保留明确的 approval gate。
-- 使用 \`.lab/config/workflow.json\` 作为全局约束，统一管理 workflow language、paper language、paper format、results_root、figures_root、deliverables_root 和 paper_template_root。
+- 使用 \`.lab/config/workflow.json\` 作为全局约束，统一管理 workflow language、paper language、paper format、results_root、figures_root、deliverables_root、paper_template_root 和 paper-language 的最终定稿决定。
 - 工作流中间工件默认跟随安装语言。
 - 最终论文默认输出为 LaTeX，论文语言与工作流语言分开决定。
 - 区分“来源事实”和“模型假设”。
@@ -1790,7 +1997,6 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".codex", "skills", "lab", "stages", "data.md")] = `# \`/la
 - \`.lab/context/state.md\`
 - \`.lab/context/decisions.md\`
 - \`.lab/context/data-decisions.md\`
-- \`.lab/context/session-brief.md\`
 
 ## 必要工件
 
@@ -2255,7 +2461,7 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".codex", "skills", "lab", "stages", "auto.md")] = `# \`/la
   - \`write\` 写出 \`<deliverables_root>/paper/\` 下的 LaTeX 产物
 - 如果即将进入 \`report\`，而 \`.lab/context/mission.md\` 或 \`.lab/context/eval-protocol.md\` 仍是模板空壳，就先根据冻结工件和已批准上下文回填最小可信版本。
 - 如果回填后仍缺少协作者可读所需的关键字段，就必须强制生成 \`artifact-anchored interim report\`，不能冒充最终协作者报告。
-- promotion 成功后，必须写回 \`data-decisions.md\`、\`decisions.md\`、\`state.md\` 和 \`session-brief.md\`。
+- promotion 成功后，必须写回 \`data-decisions.md\`、\`decisions.md\`、\`state.md\` 和 \`workflow-state.md\`。
 - 如果某个指标或对比 claim 在评估协议里没有带来源的定义，就不能拿它做 stop 或 promotion 判断。
 
 ## 最小流程
@@ -2299,6 +2505,10 @@ ZH_CONTENT[path.join(".codex", "skills", "lab", "stages", "auto.md")] = `# \`/la
   - 如果用户选择模板，就停止当前循环并转到 \`superlab paper attach-template --path <dir>\`
   - 如果当前是最终导出或最终定稿、\`paper_template_decision\` 是 \`default-scaffold\`，且 \`paper_template_final_reminder_acknowledged\` 是 \`false\`，就在最终定稿前再提醒一次
   - 如果用户在最终提醒里仍确认继续使用默认 scaffold，就持久化 \`paper_template_final_reminder_acknowledged: true\`
+- 普通 \`write\` 起草轮次先跟随 \`workflow_language\`。
+- 如果当前写作目标是最终导出、\`workflow_language\` 与 \`paper_language\` 不一致，且 \`paper_language_finalization_decision\` 还是 \`unconfirmed\`，就在最终定稿前追问一次：保持当前 workflow language，还是转换成 \`paper_language\`
+- 如果用户选择保持当前语言，就持久化 \`paper_language_finalization_decision: keep-workflow-language\`
+- 如果用户选择转换，就持久化 \`paper_language_finalization_decision: convert-to-paper-language\`
 - 不要把 \`sleep 30\`、单次 \`pgrep\` 或一次性的 \`metrics.json\` 探针当成 rung 主命令；这些只能算进度检查。
 - 当真实实验进程还活着时，只允许发进度更新并继续等待，不能把这一 rung 当作已经完成。
 `;

package/lib/lab_write_contract.json

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+{
+  "stage_prompt": {
+    "codex_en": "This command runs the `/lab:write` stage. Use `.codex/skills/lab/stages/write.md` as the single source of truth for template choice, paper-plan requirements, section references, validator gates, asset coverage, and final manuscript rules. Read the matching paper-writing reference and any bundled example-bank files for the requested section, revise only one section, and keep draft rounds warning-only while final-draft or export rounds must satisfy the write-stage acceptance gates. Draft ordinary manuscript rounds in `workflow_language`. If the manuscript would start from the managed scaffold and no template decision is recorded yet, ask once whether to keep the default scaffold or attach a template directory first. If finalization reaches a round where `workflow_language` and `paper_language` differ, ask once whether to keep the draft language or convert the final manuscript to `paper_language`.",
+    "claude_en": "This command runs the `write` stage of the lab workflow. Use `.claude/skills/lab/stages/write.md` as the single source of truth for template choice, paper-plan requirements, section references, validator gates, asset coverage, and final manuscript rules. Read the matching paper-writing reference and any bundled example-bank files for the requested section, revise only one section, and keep draft rounds warning-only while final-draft or export rounds must satisfy the write-stage acceptance gates. Draft ordinary manuscript rounds in `workflow_language`. If the manuscript would start from the managed scaffold and no template decision is recorded yet, ask once whether to keep the default scaffold or attach a template directory first. If finalization reaches a round where `workflow_language` and `paper_language` differ, ask once whether to keep the draft language or convert the final manuscript to `paper_language`.",
+    "codex_zh": "本命令运行 `/lab:write` 阶段。把 `.codex/skills/lab/stages/write.md` 当成模板选择、paper-plan、section 参考、校验 gate、资产覆盖和最终 manuscript 规则的单一来源。读取与当前 section 对应的 paper-writing reference 和 bundled example-bank 文件，一次只修改一个 section；普通草稿轮次把写作校验当 warning，最终定稿或导出轮次必须满足 write-stage 的接受 gate。普通起草轮次先跟随 `workflow_language`。如果当前稿件将从托管默认 scaffold 开始，且还没有模板决定，就先追问一次：继续使用默认 scaffold，还是先接入模板目录。如果进入最终定稿时 `workflow_language` 与 `paper_language` 不一致，就再追问一次：保持当前语言，还是把最终稿转换成 `paper_language`。",
+    "claude_zh": "本命令运行 lab workflow 的 `write` 阶段。把 `.claude/skills/lab/stages/write.md` 当成模板选择、paper-plan、section 参考、校验 gate、资产覆盖和最终 manuscript 规则的单一来源。读取与当前 section 对应的 paper-writing reference 和 bundled example-bank 文件，一次只修改一个 section；普通草稿轮次把写作校验当 warning，最终定稿或导出轮次必须满足 write-stage 的接受 gate。普通起草轮次先跟随 `workflow_language`。如果当前稿件将从托管默认 scaffold 开始，且还没有模板决定，就先追问一次：继续使用默认 scaffold，还是先接入模板目录。如果进入最终定稿时 `workflow_language` 与 `paper_language` 不一致，就再追问一次：保持当前语言，还是把最终稿转换成 `paper_language`。"
+  }
+}

package/package-assets/claude/commands/lab-idea.md

@@ -7,4 +7,4 @@ argument-hint: idea or research problem
 Use the installed `lab` skill at `.claude/skills/lab/SKILL.md`.
 
 Execute the requested `/lab-idea` command against the user's argument now. Do not only recommend another lab stage. If a blocking prerequisite is missing, say exactly what is missing and ask at most one clarifying question.
-This command runs the `idea` stage of the lab workflow. Follow the installed skill, stage guide, and the project assets under `.lab/`.
+This command runs the `idea` stage of the lab workflow. It must produce a collaborator-readable proposal memo with a plain-language scenario, problem, why-it-matters explanation, explicit current-method landscape, closest-prior-work comparison, a literature scoping bundle that defaults to roughly 20 relevant sources unless the field is too narrow, a rough approach description, and a minimum viable experiment before the approval gate.

package/package-assets/claude/commands/lab-write.md

@@ -7,4 +7,4 @@ argument-hint: section or writing target
 Use the installed `lab` skill at `.claude/skills/lab/SKILL.md`.
 
 Execute the requested `/lab-write` command against the user's argument now. Do not only recommend another lab stage. If a blocking prerequisite is missing, say exactly what is missing and ask at most one clarifying question.
-This command runs the `write` stage of the lab workflow. It requires an approved framing artifact from the `framing` stage, must read the matching section reference from `.claude/skills/lab/references/paper-writing/`, and for any section with a bundled example bank it must also read `.claude/skills/lab/references/paper-writing/examples/index.md` plus the matching examples index and 1-2 concrete example files. Then it should run `paper-review.md` and `does-my-writing-flow-source.md`, build a mini-outline, plan the section's paper-facing tables/figures/citations, and revise only one section. Final-draft or export rounds must run `.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_manuscript_delivery.py --paper-dir <deliverables_root>/paper` before stopping.
+This command runs the `write` stage of the lab workflow. Use `.claude/skills/lab/stages/write.md` as the single source of truth for template choice, paper-plan requirements, section references, validator gates, asset coverage, and final manuscript rules. Read the matching paper-writing reference and any bundled example-bank files for the requested section, revise only one section, and keep draft rounds warning-only while final-draft or export rounds must satisfy the write-stage acceptance gates. Draft ordinary manuscript rounds in `workflow_language`. If the manuscript would start from the managed scaffold and no template decision is recorded yet, ask once whether to keep the default scaffold or attach a template directory first. If finalization reaches a round where `workflow_language` and `paper_language` differ, ask once whether to keep the draft language or convert the final manuscript to `paper_language`.

package/package-assets/claude/commands/lab.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Use the same repository artifacts and stage boundaries every time.
 
 - `/lab write ...` or `/lab-write`
   Turn stable report artifacts into paper sections through small, evidence-bound writing rounds using the vendored paper-writing references under the installed `lab` skill.
-  On the first manuscript-writing round, if `paper_template_root` is empty, explicitly ask once whether to stay on the managed default LaTeX scaffold or attach a template directory first; persist the user's default-scaffold choice before continuing.
+  Follow the installed `write` stage contract for paper-plan, section-quality, claim-safety, manuscript-delivery, and template-choice gates instead of re-inventing a parallel writing workflow.
 
 ## Dispatch Rules
 
@@ -58,8 +58,9 @@ Use the same repository artifacts and stage boundaries every time.
 - `iterate` requires a normalized summary from `scripts/eval_report.py`.
 - `run`, `iterate`, `auto`, and `report` should all follow `.lab/context/eval-protocol.md`, including its recorded sources for metrics and comparison implementations.
 - `write` requires an approved framing artifact from the `framing` stage.
-- `write` requires stable report artifacts, a mini-outline, the active section guide, the matching bundled examples when available, `paper-review.md`, and `does-my-writing-flow-source.md`, and should only change one section per round.
-- Final-draft or export rounds in `write` should materialize paper-facing tables, figure placeholders, a non-empty `references.bib`, and pass `.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_manuscript_delivery.py --paper-dir <deliverables_root>/paper`.
+- `write` requires stable report artifacts and should only change one section per round while following the installed write-stage contract under `skills/lab/stages/write.md`.
+- `write` should use `.lab/writing/plan.md` as the write-time source of truth for planned tables, figures, citations, and asset coverage.
+- `write` should treat section-quality, claim-safety, and manuscript-delivery validators as the canonical acceptance gates for final-draft or export rounds.
 
 ## How to Ask for `/lab auto`
 

package/package-assets/codex/prompts/lab-idea.md

@@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ argument-hint: idea or research problem
 Use the installed `lab` skill at `.codex/skills/lab/SKILL.md`.
 
 Execute the requested `/lab:idea` stage against the user's argument now. Do not only recommend another lab stage. If a blocking prerequisite is missing, say exactly what is missing and ask at most one clarifying question.
-This command runs the `/lab:idea` stage. Follow the installed skill, stage guide, and the project assets under `.lab/`.
+This command runs the `/lab:idea` stage. It must produce a collaborator-readable proposal memo with a plain-language scenario, problem, why-it-matters explanation, explicit current-method landscape, closest-prior-work comparison, a literature scoping bundle that defaults to roughly 20 relevant sources unless the field is too narrow, a rough approach description, and a minimum viable experiment before the approval gate.

package/package-assets/codex/prompts/lab-write.md

@@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ argument-hint: section or writing target
 Use the installed `lab` skill at `.codex/skills/lab/SKILL.md`.
 
 Execute the requested `/lab:write` stage against the user's argument now. Do not only recommend another lab stage. If a blocking prerequisite is missing, say exactly what is missing and ask at most one clarifying question.
-This command runs the `/lab:write` stage. It requires an approved framing artifact from `/lab:framing`, must read the matching section reference from `.codex/skills/lab/references/paper-writing/`, and for any section with a bundled example bank it must also read `.codex/skills/lab/references/paper-writing/examples/index.md` plus the matching examples index and 1-2 concrete example files. Then it should run `paper-review.md` and `does-my-writing-flow-source.md`, build a mini-outline, plan the section's paper-facing tables/figures/citations, and revise only one section. Final-draft or export rounds must run `.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_manuscript_delivery.py --paper-dir <deliverables_root>/paper` before stopping.
+This command runs the `/lab:write` stage. Use `.codex/skills/lab/stages/write.md` as the single source of truth for template choice, paper-plan requirements, section references, validator gates, asset coverage, and final manuscript rules. Read the matching paper-writing reference and any bundled example-bank files for the requested section, revise only one section, and keep draft rounds warning-only while final-draft or export rounds must satisfy the write-stage acceptance gates. Draft ordinary manuscript rounds in `workflow_language`. If the manuscript would start from the managed scaffold and no template decision is recorded yet, ask once whether to keep the default scaffold or attach a template directory first. If finalization reaches a round where `workflow_language` and `paper_language` differ, ask once whether to keep the draft language or convert the final manuscript to `paper_language`.

package/package-assets/codex/prompts/lab.md

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ argument-hint: workflow question or stage choice
 
 - `/lab:write`
   Turn stable report artifacts into paper sections through small, evidence-bound writing rounds using the vendored paper-writing references under the installed `lab` skill.
-  On the first manuscript-writing round, if `paper_template_root` is empty, explicitly ask once whether to stay on the managed default LaTeX scaffold or attach a template directory first; persist the user's default-scaffold choice before continuing.
+  Follow the installed `/lab:write` contract for paper-plan, section-quality, claim-safety, manuscript-delivery, and template-choice gates instead of re-inventing a parallel writing workflow.
 
 ## Dispatch Rules
 
@@ -52,8 +52,9 @@ argument-hint: workflow question or stage choice
 - `/lab:iterate` requires a normalized summary from `scripts/eval_report.py`.
 - `/lab:run`, `/lab:iterate`, `/lab:auto`, and `/lab:report` should all follow `.lab/context/eval-protocol.md`, including its recorded sources for metrics and comparison implementations.
 - `/lab:write` requires an approved framing artifact from `/lab:framing`.
-- `/lab:write` requires stable report artifacts, a mini-outline, the active section guide, the matching bundled examples when available, `paper-review.md`, and `does-my-writing-flow-source.md`, and should only change one section per round.
-- Final-draft or export rounds in `/lab:write` should materialize paper-facing tables, figure placeholders, a non-empty `references.bib`, and pass `.lab/.managed/scripts/validate_manuscript_delivery.py --paper-dir <deliverables_root>/paper`.
+- `/lab:write` requires stable report artifacts and should only change one section per round while following the installed write-stage contract under `skills/lab/stages/write.md`.
+- `/lab:write` should use `.lab/writing/plan.md` as the write-time source of truth for planned tables, figures, citations, and asset coverage.
+- `/lab:write` should treat section-quality, claim-safety, and manuscript-delivery validators as the canonical acceptance gates for final-draft or export rounds.
 
 ## How to Ask for `/lab:auto`