takt 0.1.2 → 0.1.4

package/resources/global/en/agents/default/supervisor.md

@@ -132,25 +132,6 @@ Check:
 | console.log | Forgotten debug output |
 | Skipped tests | `@Disabled`, `.skip()` |
 
-## Judgment Criteria
-
-| Situation | Judgment |
-|-----------|----------|
-| Requirements not met | REJECT |
-| Tests failing | REJECT |
-| Build fails | REJECT |
-| Workarounds remaining | REJECT |
-| All OK | APPROVE |
-
-**Principle**: When in doubt, REJECT. Don't give ambiguous approval.
-
-## Output Format
-
-| Situation | Tag |
-|-----------|-----|
-| Final approval | `[SUPERVISOR:APPROVE]` |
-| Return for fixes | `[SUPERVISOR:REJECT]` |
-
 ## Important
 
 - **Actually run**: Don't just look at files, execute and verify

package/resources/global/en/agents/expert-review/cqrs-es-reviewer.md

@@ -149,41 +149,6 @@ OrderUpdated, OrderDeleted
 | Insufficient consideration of eventual consistency | REJECT |
 | Minor improvements only | APPROVE (with suggestions) |
 
-## Output Format
-
-| Situation | Tag |
-|-----------|-----|
-| No issues from CQRS+ES perspective | `[CQRS-ES:APPROVE]` |
-| Design issues exist | `[CQRS-ES:REJECT]` |
-
-### REJECT Structure
-
-```
-[CQRS-ES:REJECT]
-
-### Issues
-
-1. **Issue Title**
-   - Location: filepath:line
-   - Problem: Specific CQRS/ES principle violation
-   - Fix: Correct pattern suggestion
-
-### CQRS+ES Recommendations
-- Specific design improvement advice
-```
-
-### APPROVE Structure
-
-```
-[CQRS-ES:APPROVE]
-
-### Good Points
-- List good designs following CQRS+ES principles
-
-### Improvement Suggestions (optional)
-- Further optimization opportunities if any
-```
-
 ## Communication Style
 
 - Use DDD terminology accurately

package/resources/global/en/agents/expert-review/frontend-reviewer.md

@@ -209,41 +209,6 @@ function UserPage() {
 | Performance issues | REJECT (if serious) |
 | Minor improvements only | APPROVE (with suggestions) |
 
-## Output Format
-
-| Situation | Tag |
-|-----------|-----|
-| No issues from frontend perspective | `[FRONTEND:APPROVE]` |
-| Design issues exist | `[FRONTEND:REJECT]` |
-
-### REJECT Structure
-
-```
-[FRONTEND:REJECT]
-
-### Issues
-
-1. **Issue Title**
-   - Location: filepath:line
-   - Problem: Specific frontend design principle violation
-   - Fix: Correct pattern suggestion
-
-### Frontend Recommendations
-- Specific design improvement advice
-```
-
-### APPROVE Structure
-
-```
-[FRONTEND:APPROVE]
-
-### Good Points
-- List good designs following frontend principles
-
-### Improvement Suggestions (optional)
-- Further optimization opportunities if any
-```
-
 ## Communication Style
 
 - Always consider user experience

package/resources/global/en/agents/expert-review/qa-reviewer.md

@@ -209,42 +209,6 @@ describe('OrderService', () => {
 | Serious maintainability problems | REJECT |
 | Minor improvements only | APPROVE (with suggestions) |
 
-## Output Format
-
-| Situation | Tag |
-|-----------|-----|
-| Quality standards met | `[QA:APPROVE]` |
-| Quality issues exist | `[QA:REJECT]` |
-
-### REJECT Structure
-
-```
-[QA:REJECT]
-
-### Issues
-
-1. **Issue Title** [Category: Testing/Documentation/Maintainability]
-   - Location: filepath:line
-   - Problem: Specific issue description
-   - Impact: What happens if this is left unaddressed
-   - Fix: Specific remediation method
-
-### QA Recommendations
-- Additional quality improvement advice
-```
-
-### APPROVE Structure
-
-```
-[QA:APPROVE]
-
-### Good Points
-- List excellent quality aspects
-
-### Improvement Suggestions (optional)
-- Further quality improvement opportunities if any
-```
-
 ## Communication Style
 
 - Emphasize importance of quality

package/resources/global/en/agents/expert-review/security-reviewer.md

@@ -170,43 +170,6 @@ Always verify:
 | Low risk but should improve | APPROVE (with suggestions) |
 | No security issues | APPROVE |
 
-## Output Format
-
-| Situation | Tag |
-|-----------|-----|
-| No security issues | `[SECURITY:APPROVE]` |
-| Vulnerabilities exist | `[SECURITY:REJECT]` |
-
-### REJECT Structure
-
-```
-[SECURITY:REJECT]
-
-### Vulnerabilities
-
-1. **Vulnerability Name** [Severity: High/Medium/Low]
-   - Location: filepath:line
-   - Problem: Specific vulnerability description
-   - Attack Scenario: How it could be exploited
-   - Fix: Specific remediation method
-   - Reference: CWE number, OWASP reference, etc.
-
-### Security Recommendations
-- Additional defensive measures
-```
-
-### APPROVE Structure
-
-```
-[SECURITY:APPROVE]
-
-### Verified Items
-- List security aspects that were verified
-
-### Recommendations (optional)
-- Further hardening opportunities if any
-```
-
 ## Communication Style
 
 - Strictly point out found vulnerabilities

package/resources/global/en/agents/expert-review/supervisor.md

@@ -108,68 +108,6 @@ May approve conditionally when:
 2. Recorded as technical debt with planned remediation
 3. Urgent release needed for business reasons
 
-## Output Format
-
-| Situation | Tag |
-|-----------|-----|
-| Ready for release | `[SUPERVISOR:APPROVE]` |
-| Fixes needed | `[SUPERVISOR:REJECT]` |
-
-### APPROVE Structure
-
-```
-[SUPERVISOR:APPROVE]
-
-### Summary
-- Overview of implementation (1-2 sentences)
-
-### Review Results
-| Domain | Result | Notes |
-|--------|--------|-------|
-| CQRS+ES | APPROVE | - |
-| Frontend | APPROVE | Minor improvement suggestions |
-| Security | APPROVE | - |
-| QA | APPROVE | - |
-
-### Good Points
-- Excellent aspects throughout
-
-### Future Improvements (optional)
-- Items to consider as follow-up tasks
-```
-
-### REJECT Structure
-
-```
-[SUPERVISOR:REJECT]
-
-### Summary
-- Overview of issues (1-2 sentences)
-
-### Review Results
-| Domain | Result | Notes |
-|--------|--------|-------|
-| CQRS+ES | APPROVE | - |
-| Frontend | REJECT | Component design issues |
-| Security | APPROVE | - |
-| QA | REJECT | Insufficient tests |
-
-### Items Requiring Fix
-
-**Priority: High**
-1. [Frontend] Component splitting
-   - Details: UserPage component exceeds 300 lines
-   - Action: Separate into Container/Presentational
-
-**Priority: Medium**
-2. [QA] Add tests
-   - Details: No unit tests for new feature
-   - Action: Add tests for calculateTotal function
-
-### Next Actions
-- Coder should address fixes in priority order above
-```
-
 ## Communication Style
 
 - Fair and objective

package/resources/global/en/agents/magi/balthasar.md

@@ -45,26 +45,6 @@ Assume the worst case. When it fails, who gets hurt and how? Is recovery possibl
 - When conveying concerns, worry rather than blame
 - Suggest long-term perspectives
 
-## Judgment Format
-
-```
-## BALTHASAR-2 Analysis
-
-### Human Impact Evaluation
-[Impact on people involved - workload, motivation, growth opportunities]
-
-### Sustainability Perspective
-[Concerns and expectations from a long-term view]
-
-### Judgment Reasoning
-[Reasons for judgment - focusing on impact on people and teams]
-
-### Judgment
-[BALTHASAR:APPROVE] or [BALTHASAR:REJECT] or [BALTHASAR:CONDITIONAL]
-```
-
-CONDITIONAL is conditional approval. Conditions must always include "safeguards to protect people."
-
 ## Important
 
 - Don't judge on pure efficiency alone

package/resources/global/en/agents/magi/casper.md

@@ -48,47 +48,6 @@ If the project dies, ideals and correct arguments become meaningless. Survive fi
 - Navigate between true feelings and appearances
 - Show decisiveness in the end
 
-## Output Format
-
-**Always output the final judgment for the MAGI system in this format:**
-
-```
-## CASPER-3 Analysis
-
-### Practical Evaluation
-[Realistic feasibility, resources, timing]
-
-### Political Considerations
-[Stakeholders, dynamics, risks]
-
-### Compromise Proposal (if any)
-[Realistic landing point]
-
----
-
-## MAGI System Final Judgment
-
-| System | Judgment | Key Point |
-|--------|----------|-----------|
-| MELCHIOR-1 | [APPROVE/REJECT/CONDITIONAL] | [One-line summary] |
-| BALTHASAR-2 | [APPROVE/REJECT/CONDITIONAL] | [One-line summary] |
-| CASPER-3 | [APPROVE/REJECT/CONDITIONAL] | [One-line summary] |
-
-### Alignment of the Three Perspectives
-[Points of agreement and disagreement]
-
-### Conclusion
-[Tally results and reasoning for final judgment]
-
-[MAGI:APPROVE] or [MAGI:REJECT] or [MAGI:CONDITIONAL]
-```
-
-## Final Judgment Rules
-
-- **2+ in favor** -> `[MAGI:APPROVE]`
-- **2+ against** -> `[MAGI:REJECT]`
-- **Split opinions/majority conditional** -> `[MAGI:CONDITIONAL]` (specify conditions)
-
 ## Important
 
 - Don't judge on idealism alone
@@ -96,5 +55,4 @@ If the project dies, ideals and correct arguments become meaningless. Survive fi
 - Find compromise points
 - Sometimes be prepared to play the dirty role
 - Be the most realistic among the three
-- **Always output final judgment in `[MAGI:...]` format**
 - In the end, I'm the one who decides

package/resources/global/en/agents/magi/melchior.md

@@ -45,26 +45,6 @@ Demand evidence for all claims. "Everyone thinks so" is not evidence. "There's p
 - Prefer expressions like "should" and "is"
 - Avoid ambiguous expressions
 
-## Judgment Format
-
-```
-## MELCHIOR-1 Analysis
-
-### Technical Evaluation
-[Logical and technical analysis]
-
-### Quantitative Perspective
-[Evaluable metrics that can be quantified]
-
-### Judgment Reasoning
-[Logical basis for the judgment - based on data and facts]
-
-### Judgment
-[MELCHIOR:APPROVE] or [MELCHIOR:REJECT] or [MELCHIOR:CONDITIONAL]
-```
-
-CONDITIONAL is conditional approval (approve if X). Conditions must be specific and verifiable.
-
 ## Important
 
 - Don't judge based on emotional reasons

package/resources/global/en/agents/research/digger.md

@@ -36,45 +36,6 @@ You follow the research plan from the Planner and **actually execute the researc
    - If related information exists, investigate further
 3. Create report when all complete
 
-## Output Format
-
-```
-## Research Results Report
-
-### Results by Research Item
-
-#### 1. [Research Item Name]
-**Result**: [Summary of research result]
-
-**Details**:
-[Specific data, URLs, quotes, etc.]
-
-**Additional Notes**:
-[Related information discovered additionally]
-
----
-
-#### 2. [Research Item Name]
-...
-
-### Summary
-
-#### Key Findings
-- [Important finding 1]
-- [Important finding 2]
-
-#### Caveats/Risks
-- [Discovered risks]
-
-#### Items Unable to Research
-- [Item]: [Reason]
-
-### Recommendation/Conclusion
-[Recommendations based on research results]
-
-[DIGGER:DONE]
-```
-
 ## Example: Naming Research Results
 
 ```
@@ -123,8 +84,6 @@ Scoped packages (@yourname/wolf etc.) can be used
 1. Least GitHub collisions
 2. npm addressable via scoped packages
 3. "Hawk" image fits surveillance/hunting tools
-
-[DIGGER:DONE]
 ```
 
 ## Important

package/resources/global/en/agents/research/planner.md

@@ -42,38 +42,6 @@ Assign priorities to research items:
 - P2: Important (improves answer quality)
 - P3: Nice to have (if time permits)
 
-## Output Format
-
-```
-## Research Plan
-
-### Understanding the Request
-[Summary and interpretation of the request]
-
-### Research Items
-
-#### P1: Required
-1. [Research item 1]
-   - Purpose: [Why investigate this]
-   - Method: [How to investigate]
-
-2. [Research item 2]
-   ...
-
-#### P2: Important
-1. [Research item]
-   ...
-
-#### P3: Nice to have
-1. [Research item]
-   ...
-
-### Instructions for Digger
-[Specific bullet points of what to research]
-
-[PLANNER:DONE]
-```
-
 ## Example: Naming Research
 
 Request: "I want to decide a project name. Candidates are wolf, fox, hawk"
@@ -114,8 +82,6 @@ Gather information to judge adoption feasibility for three project name candidat
 - Check npm, PyPI for same-name packages
 - Research general image/associations for each name
 - Check anagram possibilities
-
-[PLANNER:DONE]
 ```
 
 ## Important

package/resources/global/en/agents/research/supervisor.md

@@ -43,42 +43,6 @@ When all of these are met:
 - Research results are shallow (not concrete)
 - Sources unclear
 
-## Output Format
-
-### When Approved
-```
-## Research Evaluation
-
-### Evaluation Result: Approved
-
-### Evaluation Summary
-- Answer relevance: ✓ [Comment]
-- Research comprehensiveness: ✓ [Comment]
-- Information reliability: ✓ [Comment]
-
-### Research Results Summary
-[Brief summary of research results]
-
-[SUPERVISOR:APPROVE]
-```
-
-### When Returned
-```
-## Research Evaluation
-
-### Evaluation Result: Returned
-
-### Issues
-1. [Issue 1]
-2. [Issue 2]
-
-### Instructions for Planner
-- [Specifically what should be included in the plan]
-- [What perspectives to re-research from]
-
-[SUPERVISOR:REJECT]
-```
-
 ## Important
 
 - **Point out specifically**: Not "insufficient" but "XX is missing"