tink-harness 1.9.21 → 1.10.0

package/templates/tink/harnesses/HARNESS.md

@@ -2,13 +2,12 @@
 
 사람이 빠르게 훑어보기 위한 하네스 요약 모음. `index.json`이 진짜 원본이고, 이 파일은 사람용 색인입니다. 새 작업을 시작하기 전에 먼저 훑어서 기존 하네스를 재사용하거나 여러 하네스의 단계를 조합할 수 있을지 검토하세요.
 
+## 기본 절차 (하네스 없음)
+
+일반적인 코드 변경·버그 수정·조사·리뷰·문서 작업은 별도 하네스 없이 **기본 절차**로 진행합니다. 실행 상태 계약(`plan.md`, `checks.md`, `steps.json`, `contract.json`)이 범위·검증·증거를 이미 강제하므로, 범용 하네스는 기본 세트에서 퇴역했습니다. 하네스는 아래처럼 절차가 실제로 특화된 경우에만 선택합니다.
+
 ## 작업용 하네스
 
-- **[code-change](./code-change.md)** (small) — 범위가 명확한 코드 추가·변경·리팩토링. 관련 파일만 손대고 테스트 근거 남기기.
-- **[bug-fix](./bug-fix.md)** (small) — 재현 → 근본 원인 → 최소 수정 → 회귀 확인.
-- **[research](./research.md)** (small) — 옵션 비교, 문서 읽기, 근거 수집. 추측 분리, 다음 액션 명시.
-- **[review](./review.md)** (small) — 변경·위험·PR 검토. 실측 발견점만 기록.
-- **[docs](./docs.md)** (tiny) — README, 가이드, PRD. 독자와 다음 행동을 명확히.
 - **[requirements-interview](./requirements-interview.md)** (small) — 모호한 아이디어를 한 번에 한 질문씩 좁혀 성공 조건과 금지 조건을 명확히.
 - **[plan-consensus](./plan-consensus.md)** (small) — 큰 설계·리팩토링 계획을 Planner → Architect → Critic → Final 흐름으로 점검.
 - **[goal-checkpoint](./goal-checkpoint.md)** (small) — 긴 실행을 2-6개 목표와 완료 증거로 쪼개 `.tink/current/goals.json`에 기록.

package/templates/tink/harnesses/index.json

@@ -1,79 +1,4 @@
 [
-  {
-    "name": "code-change",
-    "kind": "built-in",
-    "context": "small",
-    "use_when": "Add, change, or refactor code with a clear scope.",
-    "asks": [
-      "What is the target?",
-      "What should not change?"
-    ],
-    "checks": [
-      "Related files only",
-      "Tests or clear reason not run",
-      "Diff evidence"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "name": "bug-fix",
-    "kind": "built-in",
-    "context": "small",
-    "use_when": "Something is broken and needs a minimal fix.",
-    "asks": [
-      "How can it be reproduced?",
-      "Expected vs actual?"
-    ],
-    "checks": [
-      "Reproduced or reason stated",
-      "Root cause identified",
-      "Regression checked"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "name": "research",
-    "kind": "built-in",
-    "context": "small",
-    "use_when": "Compare options, read docs, or collect grounded facts.",
-    "asks": [
-      "What decision should this support?",
-      "What sources matter?"
-    ],
-    "checks": [
-      "Decision named",
-      "Facts separated from guesses",
-      "Recommendation follows evidence"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "name": "review",
-    "kind": "built-in",
-    "context": "small",
-    "use_when": "Review changes, risks, or a PR/diff.",
-    "asks": [
-      "What is the base?",
-      "What risks matter most?"
-    ],
-    "checks": [
-      "Correctness/security/data/UX risk addressed",
-      "Severity labeled per finding",
-      "No speculative blockers"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "name": "docs",
-    "kind": "built-in",
-    "context": "tiny",
-    "use_when": "Write or improve README, guides, PRDs, or user-facing docs.",
-    "asks": [
-      "Who is the reader?",
-      "What should they do next?"
-    ],
-    "checks": [
-      "Audience clear",
-      "Examples included if useful",
-      "Plain language"
-    ]
-  },
   {
     "name": "requirements-interview",
     "kind": "built-in",

package/templates/tink/rules/index.json

@@ -16,34 +16,6 @@
     "notes": "Rules stay file-based and small. They are not a public index, watcher, generated cache, or database-backed retrieval layer."
   },
   "nodes": [
-    {
-      "id": "harness:code-change",
-      "type": "harness",
-      "target": "code-change",
-      "load": "retrievable",
-      "phase": "classification",
-      "budget_cost": 2,
-      "keywords": ["code", "refactor", "implementation", "change"],
-      "when": { "task_type": ["code_change"] },
-      "select_harnesses": ["code-change"],
-      "checks": ["Related files only", "Tests or clear reason not run", "Diff evidence"],
-      "reason": "Code changes need a narrow implementation harness and explicit diff evidence.",
-      "risk": "A generic docs or research harness can skip implementation checks."
-    },
-    {
-      "id": "harness:bug-fix",
-      "type": "harness",
-      "target": "bug-fix",
-      "load": "retrievable",
-      "phase": "classification",
-      "budget_cost": 2,
-      "keywords": ["bug", "repro", "failure", "regression"],
-      "when": { "task_type": ["bug_fix"], "has_repro": [true] },
-      "select_harnesses": ["bug-fix"],
-      "checks": ["Reproduced or reason stated", "Root cause identified", "Regression checked"],
-      "reason": "Bug fixes should keep reproduction and regression evidence close to the change.",
-      "risk": "Skipping reproduction can turn a bug fix into an unverified code edit."
-    },
     {
       "id": "harness:requirements-interview",
       "type": "harness",

package/templates/tink/harnesses/bug-fix.md

@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
-# bug-fix
-
-## When to use
-Something is broken and needs a minimal fix.
-
-## Ask first
-- How can the bug be reproduced?
-- What is expected vs actual?
-- Is there a failing test, log, or screenshot?
-
-## Plan
-1. Reproduce or explain why reproduction is not possible.
-2. Identify the likely root cause.
-3. Make the smallest fix.
-4. Run a regression check.
-5. Report the evidence.
-
-## Checks
-- Reproduction confirmed, or impossibility is explained.
-- Root cause identified, not just symptom.
-- Fix is minimal — no unrelated changes included.
-- Regression check run, or reason not run is stated.
-- Do not repeat questions already answered in `.tink/current/answers.md`.
-
-## Done means
-- Bug no longer reproduces or risk is stated.
-- Root cause is explained.
-- Regression check is complete.
-
-## If it fails, Tink back
-Return to the last safe step. State what failed, the last safe point, and the next single action.

package/templates/tink/harnesses/code-change.md

@@ -1,30 +0,0 @@
-# code-change
-
-## When to use
-Add, change, or refactor code with a clear scope.
-
-## Ask first
-- What is the target behavior?
-- What files or areas are in scope?
-- What must not change?
-
-## Plan
-1. Inspect before editing.
-2. Make the smallest useful change.
-3. Avoid unrelated cleanup.
-4. Run the relevant check.
-5. Report changed files and evidence.
-
-## Checks
-- Only target files modified; no unrelated changes.
-- Tests or build verified, or reason not run is stated.
-- Changed lines match stated scope — no unnoticed behavior shift.
-- Do not repeat questions already answered in `.tink/current/answers.md`.
-
-## Done means
-- Only related files changed.
-- Tests/build pass, or reason not run is stated.
-- Diff evidence is available.
-
-## If it fails, Tink back
-Return to the last safe step. State what failed, the last safe point, and the next single action.

package/templates/tink/harnesses/docs.md

@@ -1,30 +0,0 @@
-# docs
-
-## When to use
-Write or improve README, guides, PRDs, or user-facing docs.
-
-## Ask first
-- Who is the reader?
-- What should the reader do next?
-- What tone should be used?
-
-## Plan
-1. Define the reader and goal.
-2. Outline first.
-3. Use plain words.
-4. Add examples only where useful.
-5. Check for missing next steps.
-
-## Checks
-- Reader and goal are explicitly stated.
-- At least one next action is present.
-- No jargon left undefined for the stated reader.
-- Do not repeat questions already answered in `.tink/current/answers.md`.
-
-## Done means
-- Reader and action are clear.
-- Structure is easy to scan.
-- No unnecessary jargon.
-
-## If it fails, Tink back
-Return to the last safe step. State what failed, the last safe point, and the next single action.

package/templates/tink/harnesses/research.md

@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
-# research
-
-## When to use
-Compare options, read docs, or collect grounded facts.
-
-## Ask first
-- What decision should this support?
-- Which sources or constraints matter?
-- How current does the answer need to be?
-
-## Plan
-1. Define the question.
-2. Collect sources.
-3. Separate facts from guesses.
-4. Summarize tradeoffs.
-5. Recommend the next action.
-
-## Checks
-- Decision this research supports is named.
-- At least two options or sources are compared.
-- Facts and guesses are explicitly labeled.
-- Recommendation follows from evidence, not preference.
-- Do not repeat questions already answered in `.tink/current/answers.md`.
-
-## Done means
-- Sources are linked.
-- Uncertainty is labeled.
-- Recommendation follows from evidence.
-
-## If it fails, Tink back
-Return to the last safe step. State what failed, the last safe point, and the next single action.

package/templates/tink/harnesses/review.md

@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
-# review
-
-## When to use
-Review changes, risks, or a PR/diff.
-
-## Ask first
-- What should be reviewed?
-- What is the base or expected behavior?
-- Which risks matter most?
-
-## Plan
-1. Inspect changed files.
-2. Prioritize correctness, security, data, and UX risks.
-3. Check tests or evidence.
-4. Write actionable findings only.
-5. Avoid unsupported style noise.
-
-## Checks
-- Correctness, security, data, and UX risk each addressed or noted absent.
-- Each finding has a severity label (blocker / major / minor / nit).
-- No speculative blockers — each is reproducible or evidence-based.
-- No unrelated style or preference noise.
-- Do not repeat questions already answered in `.tink/current/answers.md`.
-
-## Done means
-- Findings are reproducible or evidence-based.
-- Severity is clear.
-- No speculative blockers.
-
-## If it fails, Tink back
-Return to the last safe step. State what failed, the last safe point, and the next single action.