universal-dev-standards 5.17.0 → 6.1.0

package/bundled/ai/standards/requirement-engineering.ai.yaml

@@ -3,10 +3,14 @@
 
 id: requirement-engineering
 meta:
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  updated: "2026-01-13"
+  version: "1.1.0"
+  updated: "2026-07-10"
   source: methodologies/guides/requirement-engineering-guide.md
-  description: Requirements engineering lifecycle, elicitation, specification, and validation standards
+  description: |
+    Requirements engineering lifecycle, elicitation, specification, and validation standards.
+    v1.1.0 adds checklist_generation: dynamic per-spec CHK### quality checklist
+    (5 dimensions, source-traceability tags), operationalizing the existing
+    static Validation Checklist / IEEE 830 quality_characteristics below.
 
 # Reference Standards
 references:
@@ -118,6 +122,41 @@ srs_structure:
     - Modifiable (easy to change)
     - Traceable (origin and implementation linkable)
 
+# 需求品質檢核清單生成（spec-kit /checklist 借鑑，2026-07-10 回頭對齊評估新增）
+# 把上方 srs_structure.quality_characteristics（IEEE 830 8 大品質特性）從靜態參考文字
+# 操作化成可對特定 spec 動態產生的逐項檢核清單——不是「作者自我檢查一次」的固定清單，
+# 是「這份 spec 本身夠不夠完整/清楚/一致/可量測/可追溯」的單元測試。
+checklist_generation:
+  format: "CHK### [dimension] <yes/no question about the spec's own quality> [tag(s)]"
+  append_only: true
+  dimensions:
+    - id: completeness
+      maps_to: Complete (IEEE 830)
+      checks_for: "遺漏的情境、未處理的邊界案例、未記載的 NFR"
+    - id: clarity
+      maps_to: Unambiguous (IEEE 830)
+      checks_for: "模糊詞彙（appropriate/fast/user-friendly）、未定義代名詞"
+    - id: consistency
+      maps_to: Consistent (IEEE 830)
+      checks_for: "spec 內部或跨 spec 的矛盾陳述"
+    - id: measurability
+      maps_to: Verifiable (IEEE 830)
+      checks_for: "未量化的 NFR、無法測試的驗收條件"
+    - id: coverage
+      maps_to: Traceable (IEEE 830)
+      checks_for: "無法追溯到來源（利害關係人需求/商業目標）的需求"
+  traceability_tags:
+    "[Spec §X.Y]": "有依據——引用具體 spec 段落"
+    "[Gap]": "spec 沒提到，無段落可引用"
+    "[Ambiguity]": "spec 有提到但用詞允許多種解讀"
+    "[Conflict]": "≥2 個 spec 段落互相矛盾，須都引用"
+    "[Assumption]": "揭露 spec 依賴的未言明假設"
+  rules:
+    - "至少 80% 的產出項目須帶 [Spec §X.Y] 標籤——若多數是 [Gap]/[Assumption]，代表 spec 本身太薄弱，不是產生器的問題"
+    - "產生前最多問 5 個適應性釐清問題（無法從 spec 推斷的領域脈絡）；超過 5 個代表該回 Discuss 階段而非繼續問"
+    - "append-only：對修訂後的 spec 重跑，接續編號新增項目，不重新編號或刪除舊項目；被解決的項目標記 [Resolved: <修訂說明>]，不刪除"
+  boundary: "檢查對象是 spec 本身的品質，非程式碼；不取代/不重疊 acceptance-criteria-traceability 標準的 AC↔測試覆蓋率檢查（那個問「測試有沒有涵蓋 spec」，這個問「spec 本身夠不夠格拿去寫測試」）"
+
 # SMART Requirements
 smart:
   S: { label: Specific, example: "Display 'Invalid email format' error" }

package/bundled/ai/standards/resource-cost-boundary.ai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,279 @@
+# Resource / Cost Boundary Declaration Standards - AI Optimized
+# Sources:
+#   v1.0.0 — XSPEC-277 Resource / Cost Boundary Declaration (cost burn as a declared, fail-closed boundary)
+#            XSPEC-276 (parent boundary-materialization lens; cost is the split-out dimension)
+#            XSPEC-285 (VibeOps proactive cost governance — the enforcement/executor face)
+
+id: resource-cost-boundary
+title: Resource / Cost Boundary Declaration Standards (Explicit, Machine-Readable, Fail-Closed Budgets)
+version: "1.0.0"
+status: Active
+tags: [cost-boundary, resource-budget, token-budget, cost-burn, fail-closed, governance-gate, llm-native, budget-declaration, runaway-loop]
+created: 2026-06-17
+updated: 2026-06-17
+
+spec_ref: XSPEC-277   # Resource / Cost Boundary Declaration complete spec
+
+references:
+  - XSPEC-277   # v1.0.0 source — Resource / Cost Boundary Declaration
+  - XSPEC-276   # Parent boundary-materialization lens (cost = split-out dimension)
+  - XSPEC-285   # VibeOps proactive cost governance — enforcement/executor face
+  - XSPEC-191   # Unit-economics PoC / BudgetGuard (reference implementation)
+  - XSPEC-270   # Model right-sizing router (cost-driven downgrade)
+  - XSPEC-037   # Capability declaration (fail-closed posture mirrored)
+  - DEC-024     # Pareto evolution token-cost gate (reference implementation)
+
+summary: |
+  The resource consumption of an agentic / LLM execution unit (pipeline run, agent, role) is
+  often implicit: token usage, loop/iteration count, retry count, per-run cost ceiling,
+  wall-clock, call rate. When those bounds are not explicitly declared and enforced, runaway
+  loops and token burn are a known LLM-native failure mode (cost burn).
+
+  This standard makes the resource/cost boundary a first-class, machine-readable, fail-closed
+  declaration. Any LLM execution unit MUST declare its resource budget; a runtime breach MUST
+  fail-closed per the declared behaviour. It is the COST dimension of boundary materialization
+  (XSPEC-276) — the one dimension UDS has no existing standard for, and concrete enough to be
+  AI-executable, so it is split out as a narrow standard.
+
+  REQ-001~005: a resource budget taxonomy (token/iteration/retry/cost_usd/wallclock/rate); a
+  machine-readable resource_budget: declaration (kind + limit + breach behaviour); a
+  fail-closed check-resource-budget gate (undeclared -> warn/block; runtime breach -> abort);
+  convergence of existing point mechanisms as reference implementations; and budget value
+  sovereignty (mechanism standardized, ceiling values owned by the adopter). This standard is
+  the "declare what bounds" half; XSPEC-285 is the "enforce/govern" half.
+
+scope:
+  applies_to:
+    - Any LLM execution unit (pipeline run, agent, role) whose resource consumption must be bounded
+    - Plans / agent configs / role configs that carry a resource_budget declaration
+    - Budget-breach run reports used as cost-governance / audit evidence
+  excludes:
+    - The budget VALUES themselves (actual ceilings) — owned by the adopter/customer (a project/economics decision)
+    - Enforcement-engine wiring (e.g. the VibeOps proactive cost-governance executor, XSPEC-285) — downstream
+    - Latency/throughput performance targets — that is performance-standards (adjacent, distinct)
+
+budget_taxonomy:
+  description: |
+    A standard set of resource budget kinds. A unit need not declare every kind, but a kind
+    it relies on for safety MUST be declared (an unbounded relied-upon kind is a violation).
+  kinds:
+    - kind: token
+      bound: input / output / total token ceiling
+      typical_breach: prompt/output explosion
+    - kind: iteration
+      bound: loop / iteration / tool-round upper bound
+      typical_breach: runaway loop
+    - kind: retry
+      bound: retry upper bound
+      typical_breach: unbounded re-attempt
+    - kind: cost_usd
+      bound: per-call / per-run / per-session cost ceiling
+      typical_breach: silent budget burn
+    - kind: wallclock
+      bound: timeout
+      typical_breach: hung run
+    - kind: rate
+      bound: call frequency
+      typical_breach: call storm
+
+declaration_format:
+  description: |
+    A first-class resource_budget: block embedded in a plan / agent / role config. Each entry
+    carries a kind + (optional) scope + limit value + on_breach behaviour.
+  example: |
+    resource_budget:
+      - kind: cost_usd
+        scope: per_run
+        limit: 3.00
+        on_breach: abort
+      - kind: iteration
+        limit: 60
+        on_breach: abort
+      - kind: retry
+        limit: 3
+        on_breach: warn
+      - kind: token
+        scope: total
+        limit: 400000
+        on_breach: abort
+  on_breach_values: [warn, abort]
+
+reference_implementations:
+  description: |
+    Existing VibeOps point mechanisms converge onto this standard as reference implementations
+    (REQ-004) — unified, not re-invented.
+  mappings:
+    - mechanism: "orchestrator quality profile max_retries / max_retry_budget_usd"
+      budget_kind: "retry / cost_usd (per-task fix-loop)"
+    - mechanism: "BudgetGuard / PoC abort max_cost_per_session_usd / min_cache_hit_ratio (XSPEC-191)"
+      budget_kind: "cost_usd / rate"
+    - mechanism: "Pareto Evolution Gate token-cost dimension (DEC-024)"
+      budget_kind: "token / cost_usd"
+    - mechanism: "agent-loop maxToolRounds / maxTotalTokens"
+      budget_kind: "iteration / token"
+
+principles:
+  - id: P-1
+    name: Bounds are Explicit
+    description: |
+      Resource budgets MUST be declared, not implicit in a developer's head or scattered
+      settings. An undeclared relied-upon bound is a violation, not an omission.
+
+  - id: P-2
+    name: Machine-Readable
+    description: |
+      The resource_budget: block is a first-class artifact a generator/runtime can read at
+      generation/execution time — so a unit knows its bounds up front, not after review.
+
+  - id: P-3
+    name: Fail-Closed
+    description: |
+      An undeclared relied-upon bound, or a runtime breach, MUST block/abort per declaration.
+      Never a silent unbounded pass — mirroring capability-declaration (XSPEC-037) fail-closed.
+
+  - id: P-4
+    name: No Re-Invention
+    description: |
+      Existing point mechanisms converge as reference implementations. New units inherit the
+      declaration habit rather than re-inventing a budget knob.
+
+  - id: P-5
+    name: Value Sovereignty
+    description: |
+      The declaration mechanism is standardized; the ceiling values are owned by the adopter
+      (a project/economics decision). The standard mandates that bounds are declared, not which.
+
+requirements:
+  - id: REQ-001
+    title: Resource Budget Taxonomy
+    description: |
+      Every LLM execution unit's resource bounds MUST be expressible from a standard set of
+      kinds: token, iteration, retry, cost_usd, wallclock, rate. A unit need not declare every
+      kind, but kinds it relies on for safety MUST be declared.
+    level: MUST
+    examples:
+      - "agent-loop declares iteration:60 + token(total):400000"
+      - "pipeline run declares cost_usd(per_run):3.00 + retry:3"
+
+  - id: REQ-002
+    title: Machine-Readable Declaration
+    description: |
+      A resource_budget: block MUST be declarable (embedded in plan / agent / role config),
+      each entry carrying kind + limit value + breach behaviour (warn / abort). It is a
+      first-class artifact, not a scattered setting or after-the-fact note.
+    level: MUST
+    schema_fields:
+      - "kind: token | iteration | retry | cost_usd | wallclock | rate"
+      - "scope (optional): per_call | per_run | per_session | total"
+      - "limit: numeric ceiling"
+      - "on_breach: warn | abort"
+
+  - id: REQ-003
+    title: Fail-Closed Enforcement Gate (check-resource-budget)
+    description: |
+      A quality gate check-resource-budget MUST (a) flag any LLM execution unit that does not
+      declare a budget (warn by default, block in strict mode); and (b) on a runtime breach
+      fail-closed per the declared on_breach (abort halts the unit, warn records and continues).
+      Mirrors capability-declaration (XSPEC-037) and the governance-gate family — never silent.
+    level: MUST
+    checks:
+      - "Unit with no resource_budget -> gate warns (strict mode: blocks)"
+      - "Runtime cost_usd exceeds declared limit with on_breach:abort -> unit aborts, breach recorded"
+      - "Runtime breach with on_breach:warn -> recorded and continues"
+
+  - id: REQ-004
+    title: Converge Existing Mechanisms (reference implementations)
+    description: |
+      Existing point mechanisms (orchestrator max_retries / max_retry_budget_usd, XSPEC-191
+      BudgetGuard, DEC-024 Pareto token gate, XSPEC-270 right-sizing router) SHOULD be mapped
+      to this standard as reference implementations — unified, not re-implemented.
+    level: SHOULD
+    checks:
+      - "Each existing budget mechanism maps to a taxonomy kind + on_breach behaviour"
+      - "A new agent/role adopts a resource_budget block rather than a bespoke budget knob"
+
+  - id: REQ-005
+    title: Budget Value Sovereignty
+    description: |
+      The declaration mechanism is standardized; the budget values (ceilings) are owned by the
+      adopter/customer (a project/economics decision). The standard mandates that bounds are
+      declared and enforced, not which numbers.
+    level: SHOULD
+    checks:
+      - "Ceiling values are adopter-configurable; the standard does not hard-code numbers"
+      - "The gate enforces presence + fail-closed behaviour, not a specific limit value"
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# GWT scenarios (admission condition 4 — AI-executable)
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+scenarios:
+  - id: GWT-1
+    given: "a pipeline / agent unit with no token or cost_usd budget declared"
+    when: "check-resource-budget runs"
+    then: "it warns 'undeclared resource budget' (and blocks in strict mode)"
+  - id: GWT-2
+    given: "a unit declares cost_usd per_run limit 3.00 with on_breach: abort"
+    when: "the run's accumulated cost exceeds 3.00 at runtime"
+    then: "the unit fail-closed aborts and the breach is recorded for audit / cost governance"
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Boundaries with adjacent standards (admission condition 3, <30% overlap)
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+adjacent_boundaries:
+  - standard: performance-standards
+    its_angle: latency / throughput targets
+    distinct: targets, not a fail-closed cost ceiling
+  - standard: model-selection
+    its_angle: choose a model tier
+    distinct: tier selection, not budget enforcement
+  - standard: capability-declaration (XSPEC-037)
+    its_angle: explicit capability + fail-closed
+    distinct: capability surface, not resource budget
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Gate timing
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+gate_timing:
+  pre_run: REQ-003(a) check-resource-budget declaration check (undeclared -> warn / strict block)
+  on_runtime_breach: REQ-003(b) fail-closed per on_breach (abort / warn)
+  after_breach: record breach for audit / cost-governance executor (XSPEC-285)
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Telemetry (DEC-066 / XSPEC-189 v2 envelope)
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+telemetry:
+  required_events:
+    - resource_budget_undeclared   # unit missing a relied-upon budget (REQ-003a)
+    - resource_budget_breach       # runtime breach detail (kind, limit, actual)
+    - resource_budget_abort        # fail-closed abort on breach (on_breach:abort)
+  envelope_reference: XSPEC-189    # Telemetry Schema v2 envelope
+  event_type: quality
+  event_subtype_examples:
+    - resource_budget_breach
+    - gate_pass / gate_fail        # when check-resource-budget acts as a ship/run gate
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Integration with existing standards
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+integration:
+  performance-standards: performance sets latency/throughput targets; this sets fail-closed resource ceilings (adjacent, distinct)
+  model-selection: right-sizing picks a model tier; a cost_usd breach can drive a downgrade (XSPEC-270), but the budget declaration is this standard's concern
+  test-governance: check-resource-budget is a governed gate; budget declarations are governed policy
+  verification-evidence: a breach/no-breach run report is a kind of verification evidence (budgets honoured + trace)
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Adoption guidance
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+adoption_guidance:
+  uds_install_path: ai/standards/resource-cost-boundary.ai.yaml
+  notes:
+    - "v1.0.0 defines the budget declaration mechanism and a fail-closed gate. Budget values are adopter-owned."
+    - "This standard is the 'declare what bounds' half; XSPEC-285 (VibeOps proactive cost governance) is the 'enforce/govern' half."
+    - "Map existing budget knobs (max_retries, BudgetGuard, Pareto token gate, right-sizing router) to taxonomy kinds rather than re-inventing."
+    - "Collect only the cost/resource dimension — do not expand into a vague 'resource governance' (XSPEC-276 over-design guardrail)."

package/bundled/ai/standards/reverse-engineering-standards.ai.yaml

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
 
 id: reverse-engineering
 meta:
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  updated: "2026-01-19"
+  version: "1.2.0"
+  updated: "2026-06-27"
   source: core/reverse-engineering-standards.md
   description: Standards for reverse engineering code into structured specifications
 
@@ -32,6 +32,28 @@ workflow:
         - Identify boundary conditions
         - Note coverage gaps
 
+    - stage: IMPLICIT_RULE_SCAN
+      description: Scan non-HTTP persistence write paths for undocumented business rules
+      output: Implicit-rule inventory locked as behavior-snapshot scenarios or reconciliation invariants
+      certainty: "[Confirmed]/[Inferred]/[Unknown]"
+      position: after CODE_SCAN/TEST_ANALYSIS, before GAP_IDENTIFICATION
+      derive:
+        - "Scheduled: crontab / scheduler config / @Scheduled-style annotations / batch jobs"
+        - "Queue: queue consumers / job handlers / background workers / message listeners"
+        - "DB-layer: triggers / computed-generated columns / DEFAULT expressions / check constraints"
+        - "ORM lifecycle: beforeSave/afterSave/observer/model-event hooks / state-mutating middleware"
+      oracle_three_questions:
+        - "When is the field SET? (first-assign condition/trigger)"
+        - "When is it OVERWRITTEN? (every later write, INCLUDING async overwrites)"
+        - "When is it RESET / zeroed? (clear/default-back conditions)"
+      actions:
+        - Derive every non-HTTP persistence write path across the four categories
+        - Answer the three questions per persisted field and lock answers as snapshot scenarios or reconciliation invariants
+        - Extend Devil's Advocate (5 categories) from HTTP layer to non-HTTP paths
+        - Tag each rule [Confirmed] (with file:line) / [Inferred] / [Unknown]; route [Unknown] to GAP_IDENTIFICATION
+        - "PHP-specific: flag loose-comparison / type-juggling (==, truthy/falsy of \"0\"/\"\"/null/0, string-to-number coercion) — no equivalent under strongly-typed targets"
+      gate: pre-flight; unanswered three-question field marked not_implemented and blocks cutover
+
     - stage: GAP_IDENTIFICATION
       description: List unknowns requiring human input
       output: Gap analysis document
@@ -139,6 +161,19 @@ extraction_capability:
       reason: Often implicit
       required_action: Discuss with architects
 
+# Failure handling (failure -> escalate -> re-verify)
+failure_handling:
+  description: Inputs that cannot be analyzed safely must escalate, never ship as authoritative
+  matrix:
+    - condition: Parse failure (unsupported language / broken syntax tree)
+      action: Mark [Unknown], report language/file, escalate to a human domain expert, emit no inferred behavior
+    - condition: High unknown ratio (> 50% of behaviors [Unknown])
+      action: Halt spec finalization, require SME interview to fill [Unknown] first; never ship a majority-guessed spec
+    - condition: Contradicted inference (code contradicts an inferred behavior)
+      action: Downgrade to [Assumption], escalate to code owner; never record as [Confirmed]
+    - condition: Test-analysis failure (tests cannot be run/parsed)
+      action: Fall back to static analysis; mark behaviors [Inferred], never [Confirmed]
+
 # Anti-Patterns
 anti_patterns:
   code_analysis:
@@ -202,6 +237,10 @@ integration:
 
 # Rules for AI
 rules:
+  - id: re-fail-escalate-low-confidence
+    trigger: parse failure or above-threshold [Unknown] ratio
+    instruction: Block spec finalization and escalate to a human; never present a sub-threshold-confidence spec as authoritative
+    priority: required
   - id: read-before-claim
     trigger: starting reverse engineering
     instruction: Read ALL relevant files before making any claims about code behavior
@@ -232,6 +271,19 @@ rules:
     instruction: Map test cases to acceptance criteria with [Confirmed] tag and line references
     priority: required
 
+  - id: implicit-rule-scan-non-http
+    trigger: reverse engineering a system for refactor/migration where persisted fields may be written off the HTTP path
+    instruction: >
+      Run an IMPLICIT_RULE_SCAN after CODE_SCAN/TEST_ANALYSIS and before GAP_IDENTIFICATION. Mechanically derive
+      every non-HTTP persistence write path across four categories (scheduled, queue, DB-layer trigger/computed-column/
+      DEFAULT/check, ORM lifecycle hooks/middleware). For each persisted field answer three questions — when SET, when
+      OVERWRITTEN (including async overwrites), when RESET/zeroed — and lock each answer as a behavior-snapshot scenario
+      or reconciliation invariant. Extend Devil's Advocate to non-HTTP paths. Tag every rule [Confirmed] (with file:line)
+      / [Inferred] / [Unknown]; route [Unknown] to gap analysis. For PHP sources, additionally flag loose-comparison /
+      type-juggling dependencies that have no strongly-typed equivalent. Any field whose three questions are unanswered
+      is marked not_implemented and blocks cutover.
+    priority: required
+
   - id: human-review-required
     trigger: completing spec generation
     instruction: Always mark specification as requiring human review; [Unknown] sections MUST be filled by humans
@@ -267,6 +319,7 @@ quick_reference:
     rows:
       - [Code Scan, Technical inventory, "[Confirmed]"]
       - [Test Analysis, Draft AC, "[Confirmed]/[Inferred]"]
+      - [Implicit Rule Scan, Non-HTTP implicit-rule inventory, "[Confirmed]/[Inferred]/[Unknown]"]
       - [Gap ID, Gap analysis, "[Unknown] items"]
       - [Spec Gen, Draft SPEC, Mixed]
       - [Human Review, Validated spec, "[Confirmed]"]

package/bundled/ai/standards/security-testing.ai.yaml

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
 
 id: security-testing
 meta:
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  updated: "2026-05-04"
+  version: "1.1.0"
+  updated: "2026-06-19"
   source: core/security-testing.md
   description: >
     Security testing methodology covering SAST, dependency auditing, and DAST.
@@ -126,6 +126,17 @@ cve_policy:
     - Get security lead approval
     - Add to `.npmrc` / `audit-exceptions.json` with comment
 
+# Finding remediation lifecycle (XSPEC-292 T16): every finding (SAST/DAST/secret/CVE)
+finding_lifecycle:
+  states:
+    - "Detected: scanning gate (CI) raised it -> severity assigned"
+    - "Triaged: security reviewer confirms real vs false-positive -> In-Progress or suppressed (recorded)"
+    - "In-Progress: component code owner implements fix -> fix committed"
+    - "Resolved: fix merged -> originating scan re-runs clean"
+    - "Verified: scanning gate confirms finding gone -> closed"
+  gate: "Critical/High in any state except Verified (or Triaged->suppressed with justification) blocks release"
+  no_silent_close: "Leave only via Verified (re-scan clean) or recorded suppressed decision by security reviewer; never by deletion or fix-author self-approval"
+
 # ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
 # Rules
 # ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

package/bundled/ai/standards/self-review-protocol.ai.yaml

@@ -3,10 +3,10 @@
 
 id: self-review-protocol
 meta:
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  updated: "2026-05-26"
+  version: "1.1.0"
+  updated: "2026-07-09"
   source: core/self-review-protocol.md
-  description: Mandatory self-review pass on large markdown edits before commit; catches 6 categories of internal cross-reference inconsistencies that internal reasoning routinely misses
+  description: Mandatory self-review pass on large markdown edits before commit; catches 7 categories of internal cross-reference inconsistencies that internal reasoning routinely misses
 
 trigger_conditions:
   mandatory:
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ inconsistency_categories:
   - id: 3
     name: count_drift
     description: Explicit number in text out of sync with actual count
-    example: "self-audit has 4 questions" but list has 7
+    example: '"self-audit has 4 questions" but list has 7'
     check: grep for "N questions", "N rows", "N items" and verify
   - id: 4
     name: stale_template
@@ -61,6 +61,11 @@ inconsistency_categories:
     description: Example contradicts current rule or latest case experience
     example: example shows D1/D2/D3 but rule says D3 not mandatory
     check: every concrete value in examples consistent with current rules
+  - id: 7
+    name: language_consistency
+    description: Non-target-language contamination, same-paragraph language mixing, or inconsistent project terminology within one document
+    example: a zh-TW paragraph contains Japanese kana or Korean hangul characters; or "XSPEC"/"gate"/"pipeline" spelled inconsistently across the same file
+    check: scan for out-of-place scripts (Japanese kana U+3040-U+30FF, Korean hangul U+AC00-U+D7A3) outside expected sections, same-paragraph language mixing, and inconsistent spelling of established project terms
 
 procedure:
   step_1:
@@ -69,7 +74,7 @@ procedure:
     when: after editing, before committing
   step_2:
     name: walk_categories
-    description: Apply 6 categories above against the file
+    description: Apply 7 categories above against the file
   step_3:
     name: fix_in_same_commit
     description: If issues found, edit in place and include fixes in same commit
@@ -84,13 +89,13 @@ recording_formats:
     format: '> **v{X.Y.(Z+1)} Self-review pass {YYYY-MM-DD}**: {N} issues found, {M} fixed in same commit'
   adr_dec:
     location: '## Follow-up Tracking table'
-    format: '| Self-review pass | This DEC | ✅ YYYY-MM-DD (6 categories, no issues) |'
+    format: '| Self-review pass | This DEC | ✅ YYYY-MM-DD (7 categories, no issues) |'
   xspec_sdd_delta:
     location: after non-modification list section (e.g. §N.6)
-    format: '> Self-review pass: YYYY-MM-DD (6 categories, no issues)'
+    format: '> Self-review pass: YYYY-MM-DD (7 categories, no issues)'
   commit_message_body:
     location: last line of commit body
-    format: 'Self-review (protocol v1.0.0): N issues found, M applied in same commit / 0 found.'
+    format: 'Self-review (protocol v1.1.0): N issues found, M applied in same commit / 0 found.'
 
 distinction_from_other_practices:
   code_review:
@@ -139,6 +144,6 @@ examples_in_the_wild:
     note: first SKILL.md edit to pass self-review pre-commit; preceded by 2 patch cycles (v1.1.0->v1.1.1 with 3 issues, v1.2.0->v1.2.1 with 6 issues) that motivated this standard
 
 self_review:
-  date: "2026-05-26"
+  date: "2026-07-09"
   issues_found: 0
-  notes: First draft self-review pass; no internal inconsistencies detected
+  notes: Added category 7 (language_consistency) per XSPEC-324; re-read whole file, no internal inconsistencies detected

package/bundled/ai/standards/skill-standard-alignment-check.ai.yaml

@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ standard:
   description: Skill 必有 Standard 作為錨點，Standard 可無 Skill；定期識別孤兒 Skill
 
   meta:
-    version: "1.0.0"
-    updated: "2026-04-17"
+    version: "1.1.0"
+    updated: "2026-06-19"
     status: trial
     since: "2026-04-17"
     expires: "2026-10-17"
@@ -76,6 +76,36 @@ standard:
     step_5: "若 anchor_standard 指向不存在的 id 或已 Archived 的 id → 錯誤"
     output: "alignment-report.json / alignment-report.md（含 orphan 清單、broken anchor 清單）"
 
+  content_coverage_audit:
+    phase: 2
+    source: "XSPEC-292 T4（3 個真實 skill↔standard 內容漂移）"
+    script: "scripts/check-skill-content-coverage.ts (npm check:content-coverage)"
+    rationale: >
+      Phase 1 只證明 anchor 存在（防 orphan）。Skill 可帶有效 anchor_standard 仍漂移：
+      標準新增 mandatory 段落、bump 版本、或成長到遠超 Skill 的陳舊摘要。
+      Phase 2 把對齊從「錨點存在」延伸到「錨點內容同步」。
+    checks:
+      version_skew:
+        code: CONTENT-001
+        rule: "Skill **Version** < anchor 標準版本（取自 core/<id>.md）→ stale"
+        unversioned: "Skill 無版本 → CONTENT-001A（advisory only，永不阻擋）"
+      mandatory_keyword:
+        code: CONTENT-002
+        rule: "標準在 .ai.yaml 宣告的 audit.mandatory_keywords 未出現於 Skill 內文 → 報缺"
+        anti_hallucination: "審核器不臆測 mandatory，只讀標準作者明文宣告的清單"
+      size_ratio:
+        code: CONTENT-003
+        rule: "Skill 行數 / 標準行數 < audit.min_skill_ratio（預設 0.15）→ underspecified"
+    audit_declaration:
+      where: "標準 .ai.yaml 的頂層 audit: 或 standard.audit:（兩種 schema 皆支援）"
+      fields:
+        mandatory_keywords: "string[]（case-insensitive 子字串比對 Skill 內文）"
+        min_skill_ratio: "number（選填，覆寫預設 0.15）"
+    enforcement:
+      default: "advisory（列出 finding，exit 0，讓 audit 先落地）"
+      strict: "--strict 將 CONTENT-001/002/003 升為阻擋（exit 1）；CONTENT-001A 永不阻擋"
+      rollout: "先 advisory 進 CI 觀察 → 漂移清零後 pre-release gate 加 --strict"
+
   scenarios:
     scenario_1_skill_with_valid_anchor:
       given: "retry-assistant Skill frontmatter 含 anchor_standard: retry-standards"
@@ -111,6 +141,11 @@ standard:
     ALIGN-002: "BROKEN_ANCHOR — anchor_standard 指向不存在的 standard id"
     ALIGN-003: "ARCHIVED_ANCHOR — anchor_standard 指向已 Archived 的標準"
     ALIGN-004: "UTILITY_MISSING_REASON — utility Skill 標 anchor_standard=none 但缺 utility_reason"
+    CONTENT-001: "VERSION_SKEW — Skill 版本 < anchor 標準版本（stale；blocking under --strict）"
+    CONTENT-001A: "SKILL_UNVERSIONED — Skill 無版本，無法比對（advisory only）"
+    CONTENT-002: "MISSING_MANDATORY_KEYWORD — 標準宣告的 mandatory keyword 未出現於 Skill"
+    CONTENT-003: "UNDERSPECIFIED — Skill 規模遠小於 anchor 標準"
+    CONTENT-000: "ANCHOR_NOT_IN_REGISTRY — 內容覆蓋無法評估（broken anchor 屬 ALIGN-002）"
 
   integration_points:
     - "standard-admission-criteria.ai.yaml — orphan Skill 促成新 Standard 申請"