universal-dev-standards 6.4.0 → 6.6.0

package/bundled/core/ai-response-navigation.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 
 > **Language**: English | [繁體中文](../locales/zh-TW/core/ai-response-navigation.md) | [简体中文](../locales/zh-CN/core/ai-response-navigation.md)
 
-**Version**: 1.1.0
-**Last Updated**: 2026-06-10
+**Version**: 1.2.0
+**Last Updated**: 2026-08-17
 **Applicability**: All projects using AI-assisted development
 **Scope**: universal
 **Industry Standards**: None (Emerging AI tool practice)
@@ -19,6 +19,12 @@ This standard defines navigation behavior for AI responses: every substantive AI
 
 **Solution**: A standard "Navigation Footer" appended to every substantive AI response, with contextual templates, recommendation marking, and adaptive option quantities.
 
+**Scope note (v1.2.0)**: Rules 1–6 govern what comes *after* the answer. Rules 7–9 — added in 1.2.0
+and **optional** — govern the answer itself: lead with the finding, restate state across turns, no
+preamble. They were added because a response can satisfy every one of Rules 1–6 while burying its
+conclusion, and a reader who cannot find the answer is not helped by a correct footer telling them
+what to do next.
+
 ---
 
 ## Core Rules
@@ -97,6 +103,69 @@ Tier names are **vendor-neutral**. Each tool or platform maps these tiers to its
 
 ---
 
+## The Answer Before the Navigation (Rules 7–9, Optional)
+
+> **Borrowed from**: [`ayghri/i-have-adhd`](https://github.com/ayghri/i-have-adhd) (MIT), 3 of its 10 rules.
+> The other 7 were dropped: 2 are already covered by Rules 1–2 above, and 5 either conflict with
+> this standard (its "no recap / no closers" contradicts Rule 1's Navigation Footer; its
+> "cap lists at 5" would truncate evidence tables and traversal denominators) or duplicate
+> [estimation-standards](estimation-standards.md).
+
+**Why this section exists**: Rules 1–6 govern what follows the answer. Nothing governed the answer
+itself — a response could bury its conclusion under a wall of evidence and still satisfy every rule
+in this standard by appending a correct Navigation Footer. A reader who cannot find the answer is
+not helped by being told what to do next.
+
+**These three rules are optional**, in the same sense as Rule 6: adopting projects are not required
+to enable them, and existing skills need no retroactive update. A project MAY promote any of them to
+required in its own configuration. What is *not* optional is that they have precise triggers — a rule
+phrased so loosely that it never fires is indistinguishable from not having the rule.
+
+### Rule 7: Lead With the Finding, Not the Process （Optional）
+
+**Trigger**: a response that answers a question, reports an investigation result, or presents a decision.
+
+The first line states **what was found or what to do**. Not the method, not a restatement of the
+request, not a plan for answering.
+
+Evidence — file:line references, command output, tables, measurements — is **support**, and belongs
+after the claim it supports. Leading with evidence forces the reader to reconstruct the conclusion
+themselves, which is the work they asked to have done.
+
+| Instead of | Write |
+|-----------|-------|
+| "I checked 44 days of data across 63 domains and found that…" | "Delete those three queries. 46% of what they return is download pages." |
+| "Let me look at how this is configured." | "It is configured in `x.yaml:12`; the value is wrong because…" |
+
+**This does not license omitting the evidence.** It orders it.
+
+### Rule 8: Restate State in Multi-Turn Work （Optional）
+
+**Trigger**: work spanning 3 or more exchanges, or a task with 3 or more steps.
+
+Each response restates where the work stands, in one line. The reader cannot be assumed to hold
+"we are on step 3 of 5" across messages, and the cost of restating it is one sentence.
+
+This composes with Template 4 (*In Progress*) below: Rule 8 governs the **opening**, Template 4
+governs the **footer**.
+
+### Rule 9: No Preamble （Optional）
+
+**Trigger**: any substantive response.
+
+Start with the answer. Do not open with a summary of what you are about to do, an acknowledgement
+of the request, or an assessment of the question.
+
+This generalizes one existing prohibition: [anti-sycophancy-prompting](anti-sycophancy-prompting.md)
+already forbids *"Opening critique with positive affirmation"* — but only for critiques. Rule 9
+extends the same prohibition to every substantive response, for a different reason: not flattery,
+but the delay it puts between the reader and the answer.
+
+**Rule 9 does not apply to closers.** Rule 1 requires a Navigation Footer, and that requirement
+stands — the end of a response is where this standard puts the reader's next move.
+
+---
+
 ## Contextual Templates
 
 ### Template 1: Task Completed
@@ -284,6 +353,9 @@ Each tool's integration layer is responsible for rendering the Navigation Footer
 | R4 | 1–5 options, adapt to context |
 | R5 | Use `/command` format when applicable |
 | R6 | *(Optional)* Append `〔model: Fast\|Standard\|Capable〕` when tier is clear |
+| R7 | *(Optional)* Lead with the finding; evidence follows the claim it supports |
+| R8 | *(Optional)* 3+ turns or 3+ steps → restate state in one line |
+| R9 | *(Optional)* No preamble. Closers still required — see R1 |
 
 | Exempt | Not Exempt |
 |--------|------------|
@@ -307,6 +379,7 @@ Each tool's integration layer is responsible for rendering the Navigation Footer
 
 | Version | Date | Changes |
 |---------|------|---------|
+| 1.2.0 | 2026-08-17 | Add optional R7–R9 governing the answer itself (lead with the finding, restate state, no preamble). Borrowed from `ayghri/i-have-adhd` (MIT), 3 of its 10 rules; the other 7 were dropped as duplicated by R1–R2, in conflict with R1, or covered by estimation-standards. Rules 1–6 could all be satisfied by a response that buries its conclusion — R7–R9 close that |
 | 1.1.0 | 2026-06-10 | Add R6 optional model tier annotation (`〔model: Fast\|Standard\|Capable〕`); vendor-neutral; no forced changes to existing skills |
 | 1.0.0 | 2026-03-25 | Initial release |
 

package/bundled/core/class-level-fix.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 
 > **Language**: English | [繁體中文](../locales/zh-TW/core/class-level-fix.md)
 
-**Version**: 1.0.0
-**Last Updated**: 2026-08-10
+**Version**: 1.1.0
+**Last Updated**: 2026-08-14
 **Applicability**: Any defect fix, in code or in configuration
 **Scope**: universal
 
@@ -83,6 +83,12 @@ Do this **per sub-set**, not in aggregate. A check over five lists that was only
 
 一道類別層檢查在被信任之前，必須先被證明不是空跑：塞一個違反規則的合成成員 → 確認檢查失敗**且指名該成員** → 移除後確認回到綠燈。**逐子集做，不要整體做**——一道涵蓋五份清單、卻只對第一份測過的檢查，是一道涵蓋一份清單的檢查。
 
+### What a passing negative control does not prove
+
+A negative control that passes once demonstrates only that **one** known-bad case reaches the checker's failure path. **It does not demonstrate** that the checker recognizes **every** violation of the rule it purports to guard. A grep-based gate can fail-closed perfectly while guarding a spelling, not a behavior — the synthetic member proves the wire is connected, not that the net is wide enough to catch what it claims to catch.
+
+一次通過的負向控制，只證明**一個**已知壞案例能到達檢查器的失敗路徑。**它不證明**該檢查器認得它所宣稱守護的規則的**每一種**違反。一道 grep 閘可以 fail-closed 得很完美，卻守著一個拼字而不是一個行為——那個合成成員證明的是線路接通了，不是那張網夠寬，足以抓住它自稱要抓的東西。
+
 ---
 
 ## Worked examples (measured, 2026-08-10)
@@ -121,6 +127,22 @@ In that case the workable form is **per-inventory**: one check per declaration k
 
 ---
 
+## Narrow Coverage Must Be Registered, Not Just Disclosed
+
+When a gate's actual coverage is narrower than the rule it serves, writing a sentence that says so is not enough. A prose disclosure is cheap — cheaper than widening the gate — and every narrow gate that gets reviewed once grows an honest paragraph and then stays narrow forever. **Disclosure earns nothing on its own; it earns something only paired with a mechanism that can prove it didn't just become a permanent excuse.**
+
+**Requirement**: any documented coverage gap of this kind must also be registered in a dated exception inventory — a list, external to the standard prose itself, that names the gap, states why it exists, and carries a review or expiry date. A disclosure with no entry in such an inventory does not satisfy this rule.
+
+**Falsifiable condition**: if an entry sits unchanged across two consecutive inventory review cycles, the disclosure has become an escape hatch and this rule is violated for that entry — not "partially satisfied", violated. The inventory mechanism itself (its location, format, and cadence) is left to the adopting project; this standard requires that one exist and that entries move, not that it take any particular shape.
+
+當一道閘門的實際涵蓋面窄於它所服務的規則時，只寫一句話說明是不夠的。散文式揭露很便宜——比擴大涵蓋面便宜得多——於是每一道被審過一次的窄閘門都會長出一段誠實的文字，然後永遠維持窄下去。**揭露本身不換來任何東西；只有配上一個能證明它沒有淪為永久藉口的機制，它才換得到東西。**
+
+**要求**：這一類已記錄的涵蓋缺口，必須同時登記到一份**帶到期日的例外清冊**——一份獨立於標準本文之外的清單，指名缺口、說明成因、並附上覆核或到期日期。沒有登記到這種清冊裡的揭露，不滿足本條。
+
+**可證偽條件**：若某條目連續兩期清冊審查都未變動，該揭露就已經變成逃生口，本條對該條目**失效**——不是「部分滿足」，是失效。清冊機制本身（放在哪裡、什麼格式、多久審一次）留給採用它的專案自行決定；本標準要求的是「有這麼一份東西存在，且條目會動」，不是要求它長成特定形狀。
+
+---
+
 ## Anti-patterns
 
 | Anti-pattern | Why it fails |
@@ -130,6 +152,7 @@ In that case the workable form is **per-inventory**: one check per declaration k
 | A check that lists its own scope | Correct until someone adds the fourth member |
 | Testing the class check against one member | Proves that member, not the class |
 | `✓ all pass` with no denominator | Identical output whether it scanned everything or nothing |
+| A disclosure sentence with no entry in a dated exception inventory | Cheaper than widening the gate; nothing forces it to ever change |
 
 ---
 
@@ -157,5 +180,5 @@ Applying this standard is a judgement made at the moment of fixing. There is no
 
 ## Relationship to other standards
 
-- [verification-evidence](verification-evidence.md) — evidence validity: a tool can fail silently and its output is indistinguishable from a real result. This standard is the same concern applied to *scope* rather than to *execution*.
+- [verification-evidence](verification-evidence.md) — evidence validity: a tool can fail silently and its output is indistinguishable from a real result. This standard is the same concern applied to *scope* rather than to *execution*. It also shares the narrow-coverage-must-be-registered requirement (VE-012) with this standard's own rule of the same shape.
 - [anti-hallucination](anti-hallucination.md) — that one guards "did not check"; this one guards "checked one of many and reported on all".