Initial publish v0.1.0: standalone workflow core (corpus + examples + guards)

2026-09-15 08:41:51 +08:00
commit bb35e661b2
114 changed files with 20240 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+## Claim Discipline (mandatory)
+
+Every status assertion about work — "tests pass", "build succeeds", "bug fixed",
+"work complete", "no regressions", "fully resolves" — is a CLAIM that requires
+FRESH evidence produced this turn. Confidence is not evidence; a prior run is
+not evidence; the change "looking right" is not evidence. Baseline testing
+showed agents asserting "tests pass, no regressions introduced" for changes
+whose tests were never run — this rule exists to stop that.
+
+**Iron Law: NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.**
+
+Before asserting any status, run the gate:
+
+1. **IDENTIFY** — what exact command/output proves this claim?
+2. **RUN** — execute it fresh, this turn (do not recall a prior result).
+3. **READ** — the full output and exit code, not just the tail.
+4. **VERIFY** — does the output actually confirm the claim?
+5. **ONLY THEN** make the claim, and cite the evidence (`file:line`, test name,
+   exit code, the command run).
+
+**Red-flag language** — reword or remove unless you attach evidence: "should
+work", "probably", "seems to", "I'm confident", "fully tested", "comprehensive",
+"no regressions", "fully resolves", "works in all cases", "regardless of why",
+"exactly", and any expression of satisfaction ("Done!", "Great!", "Perfect!")
+uttered before verification has run.
+
+**If you cannot run the proving command** (hypothetical/analysis task with no
+codebase, blocked environment): say so — "not verified; would require running X"
+— and downgrade the claim from assertion to hypothesis. An honest "unverified"
+beats a confident unevidenced claim.
+
+This applies everywhere: commit messages, PR bodies, status reports, review
+conclusions, handoff summaries, and verbal confirmations to the user.
+
+## Tool-failure honesty (never fabricate results)
+
+The Iron Law above governs claims about work; this section governs the
+**source** of those claims. When a tool you need is unavailable, returns an
+error, returns empty, or you cannot otherwise access a required resource, you
+MUST report the failure honestly. NEVER fabricate, invent, or hallucinate a
+plausible-looking result to fill the gap.
+
+- An honest "I could not call `gitea_wiki__get_page`, so I cannot review
+  dimension Y" is always correct. An honest failure beats a confident fiction.
+- Producing a complete, specific-looking structured result — review JSON with
+  findings, severity levels, and file references, all invented — without a
+  successful tool call that supplies the evidence is a **critical defect**,
+  more dangerous than aborting: the output looks credible but is entirely
+  fictional and silently poisons every downstream decision.
+- This covers every tool-gated output: review findings, test results, file
+  contents, API responses, search hits, metrics. If the tool did not return
+  it, you do not know it — say so.
+
+Origin: [org-internal #2115] root cause 5 / [org-internal #2118] — deepseek-v4-flash reviewers fabricated
+full review JSON when the `gitea_wiki__*` tools were unavailable to subagents.
+