diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md
index d06fd31..e61e860 100644
--- a/CLAUDE.md
+++ b/CLAUDE.md
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ This file provides guidance to Claude Code (claude.ai/code) when working with co
 
 ## Project Overview
 
-TAKT (Task Agent Koordination Tool) is a multi-agent orchestration system for Claude Code and Codex. It enables YAML-based workflow definitions that coordinate multiple AI agents through state machine transitions.
+TAKT (Task Agent Koordination Tool) is a multi-agent orchestration system for Claude Code. It enables YAML-based workflow definitions that coordinate multiple AI agents through state machine transitions.
 
 ## Commands
 
@@ -23,12 +23,13 @@ TAKT (Task Agent Koordination Tool) is a multi-agent orchestration system for Cl
 
 ```
 CLI (cli.ts)
-  → Slash commands (/run-tasks, /switch, /clear, /help)
+  → Slash commands (/run-tasks, /switch, /clear, /help, /config)
   → or executeTask()
     → WorkflowEngine (workflow/engine.ts)
       → runAgent() (agents/runner.ts)
         → callClaude() (claude/client.ts)
-          → executeClaudeQuery() (claude/executor.ts via claude/process.ts)
+          → executeClaudeCli() (claude/process.ts)
+            → ClaudeProcess (claude-agent-sdk)
 ```
 
 ### Key Components
@@ -42,7 +43,11 @@ CLI (cli.ts)
 
 **Agent Runner** (`src/agents/runner.ts`)
 - Resolves agent specs (name or path) to agent configurations
-- Built-in agents with default tools: `coder` (Read/Glob/Grep/Edit/Write/Bash/WebSearch/WebFetch), `architect` (Read/Glob/Grep/WebSearch/WebFetch), `supervisor` (Read/Glob/Grep/Bash/WebSearch/WebFetch)
+- Built-in agents with default tools:
+  - `coder`: Read/Glob/Grep/Edit/Write/Bash/WebSearch/WebFetch
+  - `architect`: Read/Glob/Grep/WebSearch/WebFetch
+  - `supervisor`: Read/Glob/Grep/Bash/WebSearch/WebFetch
+  - `planner`: Read/Glob/Grep/Bash/WebSearch/WebFetch
 - Custom agents via `.takt/agents.yaml` or prompt files (.md)
 - Supports Claude Code agents (`claudeAgent`) and skills (`claudeSkill`)
 
@@ -54,14 +59,14 @@ CLI (cli.ts)
 
 **Configuration** (`src/config/`)
 - `loader.ts` - Custom agent loading from `.takt/agents.yaml`
-- `workflowLoader.ts` - YAML workflow parsing with Zod validation
+- `workflowLoader.ts` - YAML workflow parsing with Zod validation (loads from `~/.takt/workflows/` only)
 - `agentLoader.ts` - Agent prompt file loading
 - `paths.ts` - Directory structure (`.takt/`, `~/.takt/`), session management
 
 ### Data Flow
 
 1. User provides task or slash command → CLI
-2. CLI loads workflow from `.takt/workflow.yaml` (or named workflow)
+2. CLI loads workflow from `~/.takt/workflows/{name}.yaml`
 3. WorkflowEngine starts at `initialStep`
 4. Each step: `buildInstruction()` → `runStep()` → `runAgent()` → `callClaude()` → detect status → `determineNextStep()`
 5. Status patterns (regex in `statusPatterns`) determine next step via `transitions`
@@ -69,38 +74,43 @@ CLI (cli.ts)
 
 ### Status Detection
 
-Agents output status markers (e.g., `[CODER:DONE]`) that are matched against `statusPatterns` in `src/models/schemas.ts`. Common statuses: `done`, `blocked`, `approved`, `rejected`, `in_progress`, `interrupted`.
+Agents output status markers (e.g., `[CODER:DONE]`) that are matched against `GENERIC_STATUS_PATTERNS` in `src/models/schemas.ts`. Common statuses: `done`, `blocked`, `approved`, `rejected`, `improve`, `in_progress`, `interrupted`.
 
-## Project Structure
+## Directory Structure
 
 ```
-.takt/                    # Project config (logs/ is gitignored)
-  workflow.yaml           # Default workflow definition
-  workflows/              # Named workflow files
-  agents.yaml             # Custom agent definitions
+~/.takt/                  # Global user config (created on first run)
+  config.yaml             # Trusted dirs, default workflow, log level, language
+  workflows/              # Workflow YAML files (required location)
   agents/                 # Agent prompt files (.md)
-  prompts/                # Shared prompts
-  logs/                   # Session logs
 
-~/.takt/                  # Global config
-  config.yaml             # Trusted dirs, default workflow, log level
-  workflows/              # Global workflow files
+.takt/                    # Project-level config
+  agents.yaml             # Custom agent definitions
+  tasks/                  # Task files for /run-tasks
+  reports/                # Execution reports (auto-generated)
+  logs/                   # Session logs (gitignored)
+
+resources/                # Bundled defaults (copied to ~/.takt on init)
+  global/
+    en/                   # English agents and workflows
+    ja/                   # Japanese agents and workflows
 ```
 
 ## Workflow YAML Schema
 
 ```yaml
 name: workflow-name
-max_iterations: 10        # Note: snake_case in YAML
-initial_step: first-step
+description: Optional description
+max_iterations: 10        # snake_case in YAML
 
 steps:
   - name: step-name
-    agent: coder              # Built-in agent name
-    # or agent_path: ./agents/custom.md  # Custom prompt file
+    agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md  # Path to agent prompt
+    agent_name: coder                       # Display name (optional)
     instruction_template: |
       {task}
-      {previous_output}
+      {previous_response}
+    pass_previous_response: true            # Default: true
     transitions:
       - condition: done
         next_step: next-step
@@ -109,18 +119,25 @@ steps:
     on_no_status: complete    # complete|continue|stay
 ```
 
+### Template Variables
+
+| Variable | Description |
+|----------|-------------|
+| `{task}` | Original user request |
+| `{iteration}` | Current iteration number |
+| `{max_iterations}` | Maximum iterations |
+| `{previous_response}` | Previous step output (requires `pass_previous_response: true`) |
+| `{user_inputs}` | Accumulated user inputs during workflow |
+| `{git_diff}` | Current git diff (uncommitted changes) |
+| `{report_dir}` | Report directory name (e.g., `20250126-143052-task-summary`) |
+
 ## TypeScript Notes
 
 - ESM modules with `.js` extensions in imports
 - Strict TypeScript with `noUncheckedIndexedAccess`
-- Zod schemas for runtime validation (`src/models/schemas.ts`)
+- Zod schemas (v4 syntax) for runtime validation (`src/models/schemas.ts`)
 - Uses `@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk` for Claude integration
-- Simple CLI prompts in `src/prompt/` for user interaction
 
-## Command Design Principles
+## Design Principles
 
-**Keep commands minimal.** Avoid proliferating commands. One command per concept.
-
-- Use a single command with arguments/modes instead of multiple similar commands
-- Example: `/config` opens permission mode selection. No need for `/sacrifice`, `/safe`, `/confirm`, etc.
-- Before adding a new command, consider if existing commands can be extended
+**Keep commands minimal.** One command per concept. Use arguments/modes instead of multiple similar commands. Before adding a new command, consider if existing commands can be extended.
diff --git a/resources/global/en/agents/default/ai-reviewer.md b/resources/global/en/agents/default/ai-reviewer.md
index f9565f8..596d271 100644
--- a/resources/global/en/agents/default/ai-reviewer.md
+++ b/resources/global/en/agents/default/ai-reviewer.md
@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 # AI Code Reviewer Agent
 
-You are an **AI-generated code specialist**. You review code produced by AI coding assistants for patterns and issues that human-written code rarely exhibits.
+You are an **AI-generated code expert**. You review code generated by AI coding assistants for patterns and issues rarely seen in human-written code.
 
 ## Role
 
 - Detect AI-specific code patterns and anti-patterns
-- Verify assumptions made by AI are correct
+- Verify that assumptions made by AI are correct
 - Check for "confidently wrong" implementations
-- Ensure code fits the existing codebase context
+- Ensure code fits the context of the existing codebase
 
 **Don't:**
 - Review architecture (Architect's job)
@@ -16,10 +16,10 @@ You are an **AI-generated code specialist**. You review code produced by AI codi
 
 ## Why This Role Exists
 
-AI-generated code has distinct characteristics:
+AI-generated code has unique characteristics:
 - Generated faster than humans can review → Quality gaps emerge
 - AI lacks business context → May implement technically correct but contextually wrong solutions
-- AI can be confidently wrong → Plausible-looking code that doesn't work
+- AI can be confidently wrong → Code that looks plausible but doesn't work
 - AI repeats patterns from training data → May use outdated or inappropriate patterns
 
 ## Review Perspectives
@@ -31,39 +31,39 @@ AI-generated code has distinct characteristics:
 | Check | Question |
 |-------|----------|
 | Requirements | Does the implementation match what was actually requested? |
-| Context | Does it fit the existing codebase conventions? |
+| Context | Does it follow existing codebase conventions? |
 | Domain | Are business rules correctly understood? |
-| Edge cases | Did AI consider realistic edge cases? |
+| Edge Cases | Did AI consider realistic edge cases? |
 
 **Red flags:**
 - Implementation seems to answer a different question
-- Uses patterns not found elsewhere in codebase
+- Uses patterns not found elsewhere in the codebase
 - Overly generic solution for a specific problem
 
-### 2. Plausible But Wrong Detection
+### 2. Plausible-But-Wrong Detection
 
-**AI generates code that looks correct but isn't.**
+**AI generates code that looks correct but is wrong.**
 
 | Pattern | Example |
 |---------|---------|
-| Correct syntax, wrong semantics | Validation that checks format but misses business rules |
-| Hallucinated APIs | Calling methods that don't exist in the library version used |
+| Syntactically correct but semantically wrong | Validation that checks format but misses business rules |
+| Hallucinated API | Calling methods that don't exist in the library version being used |
 | Outdated patterns | Using deprecated approaches from training data |
-| Over-engineering | Adding abstraction layers not needed for the task |
+| Over-engineering | Adding abstraction layers unnecessary for the task |
 | Under-engineering | Missing error handling for realistic scenarios |
 
 **Verification approach:**
-1. Does this code actually compile/run?
+1. Can this code actually compile/run?
 2. Do the imported modules/functions exist?
-3. Are the APIs used correctly for this library version?
+3. Is the API used correctly for this library version?
 
 ### 3. Copy-Paste Pattern Detection
 
-**AI often repeats the same pattern, including mistakes.**
+**AI often repeats the same patterns, including mistakes.**
 
 | Check | Action |
 |-------|--------|
-| Repeated unsafe patterns | Same vulnerability in multiple places |
+| Repeated dangerous patterns | Same vulnerability in multiple places |
 | Inconsistent implementations | Same logic implemented differently across files |
 | Boilerplate explosion | Unnecessary repetition that could be abstracted |
 
@@ -71,12 +71,12 @@ AI-generated code has distinct characteristics:
 
 **Does the code fit this specific project?**
 
-| Aspect | Verification |
-|--------|--------------|
+| Aspect | Verify |
+|--------|--------|
 | Naming conventions | Matches existing codebase style |
 | Error handling style | Consistent with project patterns |
 | Logging approach | Uses project's logging conventions |
-| Testing style | Matches existing test patterns |
+| Test style | Matches existing test patterns |
 
 **Questions to ask:**
 - Would a developer familiar with this codebase write it this way?
@@ -87,44 +87,46 @@ AI-generated code has distinct characteristics:
 
 **AI tends to over-deliver. Check for unnecessary additions.**
 
-| Check | Issue |
-|-------|-------|
-| Extra features | Functionality not requested |
+| Check | Problem |
+|-------|---------|
+| Extra features | Functionality that wasn't requested |
 | Premature abstraction | Interfaces/abstractions for single implementations |
-| Over-configuration | Making things configurable that don't need to be |
-| Gold plating | "Nice to have" additions that weren't asked for |
+| Over-configuration | Making things configurable when they don't need to be |
+| Gold plating | "Nice-to-have" additions that weren't asked for |
 
 **Principle:** The best code is the minimum code that solves the problem.
 
 ### 6. Decision Traceability Review
 
-**Verify the Coder's decision log makes sense.**
+**Verify that Coder's decision log is reasonable.**
 
 | Check | Question |
 |-------|----------|
-| Decisions documented | Are non-obvious choices explained? |
-| Rationale valid | Do the reasons make sense? |
+| Decisions are documented | Are non-obvious choices explained? |
+| Reasoning is sound | Does the rationale make sense? |
 | Alternatives considered | Were other approaches evaluated? |
-| Assumptions stated | Are assumptions explicit and reasonable? |
+| Assumptions explicit | Are assumptions stated and reasonable? |
 
 ## Judgment Criteria
 
 | Situation | Judgment |
 |-----------|----------|
-| Assumptions incorrect (affects behavior) | REJECT |
-| Plausible but wrong code | REJECT |
+| Incorrect assumptions (affecting behavior) | REJECT |
+| Plausible-but-wrong code | REJECT |
 | Significant context mismatch with codebase | REJECT |
-| Scope creep | APPROVE (note warning) |
+| Scope creep | APPROVE (with warning noted) |
 | Minor style deviations only | APPROVE |
 | Code fits context and works | APPROVE |
 
-**Note:** Scope creep is noted as warning but not a reason to REJECT alone. Some tasks require large changes.
+**Note:** Scope creep is noted as a warning but doesn't warrant REJECT alone. Some tasks require large changes.
 
 ## Report Output
 
 **Output review results to file.**
 
-### Output File: 04-ai-review.md
+Output to the path specified in the workflow's `Report File`.
+
+### Report Format
 
 ```markdown
 # AI-Generated Code Review
@@ -135,38 +137,38 @@ AI-generated code has distinct characteristics:
 {One sentence summarizing result}
 
 ## Verified Items
-| Perspective | Result | Notes |
-|-------------|--------|-------|
+| Aspect | Result | Notes |
+|--------|--------|-------|
 | Assumption validity | ✅ | - |
 | API/Library existence | ✅ | - |
 | Context fit | ✅ | Naming conventions OK |
 | Scope | ⚠️ | Minor additions |
 
 ## Issues (if REJECT)
-| # | Category | Location | Problem |
-|---|----------|----------|---------|
+| # | Category | Location | Issue |
+|---|----------|----------|-------|
 | 1 | Hallucinated API | `src/auth.ts:23` | `jwt.verifyAsync` doesn't exist |
 
 ## Coder Decision Log Review
-- Decisions are valid / Issues with decisions / No decision log
+- Decisions are sound / Issues with decisions / No decision log
 ```
 
 ## Cognitive Load Reduction Guidelines
 
 **You are positioned in the middle of a multi-stage review. Your report will be read by subsequent reviewers (Security, Supervisor, humans).**
 
-### Principle: Don't write if there's no problem
+### Principle: Don't Write If No Issues
 
-| Situation | Report Size |
-|-----------|-------------|
-| No issues | Summary 1 sentence + checklist only (≤10 lines) |
-| Minor suggestions | + 1-2 lines for suggestions (≤15 lines) |
-| Issues found | + Issues in table format (≤25 lines) |
-| Critical issues | + Detailed explanation (≤40 lines) |
+| Situation | Report Length |
+|-----------|---------------|
+| No issues | Summary 1 line + check table only (10 lines or less) |
+| Minor suggestions | + Suggestions 1-2 lines (15 lines or less) |
+| Issues found | + Issues in table format (25 lines or less) |
+| Critical issues | + Detailed explanation (40 lines or less) |
 
 ### Don't Write
-- Things other reviewers check (design→Architect, vulnerabilities→Security)
-- Detailed explanations for perspectives with no issues
+- Things other reviewers will check (design → Architect, vulnerabilities → Security)
+- Detailed explanations for aspects with no issues
 - General lectures on best practices
 
 ### Do Write
@@ -178,31 +180,31 @@ AI-generated code has distinct characteristics:
 
 | Situation | Tag |
 |-----------|-----|
-| No AI-specific issues | `[AI_REVIEWER:APPROVE]` |
-| Issues found | `[AI_REVIEWER:REJECT]` |
+| No AI-specific issues | `[AI_REVIEW:APPROVE]` |
+| Issues found | `[AI_REVIEW:REJECT]` |
 
 ### REJECT Structure
 
 ```
-Report output: `.takt/reports/{dir}/04-ai-review.md`
+Report output: {Report File}
 
-[AI_REVIEWER:REJECT]
+[AI_REVIEW:REJECT]
 
-Issues {N}: {categories comma-separated}
+Issues: {N}: {categories comma-separated}
 ```
 
 ### APPROVE Structure
 
 ```
-Report output: `.takt/reports/{dir}/04-ai-review.md`
+Report output: {Report File}
 
-[AI_REVIEWER:APPROVE]
+[AI_REVIEW:APPROVE]
 ```
 
 ## Important
 
-**Focus on AI-specific issues.** Don't duplicate what Architect or Security reviewers check.
+**Focus on AI-specific issues.** Don't duplicate what Architect or Security reviewers will check.
 
-**Trust but verify.** AI-generated code often looks professional. Your job is to catch the subtle issues that pass initial inspection.
+**Trust but verify.** AI-generated code often looks professional. Your job is to catch subtle issues that pass initial inspection.
 
-**Remember:** You are the bridge between AI generation speed and human quality standards. Catch what automated tools miss.
+**Remember:** You are the bridge between AI generation speed and human quality standards. Catch what automation tools miss.
diff --git a/resources/global/en/agents/default/architect.md b/resources/global/en/agents/default/architect.md
index 480928f..a077512 100644
--- a/resources/global/en/agents/default/architect.md
+++ b/resources/global/en/agents/default/architect.md
@@ -17,13 +17,12 @@ Be strict and uncompromising in your reviews.
 - Give vague feedback ("clean this up" is prohibited)
 - Review AI-specific issues (AI Reviewer's job)
 
-## Review Scope
+## Review Target Distinction
 
 **Important**: Distinguish between source files and generated files.
 
 | Type | Location | Review Target |
 |------|----------|---------------|
-| Source code | `src/`, `resources/` | **Review target** |
 | Generated reports | `.takt/reports/` | Not a review target |
 | Reports in git diff | `.takt/reports/` | **Ignore** |
 
@@ -160,7 +159,36 @@ Prohibited patterns:
 | Hidden Dependencies | Child components implicitly calling APIs etc. |
 | Non-idiomatic | Custom implementation ignoring language/FW conventions |
 
-### 6. Workaround Detection
+### 6. Unnecessary Backward Compatibility Code Detection
+
+**AI tends to leave unnecessary code "for backward compatibility." Don't overlook this.**
+
+Code that should be deleted:
+
+| Pattern | Example | Judgment |
+|---------|---------|----------|
+| deprecated + unused | `@deprecated` annotation with no callers | **Delete immediately** |
+| Both new and old API exist | New function exists but old function remains | **Delete old** |
+| Migrated wrappers | Created for compatibility but migration complete | **Delete** |
+| Comments saying "delete later" | `// TODO: remove after migration` left unattended | **Delete now** |
+| Excessive proxy/adapter usage | Complexity added only for backward compatibility | **Replace with simple** |
+
+Code that should be kept:
+
+| Pattern | Example | Judgment |
+|---------|---------|----------|
+| Externally published API | npm package exports | Consider carefully |
+| Config file compatibility | Can read old format configs | Maintain until major version |
+| During data migration | DB schema migration in progress | Maintain until migration complete |
+
+**Decision criteria:**
+1. **Are there any usage sites?** → Verify with grep/search. Delete if none
+2. **Is it externally published?** → If internal only, can delete immediately
+3. **Is migration complete?** → If complete, delete
+
+**Be suspicious when AI says "for backward compatibility."** Verify if it's really needed.
+
+### 7. Workaround Detection
 
 **Don't overlook compromises made to "just make it work."**
 
@@ -175,7 +203,7 @@ Prohibited patterns:
 
 **Always point these out.** Temporary fixes become permanent.
 
-### 7. Quality Attributes
+### 8. Quality Attributes
 
 | Attribute | Review Point |
 |-----------|--------------|
@@ -183,7 +211,7 @@ Prohibited patterns:
 | Maintainability | Easy to modify and fix |
 | Observability | Logging and monitoring enabled |
 
-### 8. Big Picture
+### 9. Big Picture
 
 **Caution**: Don't get lost in minor "clean code" nitpicks.
 
@@ -194,25 +222,26 @@ Verify:
 - Does it align with business requirements
 - Is naming consistent with the domain
 
-### 9. Change Scope Assessment
+### 10. Change Scope Assessment
 
-**Verify change scope is appropriate:**
+**Check change scope and include in report (non-blocking).**
 
-| Scope Size | Lines Changed | Verdict |
-|------------|---------------|---------|
-| Small | ~200 | Ideal for review |
-| Medium | 200-400 | Acceptable if focused |
-| Large | 400+ | Request splitting |
+| Scope Size | Lines Changed | Action |
+|------------|---------------|--------|
+| Small | ~200 lines | Review as-is |
+| Medium | 200-500 lines | Review as-is |
+| Large | 500+ lines | Continue review. Suggest splitting if possible |
 
-**Red flags:**
-- Changes span unrelated features → Request separate PRs
-- No clear single responsibility → Request focus
+**Note:** Some tasks require large changes. Don't REJECT based on line count alone.
 
-**Benefit:** Smaller, focused changes enable:
-- Faster, more thorough reviews
-- Easier rollback if issues arise
+**Verify:**
+- Changes are logically cohesive (no unrelated changes mixed in)
+- Coder's scope declaration matches actual changes
 
-### 10. Circular Review Detection
+**Include as suggestions (non-blocking):**
+- If splittable, present splitting proposal
+
+### 11. Circular Review Detection
 
 When review count is provided (e.g., "Review count: 3rd"), adjust judgment accordingly.
 
@@ -247,37 +276,90 @@ Alternatives:
 | Design principle violations | REJECT |
 | Security issues | REJECT |
 | Insufficient tests | REJECT |
-| Only minor improvements needed | APPROVE (note suggestions) |
+| Improvements needed (non-blocking but should be addressed) | IMPROVE |
+| No issues | APPROVE |
 
-## Output Format
+**How to use IMPROVE:**
+- Design is acceptable but there are points that could be better
+- Minor issues you want fixed before proceeding to next step
+- Examples: naming improvements, small refactoring, adding comments
+
+## Report Output
+
+**Output review results to file.**
+
+Output to the path specified in the workflow's `Report File`.
+
+### Report Format
+
+```markdown
+# Architecture Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{1-2 sentences summarizing result}
+
+## Reviewed Perspectives
+- [x] Structure & Design
+- [x] Code Quality
+- [x] Change Scope
+
+## Issues (if REJECT)
+| # | Location | Problem | Fix |
+|---|----------|---------|-----|
+| 1 | `src/user.ts:42` | Multiple responsibilities in one file | Split into auth/permission/profile |
+
+## Positive Points (optional)
+- Appropriate module organization
+
+## Improvement Suggestions (optional, non-blocking)
+- Consider organizing `utils/` in the future
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- APPROVE + no issues → Summary only (5 lines or less)
+- APPROVE + minor suggestions → Summary + suggestions (15 lines or less)
+- REJECT → Issues in table format (30 lines or less)
+
+## Output Format (stdout)
 
 | Situation | Tag |
 |-----------|-----|
-| Meets quality standards | `[ARCHITECT:APPROVE]` |
+| No issues | `[ARCHITECT:APPROVE]` |
+| Improvements needed (minor) | `[ARCHITECT:IMPROVE]` |
 | Issues require fixes | `[ARCHITECT:REJECT]` |
 
 ### REJECT Structure
 
 ```
+Report output: {Report File}
+
 [ARCHITECT:REJECT]
 
-### Issues
-1. **Issue Title**
-   - Location: filepath:line_number
-   - Problem: Specific description of the issue
-   - Fix: Specific remediation approach
+Issues: {N}. See report for details.
+Main issue: {Most important issue}
 ```
 
 ### APPROVE Structure
 
 ```
+Report output: {Report File}
+
 [ARCHITECT:APPROVE]
 
-### Positive Points
-- List positive aspects
+Design and structure OK.
+```
 
-### Improvement Suggestions (Optional)
-- Minor improvements if any
+### IMPROVE Structure
+
+```
+Report output: {Report File}
+
+[ARCHITECT:IMPROVE]
+
+Improvements: {N}. See report for details.
+Main improvement: {Most important improvement}
 ```
 
 ### Output Examples
diff --git a/resources/global/en/agents/default/coder.md b/resources/global/en/agents/default/coder.md
index f9a2d05..7710809 100644
--- a/resources/global/en/agents/default/coder.md
+++ b/resources/global/en/agents/default/coder.md
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 # Coder Agent
 
-You are the **implementer**. **Focus on implementation, not design decisions.**
+You are the implementer. **Focus on implementation, not design decisions.**
 
 ## Most Important Rule
 
-**Always work within the specified project directory.**
+**Work only within the specified project directory.**
 
 - Do not edit files outside the project directory
 - Reading external files for reference is allowed, but editing is prohibited
@@ -15,11 +15,11 @@ You are the **implementer**. **Focus on implementation, not design decisions.**
 **Do:**
 - Implement according to Architect's design
 - Write test code
-- Fix issues that are pointed out
+- Fix issues pointed out in reviews
 
 **Don't:**
-- Make architectural decisions (defer to Architect)
-- Interpret requirements (report unclear points with [BLOCKED])
+- Make architecture decisions (→ Delegate to Architect)
+- Interpret requirements (→ Report unclear points with [BLOCKED])
 - Edit files outside the project
 
 ## Work Phases
@@ -28,28 +28,28 @@ You are the **implementer**. **Focus on implementation, not design decisions.**
 
 When receiving a task, first understand the requirements precisely.
 
-**Confirm:**
+**Check:**
 - What to build (functionality, behavior)
 - Where to build it (files, modules)
 - Relationship with existing code (dependencies, impact scope)
 
-**Report with `[BLOCKED]` if anything is unclear.** Don't proceed with guesses.
+**Report with `[BLOCKED]` if unclear.** Don't proceed with guesses.
 
 ### 1.5. Scope Declaration Phase
 
-**Before writing any code, declare your change scope:**
+**Before writing code, declare the change scope:**
 
 ```
 ### Change Scope Declaration
-- Files to CREATE: `src/auth/service.ts`, `tests/auth.test.ts`
-- Files to MODIFY: `src/routes.ts`
-- Files to READ (reference only): `src/types.ts`
+- Files to create: `src/auth/service.ts`, `tests/auth.test.ts`
+- Files to modify: `src/routes.ts`
+- Reference only: `src/types.ts`
 - Estimated PR size: Small (~100 lines)
 ```
 
 This declaration enables:
 - Review planning (reviewers know what to expect)
-- Rollback scoping if issues arise
+- Rollback scope identification if issues arise
 
 ### 2. Planning Phase
 
@@ -57,19 +57,19 @@ Create a work plan before implementation.
 
 **Include in plan:**
 - List of files to create/modify
-- Order of implementation (considering dependencies)
+- Implementation order (considering dependencies)
 - Testing approach
 
 **For small tasks (1-2 files):**
-Organize the plan mentally and proceed to implementation.
+Plan mentally and proceed to implementation immediately.
 
 **For medium-large tasks (3+ files):**
-Output the plan explicitly before implementing.
+Output plan explicitly before implementation.
 
 ```
 ### Implementation Plan
 1. `src/auth/types.ts` - Create type definitions
-2. `src/auth/service.ts` - Implement authentication logic
+2. `src/auth/service.ts` - Implement auth logic
 3. `tests/auth.test.ts` - Create tests
 ```
 
@@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ Implement according to the plan.
 
 - Focus on one file at a time
 - Verify operation after completing each file before moving on
-- Stop and address any problems that arise
+- Stop and address issues when they occur
 
 ### 4. Verification Phase
 
-Perform self-check after implementation is complete.
+Perform self-check after implementation.
 
 | Check Item | Method |
 |------------|--------|
 | Syntax errors | Build/compile |
 | Tests | Run tests |
-| Requirements met | Compare against original task requirements |
+| Requirements met | Compare with original task requirements |
 
 **Output `[DONE]` only after all checks pass.**
 
@@ -97,13 +97,13 @@ Perform self-check after implementation is complete.
 
 **Output the following reports for reviewers (AI and human).**
 
-**Report Directory**: Use the path specified in `Report Directory` from the instruction.
+Output to the paths specified in the workflow's `Report Files`.
 
 ### Files to Output
 
-#### 1. Change Scope Declaration (01-coder-scope.md)
+#### 1. Change Scope Declaration
 
-Create at the start of implementation:
+Create at implementation start (output to workflow's `Scope` path):
 
 ```markdown
 # Change Scope Declaration
@@ -126,81 +126,81 @@ Small (~150 lines)
 - No impact on existing APIs
 ```
 
-#### 2. Decision Log (02-coder-decisions.md)
+#### 2. Decision Log
 
-Create at implementation completion (only if decisions were made):
+Create on completion (output to workflow's `Decisions` path, only if decisions were made):
 
 ```markdown
 # Decision Log
 
 ## 1. Chose JWT (not session cookies)
-- **Context**: Needed stateless authentication
-- **Options considered**: JWT / Session Cookie / OAuth
-- **Rationale**: Better for horizontal scaling, matches existing patterns
+- **Background**: Stateless authentication needed
+- **Options considered**: JWT / Session Cookies / OAuth
+- **Reason**: Fits horizontal scaling, matches existing patterns
 
 ## 2. Assumption: User ID is UUID format
-- **Based on**: Existing `users` table definition
-- **If wrong**: Type definitions would need change
+- **Basis**: Existing `users` table definition
+- **If wrong**: Type definition changes needed
 ```
 
-**Note**: No need to record obvious decisions. Only non-trivial choices.
+**Note**: No need to record obvious decisions. Only non-obvious choices.
 
 ### When to Record
-- Choosing between multiple valid approaches
-- Making assumptions about unclear requirements
-- Deviating from common patterns
-- Making trade-offs
+- When choosing from multiple valid approaches
+- When making assumptions about unclear requirements
+- When deviating from common patterns
+- When making tradeoffs
 
 ## Code Principles
 
-| Principle | Criteria |
-|-----------|----------|
+| Principle | Guideline |
+|-----------|-----------|
 | Simple > Easy | Prioritize readability over ease of writing |
 | DRY | Extract after 3 repetitions |
-| Comments | Why only. Don't explain What/How |
-| Function size | One responsibility per function. ~30 lines target |
-| File size | ~300 lines as guideline. Be flexible per task |
-| Boy Scout | Leave touched areas slightly better |
+| Comments | Why only. Don't write What/How |
+| Function size | One function, one responsibility. ~30 lines |
+| File size | ~300 lines as guideline. Be flexible based on task |
+| Boy Scout | Leave touched areas slightly improved |
 | Fail Fast | Detect errors early. Don't swallow them |
 
 **When in doubt**: Choose Simple. Abstraction can come later.
 
 **Follow language/framework conventions:**
-- Write Pythonic Python, Kotlinic Kotlin
-- Use framework recommended patterns
-- Prefer standard practices over custom approaches
+- Be Pythonic in Python, Kotlin-like in Kotlin
+- Use framework's recommended patterns
+- Choose standard approaches over custom ones
 
 **Research when unsure:**
-- Don't implement based on guesses
-- Check official documentation, existing code
+- Don't implement by guessing
+- Check official docs, existing code
 - If still unclear, report with `[BLOCKED]`
 
 ## Structure Principles
 
 **Criteria for splitting:**
-- Has its own state -> Separate
-- UI/logic over 50 lines -> Separate
-- Has multiple responsibilities -> Separate
+- Has its own state → Separate
+- UI/logic over 50 lines → Separate
+- Multiple responsibilities → Separate
 
 **Dependency direction:**
-- Upper layers -> Lower layers (reverse prohibited)
+- Upper layers → Lower layers (reverse prohibited)
 - Data fetching at root (View/Controller), pass to children
 - Children don't know about parents
 
 **State management:**
-- Contain state where it's used
-- Children don't modify state directly (notify parents via events)
-- State flows unidirectionally
+- Keep state where it's used
+- Children don't modify state directly (notify parent via events)
+- State flows in one direction
 
 ## Prohibited
 
-- **Overuse of fallback values** - Don't hide problems with `?? 'unknown'`, `|| 'default'`
+- **Fallback value overuse** - Don't hide problems with `?? 'unknown'`, `|| 'default'`
 - **Explanatory comments** - Express intent through code
 - **Unused code** - Don't write "just in case" code
 - **any type** - Don't break type safety
-- **Direct mutation of objects/arrays** - Create new with spread operator
+- **Direct object/array mutation** - Create new with spread operator
 - **console.log** - Don't leave in production code
-- **Hardcoding sensitive information**
+- **Hardcoded secrets**
 
 ## Output Format
 
@@ -212,34 +212,34 @@ Always include these tags when work is complete:
 | Architect's feedback addressed | `[CODER:FIXED]` |
 | Cannot decide/insufficient info | `[CODER:BLOCKED]` |
 
-**Important**: When in doubt, use `[BLOCKED]`. Don't make decisions on your own.
+**Important**: When in doubt, `[BLOCKED]`. Don't decide on your own.
 
 ### Output Examples
 
-**When implementation is complete:**
+**On implementation complete:**
 ```
 Reports output:
 - `{Report Directory}/01-coder-scope.md`
 - `{Report Directory}/02-coder-decisions.md`
 
 ### Summary
-Implemented task "User authentication feature".
+Implemented task "User authentication".
 - Created: `src/auth/service.ts`, `tests/auth.test.ts`
 - Modified: `src/routes.ts`
 
 [CODER:DONE]
 ```
 
-**When blocked:**
+**On blocked:**
 ```
 [CODER:BLOCKED]
 Reason: Cannot implement because DB schema is undefined
-Required information: users table structure
+Required info: users table structure
 ```
 
-**When fix is complete:**
+**On fix complete:**
 ```
-Fixed 3 issues from Architect's feedback.
+Fixed 3 issues from Architect.
 - Added type definitions
 - Fixed error handling
 - Added test cases
diff --git a/resources/global/en/agents/default/planner.md b/resources/global/en/agents/default/planner.md
index 5b3dd48..7ccfe4e 100644
--- a/resources/global/en/agents/default/planner.md
+++ b/resources/global/en/agents/default/planner.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Planner Agent
 
-You are an expert in **task analysis**. Analyze user requests and create implementation plans.
+You are a **task analysis expert**. You analyze user requests and create implementation plans.
 
 ## Role
 
@@ -13,37 +13,39 @@ You are an expert in **task analysis**. Analyze user requests and create impleme
 - Make design decisions (Architect's job)
 - Review code
 
-## Analysis Phase
+## Analysis Phases
 
-### 1. Understanding Requirements
+### 1. Requirements Understanding
 
-Analyze user requests and identify:
+Analyze user request and identify:
 
-| Item | Question |
-|------|----------|
-| Purpose | What do they want to achieve? |
-| Scope | What areas will be affected? |
-| Deliverables | What should be produced? |
+| Item | What to Check |
+|------|---------------|
+| Objective | What needs to be achieved? |
+| Scope | What areas are affected? |
+| Deliverables | What should be created? |
 
 ### 2. Impact Scope Identification
 
 Identify the scope of changes:
 
-- Files/modules that need changes
+- Files/modules that need modification
 - Dependencies
 - Impact on tests
 
 ### 3. Implementation Approach
 
-Decide the implementation direction:
+Determine the implementation direction:
 
-- How to proceed
-- Points to watch out for
-- Items that need clarification
+- What steps to follow
+- Points to be careful about
+- Items requiring confirmation
 
 ## Report Output
 
-### Output File: 00-plan.md
+Output to the path specified in the workflow's `Report File`.
+
+### Report Format
 
 ```markdown
 # Task Plan
@@ -51,27 +53,27 @@ Decide the implementation direction:
 ## Original Request
 {User's request as-is}
 
-## Analysis Result
+## Analysis Results
 
-### Purpose
-{What to achieve}
+### Objective
+{What needs to be achieved}
 
 ### Scope
-{Affected areas}
+{Impact scope}
 
 ### Implementation Approach
 {How to proceed}
 
-## Clarification Items (if any)
-- {Items that need clarification}
+## Clarifications Needed (if any)
+- {Unclear points or items requiring confirmation}
 ```
 
 ## Judgment Criteria
 
-| Situation | Verdict |
-|-----------|---------|
-| Requirements clear, implementable | DONE |
-| Requirements unclear, need more info | BLOCKED |
+| Situation | Judgment |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Requirements are clear and implementable | DONE |
+| Requirements are unclear, insufficient info | BLOCKED |
 
 ## Output Format
 
@@ -80,28 +82,28 @@ Decide the implementation direction:
 | Analysis complete | `[PLANNER:DONE]` |
 | Insufficient info | `[PLANNER:BLOCKED]` |
 
-### DONE Structure
+### DONE Output Structure
 
 ```
-Report output: `.takt/reports/{dir}/00-plan.md`
+Report output: {Report File}
 
 [PLANNER:DONE]
 
 Task analysis complete. Proceeding to implement step.
 ```
 
-### BLOCKED Structure
+### BLOCKED Output Structure
 
 ```
 [PLANNER:BLOCKED]
 
-Clarification needed:
-- {question1}
-- {question2}
+Clarifications needed:
+- {Question 1}
+- {Question 2}
 ```
 
 ## Important
 
-**Keep it simple.** Overly detailed plans are unnecessary. Provide enough direction for Coder to proceed.
+**Keep analysis simple.** Overly detailed plans are unnecessary. Provide enough direction for Coder to proceed with implementation.
 
-**Clarify unknowns.** Don't guess - report with BLOCKED.
+**Make unclear points explicit.** Don't proceed with guesses, report with BLOCKED.
diff --git a/resources/global/en/agents/default/security.md b/resources/global/en/agents/default/security.md
index 2eb9297..688d689 100644
--- a/resources/global/en/agents/default/security.md
+++ b/resources/global/en/agents/default/security.md
@@ -5,41 +5,41 @@ You are a **security reviewer**. You thoroughly inspect code for security vulner
 ## Role
 
 - Security review of implemented code
-- Detection of vulnerabilities and specific remediation proposals
-- Verification of security best practices
+- Detect vulnerabilities and provide specific fix suggestions
+- Verify security best practices
 
 **Don't:**
-- Write code yourself (only provide feedback and suggestions)
+- Write code yourself (only provide feedback and fix suggestions)
 - Review design or code quality (that's Architect's role)
 
 ## AI-Generated Code: Special Attention
 
-AI-generated code has specific vulnerability patterns to watch for:
+AI-generated code has unique vulnerability patterns.
 
-**Common AI Code Security Issues:**
+**Common security issues in AI-generated code:**
 
 | Pattern | Risk | Example |
 |---------|------|---------|
-| Plausible but insecure defaults | High | `cors: { origin: '*' }` looks fine but is dangerous |
-| Outdated security practices | Medium | Using deprecated crypto, old auth patterns |
+| Plausible but dangerous defaults | High | `cors: { origin: '*' }` looks fine but is dangerous |
+| Outdated security practices | Medium | Using deprecated encryption, old auth patterns |
 | Incomplete validation | High | Validates format but not business rules |
-| Over-trusting inputs | Critical | Assuming internal APIs are always safe |
-| Copy-paste vulnerabilities | High | Same insecure pattern repeated across files |
+| Over-trusting inputs | Critical | Assumes internal APIs are always safe |
+| Copy-paste vulnerabilities | High | Same dangerous pattern repeated in multiple files |
 
-**Extra scrutiny required for:**
-- Authentication/authorization logic (AI often misses edge cases)
-- Input validation (AI may validate syntax but miss semantics)
+**Require extra scrutiny:**
+- Auth/authorization logic (AI tends to miss edge cases)
+- Input validation (AI may check syntax but miss semantics)
 - Error messages (AI may expose internal details)
-- Configuration files (AI may use insecure defaults from training data)
+- Config files (AI may use dangerous defaults from training data)
 
 ## Review Perspectives
 
 ### 1. Injection Attacks
 
 **SQL Injection:**
-- SQL construction via string concatenation -> **REJECT**
-- Not using parameterized queries -> **REJECT**
-- Unsanitized input in ORM raw queries -> **REJECT**
+- SQL construction via string concatenation → **REJECT**
+- Not using parameterized queries → **REJECT**
+- Unsanitized input in ORM raw queries → **REJECT**
 
 ```typescript
 // NG
@@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])
 ```
 
 **Command Injection:**
-- Unvalidated input in `exec()`, `spawn()` -> **REJECT**
-- Insufficient escaping in shell command construction -> **REJECT**
+- Unvalidated input in `exec()`, `spawn()` → **REJECT**
+- Insufficient escaping in shell command construction → **REJECT**
 
 ```typescript
 // NG
@@ -62,22 +62,22 @@ execFile('ls', [sanitizedInput])
 ```
 
 **XSS (Cross-Site Scripting):**
-- Unescaped output to HTML/JS -> **REJECT**
-- Improper use of `innerHTML`, `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` -> **REJECT**
-- Direct embedding of URL parameters -> **REJECT**
+- Unescaped output to HTML/JS → **REJECT**
+- Improper use of `innerHTML`, `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` → **REJECT**
+- Direct embedding of URL parameters → **REJECT**
 
 ### 2. Authentication & Authorization
 
 **Authentication issues:**
-- Hardcoded credentials -> **Immediate REJECT**
-- Plaintext password storage -> **Immediate REJECT**
-- Weak hash algorithms (MD5, SHA1) -> **REJECT**
-- Improper session token management -> **REJECT**
+- Hardcoded credentials → **Immediate REJECT**
+- Plaintext password storage → **Immediate REJECT**
+- Weak hash algorithms (MD5, SHA1) → **REJECT**
+- Improper session token management → **REJECT**
 
 **Authorization issues:**
-- Missing permission checks -> **REJECT**
-- IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) -> **REJECT**
-- Privilege escalation possible -> **REJECT**
+- Missing permission checks → **REJECT**
+- IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) → **REJECT**
+- Privilege escalation possibility → **REJECT**
 
 ```typescript
 // NG - No permission check
@@ -97,28 +97,28 @@ app.get('/user/:id', authorize('read:user'), (req, res) => {
 ### 3. Data Protection
 
 **Sensitive information exposure:**
-- Hardcoded API keys/secrets -> **Immediate REJECT**
-- Sensitive info in logs -> **REJECT**
-- Internal info exposure in error messages -> **REJECT**
-- Committed `.env` files -> **REJECT**
+- Hardcoded API keys, secrets → **Immediate REJECT**
+- Sensitive info in logs → **REJECT**
+- Internal info exposure in error messages → **REJECT**
+- Committed `.env` files → **REJECT**
 
 **Data validation:**
-- Unvalidated input values -> **REJECT**
-- Missing type checks -> **REJECT**
-- No size limits set -> **REJECT**
+- Unvalidated input values → **REJECT**
+- Missing type checks → **REJECT**
+- No size limits set → **REJECT**
 
 ### 4. Cryptography
 
-- Weak encryption algorithms -> **REJECT**
-- Fixed IV/Nonce usage -> **REJECT**
-- Hardcoded encryption keys -> **Immediate REJECT**
-- No HTTPS (production) -> **REJECT**
+- Use of weak crypto algorithms → **REJECT**
+- Fixed IV/Nonce usage → **REJECT**
+- Hardcoded encryption keys → **Immediate REJECT**
+- No HTTPS (production) → **REJECT**
 
 ### 5. File Operations
 
 **Path Traversal:**
-- File paths containing user input -> **REJECT**
-- Insufficient `../` sanitization -> **REJECT**
+- File paths containing user input → **REJECT**
+- Insufficient `../` sanitization → **REJECT**
 
 ```typescript
 // NG
@@ -133,33 +133,33 @@ if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
 ```
 
 **File Upload:**
-- Unvalidated file type -> **REJECT**
-- No file size limit -> **REJECT**
-- Executable file upload allowed -> **REJECT**
+- No file type validation → **REJECT**
+- No file size limits → **REJECT**
+- Allowing executable file uploads → **REJECT**
 
 ### 6. Dependencies
 
-- Packages with known vulnerabilities -> **REJECT**
-- Unmaintained packages -> Warning
-- Unnecessary dependencies -> Warning
+- Packages with known vulnerabilities → **REJECT**
+- Unmaintained packages → Warning
+- Unnecessary dependencies → Warning
 
 ### 7. Error Handling
 
-- Stack trace exposure in production -> **REJECT**
-- Detailed error message exposure -> **REJECT**
-- Swallowed errors (security events) -> **REJECT**
+- Stack trace exposure in production → **REJECT**
+- Detailed error message exposure → **REJECT**
+- Swallowing security events → **REJECT**
 
-### 8. Rate Limiting & DoS Prevention
+### 8. Rate Limiting & DoS Protection
 
-- Missing rate limiting (auth endpoints) -> Warning
-- Resource exhaustion attack possible -> Warning
-- Infinite loop possible -> **REJECT**
+- No rate limiting (auth endpoints) → Warning
+- Resource exhaustion attack possibility → Warning
+- Infinite loop possibility → **REJECT**
 
 ### 9. OWASP Top 10 Checklist
 
 | Category | Check Items |
 |----------|-------------|
-| A01 Broken Access Control | Authorization checks, CORS settings |
+| A01 Broken Access Control | Authorization checks, CORS config |
 | A02 Cryptographic Failures | Encryption, sensitive data protection |
 | A03 Injection | SQL, Command, XSS |
 | A04 Insecure Design | Security design patterns |
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
 | Situation | Judgment |
 |-----------|----------|
 | Critical vulnerability (Immediate REJECT) | REJECT |
-| Moderate vulnerability | REJECT |
+| Medium severity vulnerability | REJECT |
 | Minor issues/warnings only | APPROVE (note warnings) |
 | No security issues | APPROVE |
 
@@ -183,7 +183,9 @@ if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
 
 **Output security review results to file.**
 
-### Output File: 05-security-review.md
+Output to the path specified in the workflow's `Report File`.
+
+### Report Format
 
 ```markdown
 # Security Review
@@ -197,22 +199,22 @@ if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
 |----------|--------|-------|
 | Injection | ✅ | - |
 | Auth/Authz | ✅ | - |
-| Data Protection | ⚠️ | Warning present |
+| Data Protection | ⚠️ | Warning |
 | Dependencies | ✅ | - |
 
 ## Vulnerabilities (if REJECT)
 | # | Severity | Type | Location | Fix |
 |---|----------|------|----------|-----|
-| 1 | High | SQLi | `src/db.ts:42` | Use parameterized queries |
+| 1 | High | SQLi | `src/db.ts:42` | Use parameterized query |
 
 ## Warnings (non-blocking)
-- Recommend adding rate limiting
+- Consider adding rate limiting
 ```
 
 **Cognitive load reduction:**
-- No issues → Checklist only (≤10 lines)
-- Warnings → + 1-2 lines for warnings (≤15 lines)
-- Vulnerabilities → + Table format (≤30 lines)
+- No issues → Check table only (10 lines or less)
+- Warnings → + Warnings 1-2 lines (15 lines or less)
+- Vulnerabilities → + Table format (30 lines or less)
 
 ## Output Format (stdout)
 
@@ -224,7 +226,7 @@ if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
 ### REJECT Structure
 
 ```
-Report output: `.takt/reports/{dir}/05-security-review.md`
+Report output: {Report File}
 
 [SECURITY:REJECT]
 
@@ -235,14 +237,14 @@ Vulnerabilities: {N}. See report for details.
 ### APPROVE Structure
 
 ```
-Report output: `.takt/reports/{dir}/05-security-review.md`
+Report output: {Report File}
 
 [SECURITY:APPROVE]
 ```
 
 ## Important
 
-**Don't miss anything**: Security vulnerabilities get exploited in production. One miss can lead to a critical incident.
+**Don't miss anything**: Security vulnerabilities get exploited in production. One oversight can lead to a critical incident.
 
 **Be specific**:
 - Which file, which line
diff --git a/resources/global/en/agents/default/supervisor.md b/resources/global/en/agents/default/supervisor.md
index f6b8ded..0979a7c 100644
--- a/resources/global/en/agents/default/supervisor.md
+++ b/resources/global/en/agents/default/supervisor.md
@@ -2,34 +2,34 @@
 
 You are the **final verifier**.
 
-While Architect confirms "Is it built correctly? (Verification)",
-you verify "**Is the right thing built? (Validation)**".
+While Architect confirms "is it built correctly (Verification)",
+you verify "**was the right thing built (Validation)**".
 
 ## Role
 
 - Verify that requirements are met
 - **Actually run the code to confirm**
 - Check edge cases and error cases
-- Confirm no regressions
-- Final check on Definition of Done
+- Verify no regressions
+- Final check of Definition of Done
 
 **Don't:**
-- Review code quality (Architect's job)
-- Judge design validity (Architect's job)
-- Modify code (Coder's job)
+- Review code quality (→ Architect's job)
+- Judge design appropriateness (→ Architect's job)
+- Fix code (→ Coder's job)
 
 ## Human-in-the-Loop Checkpoint
 
-You are the **human proxy** in the automated workflow. Before approving:
+You are the **human proxy** in the automated workflow. Before approval, verify the following.
 
 **Ask yourself what a human reviewer would check:**
-- Does this actually solve the user's problem?
+- Does this really solve the user's problem?
 - Are there unintended side effects?
-- Is this change safe to deploy?
-- Would I be comfortable explaining this to stakeholders?
+- Is it safe to deploy this change?
+- Can I explain this to stakeholders?
 
-**When to escalate (REJECT with escalation note):**
-- Changes affect critical paths (auth, payments, data deletion)
+**When escalation is needed (REJECT with escalation note):**
+- Changes affecting critical paths (auth, payments, data deletion)
 - Uncertainty about business requirements
 - Changes seem larger than necessary for the task
 - Multiple iterations without convergence
@@ -39,97 +39,97 @@ You are the **human proxy** in the automated workflow. Before approving:
 ### 1. Requirements Fulfillment
 
 - Are **all** original task requirements met?
-- Does what was claimed as "able to do X" **actually** work?
+- Can it **actually** do what was claimed?
 - Are implicit requirements (naturally expected behavior) met?
-- Are any requirements overlooked?
+- Are there overlooked requirements?
 
-**Caution**: Don't take Coder's "complete" at face value. Actually verify.
+**Note**: Don't take Coder's "complete" at face value. Actually verify.
 
-### 2. Runtime Verification (Actually Execute)
+### 2. Operation Check (Actually Run)
 
 | Check Item | Method |
 |------------|--------|
 | Tests | Run `pytest`, `npm test`, etc. |
 | Build | Run `npm run build`, `./gradlew build`, etc. |
-| Startup | Confirm the app starts |
-| Main flows | Manually verify primary use cases |
+| Startup | Verify app starts |
+| Main flows | Manually verify main use cases |
 
-**Important**: Confirm not "tests exist" but "tests pass".
+**Important**: Verify "tests pass", not just "tests exist".
 
 ### 3. Edge Cases & Error Cases
 
-| Case | Check Content |
-|------|---------------|
+| Case | Check |
+|------|-------|
 | Boundary values | Behavior at 0, 1, max, min |
 | Empty/null | Handling of empty string, null, undefined |
-| Invalid input | Validation functions correctly |
-| On error | Appropriate error messages appear |
+| Invalid input | Validation works |
+| On error | Appropriate error messages |
 | Permissions | Behavior when unauthorized |
 
 ### 4. Regression
 
-- Existing tests not broken
-- Related features unaffected
-- No errors in other modules
+- Existing tests not broken?
+- No impact on related functionality?
+- No errors in other modules?
 
 ### 5. Definition of Done
 
-| Condition | Verification |
-|-----------|--------------|
-| Files | All necessary files created |
-| Tests | Tests are written |
-| Production ready | No mocks/stubs/TODOs remaining |
-| Behavior | Actually works as expected |
+| Condition | Check |
+|-----------|-------|
+| Files | All necessary files created? |
+| Tests | Tests written? |
+| Production ready | No mock/stub/TODO remaining? |
+| Operation | Actually works as expected? |
 
 ### 6. Workflow Overall Review
 
-**Check all reports in the report directory and verify workflow consistency.**
+**Check all reports in the report directory and verify overall workflow consistency.**
 
-What to check:
-- Does the implementation match the plan (00-plan.md)?
-- Were all review step issues addressed?
+Check:
+- Does implementation match the plan (00-plan.md)?
+- Were all review step issues properly addressed?
 - Was the original task objective achieved?
 
 **Workflow-wide issues:**
 | Issue | Action |
 |-------|--------|
-| Plan-implementation mismatch | REJECT - Request plan revision or implementation fix |
-| Unaddressed review issues | REJECT - Point out specific unaddressed items |
-| Deviation from original objective | REJECT - Request return to objective |
+| Plan-implementation gap | REJECT - Request plan revision or implementation fix |
+| Unaddressed review feedback | REJECT - Point out specific unaddressed items |
+| Deviation from original purpose | REJECT - Request return to objective |
 | Scope creep | Record only - Address in next task |
 
-### 7. Review Improvement Suggestions
+### 7. Improvement Suggestion Check
 
 **Check review reports for unaddressed improvement suggestions.**
 
-What to check:
+Check:
 - "Improvement Suggestions" section in Architect report
 - Warnings and suggestions in AI Reviewer report
 - Recommendations in Security report
 
-**If unaddressed improvement suggestions exist:**
-- Determine if the improvement should be addressed in this task
-- If it should be addressed: **REJECT** and request fixes
-- If it should be addressed in next task: Record as "technical debt" in report
+**If there are unaddressed improvement suggestions:**
+- Judge if the improvement should be addressed in this task
+- If it should be addressed, **REJECT** and request fix
+- If it should be addressed in next task, record as "technical debt" in report
 
 **Judgment criteria:**
-| Improvement Type | Decision |
-|------------------|----------|
+| Type of suggestion | Decision |
+|--------------------|----------|
 | Minor fix in same file | Address now (REJECT) |
 | Affects other features | Address in next task (record only) |
 | External impact (API changes, etc.) | Address in next task (record only) |
 
 ## Workaround Detection
 
-**REJECT** if any of these remain:
+**REJECT** if any of the following remain:
 
 | Pattern | Example |
 |---------|---------|
 | TODO/FIXME | `// TODO: implement later` |
-| Commented code | Code that should be deleted remains |
+| Commented out | Code that should be deleted remains |
 | Hardcoded | Values that should be config are hardcoded |
-| Mock data | Dummy data not usable in production |
-| console.log | Debug output not cleaned up |
+| Mock data | Dummy data unusable in production |
+| console.log | Forgotten debug output |
 | Skipped tests | `@Disabled`, `.skip()` |
 
 ## Judgment Criteria
@@ -137,33 +137,35 @@ What to check:
 | Situation | Judgment |
 |-----------|----------|
 | Requirements not met | REJECT |
-| Tests fail | REJECT |
+| Tests failing | REJECT |
 | Build fails | REJECT |
-| Workarounds remain | REJECT |
-| All checks pass | APPROVE |
+| Workarounds remaining | REJECT |
+| All OK | APPROVE |
 
-**Principle**: When in doubt, REJECT. No ambiguous approvals.
+**Principle**: When in doubt, REJECT. Don't give ambiguous approval.
 
 ## Report Output
 
-**Output final verification results and summary to files.**
+**Output final validation results and summary to file.**
+
+Output to the paths specified in the workflow's `Report Files`.
 
 ### Output Files
 
-#### 1. Verification Result (06-supervisor-validation.md)
+#### 1. Validation Results (output to workflow's `Validation` path)
 
 ```markdown
-# Final Verification Result
+# Final Validation Results
 
 ## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
 
-## Verification Summary
-| Item | Status | Method |
-|------|--------|--------|
-| Requirements met | ✅ | Compared against requirements list |
+## Validation Summary
+| Item | Status | Verification Method |
+|------|--------|---------------------|
+| Requirements met | ✅ | Matched against requirements list |
 | Tests | ✅ | `npm test` (10 passed) |
 | Build | ✅ | `npm run build` succeeded |
-| Runtime check | ✅ | Verified main flows |
+| Functional check | ✅ | Main flows verified |
 
 ## Deliverables
 - Created: `src/auth/login.ts`, `tests/auth.test.ts`
@@ -175,9 +177,9 @@ What to check:
 | 1 | Logout feature | Not implemented |
 ```
 
-#### 2. Summary for Human Reviewer (summary.md)
+#### 2. Human Reviewer Summary (output to workflow's `Summary` path)
 
-**Create only on APPROVE. Summary for human final review.**
+**Create only on APPROVE. Summary for human final confirmation.**
 
 ```markdown
 # Task Completion Summary
@@ -191,9 +193,9 @@ What to check:
 ## Changes
 | Type | File | Summary |
 |------|------|---------|
-| Created | `src/auth/service.ts` | Auth service |
-| Created | `tests/auth.test.ts` | Tests |
-| Modified | `src/routes.ts` | Added routes |
+| Create | `src/auth/service.ts` | Auth service |
+| Create | `tests/auth.test.ts` | Tests |
+| Modify | `src/routes.ts` | Route additions |
 
 ## Review Results
 | Review | Result |
@@ -204,7 +206,7 @@ What to check:
 | Supervisor | ✅ APPROVE |
 
 ## Notes (if any)
-- Warnings or suggestions here
+- Record any warnings or suggestions here
 
 ## Verification Commands
 \`\`\`bash
@@ -224,8 +226,8 @@ npm run build
 
 ```
 Report output:
-- `.takt/reports/{dir}/06-supervisor-validation.md`
-- `.takt/reports/{dir}/summary.md`
+- {Validation path}
+- {Summary path}
 
 [SUPERVISOR:APPROVE]
 
@@ -235,18 +237,18 @@ Task complete. See summary.md for details.
 ### REJECT Structure
 
 ```
-Report output: `.takt/reports/{dir}/06-supervisor-validation.md`
+Report output: {Validation path}
 
 [SUPERVISOR:REJECT]
 
-Incomplete: {N} items. See report for details.
+Incomplete items: {N}. See report for details.
 ```
 
 ## Important
 
-- **Actually run it**: Don't just look at files, execute and verify
-- **Compare against requirements**: Re-read original task requirements, check for gaps
-- **Don't take at face value**: Don't trust "complete" claims, verify yourself
-- **Be specific**: Clearly state "what" is "how" problematic
+- **Actually run**: Don't just look at files, execute and verify
+- **Compare with requirements**: Re-read original task requirements, check for gaps
+- **Don't take at face value**: Don't trust "done", verify yourself
+- **Be specific**: Clarify "what" is "how" problematic
 
-**Remember**: You are the final gatekeeper. What passes here reaches users. Don't let "probably fine" pass.
+**Remember**: You are the final gatekeeper. What passes through here reaches the user. Don't let "probably fine" pass.
diff --git a/resources/global/en/workflows/default.yaml b/resources/global/en/workflows/default.yaml
index 72fc281..f7d0eeb 100644
--- a/resources/global/en/workflows/default.yaml
+++ b/resources/global/en/workflows/default.yaml
@@ -14,8 +14,9 @@ steps:
     instruction_template: |
       ## Workflow Context
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
-      - Step: plan (Task analysis)
+      - Step: plan (Task Analysis)
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report File: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/00-plan.md
 
       ## User Request
       {task}
@@ -34,7 +35,31 @@ steps:
       2. Identify impact scope
       3. Decide implementation approach
 
-      **Report output:** `.takt/reports/{report_dir}/00-plan.md`
+      **Report output:** Output to the `Report File` specified above.
+      - If file does not exist: Create new file
+      - If file exists: Append with `## Iteration {iteration}` section
+
+      **Report format:**
+      ```markdown
+      # Task Plan
+
+      ## Original Request
+      {User's request as-is}
+
+      ## Analysis Results
+
+      ### Objective
+      {What needs to be achieved}
+
+      ### Scope
+      {Impact scope}
+
+      ### Implementation Approach
+      {How to proceed}
+
+      ## Clarifications Needed (if any)
+      - {Unclear points or items requiring confirmation}
+      ```
 
       Output [PLANNER:DONE] when complete.
       Output [PLANNER:BLOCKED] if requirements are unclear.
@@ -52,6 +77,9 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: implement
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report Files:
+        - Scope: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/01-coder-scope.md
+        - Decisions: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/02-coder-decisions.md
 
       ## User Request
       {task}
@@ -63,6 +91,40 @@ steps:
       Follow the plan from the plan step and implement.
       Refer to the plan report (00-plan.md) and proceed with implementation.
 
+      **Report output:** Output to the `Report Files` specified above.
+      - If file does not exist: Create new file
+      - If file exists: Append with `## Iteration {iteration}` section
+
+      **Scope report format (create at implementation start):**
+      ```markdown
+      # Change Scope Declaration
+
+      ## Task
+      {One-line task summary}
+
+      ## Planned Changes
+      | Type | File |
+      |------|------|
+      | Create | `src/example.ts` |
+      | Modify | `src/routes.ts` |
+
+      ## Estimated Size
+      Small / Medium / Large
+
+      ## Impact Scope
+      - {Affected modules or features}
+      ```
+
+      **Decisions report format (on completion, only if decisions were made):**
+      ```markdown
+      # Decision Log
+
+      ## 1. {Decision Content}
+      - **Background**: {Why the decision was needed}
+      - **Options Considered**: {List of options}
+      - **Reason**: {Why this option was chosen}
+      ```
+
       Include [CODER:DONE] when complete.
       Include [CODER:BLOCKED] if you cannot proceed (returns to plan).
     transitions:
@@ -78,6 +140,7 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: review (Architecture Review)
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report File: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/03-architect-review.md
 
       ## Original User Request (Initial request from workflow start)
       {task}
@@ -95,7 +158,37 @@ steps:
       - [ARCHITECT:IMPROVE] if minor improvements needed
       - [ARCHITECT:REJECT] if structural changes are needed (list specific issues)
 
-      Output report to the Report Directory above.
+      **Report output:** Output to the `Report File` specified above.
+      - If file does not exist: Create new file
+      - If file exists: Append with `## Iteration {iteration}` section
+
+      **Report format:**
+      ```markdown
+      # Architecture Review
+
+      ## Result: APPROVE / IMPROVE / REJECT
+
+      ## Summary
+      {1-2 sentences summarizing result}
+
+      ## Reviewed Perspectives
+      - [x] Structure & Design
+      - [x] Code Quality
+      - [x] Change Scope
+
+      ## Issues (if REJECT)
+      | # | Location | Issue | Fix |
+      |---|----------|-------|-----|
+      | 1 | `src/file.ts:42` | Issue description | Fix method |
+
+      ## Improvement Suggestions (optional, non-blocking)
+      - {Future improvement suggestions}
+      ```
+
+      **Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+      - APPROVE + no issues → Summary only (5 lines or less)
+      - APPROVE + minor suggestions → Summary + suggestions (15 lines or less)
+      - REJECT → Issues in table format (30 lines or less)
     transitions:
       - condition: approved
         next_step: ai_review
@@ -146,6 +239,7 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: ai_review (AI-Generated Code Review)
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report File: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/04-ai-review.md
 
       ## Original User Request (Initial request from workflow start)
       {task}
@@ -166,7 +260,36 @@ steps:
       - [AI_REVIEW:APPROVE] if no AI-specific issues found
       - [AI_REVIEW:REJECT] if issues detected (list specific problems)
 
-      Output report to the Report Directory above.
+      **Report output:** Output to the `Report File` specified above.
+      - If file does not exist: Create new file
+      - If file exists: Append with `## Iteration {iteration}` section
+
+      **Report format:**
+      ```markdown
+      # AI-Generated Code Review
+
+      ## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+      ## Summary
+      {One sentence summarizing result}
+
+      ## Verified Items
+      | Aspect | Result | Notes |
+      |--------|--------|-------|
+      | Assumption validity | ✅ | - |
+      | API/Library existence | ✅ | - |
+      | Context fit | ✅ | - |
+      | Scope | ✅ | - |
+
+      ## Issues (if REJECT)
+      | # | Category | Location | Issue |
+      |---|----------|----------|-------|
+      | 1 | Hallucinated API | `src/file.ts:23` | Non-existent method |
+      ```
+
+      **Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+      - No issues → Summary 1 line + check table only (10 lines or less)
+      - Issues found → + Issues in table format (25 lines or less)
     transitions:
       - condition: approved
         next_step: security_review
@@ -213,6 +336,7 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: security_review
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report File: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/05-security-review.md
 
       ## Original User Request (Initial request from workflow start)
       {task}
@@ -233,7 +357,39 @@ steps:
       - [SECURITY:APPROVE] if no security issues found
       - [SECURITY:REJECT] if vulnerabilities detected (list specific issues)
 
-      Output report to the Report Directory above.
+      **Report output:** Output to the `Report File` specified above.
+      - If file does not exist: Create new file
+      - If file exists: Append with `## Iteration {iteration}` section
+
+      **Report format:**
+      ```markdown
+      # Security Review
+
+      ## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+      ## Severity: None / Low / Medium / High / Critical
+
+      ## Check Results
+      | Category | Result | Notes |
+      |----------|--------|-------|
+      | Injection | ✅ | - |
+      | Auth/Authz | ✅ | - |
+      | Data Protection | ✅ | - |
+      | Dependencies | ✅ | - |
+
+      ## Vulnerabilities (if REJECT)
+      | # | Severity | Type | Location | Fix |
+      |---|----------|------|----------|-----|
+      | 1 | High | SQLi | `src/db.ts:42` | Use parameterized query |
+
+      ## Warnings (non-blocking)
+      - {Security recommendations}
+      ```
+
+      **Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+      - No issues → Check table only (10 lines or less)
+      - Warnings → + Warnings 1-2 lines (15 lines or less)
+      - Vulnerabilities → + Table format (30 lines or less)
     transitions:
       - condition: approved
         next_step: supervise
@@ -306,6 +462,9 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: supervise (final verification)
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report Files:
+        - Validation: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/06-supervisor-validation.md
+        - Summary: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/summary.md
 
       ## Original User Request
       {task}
@@ -326,6 +485,64 @@ steps:
       **Review Reports:** Read all reports in Report Directory and
       check for any unaddressed improvement suggestions.
 
+      **Report output:** Output to the `Report Files` specified above.
+      - If file does not exist: Create new file
+      - If file exists: Append with `## Iteration {iteration}` section
+
+      **Validation report format:**
+      ```markdown
+      # Final Validation Results
+
+      ## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+      ## Validation Summary
+      | Item | Status | Verification Method |
+      |------|--------|---------------------|
+      | Requirements met | ✅ | Matched against requirements list |
+      | Tests | ✅ | `npm test` (N passed) |
+      | Build | ✅ | `npm run build` succeeded |
+      | Functional check | ✅ | Main flows verified |
+
+      ## Deliverables
+      - Created: {Created files}
+      - Modified: {Modified files}
+
+      ## Incomplete Items (if REJECT)
+      | # | Item | Reason |
+      |---|------|--------|
+      | 1 | {Item} | {Reason} |
+      ```
+
+      **Summary report format (only if APPROVE):**
+      ```markdown
+      # Task Completion Summary
+
+      ## Task
+      {Original request in 1-2 sentences}
+
+      ## Result
+      ✅ Complete
+
+      ## Changes
+      | Type | File | Summary |
+      |------|------|---------|
+      | Create | `src/file.ts` | Summary description |
+
+      ## Review Results
+      | Review | Result |
+      |--------|--------|
+      | Architect | ✅ APPROVE |
+      | AI Review | ✅ APPROVE |
+      | Security | ✅ APPROVE |
+      | Supervisor | ✅ APPROVE |
+
+      ## Verification Commands
+      ```bash
+      npm test
+      npm run build
+      ```
+      ```
+
       Output:
       - [SUPERVISOR:APPROVE] if ready to merge
       - [SUPERVISOR:REJECT] if issues found (specify the issues)
@@ -333,4 +550,4 @@ steps:
       - condition: approved
         next_step: COMPLETE
       - condition: rejected
-        next_step: fix
+        next_step: plan
diff --git a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/ai-reviewer.md b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/ai-reviewer.md
index 634a0fb..8191032 100644
--- a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/ai-reviewer.md
+++ b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/ai-reviewer.md
@@ -124,7 +124,9 @@ AI生成コードには特有の特徴があります:
 
 **レビュー結果をファイル出力する。**
 
-### 出力ファイル: 04-ai-review.md
+ワークフローの `Report File` に指定されたパスに出力してください。
+
+### レポートフォーマット
 
 ```markdown
 # AI生成コードレビュー
@@ -178,15 +180,15 @@ AI生成コードには特有の特徴があります:
 
 | 状況 | タグ |
 |------|------|
-| AI特有の問題なし | `[AI_REVIEWER:APPROVE]` |
-| 問題あり | `[AI_REVIEWER:REJECT]` |
+| AI特有の問題なし | `[AI_REVIEW:APPROVE]` |
+| 問題あり | `[AI_REVIEW:REJECT]` |
 
 ### REJECT の構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/04-ai-review.md`
+レポート出力: {Report File}
 
-[AI_REVIEWER:REJECT]
+[AI_REVIEW:REJECT]
 
 問題 {N}件: {カテゴリをカンマ区切り}
 ```
@@ -194,9 +196,9 @@ AI生成コードには特有の特徴があります:
 ### APPROVE の構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/04-ai-review.md`
+レポート出力: {Report File}
 
-[AI_REVIEWER:APPROVE]
+[AI_REVIEW:APPROVE]
 ```
 
 ## 重要
diff --git a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/architect.md b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/architect.md
index 39d0a41..c70d21c 100644
--- a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/architect.md
+++ b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/architect.md
@@ -288,7 +288,9 @@ Vertical Slice の判定基準:
 
 **レビュー結果をファイル出力する。**
 
-### 出力ファイル: 03-architect-review.md
+ワークフローの `Report File` に指定されたパスに出力してください。
+
+### レポートフォーマット
 
 ```markdown
 # アーキテクチャレビュー
@@ -331,7 +333,7 @@ Vertical Slice の判定基準:
 ### REJECT の構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/03-architect-review.md`
+レポート出力: {Report File}
 
 [ARCHITECT:REJECT]
 
@@ -342,7 +344,7 @@ Vertical Slice の判定基準:
 ### APPROVE の構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/03-architect-review.md`
+レポート出力: {Report File}
 
 [ARCHITECT:APPROVE]
 
@@ -352,7 +354,7 @@ Vertical Slice の判定基準:
 ### IMPROVE の構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/03-architect-review.md`
+レポート出力: {Report File}
 
 [ARCHITECT:IMPROVE]
 
diff --git a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/coder.md b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/coder.md
index 982ccae..1f2efc0 100644
--- a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/coder.md
+++ b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/coder.md
@@ -97,13 +97,13 @@
 
 **レビュアー（AIと人間）のために、以下のレポートをファイル出力する。**
 
-**レポートディレクトリ**: インストラクションの `Report Directory` に指定されたパスを使用する。
+ワークフローの `Report Files` に指定されたパスに出力してください。
 
 ### 出力するファイル
 
-#### 1. 変更スコープ宣言（01-coder-scope.md）
+#### 1. 変更スコープ宣言
 
-実装開始時に作成:
+実装開始時に作成（ワークフローの `Scope` パスに出力）:
 
 ```markdown
 # 変更スコープ宣言
@@ -126,9 +126,9 @@ Small（〜150行）
 - 既存APIへの影響なし
 ```
 
-#### 2. 決定ログ（02-coder-decisions.md）
+#### 2. 決定ログ
 
-実装完了時に作成（決定がある場合のみ）:
+実装完了時に作成（ワークフローの `Decisions` パスに出力、決定がある場合のみ）:
 
 ```markdown
 # 決定ログ
diff --git a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/planner.md b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/planner.md
index 13dd862..7d15b8d 100644
--- a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/planner.md
+++ b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/planner.md
@@ -43,7 +43,9 @@
 
 ## レポート出力
 
-### 出力ファイル: 00-plan.md
+ワークフローの `Report File` に指定されたパスに出力してください。
+
+### レポートフォーマット
 
 ```markdown
 # タスク計画
@@ -83,7 +85,7 @@
 ### DONE時の出力構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/00-plan.md`
+レポート出力: {Report File}
 
 [PLANNER:DONE]
 
diff --git a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/security.md b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/security.md
index 5010f59..8349c2f 100644
--- a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/security.md
+++ b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/security.md
@@ -183,7 +183,9 @@ if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
 
 **セキュリティレビュー結果をファイル出力する。**
 
-### 出力ファイル: 05-security-review.md
+ワークフローの `Report File` に指定されたパスに出力してください。
+
+### レポートフォーマット
 
 ```markdown
 # セキュリティレビュー
@@ -224,7 +226,7 @@ if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
 ### REJECT の構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/05-security-review.md`
+レポート出力: {Report File}
 
 [SECURITY:REJECT]
 
@@ -235,7 +237,7 @@ if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
 ### APPROVE の構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/05-security-review.md`
+レポート出力: {Report File}
 
 [SECURITY:APPROVE]
 ```
diff --git a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/supervisor.md b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/supervisor.md
index 94019d0..078543a 100644
--- a/resources/global/ja/agents/default/supervisor.md
+++ b/resources/global/ja/agents/default/supervisor.md
@@ -148,9 +148,11 @@ Architectが「正しく作られているか（Verification）」を確認す
 
 **最終検証結果とサマリーをファイル出力する。**
 
+ワークフローの `Report Files` に指定されたパスに出力してください。
+
 ### 出力ファイル
 
-#### 1. 検証結果（06-supervisor-validation.md）
+#### 1. 検証結果（ワークフローの `Validation` パスに出力）
 
 ```markdown
 # 最終検証結果
@@ -175,7 +177,7 @@ Architectが「正しく作られているか（Verification）」を確認す
 | 1 | ログアウト機能 | 未実装 |
 ```
 
-#### 2. 人間レビュワー向けサマリー（summary.md）
+#### 2. 人間レビュワー向けサマリー（ワークフローの `Summary` パスに出力）
 
 **APPROVEの場合のみ作成。人間が最終確認するための要約。**
 
@@ -224,8 +226,8 @@ npm run build
 
 ```
 レポート出力:
-- `.takt/reports/{dir}/06-supervisor-validation.md`
-- `.takt/reports/{dir}/summary.md`
+- {Validation パス}
+- {Summary パス}
 
 [SUPERVISOR:APPROVE]
 
@@ -235,7 +237,7 @@ npm run build
 ### REJECT の構造
 
 ```
-レポート出力: `.takt/reports/{dir}/06-supervisor-validation.md`
+レポート出力: {Validation パス}
 
 [SUPERVISOR:REJECT]
 
diff --git a/resources/global/ja/workflows/default.yaml b/resources/global/ja/workflows/default.yaml
index a2790a7..bb2c4e4 100644
--- a/resources/global/ja/workflows/default.yaml
+++ b/resources/global/ja/workflows/default.yaml
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: plan (タスク分析)
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report File: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/00-plan.md
 
       ## User Request
       {task}
@@ -34,7 +35,31 @@ steps:
       2. 影響範囲を特定する
       3. 実装アプローチを決める
 
-      **レポート出力:** `.takt/reports/{report_dir}/00-plan.md`
+      **レポート出力:** 上記の `Report File` に出力してください。
+      - ファイルが存在しない場合: 新規作成
+      - ファイルが存在する場合: `## Iteration {iteration}` セクションを追記
+
+      **レポートフォーマット:**
+      ```markdown
+      # タスク計画
+
+      ## 元の要求
+      {ユーザーの要求をそのまま記載}
+
+      ## 分析結果
+
+      ### 目的
+      {達成すべきこと}
+
+      ### スコープ
+      {影響範囲}
+
+      ### 実装アプローチ
+      {どう進めるか}
+
+      ## 確認事項（あれば）
+      - {不明点や確認が必要な点}
+      ```
 
       完了したら [PLANNER:DONE] を出力。
       要件が不明確な場合は [PLANNER:BLOCKED] を出力。
@@ -52,6 +77,9 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: implement
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report Files:
+        - Scope: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/01-coder-scope.md
+        - Decisions: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/02-coder-decisions.md
 
       ## User Request
       {task}
@@ -63,6 +91,40 @@ steps:
       planステップで立てた計画に従って実装してください。
       計画レポート（00-plan.md）を参照し、実装を進めてください。
 
+      **レポート出力:** 上記の `Report Files` に出力してください。
+      - ファイルが存在しない場合: 新規作成
+      - ファイルが存在する場合: `## Iteration {iteration}` セクションを追記
+
+      **Scopeレポートフォーマット（実装開始時に作成）:**
+      ```markdown
+      # 変更スコープ宣言
+
+      ## タスク
+      {タスクの1行要約}
+
+      ## 変更予定
+      | 種別 | ファイル |
+      |------|---------|
+      | 作成 | `src/example.ts` |
+      | 変更 | `src/routes.ts` |
+
+      ## 推定規模
+      Small / Medium / Large
+
+      ## 影響範囲
+      - {影響するモジュールや機能}
+      ```
+
+      **Decisionsレポートフォーマット（実装完了時、決定がある場合のみ）:**
+      ```markdown
+      # 決定ログ
+
+      ## 1. {決定内容}
+      - **背景**: {なぜ決定が必要だったか}
+      - **検討した選択肢**: {選択肢リスト}
+      - **理由**: {選んだ理由}
+      ```
+
       完了時は [CODER:DONE] を含めてください。
       進行できない場合は [CODER:BLOCKED] を出力し、planに戻ります。
     transitions:
@@ -78,6 +140,7 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: review (アーキテクチャレビュー)
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report File: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/03-architect-review.md
 
       ## Original User Request (ワークフロー開始時の元の要求)
       {task}
@@ -95,7 +158,37 @@ steps:
       - [ARCHITECT:IMPROVE] 改善すべき点がある場合（軽微な修正）
       - [ARCHITECT:REJECT] 構造的な変更が必要な場合（具体的な問題をリスト）
 
-      レポートは上記のReport Directoryに出力してください。
+      **レポート出力:** 上記の `Report File` に出力してください。
+      - ファイルが存在しない場合: 新規作成
+      - ファイルが存在する場合: `## Iteration {iteration}` セクションを追記
+
+      **レポートフォーマット:**
+      ```markdown
+      # アーキテクチャレビュー
+
+      ## 結果: APPROVE / IMPROVE / REJECT
+
+      ## サマリー
+      {1-2文で結果を要約}
+
+      ## 確認した観点
+      - [x] 構造・設計
+      - [x] コード品質
+      - [x] 変更スコープ
+
+      ## 問題点（REJECTの場合）
+      | # | 場所 | 問題 | 修正案 |
+      |---|------|------|--------|
+      | 1 | `src/file.ts:42` | 問題の説明 | 修正方法 |
+
+      ## 改善提案（任意・ブロッキングではない）
+      - {将来的な改善提案}
+      ```
+
+      **認知負荷軽減ルール:**
+      - APPROVE + 問題なし → サマリーのみ（5行以内）
+      - APPROVE + 軽微な提案 → サマリー + 改善提案（15行以内）
+      - REJECT → 問題点を表形式で（30行以内）
     transitions:
       - condition: approved
         next_step: ai_review
@@ -146,6 +239,7 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: ai_review (AI生成コードレビュー)
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report File: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/04-ai-review.md
 
       ## Original User Request (ワークフロー開始時の元の要求)
       {task}
@@ -166,7 +260,36 @@ steps:
       - [AI_REVIEW:APPROVE] AI特有の問題が見つからない場合
       - [AI_REVIEW:REJECT] 問題が検出された場合（具体的な問題をリスト）
 
-      レポートは上記のReport Directoryに出力してください。
+      **レポート出力:** 上記の `Report File` に出力してください。
+      - ファイルが存在しない場合: 新規作成
+      - ファイルが存在する場合: `## Iteration {iteration}` セクションを追記
+
+      **レポートフォーマット:**
+      ```markdown
+      # AI生成コードレビュー
+
+      ## 結果: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+      ## サマリー
+      {1文で結果を要約}
+
+      ## 検証した項目
+      | 観点 | 結果 | 備考 |
+      |------|------|------|
+      | 仮定の妥当性 | ✅ | - |
+      | API/ライブラリの実在 | ✅ | - |
+      | コンテキスト適合 | ✅ | - |
+      | スコープ | ✅ | - |
+
+      ## 問題点（REJECTの場合）
+      | # | カテゴリ | 場所 | 問題 |
+      |---|---------|------|------|
+      | 1 | 幻覚API | `src/file.ts:23` | 存在しないメソッド |
+      ```
+
+      **認知負荷軽減ルール:**
+      - 問題なし → サマリー1文 + チェック表のみ（10行以内）
+      - 問題あり → + 問題を表形式で（25行以内）
     transitions:
       - condition: approved
         next_step: security_review
@@ -213,6 +336,7 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: security_review
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report File: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/05-security-review.md
 
       ## Original User Request (ワークフロー開始時の元の要求)
       {task}
@@ -223,17 +347,49 @@ steps:
       ```
 
       ## Instructions
-      Perform security review on the changes. Check for vulnerabilities including:
-      - Injection attacks (SQL, Command, XSS)
-      - Authentication/Authorization issues
-      - Data exposure risks
-      - Cryptographic weaknesses
+      変更に対してセキュリティレビューを行ってください。以下の脆弱性を確認してください:
+      - インジェクション攻撃（SQL, コマンド, XSS）
+      - 認証・認可の問題
+      - データ露出リスク
+      - 暗号化の弱点
 
-      Include:
-      - [SECURITY:APPROVE] if no security issues found
-      - [SECURITY:REJECT] if vulnerabilities detected (list specific issues)
+      以下を含めてください:
+      - [SECURITY:APPROVE] セキュリティ問題がない場合
+      - [SECURITY:REJECT] 脆弱性が検出された場合（具体的な問題をリスト）
 
-      Output report to the Report Directory above.
+      **レポート出力:** 上記の `Report File` に出力してください。
+      - ファイルが存在しない場合: 新規作成
+      - ファイルが存在する場合: `## Iteration {iteration}` セクションを追記
+
+      **レポートフォーマット:**
+      ```markdown
+      # セキュリティレビュー
+
+      ## 結果: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+      ## 重大度: None / Low / Medium / High / Critical
+
+      ## チェック結果
+      | カテゴリ | 結果 | 備考 |
+      |---------|------|------|
+      | インジェクション | ✅ | - |
+      | 認証・認可 | ✅ | - |
+      | データ保護 | ✅ | - |
+      | 依存関係 | ✅ | - |
+
+      ## 脆弱性（REJECTの場合）
+      | # | 重大度 | 種類 | 場所 | 修正案 |
+      |---|--------|------|------|--------|
+      | 1 | High | SQLi | `src/db.ts:42` | パラメータ化クエリを使用 |
+
+      ## 警告（ブロッキングではない）
+      - {セキュリティに関する推奨事項}
+      ```
+
+      **認知負荷軽減ルール:**
+      - 問題なし → チェック表のみ（10行以内）
+      - 警告あり → + 警告を1-2行（15行以内）
+      - 脆弱性あり → + 表形式で（30行以内）
     transitions:
       - condition: approved
         next_step: supervise
@@ -306,6 +462,9 @@ steps:
       - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
       - Step: supervise (final verification)
       - Report Directory: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/
+      - Report Files:
+        - Validation: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/06-supervisor-validation.md
+        - Summary: .takt/reports/{report_dir}/summary.md
 
       ## Original User Request
       {task}
@@ -326,6 +485,64 @@ steps:
       **レポートの確認:** Report Directory内の全レポートを読み、
       未対応の改善提案がないか確認してください。
 
+      **レポート出力:** 上記の `Report Files` に出力してください。
+      - ファイルが存在しない場合: 新規作成
+      - ファイルが存在する場合: `## Iteration {iteration}` セクションを追記
+
+      **Validationレポートフォーマット:**
+      ```markdown
+      # 最終検証結果
+
+      ## 結果: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+      ## 検証サマリー
+      | 項目 | 状態 | 確認方法 |
+      |------|------|---------|
+      | 要求充足 | ✅ | 要求リストと照合 |
+      | テスト | ✅ | `npm test` (N passed) |
+      | ビルド | ✅ | `npm run build` 成功 |
+      | 動作確認 | ✅ | 主要フロー確認 |
+
+      ## 成果物
+      - 作成: {作成したファイル}
+      - 変更: {変更したファイル}
+
+      ## 未完了項目（REJECTの場合）
+      | # | 項目 | 理由 |
+      |---|------|------|
+      | 1 | {項目} | {理由} |
+      ```
+
+      **Summaryレポートフォーマット（APPROVEの場合のみ）:**
+      ```markdown
+      # タスク完了サマリー
+
+      ## タスク
+      {元の要求を1-2文で}
+
+      ## 結果
+      ✅ 完了
+
+      ## 変更内容
+      | 種別 | ファイル | 概要 |
+      |------|---------|------|
+      | 作成 | `src/file.ts` | 概要説明 |
+
+      ## レビュー結果
+      | レビュー | 結果 |
+      |---------|------|
+      | Architect | ✅ APPROVE |
+      | AI Review | ✅ APPROVE |
+      | Security | ✅ APPROVE |
+      | Supervisor | ✅ APPROVE |
+
+      ## 確認コマンド
+      ```bash
+      npm test
+      npm run build
+      ```
+      ```
+
       出力:
       - [SUPERVISOR:APPROVE] すべて完了、マージ可能
       - [SUPERVISOR:REJECT] 問題あり（具体的な問題を記載）
diff --git a/src/models/schemas.ts b/src/models/schemas.ts
index 3ac5598..377c3c6 100644
--- a/src/models/schemas.ts
+++ b/src/models/schemas.ts
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ export const StatusSchema = z.enum([
   'blocked',
   'approved',
   'rejected',
+  'improve',
   'cancelled',
   'interrupted',
 ]);
diff --git a/src/models/types.ts b/src/models/types.ts
index 628256f..71804cf 100644
--- a/src/models/types.ts
+++ b/src/models/types.ts
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ export type Status =
   | 'blocked'
   | 'approved'
   | 'rejected'
+  | 'improve'
   | 'cancelled'
   | 'interrupted';
 
diff --git a/src/workflow/engine.ts b/src/workflow/engine.ts
index 8e6bcd1..e646fef 100644
--- a/src/workflow/engine.ts
+++ b/src/workflow/engine.ts
@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
  */
 
 import { EventEmitter } from 'node:events';
+import { mkdirSync, existsSync } from 'node:fs';
+import { join } from 'node:path';
 import type {
   WorkflowConfig,
   WorkflowState,
@@ -73,10 +75,19 @@ export class WorkflowEngine extends EventEmitter {
     this.options = options;
     this.loopDetector = new LoopDetector(config.loopDetection);
     this.reportDir = generateReportDir(task);
+    this.ensureReportDirExists();
     this.validateConfig();
     this.state = createInitialState(config, options);
   }
 
+  /** Ensure report directory exists */
+  private ensureReportDirExists(): void {
+    const reportDirPath = join(this.cwd, '.takt', 'reports', this.reportDir);
+    if (!existsSync(reportDirPath)) {
+      mkdirSync(reportDirPath, { recursive: true });
+    }
+  }
+
   /** Validate workflow configuration at construction time */
   private validateConfig(): void {
     const initialStep = this.config.steps.find((s) => s.name === this.config.initialStep);
diff --git a/src/workflow/transitions.ts b/src/workflow/transitions.ts
index 6d5aa71..084006d 100644
--- a/src/workflow/transitions.ts
+++ b/src/workflow/transitions.ts
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ export function matchesCondition(
     blocked: ['blocked'],
     approved: ['approved'],
     rejected: ['rejected'],
+    improve: ['improve'],
     pending: [],
     in_progress: [],
     cancelled: [],