takt: refactor-status-handling (#477)

Config:
- PersistedGlobalConfig → GlobalConfig にリネーム、互換エイリアス削除
- persisted-global-config.ts → config-types.ts にリネーム
- ProjectConfig → GlobalConfig extends Omit<ProjectConfig, ...> の継承構造に整理
- verbose/logLevel/log_level を削除（logging セクションに統一）
- migration 機構（migratedProjectLocalKeys 等）を削除

Supervisor ペルソナ:
- 後方互換コードの検出・その場しのぎの検出・ボーイスカウトルールを除去（review.md ポリシー / architecture.md ナレッジと重複）
- ピース全体の見直しを supervise.md インストラクションに移動

takt-default-team-leader:
- loop_monitor のインライン instruction_template を既存ファイル参照に変更
- implement の「判断できない」ルールを ai_review → plan に修正

.github/workflows/announce.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+name: Announce
+
+on:
+  workflow_dispatch:
+    inputs:
+      title:
+        description: "タイトル"
+        required: true
+        type: string
+      body:
+        description: "本文（Markdown可、X向けには自動でプレーンテキスト化）"
+        required: true
+        type: string
+      channels:
+        description: "投稿先"
+        required: true
+        type: choice
+        default: "all"
+        options:
+          - all
+          - discussions
+          - discord
+          - twitter
+
+jobs:
+  discussions:
+    if: inputs.channels == 'all' || inputs.channels == 'discussions'
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    permissions:
+      discussions: write
+    steps:
+      - name: Post to GitHub Discussions
+        uses: abirber/github-create-discussion@v6
+        with:
+          title: ${{ inputs.title }}
+          body: ${{ inputs.body }}
+          repository-id: ${{ github.event.repository.node_id }}
+          category-name: "Announcements"
+        env:
+          GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+
+  discord:
+    if: inputs.channels == 'all' || inputs.channels == 'discord'
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - name: Post to Discord
+        env:
+          DISCORD_WEBHOOK_URL: ${{ secrets.DISCORD_WEBHOOK_URL }}
+          TITLE: ${{ inputs.title }}
+          BODY: ${{ inputs.body }}
+        run: |
+          jq -n \
+            --arg title "$TITLE" \
+            --arg desc "$BODY" \
+            '{embeds: [{title: $title, description: $desc, color: 5814783}]}' \
+          | curl -sf -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d @- "$DISCORD_WEBHOOK_URL"
+
+  twitter:
+    if: inputs.channels == 'all' || inputs.channels == 'twitter'
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - name: Post to X
+        uses: ethomson/send-tweet-action@v2
+        with:
+          status: "${{ inputs.title }}\n\n${{ inputs.body }}"
+          consumer-key: ${{ secrets.TWITTER_CONSUMER_API_KEY }}
+          consumer-secret: ${{ secrets.TWITTER_CONSUMER_API_SECRET }}
+          access-token: ${{ secrets.TWITTER_ACCESS_TOKEN }}
+          access-token-secret: ${{ secrets.TWITTER_ACCESS_TOKEN_SECRET }}

.github/workflows/auto-tag.yml

@@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ jobs:
       tag: ${{ steps.version.outputs.tag }}
     steps:
       - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+        with:
+          fetch-depth: 0
 
       - name: Extract version from PR title
         id: version
@@ -25,9 +27,9 @@ jobs:
           VERSION=$(echo "${{ github.event.pull_request.title }}" | sed 's/^Release //')
           echo "tag=$VERSION" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
 
-      - name: Create and push tag
+      - name: Create and push tag on PR head commit
         run: |
-          git tag "${{ steps.version.outputs.tag }}"
+          git tag "${{ steps.version.outputs.tag }}" "${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }}"
           git push origin "${{ steps.version.outputs.tag }}"
 
   publish:
@@ -52,12 +54,55 @@ jobs:
         run: |
           VERSION="${{ needs.tag.outputs.tag }}"
           VERSION="${VERSION#v}"
+          echo "version=$VERSION" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
           if echo "$VERSION" | grep -qE '(alpha|beta|rc|next)'; then
             echo "tag=next" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
           else
             echo "tag=latest" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
           fi
 
-      - run: npm publish --tag ${{ steps.npm-tag.outputs.tag }}
+      - name: Publish package
+        run: npm publish --tag ${{ steps.npm-tag.outputs.tag }}
         env:
           NODE_AUTH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.NPM_TOKEN }}
+
+      - name: Sync next tag on stable release
+        if: steps.npm-tag.outputs.tag == 'latest'
+        run: |
+          PACKAGE_NAME=$(node -p "require('./package.json').name")
+          VERSION="${{ steps.npm-tag.outputs.version }}"
+
+          for attempt in 1 2 3; do
+            if npm dist-tag add "${PACKAGE_NAME}@${VERSION}" next; then
+              exit 0
+            fi
+            if [ "$attempt" -eq 3 ]; then
+              echo "Failed to sync next tag after 3 attempts."
+              exit 1
+            fi
+            sleep $((attempt * 5))
+          done
+        env:
+          NODE_AUTH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.NPM_TOKEN }}
+
+      - name: Verify dist-tags
+        run: |
+          PACKAGE_NAME=$(node -p "require('./package.json').name")
+
+          for attempt in 1 2 3 4 5; do
+            LATEST=$(npm view "${PACKAGE_NAME}" dist-tags.latest)
+            NEXT=$(npm view "${PACKAGE_NAME}" dist-tags.next || true)
+
+            echo "Attempt ${attempt}: latest=${LATEST}, next=${NEXT}"
+
+            if [ "${{ steps.npm-tag.outputs.tag }}" != "latest" ] || [ "${LATEST}" = "${NEXT}" ]; then
+              echo "Dist-tags verified."
+              exit 0
+            fi
+
+            if [ "$attempt" -eq 5 ]; then
+              echo "::warning::dist-tags not synced after 5 attempts (latest=${LATEST}, next=${NEXT}). Registry propagation may be delayed."
+              exit 0
+            fi
+            sleep $((attempt * 10))
+          done

.github/workflows/cc-resolve.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
+name: CC Resolve
+
+on:
+  issue_comment:
+    types: [created]
+
+jobs:
+  resolve:
+    # Uncomment to allow organization members or collaborators:
+    # || github.event.comment.author_association == 'MEMBER'
+    # || github.event.comment.author_association == 'COLLABORATOR'
+    if: |
+      github.event.issue.pull_request &&
+      contains(github.event.comment.body, '/resolve') &&
+      github.event.comment.author_association == 'OWNER'
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    permissions:
+      contents: write
+      pull-requests: write
+    steps:
+      - name: Acknowledge
+        run: |
+          gh api repos/${{ github.repository }}/issues/comments/${{ github.event.comment.id }}/reactions \
+            -f content=rocket
+          gh pr comment ${{ github.event.issue.number }} --repo ${{ github.repository }} \
+            --body "🚀 cc-resolve started: [View logs](${{ github.server_url }}/${{ github.repository }}/actions/runs/${{ github.run_id }})"
+        env:
+          GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+
+      - name: Check if fork PR
+        id: pr
+        run: |
+          PR_REPO=$(gh pr view ${{ github.event.issue.number }} --repo ${{ github.repository }} \
+            --json headRepositoryOwner,headRepository \
+            --jq '"\(.headRepositoryOwner.login)/\(.headRepository.name)"')
+          BRANCH=$(gh pr view ${{ github.event.issue.number }} --repo ${{ github.repository }} \
+            --json headRefName -q .headRefName)
+          echo "branch=${BRANCH}" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
+          if [ "$PR_REPO" != "${{ github.repository }}" ]; then
+            echo "::error::Fork PR はサポートしていません。contributor 側で解決してください。"
+            exit 1
+          fi
+        env:
+          GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+        with:
+          ref: ${{ steps.pr.outputs.branch }}
+          fetch-depth: 0
+
+      - name: Configure git
+        run: |
+          git config user.name "github-actions[bot]"
+          git config user.email "github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com"
+
+      - name: Merge main (detect conflicts)
+        id: merge
+        run: |
+          git fetch origin main
+          # --no-commit --no-ff: コンフリクトの有無にかかわらず常にマージ状態を保持する
+          # これにより最後の git commit が必ずマージコミット（親2つ）を作る
+          if git merge --no-commit --no-ff origin/main 2>/dev/null; then
+            echo "conflicts=false" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
+          else
+            echo "conflicts=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
+          fi
+
+          # コミット済みのコンフリクトマーカーを検出
+          STALE_MARKERS=$(grep -rl '<<<<<<<' --include='*.ts' --include='*.js' --include='*.json' --include='*.yaml' --include='*.yml' --include='*.md' . 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | grep -v .git || echo "")
+          if [ -n "$STALE_MARKERS" ]; then
+            echo "stale_markers=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
+            {
+              echo "stale_marker_files<<MARKER_EOF"
+              echo "$STALE_MARKERS"
+              echo "MARKER_EOF"
+            } >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
+          else
+            echo "stale_markers=false" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
+          fi
+
+      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
+        with:
+          node-version: 20
+
+      - name: Install Claude Code
+        run: npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code
+
+      - name: Resolve
+        run: |
+          claude -p --dangerously-skip-permissions "$(cat <<'PROMPT'
+          このPRのコンフリクトを解決してください。
+
+          ## 状況判定
+
+          まず現在の状態を確認してください。以下の2つをすべてチェックする。
+
+          1. `git status` でマージコンフリクト（Unmerged paths）の有無を確認
+          2. ファイル中にコミット済みのコンフリクトマーカー（`<<<<<<<`）が残っていないか `grep -r '<<<<<<<' --include='*.ts' --include='*.js' --include='*.json' .` で確認
+
+          **重要**: git status がクリーンでも、ファイル内にコンフリクトマーカーがテキストとしてコミットされている場合がある。必ず grep で確認すること。
+
+          どちらも該当しなければ「コンフリクトなし」と報告して終了。
+
+          ---
+
+          ## コンフリクト解決
+
+          Git merge/rebase/cherry-pick のコンフリクト、およびファイル内に残存するコンフリクトマーカーを、差分分析に基づいて解決する。
+
+          **原則: 差分を読み、疑い、判断根拠を書いてから解決する。妄信的に片方を採用しない。**
+
+          ### 1. コンフリクト状態を確認する
+
+          ```bash
+          git status
+          ```
+
+          - merge / rebase / cherry-pick のどれが進行中か特定する
+            - `.git/MERGE_HEAD` があれば merge
+            - `.git/rebase-merge/` があれば rebase
+            - `.git/CHERRY_PICK_HEAD` があれば cherry-pick
+
+          ### 2. コンテキストを把握する
+
+          以下を**並列で**実行:
+
+          - `git log --oneline HEAD -5` で HEAD 側（現在のブランチ）の最近の変更を確認
+          - `git log --oneline MERGE_HEAD -5` で取り込み側の最近の変更を確認（merge の場合）
+          - 両ブランチの関係性（どちらがベースでどちらが新しいか）を理解する
+
+          ### 3. コンフリクトファイルを列挙する
+
+          ```bash
+          git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U
+          ```
+
+          加えて、コミット済みマーカーがあるファイルも対象に含める:
+          ```bash
+          grep -rl '<<<<<<<' --include='*.ts' --include='*.js' --include='*.json' . | grep -v node_modules
+          ```
+
+          ファイル数と種類（ソースコード / 設定ファイル / ロックファイル等）を報告する。
+
+          ### 4. 各ファイルを分析する
+
+          **ここが核心。ファイルごとに以下を必ず実行する。省略しない。**
+
+          1. ファイル全体を読む（コンフリクトマーカー付きの状態）
+          2. 各コンフリクトブロック（`<<<<<<<` 〜 `>>>>>>>`）について:
+             - HEAD 側の内容を具体的に読む
+             - theirs 側の内容を具体的に読む
+             - 差分が何を意味するか分析する（バージョン番号？リファクタ？機能追加？型変更？）
+             - 判断に迷う場合は `git log --oneline -- {file}` で変更履歴を確認する
+          3. **判断を書く**（以下の形式で必ず出力すること）:
+
+          ```markdown
+          ### ファイル: path/to/file.ts
+
+          #### コンフリクト 1 (L30-45)
+          - HEAD 側: {具体的な内容を書く}
+          - theirs 側: {具体的な内容を書く}
+          - 分析: {差分が何を意味するか}
+          - 判断: {HEAD / theirs / 両方統合} を採用（{理由}）
+          ```
+
+          **疑うべきポイント:**
+          - 「〇〇側が新しいから」だけで判断していないか？ HEAD 側に独自の意図ある変更はないか？
+          - theirs を採用すると、HEAD 側でしか行っていない作業が消えないか？
+          - 両方の変更を統合すべきケースではないか？
+          - package-lock.json のような機械生成ファイルでも、バージョンの意味を確認したか？
+
+          ### 5. 解決を実施する
+
+          ステップ4の分析結果に基づいて解決する:
+
+          - 片方採用が明確な場合: `git checkout --ours {file}` / `git checkout --theirs {file}` を使ってよい（**分析済みファイルのみ**）
+          - 両方の変更を統合する場合: コンフリクトマーカーを除去し、両方の内容を適切に結合する
+          - 解決したファイルを `git add {file}` でマークする
+
+          解決後、`<<<<<<<` を検索し、マーカーの取り残しがないか確認する。
+
+          ---
+
+          ## 波及影響確認
+
+          **コンフリクトを解決しただけでは終わらない。** 対象外ファイルにも影響が出ていないか検証する。
+
+          - ビルド確認（`npm run build`、`./gradlew build` 等、プロジェクトに応じて）
+          - テスト確認（`npm test`、`./gradlew test` 等）
+          - 対象外ファイルが、変更と矛盾していないか確認する
+            - 例: 関数シグネチャを変更したのに、テストが旧シグネチャを期待している
+            - 例: import パスを変更したのに、別ファイルが旧パスを参照している
+
+          問題が見つかった場合はここで修正する。
+
+          ---
+
+          ## 結果を報告する
+
+          全ファイルの解決結果をサマリーテーブルで報告する:
+
+          ```markdown
+          ## コンフリクト解決サマリー
+
+          | ファイル | コンフリクト数 | 採用 | 理由 |
+          |---------|-------------|------|------|
+          | path/to/file.ts | 2 | theirs | リファクタリング済み |
+
+          波及修正: {対象外ファイルの修正内容。なければ「なし」}
+          ビルド: OK / NG
+          テスト: OK / NG ({passed}/{total})
+          ```
+
+          ---
+
+          ## 絶対原則
+
+          - **差分を読まずに解決しない。** ファイルの中身を確認せずに `--ours` / `--theirs` を適用しない
+          - **盲従しない。** HEAD 側に独自の意図がないか必ず疑う
+          - **判断根拠を省略しない。** 各コンフリクトに「何が・なぜ・どちらを」の3点を書く
+          - **波及を確認する。** 対象外ファイルもビルド・テストで検証する
+
+          ## 禁止事項
+
+          - 分析なしで `git checkout --ours .` / `git checkout --theirs .` を実行しない
+          - 「とりあえず片方」で全ファイルを一括解決しない
+          - コンフリクトマーカー (`<<<<<<<`) が残ったままにしない
+          - `git merge --abort` を実行しない
+          - `git reset` を実行しない（MERGE_HEAD が消えてマージコミットが作れなくなる）
+          - `.git/MERGE_HEAD` を保持したまま作業すること
+          PROMPT
+          )" --verbose
+        env:
+          ANTHROPIC_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}
+          GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+
+      - name: Commit and push
+        run: |
+          git add -A
+          # MERGE_HEAD があればマージコミット、なければ通常コミット
+          if [ -f .git/MERGE_HEAD ]; then
+            git commit -m "merge: integrate main into PR branch"
+          elif ! git diff --cached --quiet; then
+            git commit -m "fix: resolve merge conflicts"
+          fi
+          AHEAD=$(git rev-list --count origin/${{ steps.pr.outputs.branch }}..HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
+          if [ "$AHEAD" -gt 0 ]; then
+            echo "Pushing $AHEAD commit(s)"
+            git push
+            echo "pushed=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
+          else
+            echo "Nothing to push"
+            echo "pushed=false" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
+          fi
+        id: push
+
+      - name: Trigger CI
+        if: steps.push.outputs.pushed == 'true'
+        run: |
+          gh workflow run ci.yml --ref "${{ steps.pr.outputs.branch }}"
+        env:
+          GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+
+      - name: Report result
+        if: always()
+        run: |
+          PR_NUMBER=${{ github.event.issue.number }}
+          RUN_URL="${{ github.server_url }}/${{ github.repository }}/actions/runs/${{ github.run_id }}"
+          if [ "${{ job.status }}" = "success" ]; then
+            gh pr comment "$PR_NUMBER" --repo ${{ github.repository }} --body "✅ cc-resolve completed. [View logs](${RUN_URL})"
+          else
+            gh pr comment "$PR_NUMBER" --repo ${{ github.repository }} --body "❌ cc-resolve failed. [View logs](${RUN_URL})"
+          fi
+        env:
+          GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}

.github/workflows/ci.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+name: CI
+
+on:
+  pull_request:
+    branches: [main]
+    types: [opened, synchronize, ready_for_review]
+  push:
+    branches: [main]
+  workflow_dispatch:
+
+concurrency:
+  group: ci-${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' && github.head_ref || github.ref_name }}
+  cancel-in-progress: true
+
+jobs:
+  lint:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
+        with:
+          node-version: 20
+          cache: npm
+      - run: npm ci
+      - run: npm run build
+      - run: npm run lint
+
+  test:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
+        with:
+          node-version: 20
+          cache: npm
+      - run: npm ci
+      - run: npm run build
+      - run: npm run test
+
+  e2e-mock:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
+        with:
+          node-version: 20
+          cache: npm
+      - run: npm ci
+      - run: npm run build
+      - run: npm run test:e2e:mock

.github/workflows/dependency-check.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+name: Dependency Health Check
+
+on:
+  schedule:
+    - cron: '0 0 * * *'
+  workflow_dispatch:
+
+jobs:
+  fresh-install:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+
+      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
+        with:
+          node-version: '20'
+
+      - name: Install without lockfile
+        run: |
+          rm package-lock.json
+          npm install
+
+      - name: Build
+        run: npm run build
+
+      - name: Verify CLI startup
+        run: node bin/takt --version
+
+      - name: Notify Slack on failure
+        if: failure()
+        uses: slackapi/slack-github-action@v2.0.0
+        with:
+          webhook-type: incoming-webhook
+          webhook: ${{ secrets.SLACK_WEBHOOK_URL }}
+          payload: |
+            {
+              "text": "⚠️ Dependency health check failed",
+              "blocks": [
+                {
+                  "type": "section",
+                  "text": {
+                    "type": "mrkdwn",
+                    "text": "*⚠️ Dependency Health Check Failed*\nA dependency may have published a broken version.\n<${{ github.server_url }}/${{ github.repository }}/actions/runs/${{ github.run_id }}|View logs>"
+                  }
+                }
+              ]
+            }

.github/workflows/takt-review.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+name: TAKT PR Review
+
+on:
+  pull_request_target:
+    types: [opened, synchronize, ready_for_review, reopened]
+
+jobs:
+  review:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    environment: takt-review
+    permissions:
+      contents: read
+      pull-requests: write
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+        with:
+          ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }}
+          repository: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name }}
+          fetch-depth: 0
+
+      - name: API キー確認
+        run: |
+          if [ -z "$ANTHROPIC_API_KEY" ]; then
+            echo "::error::ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is not set"
+            exit 1
+          fi
+        env:
+          ANTHROPIC_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}
+
+      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
+        with:
+          node-version: 20
+
+      - name: Claude Code & TAKT インストール
+        run: |
+          npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code
+          npm install -g takt
+
+      - name: TAKT Review 実行
+        run: takt --pipeline --skip-git -i ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} -w review
+        env:
+          ANTHROPIC_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}
+          GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+          GH_REPO: ${{ github.repository }}
+
+      - name: レビュー結果をPRコメントに投稿
+        if: always()
+        run: |
+          REPORT_DIR=$(ls -td .takt/runs/*/reports 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+          if [ -n "$REPORT_DIR" ]; then
+            SUMMARY=$(find "$REPORT_DIR" -name "*review-summary*" -type f | head -1)
+            if [ -n "$SUMMARY" ]; then
+              gh pr comment ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} --body-file "$SUMMARY"
+            else
+              echo "レビューサマリーが見つかりません"
+            fi
+          else
+            echo "レポートディレクトリが見つかりません"
+          fi
+        env:
+          GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+          GH_REPO: ${{ github.repository }}
+
+      - name: レビューレポートをアーティファクトに保存
+        if: always()
+        uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
+        with:
+          name: takt-review-reports
+          path: .takt/runs/*/reports/
+          if-no-files-found: ignore

.gitignore

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 # Dependencies
+node_modules
 node_modules/
 
 # Build output
@@ -22,14 +23,20 @@ npm-debug.log*
 # Test coverage
 coverage/
 
+# E2E test results
+e2e/results/
+
 # Environment
 .env
 .env.local
 .env.*.local
 .envrc
 
-# TAKT config (user data)
-.takt/
+# TAKT runtime data (facets/pieces/config are managed by .takt/.gitignore)
 
 task_planning/
 
+OPENCODE_CONFIG_CONTENT
+
+# Local editor/agent settings
+.claude/

.takt/.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Ignore everything by default
+*
+
+# This file itself
+!.gitignore
+
+# Project configuration
+!config.yaml
+
+# Facets and pieces (version-controlled)
+!pieces/
+!pieces/**
+!personas/
+!personas/**
+!policies/
+!policies/**
+!knowledge/
+!knowledge/**
+!instructions/
+!instructions/**
+!output-contracts/
+!output-contracts/**

.takt/config.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+piece_overrides:
+  movements:
+    implement:
+      quality_gates:
+        - "Run `npm run test:e2e:mock` and verify all E2E tests pass"
+    fix:
+      quality_gates:
+        - "Run `npm run test:e2e:mock` and verify all E2E tests pass"
+    ai_fix:
+      quality_gates:
+        - "Run `npm run test:e2e:mock` and verify all E2E tests pass"

AGENTS.md

@@ -1,41 +1,40 @@
 # Repository Guidelines
-このドキュメントは、このリポジトリに貢献するための実務的な指針をまとめたものです。短く具体的な説明と例で、作業の迷いを減らします。
 
 ## Project Structure & Module Organization
-- 主要ソースは `src/` にあり、エントリポイントは `src/index.ts`、CLI は `src/app/cli/index.ts` です。
-- テストは `src/__tests__/` に置き、対象が明確になる名前を付けます（例: `client.test.ts`）。
-- ビルド成果物は `dist/`、実行スクリプトは `bin/`、静的リソースは `resources/`、ドキュメントは `docs/` で管理します。
-- 実行時の設定やキャッシュは `~/.takt/`、プロジェクト固有の設定は `.takt/` を参照します。
+- `src/`: TypeScript の本体コード。CLI は `src/app/cli/`、コア実行ロジックは `src/core/`、共通機能は `src/shared/`、機能別実装は `src/features/` に配置。
+- `src/__tests__/`: 単体・統合テスト（`*.test.ts`）。
+- `e2e/`: E2E テストと補助ヘルパー。
+- `builtins/`: 組み込みピース、テンプレート、スキーマ。
+- `docs/`: 設計・CLI・運用ドキュメント。
+- `dist/`: ビルド成果物（生成物のため手編集しない）。
+- `bin/`: CLI エントリーポイント（`takt`, `takt-dev`）を提供。
 
 ## Build, Test, and Development Commands
-- `npm run build`: TypeScript をコンパイルして `dist/` を生成します。
-- `npm run watch`: ソース変更を監視しながら再ビルドします。
-- `npm run lint`: ESLint で `src/` を解析します。
-- `npm run test`: Vitest で全テストを実行します。
-- `npm run test:watch`: テストをウォッチ実行します。
-- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/client.test.ts`: 単体テストを個別実行する例です。
+- `npm install`: 依存関係をインストール。
+- `npm run build`: TypeScript を `dist/` にビルドし、プロンプト・i18n・preset ファイルをコピー。
+- `npm run watch`: `tsc --watch` で継続ビルド。
+- `npm run lint`: `src/` を ESLint で検証。
+- `npm test`: `vitest run` で通常テスト実行。
+- `npm run test:e2e:mock`: モックプロバイダーで E2E 実行。
+- `npm run test:e2e:all`: mock + provider E2E を連続実行。
 
 ## Coding Style & Naming Conventions
-- TypeScript + strict を前提に、null 安全と可読性を優先します。
-- ESM 形式のため、`import` の拡張子は `.js` に固定してください。
-- 命名は camelCase（関数・変数）と PascalCase（クラス）を採用します。
-- 共有型は `src/types/` に整理し、既存の命名パターンに合わせます。
-- ESLint と Prettier の規約に従い、修正後は `npm run lint` を実行します。
+- 言語は TypeScript（ESM）。インデントは 2 スペース、既存スタイルを維持。
+- ファイル名は機能を表す `kebab-case` または既存準拠（例: `taskHistory.ts`）。
+- テスト名は対象機能が分かる具体名（例: `provider-model.test.ts`）。
+- Lint ルール: `@typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any` と未使用変数を厳格に検出（未使用引数は `_` 接頭辞で許容）。
 
 ## Testing Guidelines
-- テストフレームワークは Vitest（`vitest.config.ts`）です。
-- 新規機能や修正には関連テストを追加します。
-- ファイル名は `<対象>.test.ts` または `<対象>.spec.ts` を使用します。
-- 依存が重い箇所はモックやスタブで状態を分離します。
+- フレームワークは Vitest。Node 環境で実行。
+- 変更時は最低限 `npm test` を通し、実行経路に影響する変更は `npm run test:e2e:mock` まで確認。
+- カバレッジ取得は Vitest の V8 レポーター（text/json/html）を使用。
 
 ## Commit & Pull Request Guidelines
-- コミットメッセージは短い要約が中心で、日本語・英語どちらも使われています。
-- `fix:`, `hotfix:` などのプレフィックスや、`#32` のような Issue 参照が見られます。必要に応じて付けてください。
-- バージョン更新や変更履歴の更新は明示的なメッセージで行います（例: `0.5.1`, `update CHANGELOG`）。
-- PR には変更概要、テスト結果、関連 Issue を記載し、小さく分割してレビュー負荷を抑えます。UI/ログ変更がある場合はスクリーンショットやログを添付します。
+- コミットは小さく、1コミット1目的。
+- 形式は Conventional Commits 推奨（`feat:`, `fix:`, `refactor:`, `test:`）。必要に応じて Issue 番号を付与（例: `fix: ... (#388)` / `[#367] ...`）。
+- PR では目的、変更点、テスト結果、影響範囲を明記。挙動変更がある場合は再現手順を添付。
+- 大規模変更は先に Issue で合意し、関連ドキュメント（`README.md` / `docs/`）も更新する。
 
 ## Security & Configuration Tips
-- 脆弱性は公開 Issue ではなくメンテナへ直接報告します。
-- `.takt/logs/` など機密情報を含む可能性のあるファイルは共有しないでください。
-- `~/.takt/config.yaml` の `trusted` ディレクトリは最小限にし、不要なパスは登録しないでください。
-- 新しいピースを追加する場合は `~/.takt/pieces/` の既存スキーマに合わせます。
+- 機密情報（API キー、トークン）はコミットしない。設定は `~/.takt/config.yaml` や環境変数を使用。
+- Provider や実行モード変更時は `docs/configuration.md` と `docs/provider-sandbox.md` を先に確認する。

CLAUDE.md

@@ -4,19 +4,25 @@ 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. It enables YAML-based piece definitions that coordinate multiple AI agents through state machine transitions with rule-based routing.
+TAKT (TAKT Agent Koordination Topology) is a multi-agent orchestration system for Claude Code. It enables YAML-based piece definitions that coordinate multiple AI agents through state machine transitions with rule-based routing.
 
 ## Development Commands
 
 | Command | Description |
 |---------|-------------|
-| `npm run build` | TypeScript build |
+| `npm run build` | TypeScript build (also copies prompt .md, i18n .yaml, and preset .sh files to dist/) |
 | `npm run watch` | TypeScript build in watch mode |
-| `npm run test` | Run all tests |
-| `npm run test:watch` | Run tests in watch mode (alias: `npm run test -- --watch`) |
+| `npm run test` | Run all unit tests |
+| `npm run test:watch` | Run tests in watch mode |
 | `npm run lint` | ESLint |
 | `npx vitest run src/__tests__/client.test.ts` | Run single test file |
 | `npx vitest run -t "pattern"` | Run tests matching pattern |
+| `npm run test:e2e` | Run E2E tests with mock provider (includes GitHub connectivity check) |
+| `npm run test:e2e:mock` | Run E2E tests with mock provider (direct, no connectivity check) |
+| `npm run test:e2e:provider:claude` | Run E2E tests against Claude provider |
+| `npm run test:e2e:provider:codex` | Run E2E tests against Codex provider |
+| `npm run test:e2e:provider:opencode` | Run E2E tests against OpenCode provider |
+| `npm run check:release` | Full release check (build + lint + test + e2e) with macOS notification |
 | `npm run prepublishOnly` | Lint, build, and test before publishing |
 
 ## CLI Subcommands
@@ -27,15 +33,24 @@ TAKT (Task Agent Koordination Tool) is a multi-agent orchestration system for Cl
 | `takt` | Interactive task input mode (chat with AI to refine requirements) |
 | `takt run` | Execute all pending tasks from `.takt/tasks/` once |
 | `takt watch` | Watch `.takt/tasks/` and auto-execute tasks (resident process) |
-| `takt add` | Add a new task via AI conversation |
-| `takt list` | List task branches (try merge, merge & cleanup, or delete) |
-| `takt switch` | Switch piece interactively |
+| `takt add [task]` | Add a new task via AI conversation |
+| `takt list` | List task branches (merge, delete, retry) |
 | `takt clear` | Clear agent conversation sessions (reset state) |
-| `takt eject` | Copy builtin piece/agents to `~/.takt/` for customization |
+| `takt eject [type] [name]` | Copy builtin piece or facet for customization (`--global` for ~/.takt/) |
+| `takt prompt [piece]` | Preview assembled prompts for each movement and phase |
+| `takt catalog [type]` | List available facets (personas, policies, knowledge, etc.) |
+| `takt export-cc` | Export takt pieces/agents as Claude Code Skill (~/.claude/) |
+| `takt reset config` | Reset global config to builtin template |
+| `takt reset categories` | Reset piece categories to builtin defaults |
+| `takt metrics review` | Show review quality metrics |
+| `takt purge` | Purge old analytics event files |
+| `takt repertoire add <spec>` | Install a repertoire package from GitHub |
+| `takt repertoire remove <scope>` | Remove an installed repertoire package |
+| `takt repertoire list` | List installed repertoire packages |
 | `takt config` | Configure settings (permission mode) |
 | `takt --help` | Show help message |
 
-**Interactive mode:** Running `takt` (without arguments) or `takt {initial message}` starts an interactive planning session. The AI helps refine task requirements through conversation. Type `/go` to execute the task with the selected piece, or `/cancel` to abort. Implemented in `src/features/interactive/`.
+**Interactive mode:** Running `takt` (without arguments) or `takt {initial message}` starts an interactive planning session. Supports 4 modes: `assistant` (default, AI asks clarifying questions), `passthrough` (passes input directly as task), `quiet` (generates instructions without questions), `persona` (uses first movement's persona for conversation). Type `/go` to execute the task with the selected piece, or `/cancel` to abort. Implemented in `src/features/interactive/`.
 
 **Pipeline mode:** Specifying `--pipeline` enables non-interactive mode suitable for CI/CD. Automatically creates a branch, runs the piece, commits, and pushes. Use `--auto-pr` to also create a pull request. Use `--skip-git` to run piece only (no git operations). Implemented in `src/features/pipeline/`.
 
@@ -48,84 +63,97 @@ TAKT (Task Agent Koordination Tool) is a multi-agent orchestration system for Cl
 | `--pipeline` | Enable pipeline (non-interactive) mode — required for CI/automation |
 | `-t, --task <text>` | Task content (as alternative to GitHub issue) |
 | `-i, --issue <N>` | GitHub issue number (equivalent to `#N` in interactive mode) |
-| `-w, --piece <name or path>` | Piece name or path to piece YAML file (v0.3.8+) |
+| `--pr <number>` | PR number to fetch review comments and fix |
+| `-w, --piece <name or path>` | Piece name or path to piece YAML file |
 | `-b, --branch <name>` | Branch name (auto-generated if omitted) |
-| `--auto-pr` | Create PR after execution (interactive: skip confirmation, pipeline: enable PR) |
+| `--auto-pr` | Create PR after execution (pipeline mode only) |
 | `--skip-git` | Skip branch creation, commit, and push (pipeline mode, piece-only) |
 | `--repo <owner/repo>` | Repository for PR creation |
-| `--create-worktree <yes\|no>` | Skip worktree confirmation prompt |
-| `-q, --quiet` | **Minimal output mode: suppress AI output (for CI)** (v0.3.8+) |
-| `--provider <name>` | Override agent provider (claude\|codex\|mock) (v0.3.8+) |
-| `--model <name>` | Override agent model (v0.3.8+) |
-| `--config <path>` | Path to global config file (default: `~/.takt/config.yaml`) (v0.3.8+) |
+| `-q, --quiet` | Minimal output mode: suppress AI output (for CI) |
+| `--provider <name>` | Override agent provider (claude\|codex\|opencode\|mock) |
+| `--model <name>` | Override agent model |
+| `--config <path>` | Path to global config file (default: `~/.takt/config.yaml`) |
 
 ## Architecture
 
 ### Core Flow
 
 ```
-CLI (cli.ts)
-  → Slash commands or executeTask()
-    → PieceEngine (piece/engine.ts)
-      → Per step: 3-phase execution
-        Phase 1: runAgent() → main work
-        Phase 2: runReportPhase() → report output (if step.report defined)
-        Phase 3: runStatusJudgmentPhase() → status tag output (if tag-based rules)
-      → detectMatchedRule() → rule evaluation → determineNextStep()
-      → Parallel steps: Promise.all() for sub-steps, aggregate evaluation
+CLI (cli.ts → routing.ts)
+  → Interactive mode / Pipeline mode / Direct task execution
+    → PieceEngine (piece/engine/PieceEngine.ts)
+      → Per movement, delegates to one of 4 runners:
+        MovementExecutor  — Normal movements (3-phase execution)
+        ParallelRunner    — Parallel sub-movements via Promise.allSettled()
+        ArpeggioRunner    — Data-driven batch processing (CSV → template → LLM)
+        TeamLeaderRunner  — Dynamic task decomposition into sub-parts
+      → detectMatchedRule() → rule evaluation → determineNextMovementByRules()
 ```
 
-### Three-Phase Step Execution
+### Three-Phase Movement Execution
 
-Each step executes in up to 3 phases (session is resumed across phases):
+Each normal movement executes in up to 3 phases (session is resumed across phases):
 
 | Phase | Purpose | Tools | When |
 |-------|---------|-------|------|
-| Phase 1 | Main work (coding, review, etc.) | Step's allowed_tools (Write excluded if report defined) | Always |
-| Phase 2 | Report output | Write only | When `step.report` is defined |
-| Phase 3 | Status judgment | None (judgment only) | When step has tag-based rules |
+| Phase 1 | Main work (coding, review, etc.) | Movement's allowed_tools (Write excluded if report defined) | Always |
+| Phase 2 | Report output | Write only | When `output_contracts` is defined |
+| Phase 3 | Status judgment | None (judgment only) | When movement has tag-based rules |
 
-Phase 2/3 are implemented in `src/core/piece/engine/phase-runner.ts`. The session is resumed so the agent retains context from Phase 1.
+Phase 2/3 are implemented in `src/core/piece/phase-runner.ts`. The session is resumed so the agent retains context from Phase 1.
 
 ### Rule Evaluation (5-Stage Fallback)
 
-After step execution, rules are evaluated to determine the next step. Evaluation order (first match wins):
+After movement execution, rules are evaluated to determine the next movement. Evaluation order (first match wins):
 
-1. **Aggregate** (`all()`/`any()`) - For parallel parent steps
+1. **Aggregate** (`all()`/`any()`) - For parallel parent movements
 2. **Phase 3 tag** - `[STEP:N]` tag from status judgment output
 3. **Phase 1 tag** - `[STEP:N]` tag from main execution output (fallback)
 4. **AI judge (ai() only)** - AI evaluates `ai("condition text")` rules
 5. **AI judge fallback** - AI evaluates ALL conditions as final resort
 
-Implemented in `src/core/piece/evaluation/RuleEvaluator.ts`. The matched method is tracked as `RuleMatchMethod` type.
+Implemented in `src/core/piece/evaluation/RuleEvaluator.ts`. The matched method is tracked as `RuleMatchMethod` type (`aggregate`, `auto_select`, `structured_output`, `phase3_tag`, `phase1_tag`, `ai_judge`, `ai_judge_fallback`).
 
 ### Key Components
 
 **PieceEngine** (`src/core/piece/engine/PieceEngine.ts`)
 - State machine that orchestrates agent execution via EventEmitter
-- Manages step transitions based on rule evaluation results
-- Emits events: `step:start`, `step:complete`, `step:blocked`, `step:loop_detected`, `piece:complete`, `piece:abort`, `iteration:limit`
-- Supports loop detection (`LoopDetector`) and iteration limits
-- Maintains agent sessions per step for conversation continuity
-- Delegates to `StepExecutor` (normal steps) and `ParallelRunner` (parallel steps)
+- Manages movement transitions based on rule evaluation results
+- Emits events: `movement:start`, `movement:complete`, `movement:blocked`, `movement:report`, `movement:user_input`, `movement:loop_detected`, `movement:cycle_detected`, `phase:start`, `phase:complete`, `piece:complete`, `piece:abort`, `iteration:limit`
+- Supports loop detection (`LoopDetector`), cycle detection (`CycleDetector`), and iteration limits
+- Maintains agent sessions per movement for conversation continuity
+- Delegates to `MovementExecutor` (normal), `ParallelRunner` (parallel), `ArpeggioRunner` (data-driven batch), and `TeamLeaderRunner` (task decomposition)
 
-**StepExecutor** (`src/core/piece/engine/StepExecutor.ts`)
-- Executes a single piece step through the 3-phase model
+**MovementExecutor** (`src/core/piece/engine/MovementExecutor.ts`)
+- Executes a single piece movement through the 3-phase model
 - Phase 1: Main agent execution (with tools)
 - Phase 2: Report output (Write-only, optional)
 - Phase 3: Status judgment (no tools, optional)
 - Builds instructions via `InstructionBuilder`, detects matched rules via `RuleEvaluator`
+- Writes facet snapshots (knowledge/policy) per movement iteration
+
+**ArpeggioRunner** (`src/core/piece/engine/ArpeggioRunner.ts`)
+- Data-driven batch processing: reads data from a source (e.g., CSV), expands templates per batch, calls LLM for each batch with concurrency control
+- Supports retry logic with configurable `maxRetries` and `retryDelayMs`
+- Merge strategies: `concat` (default, join with separator) or `custom` (inline JS or file-based)
+- Optional output file writing via `outputPath`
+
+**TeamLeaderRunner** (`src/core/piece/engine/TeamLeaderRunner.ts`)
+- Decomposes a task into sub-parts via AI (`decomposeTask()`), then executes each part as a sub-agent
+- Uses `PartDefinition` schema (id, title, instruction, optional timeoutMs) for decomposed tasks
+- Configured via `TeamLeaderConfig` (maxParts ≤3, separate persona/tools/permissions for parts)
+- Aggregates sub-part results and evaluates parent rules
 
 **ParallelRunner** (`src/core/piece/engine/ParallelRunner.ts`)
-- Executes parallel sub-steps concurrently via `Promise.all()`
-- Aggregates sub-step results for parent rule evaluation
-- Supports `all()` / `any()` aggregate conditions
+- Executes parallel sub-movements concurrently via `Promise.allSettled()`
+- Uses `ParallelLogger` to prefix sub-movement output for readable interleaved display
+- Aggregates sub-movement results for parent rule evaluation with `all()` / `any()` conditions
 
 **RuleEvaluator** (`src/core/piece/evaluation/RuleEvaluator.ts`)
 - 5-stage fallback evaluation: aggregate → Phase 3 tag → Phase 1 tag → ai() judge → all-conditions AI judge
-- Returns `RuleMatch` with index and detection method (`aggregate`, `phase3_tag`, `phase1_tag`, `ai_judge`, `ai_fallback`)
+- Returns `RuleMatch` with index and detection method
 - Fail-fast: throws if rules exist but no rule matched
-- **v0.3.8+:** Tag detection now uses **last match** instead of first match when multiple `[STEP:N]` tags appear in output
+- Tag detection uses **last match** when multiple `[STEP:N]` tags appear in output
 
 **Instruction Builder** (`src/core/piece/instruction/InstructionBuilder.ts`)
 - Auto-injects standard sections into every instruction (no need for `{task}` or `{previous_response}` placeholders in templates):
@@ -141,139 +169,261 @@ Implemented in `src/core/piece/evaluation/RuleEvaluator.ts`. The matched method
 
 **Agent Runner** (`src/agents/runner.ts`)
 - Resolves agent specs (name or path) to agent configurations
-- **v0.3.8+:** Agent is optional — steps can execute with `instruction_template` only (no system prompt)
-- 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)
+- Agent is optional — movements can execute with `instruction_template` only (no system prompt)
+- 5-layer resolution for provider/model: CLI `--provider` / `--model` → persona_providers → movement override → project `.takt/config.yaml` → global `~/.takt/config.yaml`
+- Custom personas via `~/.takt/personas/<name>.md` or prompt files (.md)
 - Inline system prompts: If agent file doesn't exist, the agent string is used as inline system prompt
 
-**Provider Integration** (`src/infra/claude/`, `src/infra/codex/`)
-- **Claude** - Uses `@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk`
+**Provider Integration** (`src/infra/providers/`)
+- Unified `Provider` interface: `setup(AgentSetup) → ProviderAgent`, `ProviderAgent.call(prompt, options) → AgentResponse`
+- **Claude** (`src/infra/claude/`) - Uses `@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk`
   - `client.ts` - High-level API: `callClaude()`, `callClaudeCustom()`, `callClaudeAgent()`, `callClaudeSkill()`
   - `process.ts` - SDK wrapper with `ClaudeProcess` class
   - `executor.ts` - Query execution
   - `query-manager.ts` - Concurrent query tracking with query IDs
-- **Codex** - Direct OpenAI SDK integration
-  - `CodexStreamHandler.ts` - Stream handling and tool execution
+- **Codex** (`src/infra/codex/`) - Uses `@openai/codex-sdk`
+  - Retry logic with exponential backoff (3 attempts, 250ms base)
+  - Stream handling with idle timeout (10 minutes)
+- **OpenCode** (`src/infra/opencode/`) - Uses `@opencode-ai/sdk/v2`
+  - Shared server pooling with `acquireClient()` / `releaseClient()`
+  - Client-side permission auto-reply
+  - Requires explicit `model` specification (no default)
+- **Mock** (`src/infra/mock/`) - Deterministic responses for testing
 
 **Configuration** (`src/infra/config/`)
-- `loaders/loader.ts` - Custom agent loading from `.takt/agents.yaml`
-- `loaders/pieceParser.ts` - YAML parsing, step/rule normalization with Zod validation
-- `loaders/pieceResolver.ts` - **3-layer resolution with correct priority** (v0.3.8+: user → project → builtin)
+- `loaders/pieceParser.ts` - YAML parsing, movement/rule normalization with Zod validation. Rule regex: `AI_CONDITION_REGEX = /^ai\("(.+)"\)$/`, `AGGREGATE_CONDITION_REGEX = /^(all|any)\((.+)\)$/`
+- `loaders/pieceResolver.ts` - **3-layer resolution**: project `.takt/pieces/` → user `~/.takt/pieces/` → builtin `builtins/{lang}/pieces/`. Also supports repertoire packages `@{owner}/{repo}/{piece-name}`
 - `loaders/pieceCategories.ts` - Piece categorization and filtering
 - `loaders/agentLoader.ts` - Agent prompt file loading
 - `paths.ts` - Directory structure (`.takt/`, `~/.takt/`), session management
-- `global/globalConfig.ts` - Global configuration (provider, model, trusted dirs, **quiet mode** v0.3.8+)
+- `global/globalConfig.ts` - Global configuration (provider, model, language, quiet mode)
 - `project/projectConfig.ts` - Project-level configuration
 
 **Task Management** (`src/features/tasks/`)
-- `execute/taskExecution.ts` - Main task execution orchestration
-- `execute/pieceExecution.ts` - Piece execution wrapper
+- `execute/taskExecution.ts` - Main task execution orchestration, worker pool for parallel tasks
+- `execute/pieceExecution.ts` - Piece execution wrapper, analytics integration, NDJSON logging
 - `add/index.ts` - Interactive task addition via AI conversation
-- `list/index.ts` - List task branches with merge/delete actions
+- `list/index.ts` - List task branches with merge/delete/retry actions
 - `watch/index.ts` - Watch for task files and auto-execute
 
+**Repertoire** (`src/features/repertoire/`)
+- Package management for external facet/piece collections
+- Install from GitHub: `github:{owner}/{repo}@{ref}`
+- Config validation via `takt-repertoire.yaml` (path constraints, min_version semver check)
+- Lock file for resolved dependencies
+- Packages installed to `~/.takt/repertoire/@{owner}/{repo}/`
+
+**Analytics** (`src/features/analytics/`)
+- Event types: `MovementResultEvent`, `ReviewFindingEvent`, `FixActionEvent`, `RebuttalEvent`
+- NDJSON storage at `.takt/events/`
+- Integrated into piece execution: movement results, review findings, fix actions
+
+**Catalog** (`src/features/catalog/`)
+- Scans 3 layers (builtin → user → project) for available facets
+- Shows override detection and source provenance
+
+**Faceted Prompting** (`src/faceted-prompting/`)
+- Independent module (no TAKT dependencies) for composing prompts from facets
+- `compose(facets, options)` → `ComposedPrompt` (systemPrompt + userMessage)
+- Supports template rendering, context truncation, facet path resolution, scope references
+
 **GitHub Integration** (`src/infra/github/`)
-- `issue.ts` - Fetches issues via `gh` CLI, formats as task text with title/body/labels/comments
-- `pr.ts` - Creates pull requests via `gh` CLI
+- `issue.ts` - Fetches issues via `gh` CLI, formats as task text, supports `createIssue()`
+- `pr.ts` - Creates pull requests via `gh` CLI, supports draft PRs and custom templates
 
 ### Data Flow
 
 1. User provides task (text or `#N` issue reference) or slash command → CLI
-2. CLI loads piece with **correct priority** (v0.3.8+): user `~/.takt/pieces/` → project `.takt/pieces/` → builtin `resources/global/{lang}/pieces/`
-3. PieceEngine starts at `initial_step`
-4. Each step: `buildInstruction()` → Phase 1 (main) → Phase 2 (report) → Phase 3 (status) → `detectMatchedRule()` → `determineNextStep()`
-5. Rule evaluation determines next step name (v0.3.8+: uses **last match** when multiple `[STEP:N]` tags appear)
+2. CLI loads piece with **priority**: project `.takt/pieces/` → user `~/.takt/pieces/` → builtin `builtins/{lang}/pieces/`
+3. PieceEngine starts at `initial_movement`
+4. Each movement: delegate to appropriate runner → 3-phase execution → `detectMatchedRule()` → `determineNextMovementByRules()`
+5. Rule evaluation determines next movement name (uses **last match** when multiple `[STEP:N]` tags appear)
 6. Special transitions: `COMPLETE` ends piece successfully, `ABORT` ends with failure
 
 ## Directory Structure
 
 ```
 ~/.takt/                  # Global user config (created on first run)
-  config.yaml             # Trusted dirs, default piece, log level, language
+  config.yaml             # Language, provider, model, log level, etc.
   pieces/                 # User piece YAML files (override builtins)
-  agents/                 # User agent prompt files (.md)
+  facets/                 # User facets
+    personas/             # User persona prompt files (.md)
+    policies/             # User policy files
+    knowledge/            # User knowledge files
+    instructions/         # User instruction files
+    output-contracts/     # User output contract files
+  repertoire/             # Installed repertoire packages
+    @{owner}/{repo}/      # Per-package directory
 
 .takt/                    # Project-level config
-  agents.yaml             # Custom agent definitions
-  tasks/                  # Task files for /run-tasks
-  reports/                # Execution reports (auto-generated)
+  config.yaml             # Project configuration
+  facets/                 # Project-level facets
+  tasks/                  # Task files for takt run
+  runs/                   # Execution reports (runs/{slug}/reports/)
   logs/                   # Session logs in NDJSON format (gitignored)
+  events/                 # Analytics event files (NDJSON)
 
-resources/                # Bundled defaults (builtin, read from dist/ at runtime)
-  global/
-    en/                   # English agents and pieces
-    ja/                   # Japanese agents and pieces
+builtins/                 # Bundled defaults (builtin, read from dist/ at runtime)
+  en/                     # English
+    facets/               # Facets (personas, policies, knowledge, instructions, output-contracts)
+    pieces/               # Piece YAML files
+  ja/                     # Japanese (same structure)
+  project/                # Project-level template files
+  skill/                  # Claude Code skill files
 ```
 
-Builtin resources are embedded in the npm package (`dist/resources/`). User files in `~/.takt/` take priority. Use `/eject` to copy builtins to `~/.takt/` for customization.
+Builtin resources are embedded in the npm package (`builtins/`). Project files in `.takt/` take highest priority, then user files in `~/.takt/`, then builtins. Use `takt eject` to copy builtins for customization.
 
 ## Piece YAML Schema
 
 ```yaml
 name: piece-name
 description: Optional description
-max_iterations: 10
-initial_step: plan        # First step to execute
+max_movements: 10
+initial_movement: plan    # First movement to execute
+interactive_mode: assistant  # Default interactive mode (assistant|passthrough|quiet|persona)
+answer_agent: agent-name  # Route AskUserQuestion to this agent (optional)
 
-steps:
-  # Normal step
-  - name: step-name
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md   # Path to agent prompt
-    agent_name: coder                   # Display name (optional)
-    provider: codex                     # claude|codex (optional)
-    model: opus                         # Model name (optional)
-    edit: true                          # Whether step can edit files
-    permission_mode: acceptEdits        # Tool permission mode (optional)
-    instruction_template: |
-      Custom instructions for this step.
-      {task}, {previous_response} are auto-injected if not present as placeholders.
-    pass_previous_response: true        # Default: true
-    report:
-      name: 01-plan.md                 # Report file name
-      format: |                         # Report format template
-        # Plan Report
-        ...
+# Piece-level provider options (inherited by all movements unless overridden)
+piece_config:
+  provider_options:
+    codex: { network_access: true }
+    opencode: { network_access: true }
+    claude: { sandbox: { allow_unsandboxed_commands: true } }
+  runtime:
+    prepare: [node, gradle, ./custom-script.sh]  # Runtime environment preparation
+
+# Loop monitors (cycle detection between movements)
+loop_monitors:
+  - cycle: [review, fix]        # Movement names forming the cycle
+    threshold: 3                # Cycles before triggering judge
+    judge:
+      persona: supervisor
+      instruction_template: "Evaluate if the fix loop is making progress..."
       rules:
-      - condition: "Human-readable condition"
-        next: next-step-name
-      - condition: ai("AI evaluates this condition text")
-        next: other-step
-      - condition: blocked
+        - condition: "Progress is being made"
+          next: fix
+        - condition: "No progress"
           next: ABORT
 
-  # Parallel step (sub-steps execute concurrently)
+# Section maps (key → file path relative to piece YAML directory)
+personas:
+  coder: ../facets/personas/coder.md
+  reviewer: ../facets/personas/architecture-reviewer.md
+policies:
+  coding: ../facets/policies/coding.md
+knowledge:
+  architecture: ../facets/knowledge/architecture.md
+instructions:
+  plan: ../facets/instructions/plan.md
+report_formats:
+  plan: ../facets/output-contracts/plan.md
+
+movements:
+  # Normal movement
+  - name: movement-name
+    persona: coder                      # Persona key (references section map)
+    persona_name: coder                 # Display name (optional)
+    session: continue                   # Session continuity: continue (default) | refresh
+    policy: coding                      # Policy key (single or array)
+    knowledge: architecture             # Knowledge key (single or array)
+    instruction: plan                   # Instruction key (references section map)
+    provider: claude                    # claude|codex|opencode|mock (optional)
+    model: opus                         # Model name (optional)
+    edit: true                          # Whether movement can edit files
+    required_permission_mode: edit      # Required minimum permission mode (optional)
+    quality_gates:                      # AI directives for completion (optional)
+      - "All tests pass"
+      - "No lint errors"
+    provider_options:                   # Per-provider options (optional)
+      codex: { network_access: true }
+      claude: { sandbox: { excluded_commands: [rm] } }
+    mcp_servers:                        # MCP server configuration (optional)
+      my-server:
+        command: npx
+        args: [-y, my-mcp-server]
+    instruction_template: |
+      Custom instructions for this movement.
+      {task}, {previous_response} are auto-injected if not present as placeholders.
+    pass_previous_response: true        # Default: true
+    output_contracts:
+      report:
+        - name: 01-plan.md             # Report file name
+          format: plan                  # References report_formats map
+          order: "Write the plan to {report_dir}/01-plan.md"  # Instruction prepend
+    rules:
+      - condition: "Human-readable condition"
+        next: next-movement-name
+      - condition: ai("AI evaluates this condition text")
+        next: other-movement
+      - condition: blocked
+        next: ABORT
+        requires_user_input: true       # Wait for user input (interactive only)
+
+  # Parallel movement (sub-movements execute concurrently)
   - name: reviewers
     parallel:
       - name: arch-review
-        agent: ../agents/default/architecture-reviewer.md
-        rules:
-          - condition: approved       # next is optional for sub-steps
-          - condition: needs_fix
-        instruction_template: |
-          Review architecture...
-      - name: security-review
-        agent: ../agents/default/security-reviewer.md
+        persona: reviewer
+        policy: review
+        knowledge: architecture
+        edit: false
         rules:
           - condition: approved
           - condition: needs_fix
-        instruction_template: |
-          Review security...
-    rules:                            # Parent rules use aggregate conditions
+        instruction: review-arch
+      - name: security-review
+        persona: security-reviewer
+        edit: false
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
+        instruction: review-security
+    rules:
       - condition: all("approved")
         next: supervise
       - condition: any("needs_fix")
         next: fix
+
+  # Arpeggio movement (data-driven batch processing)
+  - name: batch-process
+    persona: coder
+    arpeggio:
+      source: csv
+      source_path: ./data/items.csv     # Relative to piece YAML
+      batch_size: 5                     # Rows per batch (default: 1)
+      concurrency: 3                    # Concurrent LLM calls (default: 1)
+      template: ./templates/process.txt # Prompt template file
+      max_retries: 2                    # Retry attempts per batch (default: 2)
+      retry_delay_ms: 1000             # Delay between retries (default: 1000)
+      merge:
+        strategy: concat                # concat (default) | custom
+        separator: "\n---\n"           # For concat strategy
+      output_path: ./output/result.txt  # Write merged results (optional)
+    rules:
+      - condition: "Processing complete"
+        next: COMPLETE
+
+  # Team leader movement (dynamic task decomposition)
+  - name: implement
+    team_leader:
+      max_parts: 3                      # Max parallel parts (1-3, default: 3)
+      timeout_ms: 600000               # Per-part timeout (default: 600s)
+      part_persona: coder              # Persona for part agents
+      part_edit: true                  # Edit permission for parts
+      part_permission_mode: edit       # Permission mode for parts
+      part_allowed_tools: [Read, Glob, Grep, Edit, Write, Bash]
+    instruction_template: |
+      Decompose this task into independent subtasks.
+    rules:
+      - condition: "All parts completed"
+        next: review
 ```
 
-Key points about parallel steps:
-- Sub-step `rules` define possible outcomes but `next` is ignored (parent handles routing)
-- Parent `rules` use `all("X")`/`any("X")` to aggregate sub-step results
-- `all("X")`: true if ALL sub-steps matched condition X
-- `any("X")`: true if ANY sub-step matched condition X
+Key points about movement types (mutually exclusive: `parallel`, `arpeggio`, `team_leader`):
+- **Parallel**: Sub-movement `rules` define possible outcomes but `next` is ignored (parent handles routing). Parent uses `all("X")`/`any("X")` to aggregate.
+- **Arpeggio**: Template placeholders: `{line:N}`, `{col:N:name}`, `{batch_index}`, `{total_batches}`. Merge custom strategy supports inline JS or file.
+- **Team leader**: AI generates `PartDefinition[]` (JSON in ```json block), each part executed as sub-movement.
 
 ### Rule Condition Types
 
@@ -281,7 +431,7 @@ Key points about parallel steps:
 |------|--------|------------|
 | Tag-based | `"condition text"` | Agent outputs `[STEP:N]` tag, matched by index |
 | AI judge | `ai("condition text")` | AI evaluates condition against agent output |
-| Aggregate | `all("X")` / `any("X")` | Aggregates parallel sub-step matched conditions |
+| Aggregate | `all("X")` / `any("X")` | Aggregates parallel sub-movement matched conditions |
 
 ### Template Variables
 
@@ -289,16 +439,16 @@ Key points about parallel steps:
 |----------|-------------|
 | `{task}` | Original user request (auto-injected if not in template) |
 | `{iteration}` | Piece-wide iteration count |
-| `{max_iterations}` | Maximum iterations allowed |
-| `{step_iteration}` | Per-step iteration count |
-| `{previous_response}` | Previous step output (auto-injected if not in template) |
+| `{max_movements}` | Maximum movements allowed |
+| `{movement_iteration}` | Per-movement iteration count |
+| `{previous_response}` | Previous movement output (auto-injected if not in template) |
 | `{user_inputs}` | Accumulated user inputs (auto-injected if not in template) |
 | `{report_dir}` | Report directory name |
 
 ### Piece Categories
 
 Pieces can be organized into categories for better UI presentation. Categories are configured in:
-- `resources/global/{lang}/default-categories.yaml` - Default builtin categories
+- `builtins/{lang}/piece-categories.yaml` - Default builtin categories
 - `~/.takt/config.yaml` - User-defined categories (via `piece_categories` field)
 
 Category configuration supports:
@@ -311,34 +461,41 @@ Example category config:
 ```yaml
 piece_categories:
   Development:
-    pieces: [default, simple]
+    pieces: [default]
     children:
       Backend:
-        pieces: [expert-cqrs]
+        pieces: [dual-cqrs]
       Frontend:
-        pieces: [expert]
+        pieces: [dual]
   Research:
     pieces: [research, magi]
 show_others_category: true
 others_category_name: "Other Pieces"
 ```
 
-Implemented in `src/infra/config/loaders/pieceCategories.ts`.
-
 ### Model Resolution
 
 Model is resolved in the following priority order:
 
-1. **Piece step `model`** - Highest priority (specified in step YAML)
-2. **Custom agent `model`** - Agent-level model in `.takt/agents.yaml`
-3. **Global config `model`** - Default model in `~/.takt/config.yaml`
-4. **Provider default** - Falls back to provider's default (Claude: sonnet, Codex: gpt-5.2-codex)
+1. **Persona-level `model`** - `persona_providers.<persona>.model`
+2. **Movement `model`** - `step.model` / `stepModel` (`piece movement` field)
+3. **CLI/task override `model`** - `--model` or task options
+4. **Local/Global config `model`** - `.takt/config.yaml` and `~/.takt/config.yaml` when the resolved provider matches
+5. **Provider default** - Falls back to provider's default (for example, Claude: sonnet, Codex: gpt-5.2-codex)
 
-Example `~/.takt/config.yaml`:
-```yaml
-provider: claude
-model: opus          # Default model for all steps (unless overridden)
-```
+### Loop Detection
+
+Two distinct mechanisms:
+
+**LoopDetector** (`src/core/piece/engine/loop-detector.ts`):
+- Detects consecutive same-movement executions (simple counter)
+- Configurable: `maxConsecutiveSameStep` (default: 10), `action` (`warn` | `abort` | `ignore`)
+
+**CycleDetector** (`src/core/piece/engine/cycle-detector.ts`):
+- Detects cyclic patterns between movements (e.g., review → fix → review → fix)
+- Configured via `loop_monitors` in piece config (cycle pattern + threshold + judge)
+- When threshold reached, triggers a synthetic judge movement for decision-making
+- Resets after judge intervention to prevent immediate re-triggering
 
 ## NDJSON Session Logging
 
@@ -347,8 +504,8 @@ Session logs use NDJSON (`.jsonl`) format for real-time append-only writes. Reco
 | Record | Description |
 |--------|-------------|
 | `piece_start` | Piece initialization with task, piece name |
-| `step_start` | Step execution start |
-| `step_complete` | Step result with status, content, matched rule info |
+| `movement_start` | Movement execution start |
+| `movement_complete` | Movement result with status, content, matched rule info |
 | `piece_complete` | Successful completion |
 | `piece_abort` | Abort with reason |
 
@@ -358,8 +515,8 @@ Files: `.takt/logs/{sessionId}.jsonl`, with `latest.json` pointer. Legacy `.json
 
 - ESM modules with `.js` extensions in imports
 - Strict TypeScript with `noUncheckedIndexedAccess`
-- Zod schemas for runtime validation (`src/core/models/schemas.ts`)
-- Uses `@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk` for Claude integration
+- Zod v4 schemas for runtime validation (`src/core/models/schemas.ts`)
+- Uses `@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk` for Claude, `@openai/codex-sdk` for Codex, `@opencode-ai/sdk` for OpenCode
 
 ## Design Principles
 
@@ -367,30 +524,43 @@ Files: `.takt/logs/{sessionId}.jsonl`, with `latest.json` pointer. Legacy `.json
 
 **Do NOT expand schemas carelessly.** Rule conditions are free-form text (not enum-restricted). However, the engine's behavior depends on specific patterns (`ai()`, `all()`, `any()`). Do not add new special syntax without updating the loader's regex parsing in `pieceParser.ts`.
 
-**Instruction auto-injection over explicit placeholders.** The instruction builder auto-injects `{task}`, `{previous_response}`, `{user_inputs}`, and status rules. Templates should contain only step-specific instructions, not boilerplate.
+**Instruction auto-injection over explicit placeholders.** The instruction builder auto-injects `{task}`, `{previous_response}`, `{user_inputs}`, and status rules. Templates should contain only movement-specific instructions, not boilerplate.
 
-**Agent prompts contain only domain knowledge.** Agent prompt files (`resources/global/{lang}/agents/**/*.md`) must contain only domain expertise and behavioral principles — never piece-specific procedures. Piece-specific details (which reports to read, step routing, specific templates with hardcoded step names) belong in the piece YAML's `instruction_template`. This keeps agents reusable across different pieces.
+**Faceted prompting: each facet has a dedicated file type.** TAKT assembles agent prompts from 4 facets. Each facet has a distinct role. When adding new rules or knowledge, place content in the correct facet.
 
-What belongs in agent prompts:
-- Role definition ("You are a ... specialist")
-- Domain expertise, review criteria, judgment standards
-- Do / Don't behavioral rules
-- Tool usage knowledge (general, not piece-specific)
+```
+builtins/{lang}/facets/
+  personas/     — WHO: identity, expertise, behavioral habits
+  policies/     — HOW: judgment criteria, REJECT/APPROVE rules, prohibited patterns
+  knowledge/    — WHAT TO KNOW: domain patterns, anti-patterns, detailed reasoning with examples
+  instructions/ — WHAT TO DO NOW: movement-specific procedures and checklists
+```
 
-What belongs in piece `instruction_template`:
-- Step-specific procedures ("Read these specific reports")
-- References to other steps or their outputs
-- Specific report file names or formats
-- Comment/output templates with hardcoded review type names
+| Deciding where to place content | Facet | Example |
+|--------------------------------|-------|---------|
+| Role definition, AI habit prevention | Persona | "置き換えたコードを残す → 禁止" |
+| Actionable REJECT/APPROVE criterion | Policy | "内部実装のパブリックAPIエクスポート → REJECT" |
+| Detailed reasoning, REJECT/OK table with examples | Knowledge | "パブリックAPIの公開範囲" section |
+| This-movement-only procedure or checklist | Instruction | "レビュー観点: 構造・設計の妥当性..." |
+| Workflow structure, facet assignment | Piece YAML | `persona: coder`, `policy: coding`, `knowledge: architecture` |
+
+Key rules:
+- Persona files are reusable across pieces. Never include piece-specific procedures (report names, movement references)
+- Policy REJECT lists are what reviewers enforce. If a criterion is not in the policy REJECT list, reviewers will not catch it — even if knowledge explains the reasoning
+- Knowledge provides the WHY behind policy criteria. Knowledge alone does not trigger enforcement
+- Instructions are bound to a single piece movement. They reference procedures, not principles
+- Piece YAML `instruction_template` is for movement-specific details (which reports to read, movement routing, output templates)
 
 **Separation of concerns in piece engine:**
 - `PieceEngine` - Orchestration, state management, event emission
-- `StepExecutor` - Single step execution (3-phase model)
-- `ParallelRunner` - Parallel step execution
+- `MovementExecutor` - Single movement execution (3-phase model)
+- `ParallelRunner` - Parallel movement execution
+- `ArpeggioRunner` - Data-driven batch processing
+- `TeamLeaderRunner` - Dynamic task decomposition
 - `RuleEvaluator` - Rule matching and evaluation
 - `InstructionBuilder` - Instruction template processing
 
-**Session management:** Agent sessions are stored per-cwd in `~/.claude/projects/{encoded-path}/` (Claude Code) or in-memory (Codex). Sessions are resumed across phases (Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3) to maintain context. When `cwd !== projectCwd` (worktree/clone execution), session resume is skipped to avoid cross-directory contamination.
+**Session management:** Agent sessions are stored per-cwd in `~/.claude/projects/{encoded-path}/` (Claude) or in-memory (Codex/OpenCode). Sessions are resumed across phases (Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3) to maintain context. Session key format: `{persona}:{provider}` to prevent cross-provider contamination. When `cwd !== projectCwd` (worktree/clone execution), session resume is skipped.
 
 ## Isolated Execution (Shared Clone)
 
@@ -404,92 +574,105 @@ Key constraints:
 - **Ephemeral lifecycle**: Clone is created → task runs → auto-commit + push → clone is deleted. Branches are the single source of truth.
 - **Session isolation**: Claude Code sessions are stored per-cwd in `~/.claude/projects/{encoded-path}/`. Sessions from the main project cannot be resumed in a clone. The engine skips session resume when `cwd !== projectCwd`.
 - **No node_modules**: Clones only contain tracked files. `node_modules/` is absent.
-- **Dual cwd**: `cwd` = clone path (where agents run), `projectCwd` = project root (where `.takt/` lives). Reports, logs, and session data always write to `projectCwd`.
+- **Dual cwd**: `cwd` = clone path (where agents run), `projectCwd` = project root. Reports write to `cwd/.takt/runs/{slug}/reports/` (clone) to prevent agents from discovering the main repository. Logs and session data write to `projectCwd`.
 - **List**: Use `takt list` to list branches. Instruct action creates a temporary clone for the branch, executes, pushes, then removes the clone.
 
 ## Error Propagation
 
-`ClaudeResult` (from SDK) has an `error` field. This must be propagated through `AgentResponse.error` → session log history → console output. Without this, SDK failures (exit code 1, rate limits, auth errors) appear as empty `blocked` status with no diagnostic info.
+Provider errors must be propagated through `AgentResponse.error` → session log history → console output. Without this, SDK failures (exit code 1, rate limits, auth errors) appear as empty `blocked` status with no diagnostic info.
 
 **Error handling flow:**
-1. Provider error (Claude SDK / Codex) → `AgentResponse.error`
-2. `StepExecutor` captures error → `PieceEngine` emits `step:complete` with error
+1. Provider error (Claude SDK / Codex / OpenCode) → `AgentResponse.error`
+2. `MovementExecutor` captures error → `PieceEngine` emits `phase:complete` with error
 3. Error logged to session log (`.takt/logs/{sessionId}.jsonl`)
 4. Console output shows error details
-5. Piece transitions to `ABORT` step if error is unrecoverable
+5. Piece transitions to `ABORT` movement if error is unrecoverable
+
+## Runtime Environment
+
+Piece-level runtime preparation via `runtime.prepare` in piece config or `~/.takt/config.yaml`:
+
+- **Presets**: `gradle` (sets `GRADLE_USER_HOME`, `JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS`), `node` (sets `npm_config_cache`)
+- **Custom scripts**: Arbitrary shell scripts, resolved relative to cwd or as absolute paths
+- Environment injected: `TMPDIR`, `XDG_CACHE_HOME`, `XDG_CONFIG_HOME`, `XDG_STATE_HOME`, `CI=true`
+- Creates `.takt/.runtime/` directory structure with `env.sh` for sourcing
+
+Implemented in `src/core/runtime/runtime-environment.ts`.
 
 ## Debugging
 
-**Debug logging:** Set `debug_enabled: true` in `~/.takt/config.yaml` or create a `.takt/debug.yaml` file:
+**Debug logging:** Set `logging.debug: true` in `~/.takt/config.yaml`:
 ```yaml
-enabled: true
+logging:
+  debug: true
 ```
 
-Debug logs are written to `.takt/logs/debug.log` (ndjson format). Log levels: `debug`, `info`, `warn`, `error`.
+Debug logs are written to `.takt/runs/debug-{timestamp}/logs/` in NDJSON format. Log levels: `debug`, `info`, `warn`, `error`.
 
-**Verbose mode:** Create `.takt/verbose` file (empty file) to enable verbose console output. This automatically enables debug logging and sets log level to `debug`.
+**Verbose mode:** Set `verbose: true` in `~/.takt/config.yaml` or `TAKT_VERBOSE=true` to enable verbose console output. This enables `logging.debug`, `logging.trace`, and sets `logging.level` to `debug`.
 
 **Session logs:** All piece executions are logged to `.takt/logs/{sessionId}.jsonl`. Use `tail -f .takt/logs/{sessionId}.jsonl` to monitor in real-time.
 
+**Environment variables:**
+
+- `TAKT_LOGGING_LEVEL=info`
+- `TAKT_LOGGING_PROVIDER_EVENTS=true`
+- `TAKT_VERBOSE=true`
+
 **Testing with mocks:** Use `--provider mock` to test pieces without calling real AI APIs. Mock responses are deterministic and configurable via test fixtures.
 
 ## Testing Notes
 
-- Vitest for testing framework
-- Tests use file system fixtures in `__tests__/` subdirectories
-- Mock pieces and agent configs for integration tests
+- Vitest for testing framework (single-thread mode, 15s timeout, 5s teardown timeout)
+- Unit tests: `src/__tests__/*.test.ts`
+- E2E mock tests: configured via `vitest.config.e2e.mock.ts` (240s timeout, forceExit)
+- E2E provider tests: configured via `vitest.config.e2e.provider.ts`
 - Test single files: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/filename.test.ts`
 - Pattern matching: `npx vitest run -t "test pattern"`
-- Integration tests: Tests with `it-` prefix are integration tests that simulate full piece execution
-- Engine tests: Tests with `engine-` prefix test specific PieceEngine scenarios (happy path, error handling, parallel execution, etc.)
+- Integration tests: Tests with `it-` prefix simulate full piece execution
+- Engine tests: Tests with `engine-` prefix test PieceEngine scenarios (happy path, error handling, parallel, arpeggio, team-leader, etc.)
+- Environment variables cleared in test setup: `TAKT_CONFIG_DIR`, `TAKT_NOTIFY_WEBHOOK`
 
 ## Important Implementation Notes
 
-**Agent prompt resolution:**
-- Agent paths in piece YAML are resolved relative to the piece file's directory
-- `../agents/default/coder.md` resolves from piece file location
-- Built-in agents are loaded from `dist/resources/global/{lang}/agents/`
-- User agents are loaded from `~/.takt/agents/` or `.takt/agents.yaml`
-- If agent file doesn't exist, the agent string is used as inline system prompt
+**Persona prompt resolution:**
+- Persona paths in piece YAML are resolved relative to the piece file's directory
+- `../facets/personas/coder.md` resolves from piece file location
+- Built-in personas are loaded from `builtins/{lang}/facets/personas/`
+- User personas are loaded from `~/.takt/facets/personas/`
+- If persona file doesn't exist, the persona string is used as inline system prompt
 
 **Report directory structure:**
-- Report dirs are created at `.takt/reports/{timestamp}-{slug}/`
-- Report files specified in `step.report` are written relative to report dir
+- Report dirs are created at `.takt/runs/{timestamp}-{slug}/reports/`
+- Report files specified in `output_contracts` are written relative to report dir
 - Report dir path is available as `{report_dir}` variable in instruction templates
-- When `cwd !== projectCwd` (worktree execution), reports still write to `projectCwd/.takt/reports/`
+- When `cwd !== projectCwd` (worktree execution), reports write to `cwd/.takt/runs/{slug}/reports/` (clone dir) to prevent agents from discovering the main repository path
 
 **Session continuity across phases:**
 - Agent sessions persist across Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3 for context continuity
 - Session ID is passed via `resumeFrom` in `RunAgentOptions`
+- Session key: `{persona}:{provider}` prevents cross-provider session contamination
 - Sessions are stored per-cwd, so worktree executions create new sessions
 - Use `takt clear` to reset all agent sessions
 
-**Worktree execution gotchas:**
-- `git clone --shared` creates independent `.git` directory (not `git worktree`)
-- Clone cwd ≠ project cwd: agents work in clone, but reports/logs write to project
-- Session resume is skipped when `cwd !== projectCwd` to avoid cross-directory contamination
-- Clones are ephemeral: created → task runs → auto-commit + push → deleted
-- Use `takt list` to manage task branches after clone deletion
-
 **Rule evaluation quirks:**
 - Tag-based rules match by array index (0-based), not by exact condition text
-- **v0.3.8+:** When multiple `[STEP:N]` tags appear in output, **last match wins** (not first)
-- `ai()` conditions are evaluated by Claude/Codex, not by string matching
-- Aggregate conditions (`all()`, `any()`) only work in parallel parent steps
+- When multiple `[STEP:N]` tags appear in output, **last match wins** (not first)
+- `ai()` conditions are evaluated by the provider, not by string matching
+- Aggregate conditions (`all()`, `any()`) only work in parallel parent movements
 - Fail-fast: if rules exist but no rule matches, piece aborts
 - Interactive-only rules are skipped in pipeline mode (`rule.interactiveOnly === true`)
 
 **Provider-specific behavior:**
-- Claude: Uses session files in `~/.claude/projects/`, supports skill/agent calls
-- Codex: In-memory sessions, no skill/agent calls
+- Claude: Uses session files in `~/.claude/projects/`, supports aliases: `opus`, `sonnet`, `haiku`
+- Codex: In-memory sessions, retry with exponential backoff (3 attempts)
+- OpenCode: Shared server pooling, requires explicit `model`, client-side permission auto-reply
+- Mock: Deterministic responses, scenario queue support
 - Model names are passed directly to provider (no alias resolution in TAKT)
-- Claude supports aliases: `opus`, `sonnet`, `haiku`
-- Codex defaults to `codex` if model not specified
 
-**Permission modes (v0.3.8+: provider-independent values):**
+**Permission modes (provider-independent values):**
 - `readonly`: Read-only access, no file modifications (Claude: `default`, Codex: `read-only`)
 - `edit`: Allow file edits with confirmation (Claude: `acceptEdits`, Codex: `workspace-write`)
 - `full`: Bypass all permission checks (Claude: `bypassPermissions`, Codex: `danger-full-access`)
-- Specified at step level (`permission_mode` field) or global config
-- **v0.3.8+:** Permission mode values are unified across providers; TAKT translates to provider-specific flags
-- Legacy values (`default`, `acceptEdits`, `bypassPermissions`) are **no longer supported**
+- Resolved via `provider_profiles` (global/project config) with `required_permission_mode` as minimum floor
+- Movement-level `required_permission_mode` sets the minimum; `provider_profiles` defaults/overrides can raise it

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -1,62 +1,66 @@
 # Contributing to TAKT
 
-Thank you for your interest in contributing to TAKT!
+🇯🇵 [日本語版](./docs/CONTRIBUTING.ja.md)
 
-## About This Project
-
-This project is developed using [TAKT](https://github.com/nrslib/takt). Please understand the following before contributing:
-
-- **Small, focused changes are preferred** - Bug fixes, typo corrections, documentation improvements
-- **Large PRs are difficult to review** - Especially AI-generated bulk changes without explanation
-
-## How to Contribute
-
-### Reporting Issues
-
-1. Search existing issues first
-2. Include reproduction steps
-3. Include your environment (OS, Node version, etc.)
-
-### Pull Requests
-
-**Preferred:**
-- Bug fixes with tests
-- Documentation improvements
-- Small, focused changes
-- Typo corrections
-
-**Difficult to review:**
-- Large refactoring
-- AI-generated bulk changes
-- Feature additions without prior discussion
-
-### Before Submitting a PR
-
-1. Open an issue first to discuss the change
-2. Keep changes small and focused
-3. Include tests if applicable
-4. Update documentation if needed
+Thank you for your interest in contributing to TAKT! This project uses TAKT's review piece to verify PR quality before merging.
 
 ## Development Setup
 
 ```bash
-# Clone the repository
 git clone https://github.com/your-username/takt.git
 cd takt
-
-# Install dependencies
 npm install
-
-# Build
 npm run build
-
-# Run tests
 npm test
-
-# Lint
 npm run lint
 ```
 
+## How to Contribute
+
+1. **Open an issue** to discuss the change before starting work
+2. **Keep changes small and focused** — bug fixes, documentation improvements, typo corrections are welcome
+3. **Include tests** for new behavior
+4. **Run the review** before submitting (see below)
+
+Large refactoring or feature additions without prior discussion are difficult to review and may be declined.
+
+## Before Submitting a PR
+
+All PRs must pass the TAKT review process. PRs without a review summary or with unresolved REJECT findings will not be merged.
+
+### 1. Pass CI checks
+
+```bash
+npm run build
+npm run lint
+npm test
+```
+
+### 2. Run TAKT review
+
+The review piece auto-detects the review mode based on the input:
+
+```bash
+# PR mode — review a pull request by number
+takt -t "#<PR-number>" -w review
+
+# Branch mode — review a branch diff against main
+takt -t "<branch-name>" -w review
+
+# Current diff mode — review uncommitted or recent changes
+takt -t "review current changes" -w review
+```
+
+### 3. Confirm APPROVE
+
+Check the review summary in `.takt/runs/*/reports/review-summary.md`. If the result is **REJECT**, fix the reported issues and re-run the review until you get **APPROVE**.
+
+If a REJECT finding cannot be resolved (e.g., false positive, intentional design decision), leave a comment on the PR explaining why it remains unresolved.
+
+### 4. Include the review summary in your PR
+
+Post the contents of `review-summary.md` as a comment on your PR. This is **required** — it lets maintainers verify that the review was run and passed.
+
 ## Code Style
 
 - TypeScript strict mode

README.md

@@ -1,779 +1,273 @@
 # TAKT
 
-🇯🇵 [日本語ドキュメント](./docs/README.ja.md)
+🇯🇵 [日本語ドキュメント](./docs/README.ja.md) | 💬 [Discord Community](https://discord.gg/R2Xz3uYWxD)
 
-**T**ask **A**gent **K**oordination **T**ool - Define how AI agents coordinate, where humans intervene, and what gets recorded — in YAML
+**T**AKT **A**gent **K**oordination **T**opology — Give your AI coding agents structured review loops, managed prompts, and guardrails — so they deliver quality code, not just code.
 
-TAKT runs multiple AI agents (Claude Code, Codex) through YAML-defined workflows. Each step — who runs, what's allowed, what happens on failure — is declared in a piece file, not left to the agent.
+TAKT runs AI agents (Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Cursor, GitHub Copilot CLI) through YAML-defined workflows with built-in review cycles. You talk to AI to define what you want, queue tasks, and let TAKT handle the execution — planning, implementation, multi-stage review, and fix loops — all governed by declarative piece files.
 
 TAKT is built with TAKT itself (dogfooding).
 
-## Metaphor
-
-TAKT uses a music metaphor to describe orchestration:
-
-- **Piece**: A task execution definition (what to do and how agents coordinate)
-- **Movement**: A step inside a piece (a single stage in the flow)
-- **Orchestration**: The engine that coordinates agents across movements
-
-You can read every term as standard workflow language (piece = workflow, movement = step), but the metaphor is used to keep the system conceptually consistent.
-
 ## Why TAKT
 
-- AI agents are powerful but non-deterministic — TAKT makes their decisions visible and replayable
-- Multi-agent coordination needs structure — pieces define who does what, in what order, with what permissions
-- CI/CD integration needs guardrails — pipeline mode runs agents non-interactively with full audit logs
+**Batteries included** — Architecture, security, and AI antipattern review criteria are built in. Ship code that meets a quality bar from day one.
 
-## What TAKT is NOT
+**Practical** — A tool for daily development, not demos. Talk to AI to refine requirements, queue tasks, and run them. Automatic worktree isolation, PR creation, and retry on failure.
 
-- **Not an autonomous engineer** — TAKT coordinates agents but doesn't decide what to build. You provide the task, TAKT governs the execution.
-- **Not a Skill or Swarm replacement** — Skills extend a single agent's knowledge. Swarm parallelizes agents. TAKT defines the workflow structure across agents — which agent runs, in what order, with what rules.
-- **Not fully automatic by default** — Every step can require human approval. Automation is opt-in (pipeline mode), not the default.
+**Reproducible** — Execution paths are declared in YAML, keeping results consistent. Pieces are shareable — a workflow built by one team member can be used by anyone else to run the same quality process. Every step is logged in NDJSON for full traceability from task to PR.
+
+**Multi-agent** — Orchestrate multiple agents with different personas, permissions, and review criteria. Run parallel reviewers, route failures back to implementers, aggregate results with declarative rules. Prompts are managed as independent facets (persona, policy, knowledge, instruction) that compose freely across workflows ([Faceted Prompting](./docs/faceted-prompting.md)).
 
 ## Requirements
 
 Choose one:
 
-- **Use provider CLIs**: [Claude Code](https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code) or [Codex](https://github.com/openai/codex) installed
-- **Use direct API**: **Anthropic API Key** or **OpenAI API Key** (no CLI required)
+- **Provider CLIs**: [Codex](https://github.com/openai/codex), [OpenCode](https://opencode.ai), [Cursor Agent](https://docs.cursor.com/), or [GitHub Copilot CLI](https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/github-copilot-in-the-cli) installed
+- **Direct API**: Anthropic / OpenAI / OpenCode API Key (no CLI required)
 
-Additionally required:
+Optional:
 
-- [GitHub CLI](https://cli.github.com/) (`gh`) — Only needed for `takt #N` (GitHub Issue execution)
+- [GitHub CLI](https://cli.github.com/) (`gh`) — for `takt #N` (GitHub Issue tasks)
 
-**Pricing Note**: When using API Keys, TAKT directly calls the Claude API (Anthropic) or OpenAI API. The pricing structure is the same as using Claude Code or Codex. Be mindful of costs, especially when running automated tasks in CI/CD environments, as API usage can accumulate.
+> **OAuth and API key usage:** Whether OAuth or API key access is permitted varies by provider and use case. Check each provider's terms of service before using TAKT.
 
-## Installation
+## Quick Start
+
+### Install
 
 ```bash
 npm install -g takt
 ```
 
-## Quick Start
-
-```bash
-# Interactive mode - refine task requirements with AI, then execute
-takt
-
-# Execute GitHub Issue as task (both work the same)
-takt #6
-takt --issue 6
-
-# Pipeline execution (non-interactive, for scripts/CI)
-takt --pipeline --task "Fix the bug" --auto-pr
-```
-
-## Usage
-
-### Interactive Mode
-
-A mode where you refine task content through conversation with AI before execution. Useful when task requirements are ambiguous or when you want to clarify content while consulting with AI.
-
-```bash
-# Start interactive mode (no arguments)
-takt
-
-# Specify initial message (short word only)
-takt hello
-```
-
-**Note:** Issue references (`#6`) and `--task` / `--issue` options skip interactive mode and execute the task directly. All other inputs (including text with spaces) enter interactive mode for requirement refinement.
-
-**Flow:**
-1. Select piece
-2. Refine task content through conversation with AI
-3. Finalize task instructions with `/go` (you can also add additional instructions like `/go additional instructions`), or use `/play <task>` to execute a task immediately
-4. Execute (create worktree, run piece, create PR)
-
-#### Execution Example
+### Talk to AI, then execute
 
 ```
 $ takt
 
 Select piece:
   ❯ 🎼 default (current)
-    📁 Development/
-    📁 Research/
-    Cancel
+    📁 🚀 Quick Start/
+    📁 🎨 Frontend/
+    📁 ⚙️ Backend/
 
-Interactive mode - Enter task content. Commands: /go (execute), /cancel (exit)
+> Add user authentication with JWT
 
-> I want to add user authentication feature
-
-[AI confirms and organizes requirements]
+[AI clarifies requirements and organizes the task]
 
 > /go
-
-Proposed task instructions:
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-Implement user authentication feature.
-
-Requirements:
-- Login with email address and password
-- JWT token-based authentication
-- Password hashing (bcrypt)
-- Login/logout API endpoints
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-Proceed with these task instructions? (Y/n) y
-
-? Create worktree? (Y/n) y
-
-[Piece execution starts...]
 ```
 
-### Direct Task Execution
+TAKT creates an isolated worktree, runs the piece (plan → implement → review → fix loop), and offers to create a PR when done.
 
-Use the `--task` option to skip interactive mode and execute directly.
+### Queue tasks, then batch execute
+
+Use `takt` to queue multiple tasks, then execute them all at once:
 
 ```bash
-# Specify task content with --task option
-takt --task "Fix bug"
+# Queue tasks through conversation
+takt
+> Refactor the auth module
+> /go          # queues the task
 
-# Specify piece
-takt --task "Add authentication" --piece expert
+# Or queue from GitHub Issues
+takt add #6
+takt add #12
 
-# Auto-create PR
-takt --task "Fix bug" --auto-pr
-```
-
-**Note:** Passing a string as an argument (e.g., `takt "Add login feature"`) enters interactive mode with it as the initial message.
-
-### GitHub Issue Tasks
-
-You can execute GitHub Issues directly as tasks. Issue title, body, labels, and comments are automatically incorporated as task content.
-
-```bash
-# Execute by specifying issue number
-takt #6
-takt --issue 6
-
-# Issue + piece specification
-takt #6 --piece expert
-
-# Issue + auto-create PR
-takt #6 --auto-pr
-```
-
-**Requirements:** [GitHub CLI](https://cli.github.com/) (`gh`) must be installed and authenticated.
-
-### Task Management (add / run / watch / list)
-
-Batch processing using task files (`.takt/tasks/`). Useful for accumulating multiple tasks and executing them together later.
-
-#### Add Task (`takt add`)
-
-```bash
-# Refine task requirements through AI conversation, then add task
-takt add
-
-# Add task from GitHub Issue (issue number reflected in branch name)
-takt add #28
-```
-
-#### Execute Tasks (`takt run`)
-
-```bash
-# Execute all pending tasks in .takt/tasks/
+# Execute all pending tasks
 takt run
 ```
 
-#### Watch Tasks (`takt watch`)
+### Manage results
 
 ```bash
-# Monitor .takt/tasks/ and auto-execute tasks (resident process)
-takt watch
-```
-
-#### List Task Branches (`takt list`)
-
-```bash
-# List task branches (merge/delete)
+# List completed/failed task branches — merge, retry, or delete
 takt list
 ```
 
-### Pipeline Mode (for CI/Automation)
+## How It Works
 
-Specifying `--pipeline` enables non-interactive pipeline mode. Automatically creates branch → runs piece → commits & pushes. Suitable for CI/CD automation.
+TAKT uses a music metaphor — the name itself comes from the German word for "beat" or "baton stroke," used in conducting to keep an orchestra in time. In TAKT, a **piece** is a workflow and a **movement** is a step within it, just as a musical piece is composed of movements.
 
-```bash
-# Execute task in pipeline mode
-takt --pipeline --task "Fix bug"
-
-# Pipeline execution + auto-create PR
-takt --pipeline --task "Fix bug" --auto-pr
-
-# Link issue information
-takt --pipeline --issue 99 --auto-pr
-
-# Specify piece and branch
-takt --pipeline --task "Fix bug" -w magi -b feat/fix-bug
-
-# Specify repository (for PR creation)
-takt --pipeline --task "Fix bug" --auto-pr --repo owner/repo
-
-# Piece execution only (skip branch creation, commit, push)
-takt --pipeline --task "Fix bug" --skip-git
-
-# Minimal output mode (for CI)
-takt --pipeline --task "Fix bug" --quiet
-```
-
-In pipeline mode, PRs are not created unless `--auto-pr` is specified.
-
-**GitHub Integration:** When using TAKT in GitHub Actions, see [takt-action](https://github.com/nrslib/takt-action). You can automate PR reviews and task execution. Refer to the [CI/CD Integration](#cicd-integration) section for details.
-
-### Other Commands
-
-```bash
-# Interactively switch pieces
-takt switch
-
-# Copy builtin pieces/agents to ~/.takt/ for customization
-takt eject
-
-# Clear agent conversation sessions
-takt clear
-
-# Deploy builtin pieces/agents as Claude Code Skill
-takt export-cc
-
-# Configure permission mode
-takt config
-```
-
-### Recommended Pieces
-
-| Piece | Recommended Use |
-|----------|-----------------|
-| `default` | Serious development tasks. Used for TAKT's own development. Multi-stage review with parallel reviews (architect + security). |
-| `minimal` | Simple fixes and straightforward tasks. Minimal piece with basic review. |
-| `review-fix-minimal` | Review & fix piece. Specialized for iterative improvement based on review feedback. |
-| `research` | Investigation and research. Autonomously executes research without asking questions. |
-
-### Main Options
-
-| Option | Description |
-|--------|-------------|
-| `--pipeline` | **Enable pipeline (non-interactive) mode** — Required for CI/automation |
-| `-t, --task <text>` | Task content (alternative to GitHub Issue) |
-| `-i, --issue <N>` | GitHub issue number (same as `#N` in interactive mode) |
-| `-w, --piece <name or path>` | Piece name or path to piece YAML file |
-| `-b, --branch <name>` | Specify branch name (auto-generated if omitted) |
-| `--auto-pr` | Create PR (interactive: skip confirmation, pipeline: enable PR) |
-| `--skip-git` | Skip branch creation, commit, and push (pipeline mode, piece-only) |
-| `--repo <owner/repo>` | Specify repository (for PR creation) |
-| `--create-worktree <yes\|no>` | Skip worktree confirmation prompt |
-| `-q, --quiet` | Minimal output mode: suppress AI output (for CI) |
-| `--provider <name>` | Override agent provider (claude\|codex\|mock) |
-| `--model <name>` | Override agent model |
-
-## Pieces
-
-TAKT uses YAML-based piece definitions and rule-based routing. Builtin pieces are embedded in the package, with user pieces in `~/.takt/pieces/` taking priority. Use `takt eject` to copy builtins to `~/.takt/` for customization.
-
-> **Note (v0.4.0)**: Internal terminology has changed from "step" to "movement" for piece components. User-facing piece files remain compatible, but if you customize pieces, you may see `movements:` instead of `steps:` in YAML files. The functionality remains the same.
-
-### Piece Example
+A piece defines a sequence of movements. Each movement specifies a persona (who), permissions (what's allowed), and rules (what happens next). Here's a minimal example:
 
 ```yaml
-name: default
-max_iterations: 10
+name: plan-implement-review
 initial_movement: plan
+max_movements: 10
 
 movements:
   - name: plan
-    agent: ../agents/default/planner.md
-    model: opus
+    persona: planner
     edit: false
     rules:
       - condition: Planning complete
         next: implement
-    instruction_template: |
-      Analyze the request and create an implementation plan.
 
   - name: implement
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
+    persona: coder
     edit: true
-    permission_mode: edit
+    required_permission_mode: edit
     rules:
       - condition: Implementation complete
         next: review
-      - condition: Blocked
-        next: ABORT
-    instruction_template: |
-      Implement based on the plan.
 
   - name: review
-    agent: ../agents/default/architecture-reviewer.md
+    persona: reviewer
     edit: false
     rules:
       - condition: Approved
         next: COMPLETE
       - condition: Needs fix
-        next: implement
-    instruction_template: |
-      Review the implementation from architecture and code quality perspectives.
+        next: implement    # ← fix loop
 ```
 
-### Agentless Movements
+Rules determine the next movement. `COMPLETE` ends the piece successfully, `ABORT` ends with failure. See the [Piece Guide](./docs/pieces.md) for the full schema, parallel movements, and rule condition types.
 
-The `agent` field is optional. When omitted, the movement executes using only the `instruction_template` without a system prompt. This is useful for simple tasks that don't require agent behavior customization.
+## Recommended Pieces
+
+| Piece | Use Case |
+|-------|----------|
+| `default` | Standard development. Test-first with AI antipattern review and parallel review (architecture + supervisor). |
+| `frontend-mini` | Frontend-focused mini configuration. |
+| `backend-mini` | Backend-focused mini configuration. |
+| `dual-mini` | Frontend + backend mini configuration. |
+
+See the [Builtin Catalog](./docs/builtin-catalog.md) for all pieces and personas.
+
+## Key Commands
+
+| Command | Description |
+|---------|-------------|
+| `takt` | Talk to AI, refine requirements, execute or queue tasks |
+| `takt run` | Execute all pending tasks |
+| `takt list` | Manage task branches (merge, retry, instruct, delete) |
+| `takt #N` | Execute GitHub Issue as task |
+| `takt eject` | Copy builtin pieces/facets for customization |
+| `takt repertoire add` | Install a repertoire package from GitHub |
+
+See the [CLI Reference](./docs/cli-reference.md) for all commands and options.
+
+## Configuration
+
+Minimal `~/.takt/config.yaml`:
 
 ```yaml
-  - name: summarize
-    # No agent specified — uses instruction_template only
-    edit: false
-    rules:
-      - condition: Summary complete
-        next: COMPLETE
-    instruction_template: |
-      Read the report and provide a concise summary.
+provider: claude    # claude, codex, opencode, cursor, or copilot
+model: sonnet       # passed directly to provider
+language: en        # en or ja
 ```
 
-You can also write an inline system prompt as the `agent` value (if the specified file doesn't exist):
+Or use API keys directly (no CLI installation required for Claude, Codex, OpenCode):
 
-```yaml
-  - name: review
-    agent: "You are a code reviewer. Focus on readability and maintainability."
-    edit: false
-    instruction_template: |
-      Review code quality.
+```bash
+export TAKT_ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=sk-ant-...   # Anthropic (Claude)
+export TAKT_OPENAI_API_KEY=sk-...          # OpenAI (Codex)
+export TAKT_OPENCODE_API_KEY=...           # OpenCode
+export TAKT_CURSOR_API_KEY=...             # Cursor Agent (optional if logged in)
+export TAKT_COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN=ghp_...   # GitHub Copilot CLI
 ```
 
-### Parallel Movements
+See the [Configuration Guide](./docs/configuration.md) for all options, provider profiles, and model resolution.
 
-Execute sub-movements in parallel within a movement and evaluate with aggregate conditions:
+## Customization
 
-```yaml
-  - name: reviewers
-    parallel:
-      - name: arch-review
-        agent: ../agents/default/architecture-reviewer.md
-        rules:
-          - condition: approved
-          - condition: needs_fix
-        instruction_template: |
-          Review architecture and code quality.
-      - name: security-review
-        agent: ../agents/default/security-reviewer.md
-        rules:
-          - condition: approved
-          - condition: needs_fix
-        instruction_template: |
-          Review for security vulnerabilities.
-    rules:
-      - condition: all("approved")
-        next: supervise
-      - condition: any("needs_fix")
-        next: fix
+### Custom pieces
+
+```bash
+takt eject default    # Copy builtin to ~/.takt/pieces/ and edit
 ```
 
-- `all("X")`: true if ALL sub-movements matched condition X
-- `any("X")`: true if ANY sub-movement matched condition X
-- Sub-movement `rules` define possible outcomes, but `next` is optional (parent controls transition)
+### Custom personas
 
-### Rule Condition Types
-
-| Type | Syntax | Description |
-|------|--------|-------------|
-| Tag-based | `"condition text"` | Agent outputs `[MOVEMENTNAME:N]` tag, matched by index |
-| AI judge | `ai("condition text")` | AI evaluates condition against agent output |
-| Aggregate | `all("X")` / `any("X")` | Aggregates parallel sub-movement matched conditions |
-
-## Builtin Pieces
-
-TAKT includes multiple builtin pieces:
-
-| Piece | Description |
-|----------|-------------|
-| `default` | Full development piece: plan → architecture design → implement → AI review → parallel review (architect + security) → supervisor approval. Includes fix loops at each review stage. |
-| `minimal` | Quick piece: plan → implement → review → supervisor. Minimal steps for fast iteration. |
-| `review-fix-minimal` | Review-focused piece: review → fix → supervisor. For iterative improvement based on review feedback. |
-| `research` | Research piece: planner → digger → supervisor. Autonomously executes research without asking questions. |
-| `expert` | Full-stack development piece: architecture, frontend, security, QA reviews with fix loops. |
-| `expert-cqrs` | Full-stack development piece (CQRS+ES specialized): CQRS+ES, frontend, security, QA reviews with fix loops. |
-| `magi` | Deliberation system inspired by Evangelion. Three AI personas (MELCHIOR, BALTHASAR, CASPER) analyze and vote. |
-| `passthrough` | Thinnest wrapper. Pass task directly to coder as-is. No review. |
-| `review-only` | Read-only code review piece that makes no changes. |
-
-**Hybrid Codex variants** (`*-hybrid-codex`): Each major piece has a Codex variant where the coder agent runs on Codex while reviewers use Claude. Available for: default, minimal, expert, expert-cqrs, passthrough, review-fix-minimal, coding.
-
-Use `takt switch` to switch pieces.
-
-## Builtin Agents
-
-| Agent | Description |
-|-------|-------------|
-| **planner** | Task analysis, spec investigation, implementation planning |
-| **coder** | Feature implementation, bug fixing |
-| **ai-antipattern-reviewer** | AI-specific antipattern review (non-existent APIs, incorrect assumptions, scope creep) |
-| **architecture-reviewer** | Architecture and code quality review, spec compliance verification |
-| **security-reviewer** | Security vulnerability assessment |
-| **supervisor** | Final validation, approval |
-
-## Custom Agents
-
-Create agent prompts in Markdown files:
+Create a Markdown file in `~/.takt/personas/`:
 
 ```markdown
-# ~/.takt/agents/my-agents/reviewer.md
-
+# ~/.takt/personas/my-reviewer.md
 You are a code reviewer specialized in security.
-
-## Role
-- Check for security vulnerabilities
-- Verify input validation
-- Review authentication logic
 ```
 
-## Model Selection
+Reference it in your piece: `persona: my-reviewer`
 
-The `model` field (in piece movements, agent config, or global config) is passed directly to the provider (Claude Code CLI / Codex SDK). TAKT does not resolve model aliases.
+See the [Piece Guide](./docs/pieces.md) and [Agent Guide](./docs/agents.md) for details.
 
-### Claude Code
+## CI/CD
 
-Claude Code supports aliases (`opus`, `sonnet`, `haiku`, `opusplan`, `default`) and full model names (e.g., `claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929`). Refer to the [Claude Code documentation](https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code) for available models.
-
-### Codex
-
-The model string is passed to the Codex SDK. If unspecified, defaults to `codex`. Refer to Codex documentation for available models.
-
-## Project Structure
-
-```
-~/.takt/                    # Global configuration directory
-├── config.yaml             # Global config (provider, model, piece, etc.)
-├── pieces/              # User piece definitions (override builtins)
-│   └── custom.yaml
-└── agents/                 # User agent prompt files (.md)
-    └── my-agent.md
-
-.takt/                      # Project-level configuration
-├── config.yaml             # Project config (current piece, etc.)
-├── tasks/                  # Pending task files (.yaml, .md)
-├── completed/              # Completed tasks and reports
-├── reports/                # Execution reports (auto-generated)
-│   └── {timestamp}-{slug}/
-└── logs/                   # NDJSON format session logs
-    ├── latest.json         # Pointer to current/latest session
-    ├── previous.json       # Pointer to previous session
-    └── {sessionId}.jsonl   # NDJSON session log per piece execution
-```
-
-Builtin resources are embedded in the npm package (`dist/resources/`). User files in `~/.takt/` take priority.
-
-### Global Configuration
-
-Configure default provider and model in `~/.takt/config.yaml`:
+TAKT provides [takt-action](https://github.com/nrslib/takt-action) for GitHub Actions:
 
 ```yaml
-# ~/.takt/config.yaml
-language: en
-default_piece: default
-log_level: info
-provider: claude         # Default provider: claude or codex
-model: sonnet            # Default model (optional)
-
-# API Key configuration (optional)
-# Can be overridden by environment variables TAKT_ANTHROPIC_API_KEY / TAKT_OPENAI_API_KEY
-anthropic_api_key: sk-ant-...  # For Claude (Anthropic)
-# openai_api_key: sk-...       # For Codex (OpenAI)
-
-# Pipeline execution configuration (optional)
-# Customize branch names, commit messages, and PR body.
-# pipeline:
-#   default_branch_prefix: "takt/"
-#   commit_message_template: "feat: {title} (#{issue})"
-#   pr_body_template: |
-#     ## Summary
-#     {issue_body}
-#     Closes #{issue}
-```
-
-**Note:** The Codex SDK requires running inside a Git repository. `--skip-git-repo-check` is only available in the Codex CLI.
-
-**API Key Configuration Methods:**
-
-1. **Set via environment variables**:
-   ```bash
-   export TAKT_ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=sk-ant-...  # For Claude
-   # or
-   export TAKT_OPENAI_API_KEY=sk-...         # For Codex
-   ```
-
-2. **Set in config file**:
-   Write `anthropic_api_key` or `openai_api_key` in `~/.takt/config.yaml` as shown above
-
-Priority: Environment variables > `config.yaml` settings
-
-**Notes:**
-- If you set an API Key, installing Claude Code or Codex is not necessary. TAKT directly calls the Anthropic API or OpenAI API.
-- **Security**: If you write API Keys in `config.yaml`, be careful not to commit this file to Git. Consider using environment variables or adding `~/.takt/config.yaml` to `.gitignore`.
-
-**Pipeline Template Variables:**
-
-| Variable | Available In | Description |
-|----------|-------------|-------------|
-| `{title}` | Commit message | Issue title |
-| `{issue}` | Commit message, PR body | Issue number |
-| `{issue_body}` | PR body | Issue body |
-| `{report}` | PR body | Piece execution report |
-
-**Model Resolution Priority:**
-1. Piece movement `model` (highest priority)
-2. Custom agent `model`
-3. Global config `model`
-4. Provider default (Claude: sonnet, Codex: codex)
-
-## Detailed Guides
-
-### Task File Formats
-
-TAKT supports batch processing with task files in `.takt/tasks/`. Both `.yaml`/`.yml` and `.md` file formats are supported.
-
-**YAML format** (recommended, supports worktree/branch/piece options):
-
-```yaml
-# .takt/tasks/add-auth.yaml
-task: "Add authentication feature"
-worktree: true                  # Execute in isolated shared clone
-branch: "feat/add-auth"         # Branch name (auto-generated if omitted)
-piece: "default"             # Piece specification (uses current if omitted)
-```
-
-**Markdown format** (simple, backward compatible):
-
-```markdown
-# .takt/tasks/add-login-feature.md
-
-Add login feature to the application.
-
-Requirements:
-- Username and password fields
-- Form validation
-- Error handling on failure
-```
-
-#### Isolated Execution with Shared Clone
-
-Specifying `worktree` in YAML task files executes each task in an isolated clone created with `git clone --shared`, keeping your main working directory clean:
-
-- `worktree: true` - Auto-create shared clone in adjacent directory (or location specified by `worktree_dir` config)
-- `worktree: "/path/to/dir"` - Create at specified path
-- `branch: "feat/xxx"` - Use specified branch (auto-generated as `takt/{timestamp}-{slug}` if omitted)
-- Omit `worktree` - Execute in current directory (default)
-
-> **Note**: The YAML field name remains `worktree` for backward compatibility. Internally, it uses `git clone --shared` instead of `git worktree`. Git worktrees have a `.git` file containing `gitdir:` pointing to the main repository, which Claude Code follows to recognize the main repository as the project root. Shared clones have an independent `.git` directory, preventing this issue.
-
-Clones are ephemeral. After task completion, they auto-commit + push, then delete the clone. Branches are the only persistent artifacts. Use `takt list` to list, merge, or delete branches.
-
-### Session Logs
-
-TAKT writes session logs in NDJSON (`.jsonl`) format to `.takt/logs/`. Each record is atomically appended, so partial logs are preserved even if the process crashes, and you can track in real-time with `tail -f`.
-
-- `.takt/logs/latest.json` - Pointer to current (or latest) session
-- `.takt/logs/previous.json` - Pointer to previous session
-- `.takt/logs/{sessionId}.jsonl` - NDJSON session log per piece execution
-
-Record types: `piece_start`, `step_start`, `step_complete`, `piece_complete`, `piece_abort`
-
-Agents can read `previous.json` to inherit context from the previous execution. Session continuation is automatic — just run `takt "task"` to continue from the previous session.
-
-### Adding Custom Pieces
-
-Add YAML files to `~/.takt/pieces/` or customize builtins with `takt eject`:
-
-```bash
-# Copy default piece to ~/.takt/pieces/ and edit
-takt eject default
-```
-
-```yaml
-# ~/.takt/pieces/my-piece.yaml
-name: my-piece
-description: Custom piece
-max_iterations: 5
-initial_movement: analyze
-
-movements:
-  - name: analyze
-    agent: ~/.takt/agents/my-agents/analyzer.md
-    edit: false
-    rules:
-      - condition: Analysis complete
-        next: implement
-    instruction_template: |
-      Thoroughly analyze this request.
-
-  - name: implement
-    agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md
-    edit: true
-    permission_mode: edit
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Complete
-        next: COMPLETE
-    instruction_template: |
-      Implement based on the analysis.
-```
-
-> **Note**: `{task}`, `{previous_response}`, `{user_inputs}` are automatically injected into instructions. Explicit placeholders are only needed if you want to control their position in the template.
-
-### Specifying Agents by Path
-
-In piece definitions, specify agents using file paths:
-
-```yaml
-# Relative path from piece file
-agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-
-# Home directory
-agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md
-
-# Absolute path
-agent: /path/to/custom/agent.md
-```
-
-### Piece Variables
-
-Variables available in `instruction_template`:
-
-| Variable | Description |
-|----------|-------------|
-| `{task}` | Original user request (auto-injected if not in template) |
-| `{iteration}` | Piece-wide turn count (total steps executed) |
-| `{max_iterations}` | Maximum iteration count |
-| `{movement_iteration}` | Per-movement iteration count (times this movement has been executed) |
-| `{previous_response}` | Output from previous movement (auto-injected if not in template) |
-| `{user_inputs}` | Additional user inputs during piece (auto-injected if not in template) |
-| `{report_dir}` | Report directory path (e.g., `.takt/reports/20250126-143052-task-summary`) |
-| `{report:filename}` | Expands to `{report_dir}/filename` (e.g., `{report:00-plan.md}`) |
-
-### Piece Design
-
-Elements needed for each piece movement:
-
-**1. Agent** - Markdown file containing system prompt:
-
-```yaml
-agent: ../agents/default/coder.md    # Path to agent prompt file
-agent_name: coder                    # Display name (optional)
-```
-
-**2. Rules** - Define routing from movement to next movement. The instruction builder auto-injects status output rules, so agents know which tags to output:
-
-```yaml
-rules:
-  - condition: "Implementation complete"
-    next: review
-  - condition: "Blocked"
-    next: ABORT
-```
-
-Special `next` values: `COMPLETE` (success), `ABORT` (failure)
-
-**3. Movement Options:**
-
-| Option | Default | Description |
-|--------|---------|-------------|
-| `edit` | - | Whether movement can edit project files (`true`/`false`) |
-| `pass_previous_response` | `true` | Pass previous movement output to `{previous_response}` |
-| `allowed_tools` | - | List of tools agent can use (Read, Glob, Grep, Edit, Write, Bash, etc.) |
-| `provider` | - | Override provider for this movement (`claude` or `codex`) |
-| `model` | - | Override model for this movement |
-| `permission_mode` | - | Permission mode: `readonly`, `edit`, `full` (provider-independent) |
-| `report` | - | Auto-generated report file settings (name, format) |
-
-## API Usage Example
-
-```typescript
-import { PieceEngine, loadPiece } from 'takt';  // npm install takt
-
-const config = loadPiece('default');
-if (!config) {
-  throw new Error('Piece not found');
-}
-const engine = new PieceEngine(config, process.cwd(), 'My task');
-
-engine.on('step:complete', (step, response) => {
-  console.log(`${step.name}: ${response.status}`);
-});
-
-await engine.run();
-```
-
-## Contributing
-
-See [CONTRIBUTING.md](../CONTRIBUTING.md) for details.
-
-## CI/CD Integration
-
-### GitHub Actions
-
-TAKT provides a GitHub Action for automating PR reviews and task execution. See [takt-action](https://github.com/nrslib/takt-action) for details.
-
-**Piece example** (see [.github/workflows/takt-action.yml](../.github/workflows/takt-action.yml) in this repository):
-
-```yaml
-name: TAKT
-
-on:
-  issue_comment:
-    types: [created]
-
-jobs:
-  takt:
-    if: contains(github.event.comment.body, '@takt')
-    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
-    permissions:
-      contents: write
-      issues: write
-      pull-requests: write
-
-    steps:
-      - name: Checkout
-        uses: actions/checkout@v4
-
-      - name: Run TAKT
-        uses: nrslib/takt-action@main
+- uses: nrslib/takt-action@main
   with:
     anthropic_api_key: ${{ secrets.TAKT_ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}
     github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
 ```
 
-**Cost Warning**: TAKT uses AI APIs (Claude or OpenAI), which can incur significant costs, especially when tasks are auto-executed in CI/CD environments. Monitor API usage and set up billing alerts.
-
-### Other CI Systems
-
-For CI systems other than GitHub, use pipeline mode:
+For other CI systems, use pipeline mode:
 
 ```bash
-# Install takt
-npm install -g takt
-
-# Run in pipeline mode
-takt --pipeline --task "Fix bug" --auto-pr --repo owner/repo
+takt --pipeline --task "Fix the bug" --auto-pr
 ```
 
-For authentication, set `TAKT_ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` or `TAKT_OPENAI_API_KEY` environment variables (TAKT-specific prefix).
+See the [CI/CD Guide](./docs/ci-cd.md) for full setup instructions.
 
-```bash
-# For Claude (Anthropic)
-export TAKT_ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=sk-ant-...
+## Project Structure
 
-# For Codex (OpenAI)
-export TAKT_OPENAI_API_KEY=sk-...
+```
+~/.takt/                    # Global config
+├── config.yaml             # Provider, model, language, etc.
+├── pieces/                 # User piece definitions
+├── facets/                 # User facets (personas, policies, knowledge, etc.)
+└── repertoire/             # Installed repertoire packages
+
+.takt/                      # Project-level
+├── config.yaml             # Project config
+├── facets/                 # Project facets
+├── tasks.yaml              # Pending tasks
+├── tasks/                  # Task specifications
+└── runs/                   # Execution reports, logs, context
+```
+
+## API Usage
+
+```typescript
+import { PieceEngine, loadPiece } from 'takt';
+
+const config = loadPiece('default');
+if (!config) throw new Error('Piece not found');
+
+const engine = new PieceEngine(config, process.cwd(), 'My task');
+engine.on('movement:complete', (movement, response) => {
+  console.log(`${movement.name}: ${response.status}`);
+});
+
+await engine.run();
 ```
 
 ## Documentation
 
-- [Piece Guide](./docs/pieces.md) - Creating and customizing pieces
-- [Agent Guide](./docs/agents.md) - Configuring custom agents
-- [Changelog](../CHANGELOG.md) - Version history
-- [Security Policy](../SECURITY.md) - Vulnerability reporting
-- [Blog: TAKT - AI Agent Orchestration](https://zenn.dev/nrs/articles/c6842288a526d7) - Design philosophy and practical usage guide (Japanese)
+| Document | Description |
+|----------|-------------|
+| [CLI Reference](./docs/cli-reference.md) | All commands and options |
+| [Configuration](./docs/configuration.md) | Global and project settings |
+| [Piece Guide](./docs/pieces.md) | Creating and customizing pieces |
+| [Agent Guide](./docs/agents.md) | Custom agent configuration |
+| [Builtin Catalog](./docs/builtin-catalog.md) | All builtin pieces and personas |
+| [Faceted Prompting](./docs/faceted-prompting.md) | Prompt design methodology |
+| [Repertoire Packages](./docs/repertoire.md) | Installing and sharing packages |
+| [Task Management](./docs/task-management.md) | Task queuing, execution, isolation |
+| [Data Flow](./docs/data-flow.md) | Internal data flow and architecture diagrams |
+| [CI/CD Integration](./docs/ci-cd.md) | GitHub Actions and pipeline mode |
+| [Provider Sandbox](./docs/provider-sandbox.md) | Sandbox configuration for providers |
+| [Changelog](./CHANGELOG.md) ([日本語](./docs/CHANGELOG.ja.md)) | Version history |
+| [Security Policy](./SECURITY.md) | Vulnerability reporting |
+
+## Community
+
+Join the [TAKT Discord](https://discord.gg/R2Xz3uYWxD) for questions, discussions, and updates.
+
+## Contributing
+
+See [CONTRIBUTING.md](./CONTRIBUTING.md) for details.
 
 ## License
 
-MIT - See [LICENSE](../LICENSE) for details.
+MIT — See [LICENSE](./LICENSE) for details.

builtins/en/config.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+# TAKT global configuration sample
+# Location: ~/.takt/config.yaml
+
+# =====================================
+# General settings
+# =====================================
+language: en        # UI language: en | ja
+
+# Default provider and model
+# provider: claude                    # Default provider: claude | codex | opencode | cursor | copilot | mock
+# model: sonnet                       # Default model (passed directly to provider)
+
+# Execution control
+# worktree_dir: ~/takt-worktrees   # Base directory for shared clone execution
+# prevent_sleep: false             # Prevent macOS idle sleep while running
+# auto_fetch: false                # Fetch before clone to keep shared clones up-to-date
+# base_branch: main                # Base branch to clone from (default: current branch)
+# concurrency: 1                   # Number of tasks to run concurrently in takt run (1-10)
+# task_poll_interval_ms: 500       # Polling interval in ms for picking up new tasks (100-5000)
+
+# PR / branch
+# auto_pr: false                   # Auto-create PR after worktree execution
+# draft_pr: false                  # Create PR as draft
+# branch_name_strategy: romaji     # Branch name generation: romaji | ai
+
+# Pipeline execution
+# pipeline:
+#   default_branch_prefix: "takt/"         # Branch prefix for pipeline-created branches
+#   commit_message_template: "{title}"     # Commit message template. Variables: {title}, {issue}
+#   pr_body_template: "{report}"           # PR body template. Variables: {issue_body}, {report}, {issue}
+
+# Output / notifications
+# minimal_output: false            # Suppress detailed agent output
+# notification_sound: true         # Master switch for sounds
+# notification_sound_events:       # Per-event sound toggle (unset means true)
+#   iteration_limit: true
+#   piece_complete: true
+#   piece_abort: true
+#   run_complete: true
+#   run_abort: true
+# logging:
+#   level: info                    # Log level for console and file output
+#   trace: true                    # Generate human-readable execution trace report (trace.md)
+#   debug: false                   # Enable debug.log + prompts.jsonl
+#   provider_events: false         # Persist provider stream events
+#   usage_events: false            # Persist usage event logs
+
+# Analytics
+# analytics:
+#   enabled: true                  # Enable local analytics collection
+#   events_path: ~/.takt/analytics/events  # Custom events directory
+#   retention_days: 30             # Retention period for event files
+
+# Interactive mode
+# interactive_preview_movements: 3 # Number of movement previews in interactive mode (0-10)
+
+# Per-persona provider/model overrides
+# persona_providers:
+#   coder:
+#     provider: claude
+#     model: opus
+#   reviewer:
+#     provider: codex
+#     model: gpt-5.2-codex
+
+# Provider-specific options (lowest priority, overridden by piece/movement)
+# provider_options:
+#   codex:
+#     network_access: true
+#   claude:
+#     sandbox:
+#       allow_unsandboxed_commands: true
+
+# Provider permission profiles
+# provider_profiles:
+#   claude:
+#     default_permission_mode: edit
+#   codex:
+#     default_permission_mode: edit
+
+# Runtime environment preparation
+# runtime:
+#   prepare: [node, gradle, ./custom-script.sh]
+
+# Piece-level overrides
+# piece_overrides:
+#   quality_gates:
+#     - "All tests pass"
+#   quality_gates_edit_only: true
+#   movements:
+#     review:
+#       quality_gates:
+#         - "No security vulnerabilities"
+#   personas:
+#     coder:
+#       quality_gates:
+#         - "Code follows conventions"
+
+# Credentials (environment variables take priority)
+# anthropic_api_key: "sk-ant-..." # Claude API key
+# openai_api_key: "sk-..."         # Codex/OpenAI API key
+# gemini_api_key: "..."            # Gemini API key
+# google_api_key: "..."            # Google API key
+# groq_api_key: "..."              # Groq API key
+# openrouter_api_key: "..."        # OpenRouter API key
+# opencode_api_key: "..."          # OpenCode API key
+# cursor_api_key: "..."            # Cursor API key
+
+# CLI paths
+# codex_cli_path: "/absolute/path/to/codex"    # Absolute path to Codex CLI
+# claude_cli_path: "/absolute/path/to/claude"  # Absolute path to Claude Code CLI
+# cursor_cli_path: "/absolute/path/to/cursor"  # Absolute path to cursor-agent CLI
+# copilot_cli_path: "/absolute/path/to/copilot" # Absolute path to Copilot CLI
+# copilot_github_token: "ghp_..."              # Copilot GitHub token
+
+# Misc
+# bookmarks_file: ~/.takt/preferences/bookmarks.yaml  # Bookmark file location
+
+# Piece list / categories
+# enable_builtin_pieces: true                             # Enable built-in pieces from builtins/{lang}/pieces
+# disabled_builtins:
+#   - magi                                                # Built-in piece names to disable
+# piece_categories_file: ~/.takt/preferences/piece-categories.yaml  # Category definition file

builtins/en/facets/instructions/ai-fix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+**This is AI Review iteration #{movement_iteration}.**
+Use reports in the Report Directory as the primary source of truth. If additional context is needed, you may consult Previous Response and conversation history as secondary sources (Previous Response may be unavailable). If information conflicts, prioritize reports in the Report Directory and actual file contents.
+
+From the 2nd iteration onward, it means the previous fixes were not actually applied.
+**Your belief that they were "already fixed" is incorrect.**
+
+**First, acknowledge the following:**
+- The files you thought were "fixed" are actually not fixed
+- Your understanding of the previous work is wrong
+- You need to rethink from scratch
+
+**Required actions:**
+1. Open all flagged files with the Read tool (discard assumptions and verify the facts)
+2. Search for the problem areas with grep to confirm they exist
+3. Fix the confirmed issues with the Edit tool
+4. Run tests to verify
+5. Report specifically "what you checked and what you fixed"
+
+**Report format:**
+- NG: "It has already been fixed"
+- OK: "After checking file X at L123, I found issue Y and fixed it to Z"
+
+**Strictly prohibited:**
+- Reporting "already fixed" without opening the file
+- Making judgments based on assumptions
+- Leaving issues that the AI Reviewer REJECTed unresolved
+
+**Handling "no fix needed" (required)**
+- Do not judge "no fix needed" unless you can show verification results for the target file for each AI Review finding
+- If the finding relates to "generated output" or "spec synchronization", output the tag corresponding to "unable to determine" unless you can verify the source/spec
+- If no fix is needed, output the tag corresponding to "unable to determine" and clearly state the reason and scope of verification
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Files checked
+- {filepath:line_number}
+## Searches performed
+- {command and summary}
+## Changes made
+- {change details}
+## Test results
+- {command executed and results}

builtins/en/facets/instructions/ai-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+**This is AI Review iteration #{movement_iteration}.**
+
+On the first iteration, review comprehensively and report all issues that need to be flagged.
+From the 2nd iteration onward, prioritize verifying whether previously REJECTed items have been fixed.
+
+Review the code for AI-specific issues:
+- Verification of assumptions
+- Plausible but incorrect patterns
+- Compatibility with the existing codebase
+- Scope creep detection
+- Scope shrinkage detection (missing task requirements)
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the AI-specific criteria above
+2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/arbitrate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+The ai_review (reviewer) and ai_fix (coder) disagree.
+
+- ai_review flagged issues and issued a REJECT
+- ai_fix reviewed and determined "no fix needed"
+
+Review both outputs and arbitrate which judgment is valid.
+
+**Reports to reference:**
+- AI review results: {report:ai-review.md}
+
+**Judgment criteria:**
+- Whether ai_review's findings are specific and point to real issues in the code
+- Whether ai_fix's rebuttal has evidence (file verification results, test results)
+- Whether the findings are non-blocking (record only) level or actually require fixes

builtins/en/facets/instructions/architect.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Read the plan report ({report:plan.md}) and design the architecture.
+
+**Criteria for small tasks:**
+- Only 1-2 file changes
+- No design decisions needed
+- No technology selection needed
+
+For small tasks, skip creating a design report and match the rule for "small task (no design needed)".
+
+**Tasks requiring design:**
+- Changes to 3 or more files
+- Adding new modules or features
+- Technology selection required
+- Architecture pattern decisions needed
+
+**Actions:**
+1. Assess the task scope
+2. Determine file structure
+3. Select technologies (if needed)
+4. Choose design patterns
+5. Create implementation guidelines for the Coder

builtins/en/facets/instructions/fix-supervisor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Fix the issues raised by the supervisor.
+Use reports in the Report Directory as the primary source of truth. If additional context is needed, you may consult Previous Response and conversation history as secondary sources (Previous Response may be unavailable). If information conflicts, prioritize reports in the Report Directory and actual file contents.
+
+The supervisor has flagged problems from an overall perspective.
+Address items in order of priority, starting with the highest.
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Work results
+- {Summary of actions taken}
+## Changes made
+- {Summary of changes}
+## Test results
+- {Command executed and results}
+## Evidence
+- {List key points from files checked/searches/diffs/logs}

builtins/en/facets/instructions/fix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Use reports in the Report Directory and fix the issues raised by the reviewer.
+
+**Report reference policy:**
+- Use the latest review reports in the Report Directory as primary evidence.
+- Past iteration reports are saved as `{filename}.{timestamp}` in the same directory (e.g., `architect-review.md.20260304T123456Z`). For each report, run Glob with a `{report-name}.*` pattern, read up to 2 files in descending timestamp order, and understand persists / reopened trends before starting fixes.
+
+**Completion criteria (all must be satisfied):**
+- All findings in this iteration (new / reopened) have been fixed
+- Potential occurrences of the same `family_tag` have been fixed simultaneously (no partial fixes that cause recurrence)
+- At least one regression test per `family_tag` has been added (mandatory for config-contract and boundary-check findings)
+- Findings with the same `family_tag` from multiple reviewers have been merged and addressed as one fix
+
+**Important**: After fixing, run the build (type check) and tests.
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Work results
+- {Summary of actions taken}
+## Changes made
+- {Summary of changes}
+## Build results
+- {Build execution results}
+## Test results
+- {Test command executed and results}
+## Convergence gate
+| Metric | Count |
+|--------|-------|
+| new (fixed in this iteration) | {N} |
+| reopened (recurrence fixed) | {N} |
+| persists (carried over, not addressed this iteration) | {N} |
+## Evidence
+- {List key points from files checked/searches/diffs/logs}

builtins/en/facets/instructions/gather-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Gather information about the review target and produce a report for reviewers to reference.
+
+## Auto-detect review mode
+
+Analyze the task text and determine which mode to use.
+
+### Mode 1: PR mode
+**Trigger:** Task contains PR references like `#42`, `PR #42`, `pull/42`, or a URL with `/pull/`
+**Steps:**
+1. Extract the PR number
+2. Run `gh pr view {number}` to get title, description, labels
+3. Run `gh pr diff {number}` to get the diff
+4. Compile the changed files list
+5. Extract purpose and requirements from the PR description
+6. If linked Issues exist, retrieve them with `gh issue view {number}`
+   - Extract Issue numbers from "Closes #N", "Fixes #N", "Resolves #N"
+   - Collect Issue title, description, labels, and comments
+
+### Mode 2: Branch mode
+**Trigger:** Task text matches a branch name found in `git branch -a`. This includes names with `/` (e.g., `feature/auth`) as well as simple names (e.g., `develop`, `release-v2`, `hotfix-login`). When unsure, verify with `git branch -a | grep {text}`.
+**Steps:**
+1. Determine the base branch (default: `main`, fallback: `master`)
+2. Run `git log {base}..{branch} --oneline` to get commit history
+3. Run `git diff {base}...{branch}` to get the diff
+4. Compile the changed files list
+5. Extract purpose from commit messages
+6. If a PR exists for the branch, fetch it with `gh pr list --head {branch}`
+
+### Mode 3: Current diff mode
+**Trigger:** Task does not match Mode 1 or Mode 2 (e.g., "review current changes", "last 3 commits", "current diff")
+**Steps:**
+1. If the task specifies a count (e.g., "last N commits"), extract N. Otherwise default to N=1
+2. Run `git diff` for unstaged changes and `git diff --staged` for staged changes
+3. If both are empty, run `git diff HEAD~{N}` to get the diff for the last N commits
+4. Run `git log --oneline -{N+10}` for commit context
+5. Compile the changed files list
+6. Extract purpose from recent commit messages
+
+## Report requirements
+- Regardless of mode, the output report must follow the same format
+- Fill in what is available; mark unavailable sections as "N/A"
+- Always include: review target overview, purpose, changed files, and the diff

builtins/en/facets/instructions/implement-after-tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+Implement according to the plan, making existing tests pass.
+Refer only to files within the Report Directory shown in the Piece Context. Do not search or reference other report directories.
+Use reports in the Report Directory as the primary source of truth. If additional context is needed, you may consult Previous Response and conversation history as secondary sources (Previous Response may be unavailable). If information conflicts, prioritize reports in the Report Directory and actual file contents.
+
+**Important**: Tests have already been written. Implement production code to make existing tests pass.
+- Review existing test files and understand the expected behavior
+- Implement production code to make tests pass
+- Tests are already written so additional tests are generally unnecessary, but may be added if needed
+- If test modifications are needed, document the reasons in the Decisions output contract before modifying
+- Build verification is mandatory. After completing implementation, run the build (type check) and verify there are no type errors
+- Running tests is mandatory. After build succeeds, always run tests and verify all tests pass
+- When introducing new contract strings (file names, config key names, etc.), define them as constants in one place
+
+**Scope output contract (create at the start of implementation):**
+```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 area
+- {Affected modules or features}
+```
+
+**Decisions output contract (at implementation completion, only if decisions were made):**
+```markdown
+# Decision Log
+
+## 1. {Decision}
+- **Context**: {Why the decision was needed}
+- **Options considered**: {List of options}
+- **Rationale**: {Reason for the choice}
+```
+
+**Pre-completion self-check (required):**
+Before running build and tests, verify the following:
+- If new parameters/fields were added, grep to confirm they are actually passed from call sites
+- For any `??`, `||`, `= defaultValue` usage, confirm fallback is truly necessary
+- Verify no replaced code/exports remain after refactoring
+- Verify no features outside the task specification were added
+- Verify no if/else blocks call the same function with only argument differences
+- Verify new code matches existing implementation patterns (API call style, type definition style, etc.)
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Work results
+- {Summary of actions taken}
+## Changes made
+- {Summary of changes}
+## Build results
+- {Build execution results}
+## Test results
+- {Test command executed and results}

builtins/en/facets/instructions/implement-e2e-test.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+Implement E2E tests according to the test plan.
+Refer only to files within the Report Directory shown in the Piece Context. Do not search or reference other report directories.
+
+**Actions:**
+1. Review the test plan report
+2. Implement or update tests following existing E2E layout (e.g., `e2e/specs/`)
+3. Run E2E tests (minimum: `npm run test:e2e:mock`, and targeted spec runs when needed)
+4. If tests fail, analyze root cause, fix test or code, and rerun
+5. Confirm related existing tests are not broken
+
+**Constraints:**
+- Keep the current E2E framework (Vitest) unchanged
+- Keep one scenario per test and make assertions explicit
+- Reuse existing fixtures/helpers/mock strategy for external dependencies
+
+**Scope output contract (create at the start of implementation):**
+```markdown
+# Change Scope Declaration
+
+## Task
+{One-line task summary}
+
+## Planned changes
+| Type | File |
+|------|------|
+| Create | `e2e/specs/example.e2e.ts` |
+
+## Estimated size
+Small / Medium / Large
+
+## Impact area
+- {Affected modules or features}
+```
+
+**Decisions output contract (at implementation completion, only if decisions were made):**
+```markdown
+# Decision Log
+
+## 1. {Decision}
+- **Context**: {Why the decision was needed}
+- **Options considered**: {List of options}
+- **Rationale**: {Reason for the choice}
+```
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Work results
+- {Summary of actions taken}
+## Changes made
+- {Summary of changes}
+## Test results
+- {Command executed and results}

builtins/en/facets/instructions/implement-terraform.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+Implement Terraform code according to the plan.
+Refer only to files within the Report Directory shown in the Piece Context. Do not search or reference other report directories.
+
+**Important**: After implementation, run the following validations in order:
+1. `terraform fmt -check` — fix formatting violations with `terraform fmt` if any
+2. `terraform validate` — check for syntax and type errors
+3. `terraform plan` — verify changes (no unintended modifications)
+
+**Constraints:**
+- Never execute `terraform apply`
+- Never write secrets (passwords, tokens) in code
+- Do not remove existing `lifecycle { prevent_destroy = true }` without approval
+- All new variables must have `type` and `description`
+
+**Scope output contract (create at the start of implementation):**
+```markdown
+# Change Scope Declaration
+
+## Task
+{One-line task summary}
+
+## Planned changes
+| Type | File |
+|------|------|
+| Create | `modules/example/main.tf` |
+| Modify | `environments/sandbox/main.tf` |
+
+## Estimated size
+Small / Medium / Large
+
+## Impact area
+- {Affected modules or resources}
+```
+
+**Decisions output contract (at implementation completion, only if decisions were made):**
+```markdown
+# Decision Log
+
+## 1. {Decision}
+- **Context**: {Why the decision was needed}
+- **Options considered**: {List of options}
+- **Rationale**: {Reason for the choice}
+- **Cost impact**: {If applicable}
+```
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Work results
+- {Summary of actions taken}
+## Changes made
+- {Summary of changes}
+## Validation results
+- {terraform fmt -check result}
+- {terraform validate result}
+- {terraform plan summary (resources to add/change/destroy)}

builtins/en/facets/instructions/implement-test.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+Implement unit tests according to the test plan.
+Refer only to files within the Report Directory shown in the Piece Context. Do not search or reference other report directories.
+
+**Important: Do NOT modify production code. Only test files may be edited.**
+
+**Actions:**
+1. Review the test plan report
+2. Implement the planned test cases
+3. Run tests and verify all pass
+4. Confirm existing tests are not broken
+
+**Test implementation constraints:**
+- Follow the project's existing test patterns (naming conventions, directory structure, helpers)
+- Write tests in Given-When-Then structure
+- One concept per test. Do not mix multiple concerns in a single test
+
+**Scope output contract (create at the start of implementation):**
+```markdown
+# Change Scope Declaration
+
+## Task
+{One-line task summary}
+
+## Planned changes
+| Type | File |
+|------|------|
+| Create | `src/__tests__/example.test.ts` |
+
+## Estimated size
+Small / Medium / Large
+
+## Impact area
+- {Affected modules or features}
+```
+
+**Decisions output contract (at implementation completion, only if decisions were made):**
+```markdown
+# Decision Log
+
+## 1. {Decision}
+- **Context**: {Why the decision was needed}
+- **Options considered**: {List of options}
+- **Rationale**: {Reason for the choice}
+```
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Work results
+- {Summary of actions taken}
+## Changes made
+- {Summary of changes}
+## Test results
+- {Command executed and results}

builtins/en/facets/instructions/implement.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+Implement according to the plan.
+Refer only to files within the Report Directory shown in the Piece Context. Do not search or reference other report directories.
+Use reports in the Report Directory as the primary source of truth. If additional context is needed, you may consult Previous Response and conversation history as secondary sources (Previous Response may be unavailable). If information conflicts, prioritize reports in the Report Directory and actual file contents.
+
+**Important**: Add unit tests alongside the implementation.
+- Add unit tests for newly created classes and functions
+- Update relevant tests when modifying existing code
+- Test file placement: follow the project's conventions
+- Build verification is mandatory. After completing implementation, run the build (type check) and verify there are no type errors
+- Running tests is mandatory. After build succeeds, always run tests and verify results
+- When introducing new contract strings (file names, config key names, etc.), define them as constants in one place
+
+**Scope output contract (create at the start of implementation):**
+```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 area
+- {Affected modules or features}
+```
+
+**Decisions output contract (at implementation completion, only if decisions were made):**
+```markdown
+# Decision Log
+
+## 1. {Decision}
+- **Context**: {Why the decision was needed}
+- **Options considered**: {List of options}
+- **Rationale**: {Reason for the choice}
+```
+
+**Pre-completion self-check (required):**
+Before running build and tests, verify the following:
+- If new parameters/fields were added, grep to confirm they are actually passed from call sites
+- For any `??`, `||`, `= defaultValue` usage, confirm fallback is truly necessary
+- Verify no replaced code/exports remain after refactoring
+- Verify no features outside the task specification were added
+- Verify no if/else blocks call the same function with only argument differences
+- Verify new code matches existing implementation patterns (API call style, type definition style, etc.)
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Work results
+- {Summary of actions taken}
+## Changes made
+- {Summary of changes}
+## Build results
+- {Build execution results}
+## Test results
+- {Test command executed and results}

builtins/en/facets/instructions/loop-monitor-ai-fix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+The ai_review ↔ ai_fix loop has repeated {cycle_count} times.
+
+Review the reports from each cycle and determine whether this loop
+is healthy (making progress) or unproductive (repeating the same issues).
+
+**Reports to reference:**
+- AI Review results: {report:ai-review.md}
+
+**Judgment criteria:**
+- Are new issues being found/fixed in each cycle?
+- Are the same findings being repeated?
+- Are fixes actually being applied?

builtins/en/facets/instructions/loop-monitor-reviewers-fix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+The reviewers → fix loop has repeated {cycle_count} times.
+
+Review the latest review reports in the Report Directory and determine
+whether this loop is healthy (converging) or unproductive (diverging or oscillating).
+
+**Judgment criteria:**
+- Is the number of new / reopened findings decreasing each cycle?
+- Are the same family_tag findings not repeating (is persists not growing)?
+- Are fixes actually being applied to the code?

builtins/en/facets/instructions/plan-e2e-test.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Analyze the target code and identify missing E2E tests.
+
+**Note:** If a Previous Response exists, this is a replan due to rejection.
+Revise the test plan taking that feedback into account.
+
+**Actions:**
+1. Read target features, implementation, and existing E2E specs (`e2e/specs/**/*.e2e.ts`) to understand behavior
+2. Summarize current E2E coverage (happy path, failure path, regression points)
+3. Identify missing E2E scenarios with expected outcomes and observability points
+4. Specify execution commands (`npm run test:e2e:mock` and, when needed, `npx vitest run e2e/specs/<target>.e2e.ts`)
+5. Provide concrete guidance for failure analysis → fix → rerun workflow

builtins/en/facets/instructions/plan-investigate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Analyze the task and formulate an implementation plan.
+
+**Handling unknowns (important):**
+If the task has open questions or unknowns, investigate by reading the code and resolve them on your own.
+Only mark something as "unclear" if it involves external factors that cannot be resolved through investigation (e.g., the user's intent cannot be determined).
+If it can be understood by reading the code, it is not "unclear".
+
+**Actions:**
+1. Understand the task requirements
+2. Read the relevant code to grasp the current state
+3. Investigate any unknowns through code analysis
+4. Identify the impact area
+5. Decide on the implementation approach

builtins/en/facets/instructions/plan-test.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Analyze the target code and identify missing unit tests.
+
+**Note:** If a Previous Response exists, this is a replan due to rejection.
+Revise the test plan taking that feedback into account.
+
+**Actions:**
+1. Read the target module source code and understand its behavior, branches, and state transitions
+2. Read existing tests and identify what is already covered
+3. Identify missing test cases (happy path, error cases, boundary values, edge cases)
+4. Determine test strategy (mock approach, existing test helper usage, fixture design)
+5. Provide concrete guidelines for the test implementer

builtins/en/facets/instructions/plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Analyze the task and formulate an implementation plan including design decisions.
+
+**Note:** If a Previous Response exists, this is a replan due to rejection.
+Revise the plan taking that feedback into account.
+
+**Criteria for small tasks:**
+- Only 1-2 file changes
+- No design decisions needed
+- No technology selection needed
+
+For small tasks, skip the design sections in the report.
+
+**Actions:**
+1. Understand the task requirements
+   - **When reference material points to an external implementation, determine whether it is a "bug fix clue" or a "design approach to adopt". If narrowing scope beyond the reference material's intent, include the rationale in the plan report**
+   - **For each requirement, determine "change needed / not needed". If "not needed", cite the relevant code (file:line) as evidence. Claiming "already correct" without evidence is prohibited**
+2. Investigate code to resolve unknowns
+3. Identify the impact area
+4. Determine file structure and design patterns (if needed)
+5. Decide on the implementation approach
+   - Verify the implementation approach does not violate knowledge/policy constraints
+6. Include the following in coder implementation guidelines:
+   - Existing implementation patterns to reference (file:line). Always cite when similar processing already exists
+   - Impact area of changes. Especially when adding new parameters, enumerate all call sites that need wiring
+   - Anti-patterns to watch for in this specific task (if applicable)

builtins/en/facets/instructions/research-analyze.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Analyze the research results and determine whether additional investigation is needed.
+
+**What to do:**
+1. Organize the major findings from the research results
+2. Identify unexplained phenomena, unverified hypotheses, and missing data
+3. Save analysis results to `{report_dir}/analysis-{N}.md` as files
+4. Make one of the following judgments:
+   - **New questions exist** → Create additional research instructions for the Digger
+   - **Sufficiently investigated** → Create an overall summary
+
+**Data saving rules:**
+- Write to `{report_dir}/analysis-{N}.md` (N is sequential number) for each analysis
+- Include analysis perspective, synthesized findings, and identified gaps
+
+**Additional research instruction format:**
+- What to investigate (specific data or information)
+- Why it's needed (which gap it fills)
+- Where it might be found (hints for data sources)
+
+**Overall summary structure:**
+- Summary of findings so far
+- Organization of findings
+- Identified gaps and their importance (if remaining)

builtins/en/facets/instructions/research-dig.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Decompose the research plan (or additional research instructions) into independent subtasks and execute the investigation in parallel.
+
+**What to do:**
+1. Analyze research items from the plan and decompose them into independently executable subtasks
+2. Include clear research scope and expected deliverables in each subtask's instruction
+3. Include the following data saving rules and report structure in each subtask's instruction
+
+**Subtask decomposition guidelines:**
+- Prioritize topic independence (group interdependent items into the same subtask)
+- Avoid spreading high-priority items (P1) across too many subtasks
+- Balance workload evenly across subtasks
+
+**Rules to include in each subtask's instruction:**
+
+Data saving rules:
+- Write data per research item to `{report_dir}/data-{topic-name}.md`
+- Topic names in lowercase English with hyphens (e.g., `data-market-size.md`)
+- Include source URLs, retrieval dates, and raw data
+
+External data downloads:
+- Actively download and utilize CSV, Excel, JSON, and other data files from public institutions and trusted sources
+- Always verify source reliability before downloading
+- Save downloaded files to `{report_dir}/`
+- Never download from suspicious domains or download executable files
+
+Report structure (per subtask):
+- Results and details per research item
+- Summary of key findings
+- Caveats and risks
+- Items unable to research and reasons
+- Recommendations/conclusions

builtins/en/facets/instructions/research-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+Analyze the research request and create a research plan.
+
+**Note:** If Previous Response exists, this is a re-plan from Supervisor feedback.
+Incorporate the feedback into the revised plan.
+
+**What to do:**
+1. Decompose the request (What: what to know / Why: why / Scope: how far)
+2. Identify research items (choose appropriate perspectives based on the type of request)
+3. Identify candidate data sources for each item
+4. Assign priorities (P1: Required / P2: Important / P3: Nice to have)

builtins/en/facets/instructions/research-supervise.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Evaluate the research results and determine if they adequately answer the original request.
+
+**What to do:**
+1. Verify that each requirement of the original request has been answered
+2. Evaluate the richness of research results (are key claims backed by evidence?)
+3. Evaluate depth of analysis (does it go beyond surface to deeper factors?)
+
+**If issues exist:** Include specific instructions for the Planner.
+Not "insufficient" but "XX is missing" with concrete specifics.

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-ai.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Review the code for AI-specific issues:
+- Verification of assumptions
+- Plausible but incorrect patterns
+- Compatibility with the existing codebase
+- Scope creep detection
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the AI-specific criteria above
+2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-arch.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+Focus on reviewing **architecture and design**.
+Do not review AI-specific issues (already covered by the ai_review movement).
+
+**Review criteria:**
+- Structural and design validity
+- Modularization (high cohesion, low coupling, no circular dependencies)
+- Functionalization (single responsibility per function, operation discoverability, consistent abstraction level)
+- Code quality
+- Appropriateness of change scope
+- Test coverage
+- Dead code
+- Call chain verification
+- Scattered hardcoding of contract strings (file names, config key names)
+
+
+**Design decisions reference:**
+Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions.
+- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP
+- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems
+
+**Previous finding tracking (required):**
+- First, extract open findings from "Previous Response"
+- Assign `finding_id` to each finding and classify current status as `new / persists / resolved`
+- If status is `persists`, provide concrete unresolved evidence (file/line)
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. First, extract previous open findings and preliminarily classify as `new / persists / resolved`
+2. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the architecture and design criteria above
+   - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge
+3. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+4. If there is even one blocking issue (`new` or `persists`), judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Review the changes from the perspective of CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation) and Event Sourcing.
+AI-specific issue review is not needed (already covered by the ai_review movement).
+
+**Review criteria:**
+- Aggregate design validity
+- Event design (granularity, naming, schema)
+- Command/Query separation
+- Projection design
+- Eventual consistency considerations
+
+**Note**: If this project does not use the CQRS+ES pattern,
+review from a general domain design perspective instead.
+
+
+**Design decisions reference:**
+Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions.
+- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP
+- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the CQRS and Event Sourcing criteria above
+   - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge
+2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Review the changes from a frontend development perspective.
+
+**Review criteria:**
+- Component design (separation of concerns, granularity)
+- State management (local vs. global decisions)
+- Performance (re-renders, memoization)
+- Accessibility (keyboard navigation, ARIA)
+- Data fetching patterns
+- TypeScript type safety
+
+**Note**: If this project does not include a frontend,
+proceed as no issues found.
+
+
+**Design decisions reference:**
+Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions.
+- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP
+- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the frontend development criteria above
+   - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge
+2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-qa.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Review the changes from a quality assurance perspective.
+
+**Review criteria:**
+- Test coverage and quality
+- Test strategy (unit/integration/E2E)
+- Error handling
+- Logging and monitoring
+- Maintainability
+
+
+**Design decisions reference:**
+Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions.
+- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP
+- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems
+
+**Previous finding tracking (required):**
+- First, extract open findings from "Previous Response"
+- Assign `finding_id` to each finding and classify current status as `new / persists / resolved`
+- If status is `persists`, provide concrete unresolved evidence (file/line)
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. First, extract previous open findings and preliminarily classify as `new / persists / resolved`
+2. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the quality assurance criteria above
+   - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge
+3. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+4. If there is even one blocking issue (`new` or `persists`), judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Review the changes from a requirements fulfillment perspective.
+
+**Review criteria:**
+- Whether each requested requirement has been implemented
+- Whether implicit requirements (naturally expected behaviors) are satisfied
+- Whether changes outside the scope (scope creep) have crept in
+- Whether there are any partial or missing implementations
+
+
+**Design decisions reference:**
+Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions.
+- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP
+- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems
+
+**Previous finding tracking (required):**
+- First, extract open findings from "Previous Response"
+- Assign `finding_id` to each finding and classify current status as `new / persists / resolved`
+- If status is `persists`, provide concrete unresolved evidence (file/line)
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. Extract requirements one by one from the review target report and task
+2. For each requirement, identify the implementing code (file:line)
+3. Confirm that the code satisfies the requirement
+4. Check for any changes not covered by the requirements
+5. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+6. If there is even one blocking issue (`new` or `persists`), judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-security.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Review the changes from a security perspective. Check for the following vulnerabilities:
+- Injection attacks (SQL, command, XSS)
+- Authentication and authorization flaws
+- Data exposure risks
+- Cryptographic weaknesses
+
+
+**Design decisions reference:**
+Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions.
+- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP
+- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the security criteria above
+   - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge
+2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Focus on reviewing **Terraform convention compliance**.
+Do not review AI-specific issues (already covered by the ai_review movement).
+
+**Review criteria:**
+- Variable declaration compliance (type, description, sensitive)
+- Resource naming consistency (name_prefix pattern)
+- File organization compliance (one file per concern)
+- Security configurations (IMDSv2, encryption, access control, IAM least privilege)
+- Tag management (default_tags, no duplication)
+- Lifecycle rule appropriateness
+- Cost trade-off documentation
+- Unused variables / outputs / data sources
+
+
+**Design decisions reference:**
+Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions.
+- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP
+- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems
+
+**Previous finding tracking (required):**
+- First, extract open findings from "Previous Response"
+- Assign `finding_id` to each finding and classify current status as `new / persists / resolved`
+- If status is `persists`, provide concrete unresolved evidence (file/line)
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. First, extract previous open findings and preliminarily classify as `new / persists / resolved`
+2. Review the change diff and detect issues based on Terraform convention criteria
+   - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge
+3. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+4. If there is even one blocking issue (`new` or `persists`), judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-test.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+Review the changes from a test quality perspective.
+
+**Review criteria:**
+- Whether all test plan items are covered
+- Test quality (Given-When-Then structure, independence, reproducibility)
+- Test naming conventions
+- Completeness (unnecessary tests, missing cases)
+- Appropriateness of mocks and fixtures
+
+
+**Design decisions reference:**
+Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions.
+- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP
+- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems
+
+## Judgment Procedure
+
+1. Cross-reference the test plan/test scope reports in the Report Directory with the implemented tests
+2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
+3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT

builtins/en/facets/instructions/supervise.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Run tests, verify the build, and perform final approval.
+
+**Overall piece verification:**
+1. Check all reports in the report directory and verify overall piece consistency
+   - Does implementation match the plan?
+   - Were all review movement findings properly addressed?
+   - Was the original task objective achieved?
+2. Whether each task spec requirement has been achieved
+   - Extract requirements one by one from the task spec
+   - For each requirement, identify the implementing code (file:line)
+   - Verify the code actually fulfills the requirement (read the file, run the test)
+   - Do not rely on the plan report's judgment; independently verify each requirement
+   - If any requirement is unfulfilled, REJECT
+
+**Report verification:** Read all reports in the Report Directory and
+check for any unaddressed improvement suggestions.
+
+**Validation output contract:**
+```markdown
+# Final Verification Results
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Requirements Fulfillment Check
+
+Extract requirements from the task spec and verify each one individually against actual code.
+
+| # | Requirement (extracted from task spec) | Met | Evidence (file:line) |
+|---|---------------------------------------|-----|---------------------|
+| 1 | {requirement 1} | ✅/❌ | `src/file.ts:42` |
+| 2 | {requirement 2} | ✅/❌ | `src/file.ts:55` |
+
+- If any ❌ exists, REJECT is mandatory
+- ✅ without evidence is invalid (must verify against actual code)
+- Do not rely on plan report's judgment; independently verify each requirement
+
+## Verification Summary
+| Item | Status | Verification method |
+|------|--------|-------------------|
+| Tests | ✅ | `npm test` (N passed) |
+| Build | ✅ | `npm run build` succeeded |
+| Functional check | ✅ | Main flows verified |
+
+## Deliverables
+- Created: {Created files}
+- Modified: {Modified files}
+
+## Outstanding items (if REJECT)
+| # | Item | Reason |
+|---|------|--------|
+| 1 | {Item} | {Reason} |
+```
+
+**Summary output contract (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 |
+
+## Verification commands
+```bash
+npm test
+npm run build
+```
+```

builtins/en/facets/instructions/team-leader-implement.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Analyze the implementation task and, if decomposition is appropriate, split into multiple parts for parallel execution.
+
+**Important:** Reference the plan report: {report:plan.md}
+
+**Steps:**
+
+1. Assess whether decomposition is appropriate
+   - Identify files to change and check inter-file dependencies
+   - If cross-cutting concerns exist (shared types, IDs, events), implement in a single part
+   - If few files are involved, or the task is a rename/refactoring, implement in a single part
+
+2. If decomposing: group files by layer/module
+   - Create groups based on high cohesion (e.g., Domain layer / Infrastructure layer / API layer)
+   - If there are type or interface dependencies, keep both sides in the same group
+   - Never assign the same file to multiple parts
+   - Keep test files and implementation files in the same part
+
+3. Assign file ownership exclusively to each part
+   - Each part's instruction must clearly state:
+     - **Responsible files** (list of files to create/modify)
+     - **Reference-only files** (read-only, modification prohibited)
+     - **Implementation task** (what and how to implement)
+     - **Completion criteria** (implementation of responsible files is complete)
+   - If tests are already written, instruct parts to implement so existing tests pass
+   - Do not include build checks (all parts complete first, then build is verified together)
+
+**Constraints:**
+- Parts do not run tests (handled by subsequent movements)
+- Do not modify files outside your responsibility (causes conflicts)

builtins/en/facets/instructions/write-tests-first.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Write tests based on the plan before implementing production code.
+Refer only to files within the Report Directory shown in the Piece Context. Do not search or reference other report directories.
+
+**Important: Do NOT create or modify production code. Only test files may be created.**
+
+**Actions:**
+1. Review the plan report and understand the planned behavior and interfaces
+2. Examine existing code and tests to learn the project's test patterns
+3. Write unit tests for the planned features
+4. Determine whether integration tests are needed and create them if so
+   - Does the data flow cross 3+ modules?
+   - Does a new status/state merge into an existing workflow?
+   - Does a new option propagate through a call chain to the endpoint?
+   - If any apply, create integration tests
+5. Run the build (type check) to verify test code has no syntax errors
+
+**Test writing guidelines:**
+- Follow the project's existing test patterns (naming conventions, directory structure, helpers)
+- Write tests in Given-When-Then structure
+- One concept per test. Do not mix multiple concerns in a single test
+- Cover happy path, error cases, boundary values, and edge cases
+- Write tests that are expected to pass after implementation is complete
+
+**Scope output contract (create at the start):**
+```markdown
+# Change Scope Declaration
+
+## Task
+{One-line task summary}
+
+## Planned changes
+| Type | File |
+|------|------|
+| Create | `src/__tests__/example.test.ts` |
+
+## Estimated size
+Small / Medium / Large
+
+## Impact area
+- {Affected modules or features}
+```
+
+**Decisions output contract (at completion, only if decisions were made):**
+```markdown
+# Decision Log
+
+## 1. {Decision}
+- **Context**: {Why the decision was needed}
+- **Options considered**: {List of options}
+- **Rationale**: {Reason for the choice}
+```
+
+**Required output (include headings)**
+## Work results
+- {Summary of actions taken}
+## Changes made
+- {List of test files created}
+## Build results
+- {Build execution results}

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/architecture.md

@@ -1,67 +1,6 @@
-# Architecture Reviewer
+# Architecture Knowledge
 
-You are a **design reviewer** and **quality gatekeeper**. You review not just code quality, but emphasize **structure and design**.
-
-## Core Values
-
-Code is read far more often than it is written. Poorly structured code destroys maintainability and produces unexpected side effects with every change. Be strict and uncompromising.
-
-"If the structure is right, the code naturally follows"—that is the conviction of design review.
-
-## Reviewer Stance
-
-**Never defer even minor issues. If a problem can be fixed now, require it to be fixed now.**
-
-- No compromises for "minor issues". Accumulation of small problems becomes technical debt
-- "Address in next task" never happens. If fixable now, fix now
-- No "conditional approval". If there are issues, reject
-- If you find in-scope fixable issues, flag them without exception
-- Existing issues (unrelated to current change) are non-blocking, but issues introduced or fixable in this change must be flagged
-
-## Areas of Expertise
-
-### Structure & Design
-- File organization and module decomposition
-- Layer design and dependency direction verification
-- Directory structure pattern selection
-
-### Code Quality
-- Abstraction level alignment
-- DRY, YAGNI, and Fail Fast principles
-- Idiomatic implementation
-
-### Anti-Pattern Detection
-- Unnecessary backward compatibility code
-- Workaround implementations
-- Unused code and dead code
-
-**Don't:**
-- Write code yourself (only provide feedback and suggestions)
-- Give vague feedback ("clean this up" is prohibited)
-- Review AI-specific issues (AI Reviewer's job)
-
-## Review Target Distinction
-
-**Important**: Distinguish between source files and generated files.
-
-| Type | Location | Review Target |
-|------|----------|---------------|
-| Generated reports | `.takt/reports/` | Not a review target |
-| Reports in git diff | `.takt/reports/` | **Ignore** |
-
-**About template files:**
-- YAML and Markdown files in `resources/` are templates
-- `{report_dir}`, `{task}` are placeholders (replaced at runtime)
-- Even if expanded values appear in git diff for report files, they are NOT hardcoded
-
-**To avoid false positives:**
-1. Before flagging "hardcoded values", **verify if the file is source or report**
-2. Files under `.takt/reports/` are generated during piece execution - not review targets
-3. Ignore generated files even if they appear in git diff
-
-## Review Perspectives
-
-### 1. Structure & Design
+## Structure & Design
 
 **File Organization:**
 
@@ -73,17 +12,40 @@ Code is read far more often than it is written. Poorly structured code destroys
 | Unrelated code coexisting | REJECT |
 
 **Module Structure:**
+
 - High cohesion: Related functionality grouped together
 - Low coupling: Minimal inter-module dependencies
 - No circular dependencies
 - Appropriate directory hierarchy
 
+**Operation Discoverability:**
+
+When calls to the same generic function are scattered across the codebase with different purposes, it becomes impossible to understand what the system does without grepping every call site. Group related operations into purpose-named functions within a single module. Reading that module should reveal the complete list of operations the system performs.
+
+| Judgment | Criteria |
+|----------|----------|
+| REJECT | Same generic function called directly from 3+ places with different purposes |
+| REJECT | Understanding all system operations requires grepping every call site |
+| OK | Purpose-named functions defined and collected in a single module |
+
+**Public API Surface:**
+
+Public APIs should expose only domain-level functions and types. Do not export infrastructure internals (provider-specific functions, internal parsers, etc.).
+
+| Judgment | Criteria |
+|----------|----------|
+| REJECT | Infrastructure-layer functions exported from public API |
+| REJECT | Internal implementation functions callable from outside |
+| OK | External consumers interact only through domain-level abstractions |
+
 **Function Design:**
+
 - One responsibility per function
 - Consider splitting functions over 30 lines
 - Side effects clearly defined
 
 **Layer Design:**
+
 - Dependency direction: Upper layers -> Lower layers (reverse prohibited)
 - Controller -> Service -> Repository flow maintained
 - 1 interface = 1 responsibility (no giant Service classes)
@@ -136,97 +98,79 @@ Prohibited patterns:
 | Mixed features and layers | `features/services/` prohibited |
 
 **Separation of Concerns:**
+
 - Read and write responsibilities separated
 - Data fetching at root (View/Controller), passed to children
 - Error handling centralized (no try-catch scattered everywhere)
 - Business logic not leaking into Controller/View
 
-### 2. Code Quality
-
-**Mandatory checks:**
-- Use of `any` type -> **Immediate REJECT**
-- Overuse of fallback values (`?? 'unknown'`) -> **REJECT** (see examples below)
-- Explanatory comments (What/How comments) -> **REJECT** (see examples below)
-- Unused code ("just in case" code) -> **REJECT** (see examples below)
-- Direct state mutation (not immutable) -> **REJECT** (see examples below)
-
-**Design principles:**
-- Simple > Easy: Readability prioritized
-- DRY: No more than 3 duplications
-- YAGNI: Only what's needed now
-- Fail Fast: Errors detected and reported early
-- Idiomatic: Follows language/framework conventions
+## Code Quality Detection
 
 **Explanatory Comment (What/How) Detection Criteria:**
 
-Comments must only explain design decisions not evident from code (Why), never restate what the code does (What/How). If the code is clear enough, no comment is needed at all.
+Detect comments that simply restate code behavior in natural language.
 
 | Judgment | Criteria |
 |----------|----------|
-| **REJECT** | Restates code behavior in natural language |
-| **REJECT** | Repeats what is already obvious from function/variable names |
-| **REJECT** | JSDoc that only paraphrases the function name without adding information |
+| REJECT | Restates code behavior in natural language |
+| REJECT | Repeats what is already obvious from function/variable names |
+| REJECT | JSDoc that only paraphrases the function name without adding information |
 | OK | Explains why a particular implementation was chosen |
 | OK | Explains the reason behind seemingly unusual behavior |
 | Best | No comment needed — the code itself communicates intent |
 
 ```typescript
-// ❌ REJECT - Restates code (What)
+// REJECT - Restates code (What)
 // If interrupted, abort immediately
 if (status === 'interrupted') {
   return ABORT_STEP;
 }
 
-// ❌ REJECT - Restates the loop
+// REJECT - Restates the loop
 // Check transitions in order
 for (const transition of step.transitions) {
 
-// ❌ REJECT - Repeats the function name
+// REJECT - Repeats the function name
 /** Check if status matches transition condition. */
 export function matchesCondition(status: Status, condition: TransitionCondition): boolean {
 
-// ✅ OK - Design decision (Why)
+// OK - Design decision (Why)
 // User interruption takes priority over piece-defined transitions
 if (status === 'interrupted') {
   return ABORT_STEP;
 }
 
-// ✅ OK - Reason behind seemingly odd behavior
+// OK - Reason behind seemingly odd behavior
 // stay can cause loops, but is only used when explicitly specified by the user
 return step.name;
-
-// ✅ Best - No comment needed. Code is self-evident
-if (status === 'interrupted') {
-  return ABORT_STEP;
-}
 ```
 
 **Direct State Mutation Detection Criteria:**
 
-Directly mutating objects or arrays makes changes hard to track and causes unexpected side effects. Always use spread operators or immutable operations to return new objects.
+Detect direct mutation of arrays or objects.
 
 ```typescript
-// ❌ REJECT - Direct array mutation
+// REJECT - Direct array mutation
 const steps: Step[] = getSteps();
 steps.push(newStep);           // Mutates original array
 steps.splice(index, 1);       // Mutates original array
 steps[0].status = 'done';     // Nested object also mutated directly
 
-// ✅ OK - Immutable operations
+// OK - Immutable operations
 const withNew = [...steps, newStep];
 const without = steps.filter((_, i) => i !== index);
 const updated = steps.map((s, i) =>
   i === 0 ? { ...s, status: 'done' } : s
 );
 
-// ❌ REJECT - Direct object mutation
+// REJECT - Direct object mutation
 function updateConfig(config: Config) {
   config.logLevel = 'debug';   // Mutates argument directly
   config.steps.push(newStep);  // Nested mutation too
   return config;
 }
 
-// ✅ OK - Returns new object
+// OK - Returns new object
 function updateConfig(config: Config): Config {
   return {
     ...config,
@@ -236,21 +180,21 @@ function updateConfig(config: Config): Config {
 }
 ```
 
-### 3. Security
+## Security (Basic Checks)
 
 - Injection prevention (SQL, Command, XSS)
 - User input validation
 - Hardcoded sensitive information
 
-### 4. Testability
+## Testability
 
 - Dependency injection enabled
 - Mockable design
 - Tests are written
 
-### 5. Anti-Pattern Detection
+## Anti-Pattern Detection
 
-**REJECT** when these patterns are found:
+REJECT when these patterns are found:
 
 | Anti-Pattern | Problem |
 |--------------|---------|
@@ -260,34 +204,18 @@ function updateConfig(config: Config): Config {
 | Over-generalization | Variants and extension points not currently needed |
 | Hidden Dependencies | Child components implicitly calling APIs etc. |
 | Non-idiomatic | Custom implementation ignoring language/FW conventions |
-| Logically dead defensive code | Guards for conditions already guaranteed by all callers |
 
-**Logically dead defensive code:**
-
-Call chain verification applies not only to "missing wiring" but also to the reverse — **unnecessary guards for conditions that callers already guarantee**.
-
-| Pattern | Problem | Detection |
-|---------|---------|-----------|
-| TTY check when all callers require TTY | Unreachable branch remains | grep all callers' preconditions |
-| Null guard when callers already check null | Redundant defense | Trace caller constraints |
-| Runtime type check when TypeScript types constrain | Not trusting type safety | Check TypeScript type constraints |
-
-**Verification:**
-1. When you find a defensive branch (TTY check, null guard, etc.), grep all callers
-2. If all callers already guarantee the condition, the guard is unnecessary → **REJECT**
-3. If some callers don't guarantee it, keep the guard
-
-### 6. Abstraction Level Evaluation
+## Abstraction Level Evaluation
 
 **Conditional Branch Proliferation Detection:**
 
 | Pattern | Judgment |
 |---------|----------|
-| Same if-else pattern in 3+ places | Abstract with polymorphism → **REJECT** |
+| Same if-else pattern in 3+ places | Abstract with polymorphism → REJECT |
 | switch/case with 5+ branches | Consider Strategy/Map pattern |
-| Flag arguments changing behavior | Split into separate functions → **REJECT** |
-| Type-based branching (instanceof/typeof) | Replace with polymorphism → **REJECT** |
-| Nested conditionals (3+ levels) | Early return or extract → **REJECT** |
+| Flag arguments changing behavior | Split into separate functions → REJECT |
+| Type-based branching (instanceof/typeof) | Replace with polymorphism → REJECT |
+| Nested conditionals (3+ levels) | Early return or extract → REJECT |
 
 **Abstraction Level Mismatch Detection:**
 
@@ -301,7 +229,7 @@ Call chain verification applies not only to "missing wiring" but also to the rev
 **Good Abstraction Examples:**
 
 ```typescript
-// ❌ Proliferating conditionals
+// Proliferating conditionals
 function process(type: string) {
   if (type === 'A') { /* process A */ }
   else if (type === 'B') { /* process B */ }
@@ -309,7 +237,7 @@ function process(type: string) {
   // ...continues
 }
 
-// ✅ Abstract with Map pattern
+// Abstract with Map pattern
 const processors: Record<string, () => void> = {
   A: processA,
   B: processB,
@@ -321,7 +249,7 @@ function process(type: string) {
 ```
 
 ```typescript
-// ❌ Mixed abstraction levels
+// Mixed abstraction levels
 function createUser(data: UserData) {
   // High level: business logic
   validateUser(data);
@@ -331,16 +259,16 @@ function createUser(data: UserData) {
   conn.release();
 }
 
-// ✅ Aligned abstraction levels
+// Aligned abstraction levels
 function createUser(data: UserData) {
   validateUser(data);
   await userRepository.save(data);  // Details hidden
 }
 ```
 
-### 7. Workaround Detection
+## Workaround Detection
 
-**Don't overlook compromises made to "just make it work."**
+Don't overlook compromises made to "just make it work."
 
 | Pattern | Example |
 |---------|---------|
@@ -351,22 +279,72 @@ function createUser(data: UserData) {
 | Swallowed errors | Empty `catch {}`, `rescue nil` |
 | Magic numbers | Unexplained `if (status == 3)` |
 
-**Always point these out.** Temporary fixes become permanent.
+## Strict TODO Comment Prohibition
 
-### 8. Spec Compliance Verification
+"We'll do it later" never gets done. What's not done now is never done.
 
-**Verify that changes comply with the project's documented specifications.**
+TODO comments are immediate REJECT.
 
-**Verification targets:**
+```kotlin
+// REJECT - Future-looking TODO
+// TODO: Add authorization check by facility ID
+fun deleteCustomHoliday(@PathVariable id: String) {
+    deleteCustomHolidayInputPort.execute(input)
+}
+
+// APPROVE - Implement now
+fun deleteCustomHoliday(@PathVariable id: String) {
+    val currentUserFacilityId = getCurrentUserFacilityId()
+    val holiday = findHolidayById(id)
+    require(holiday.facilityId == currentUserFacilityId) {
+        "Cannot delete holiday from another facility"
+    }
+    deleteCustomHolidayInputPort.execute(input)
+}
+```
+
+Only acceptable TODO cases:
+
+| Condition | Example | Judgment |
+|-----------|---------|----------|
+| External dependency prevents implementation + Issued | `// TODO(#123): Implement after API key obtained` | Acceptable |
+| Technical constraint prevents + Issued | `// TODO(#456): Waiting for library bug fix` | Acceptable |
+| "Future implementation", "add later" | `// TODO: Add validation` | REJECT |
+| "No time for now" | `// TODO: Refactor` | REJECT |
+
+Correct handling:
+- Needed now → Implement now
+- Not needed now → Delete the code
+- External blocker → Create issue and include ticket number in comment
+
+## DRY Violation Detection
+
+Eliminate duplication by default. When logic is essentially the same and should be unified, apply DRY. Do not judge mechanically by count.
+
+| Pattern | Judgment |
+|---------|----------|
+| Essentially identical logic duplicated | REJECT - Extract to function/method |
+| Same validation duplicated | REJECT - Extract to validator function |
+| Essentially identical component structure | REJECT - Create shared component |
+| Copy-paste derived code | REJECT - Parameterize or abstract |
+
+When NOT to apply DRY:
+- Different domains: Don't abstract (e.g., customer validation vs admin validation are different things)
+- Superficially similar but different reasons to change: Treat as separate code
+
+## Spec Compliance Verification
+
+Verify that changes comply with the project's documented specifications.
+
+Verification targets:
 
 | Target | What to Check |
 |--------|---------------|
 | CLAUDE.md / README.md | Conforms to schema definitions, design principles, constraints |
 | Type definitions / Zod schemas | New fields reflected in schemas |
 | YAML/JSON config files | Follows documented format |
-| Existing patterns | Consistent with similar files |
 
-**Specific checks:**
+Specific checks:
 
 1. When config files (YAML, etc.) are modified or added:
    - Cross-reference with schema definitions in CLAUDE.md, etc.
@@ -377,20 +355,59 @@ function createUser(data: UserData) {
    - Documentation schema descriptions are updated
    - Existing config files are compatible with new schema
 
-3. When piece definitions are modified:
-   - Correct fields used for step type (normal vs. parallel)
-   - No unnecessary fields remaining (e.g., `next` on parallel sub-steps)
-
-**REJECT when these patterns are found:**
+REJECT when these patterns are found:
 
 | Pattern | Problem |
 |---------|---------|
 | Fields not in the spec | Ignored or unexpected behavior |
 | Invalid values per spec | Runtime error or silently ignored |
 | Violation of documented constraints | Against design intent |
-| Step type / field mismatch | Sign of copy-paste error |
 
-### 9. Quality Attributes
+## Call Chain Verification
+
+When new parameters/fields are added, verify not just the changed file but also callers.
+
+Verification steps:
+1. When finding new optional parameters or interface fields, `Grep` all callers
+2. Check if all callers pass the new parameter
+3. If fallback value (`?? default`) exists, verify if fallback is used as intended
+
+Danger patterns:
+
+| Pattern | Problem | Detection |
+|---------|---------|-----------|
+| `options.xxx ?? fallback` where all callers omit `xxx` | Feature implemented but always falls back | grep callers |
+| Tests set values directly with mocks | Don't go through actual call chain | Check test construction |
+| `executeXxx()` doesn't receive `options` it uses internally | No route to pass value from above | Check function signature |
+
+```typescript
+// Missing wiring: No route to receive projectCwd
+export async function executePiece(config, cwd, task) {
+  const engine = new PieceEngine(config, cwd, task);  // No options
+}
+
+// Wired: Can pass projectCwd
+export async function executePiece(config, cwd, task, options?) {
+  const engine = new PieceEngine(config, cwd, task, options);
+}
+```
+
+Logically dead code due to caller constraints:
+
+Call chain verification applies not only to "missing wiring" but also to the reverse — unnecessary guards for conditions that callers already guarantee.
+
+| Pattern | Problem | Detection |
+|---------|---------|-----------|
+| TTY check when all callers require TTY | Unreachable branch remains | grep all callers' preconditions |
+| Null guard when callers already check null | Redundant defense | Trace caller constraints |
+| Runtime type check when TypeScript types constrain | Not trusting type safety | Check TypeScript type constraints |
+
+Verification steps:
+1. When finding defensive branches (TTY check, null guard, etc.), grep all callers
+2. If all callers already guarantee the condition, guard is unnecessary → REJECT
+3. If some callers don't guarantee it, keep the guard
+
+## Quality Attributes
 
 | Attribute | Review Point |
 |-----------|--------------|
@@ -398,9 +415,9 @@ function createUser(data: UserData) {
 | Maintainability | Easy to modify and fix |
 | Observability | Logging and monitoring enabled |
 
-### 10. Big Picture
+## Big Picture
 
-**Caution**: Don't get lost in minor "clean code" nitpicks.
+Don't get lost in minor "clean code" nitpicks.
 
 Verify:
 - How will this code evolve in the future
@@ -409,9 +426,9 @@ Verify:
 - Does it align with business requirements
 - Is naming consistent with the domain
 
-### 11. Change Scope Assessment
+## Change Scope Assessment
 
-**Check change scope and include in report (non-blocking).**
+Check change scope and include in report (non-blocking).
 
 | Scope Size | Lines Changed | Action |
 |------------|---------------|--------|
@@ -419,44 +436,11 @@ Verify:
 | Medium | 200-500 lines | Review as-is |
 | Large | 500+ lines | Continue review. Suggest splitting if possible |
 
-**Note:** Some tasks require large changes. Don't REJECT based on line count alone.
+Note: Some tasks require large changes. Don't REJECT based on line count alone.
 
-**Verify:**
+Verify:
 - Changes are logically cohesive (no unrelated changes mixed in)
 - Coder's scope declaration matches actual changes
 
-**Include as suggestions (non-blocking):**
+Include as suggestions (non-blocking):
 - If splittable, present splitting proposal
-
-### 12. Circular Review Detection
-
-When review count is provided (e.g., "Review count: 3rd"), adjust judgment accordingly.
-
-**From the 3rd review onwards:**
-
-1. Check if the same type of issues are recurring
-2. If recurring, suggest **alternative approaches** rather than detailed fixes
-3. Even when REJECTing, include perspective that "a different approach should be considered"
-
-Example: When issues repeat on the 3rd review
-
-- Point out the normal issues
-- Note that the same type of issues are recurring
-- Explain the limitations of the current approach
-- Present alternatives (e.g., redesign with a different pattern, introduce new technology)
-
-**Point**: Rather than repeating "fix this again", step back and suggest a different path.
-
-## Important
-
-**Be specific.** These are prohibited:
-- "Please clean this up a bit"
-- "Please reconsider the structure"
-- "Refactoring is needed"
-
-**Always specify:**
-- Which file, which line
-- What the problem is
-- How to fix it
-
-**Remember**: You are the quality gatekeeper. Poorly structured code destroys maintainability. Never let code that doesn't meet standards pass.

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/backend.md

@@ -0,0 +1,485 @@
+# Backend Expertise
+
+## Hexagonal Architecture (Ports and Adapters)
+
+Dependency direction flows from outer to inner layers. Reverse dependencies are prohibited.
+
+```
+adapter (external) → application (use cases) → domain (business logic)
+```
+
+Directory structure:
+
+```
+{domain-name}/
+├── domain/                  # Domain layer (framework-independent)
+│   ├── model/
+│   │   └── aggregate/       # Aggregate roots, value objects
+│   └── service/             # Domain services
+├── application/             # Application layer (use cases)
+│   ├── usecase/             # Orchestration
+│   └── query/               # Query handlers
+├── adapter/                 # Adapter layer (external connections)
+│   ├── inbound/             # Input adapters
+│   │   └── rest/            # REST Controller, Request/Response DTOs
+│   └── outbound/            # Output adapters
+│       └── persistence/     # Entity, Repository implementations
+└── api/                     # Public interface (referenceable by other domains)
+    └── events/              # Domain events
+```
+
+Layer responsibilities:
+
+| Layer | Responsibility | May Depend On | Must Not Depend On |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|-------------------|
+| domain | Business logic, invariants | Standard library only | Frameworks, DB, external APIs |
+| application | Use case orchestration | domain | Concrete adapter implementations |
+| adapter/inbound | HTTP request handling, DTO conversion | application, domain | outbound adapter |
+| adapter/outbound | DB persistence, external API calls | domain (interfaces) | application |
+
+```kotlin
+// CORRECT - Domain layer is framework-independent
+data class Order(val orderId: String, val status: OrderStatus) {
+    fun confirm(confirmedBy: String): OrderConfirmedEvent {
+        require(status == OrderStatus.PENDING)
+        return OrderConfirmedEvent(orderId, confirmedBy)
+    }
+}
+
+// WRONG - Spring annotations in domain layer
+@Entity
+data class Order(
+    @Id val orderId: String,
+    @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) val status: OrderStatus
+) {
+    fun confirm(confirmedBy: String) { ... }
+}
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Framework dependencies in domain layer (@Entity, @Component, etc.) | REJECT |
+| Controller directly referencing Repository | REJECT. Must go through UseCase layer |
+| Outward dependencies from domain layer (DB, HTTP, etc.) | REJECT |
+| Direct dependencies between adapters (inbound → outbound) | REJECT |
+
+## API Layer Design (Controller)
+
+Keep Controllers thin. Their only job: receive request → delegate to UseCase → return response.
+
+```kotlin
+// CORRECT - Thin Controller
+@RestController
+@RequestMapping("/api/orders")
+class OrdersController(
+    private val placeOrderUseCase: PlaceOrderUseCase,
+    private val queryGateway: QueryGateway
+) {
+    // Command: state change
+    @PostMapping
+    @ResponseStatus(HttpStatus.CREATED)
+    fun post(@Valid @RequestBody request: OrderPostRequest): OrderPostResponse {
+        val output = placeOrderUseCase.execute(request.toInput())
+        return OrderPostResponse(output.orderId)
+    }
+
+    // Query: read
+    @GetMapping("/{id}")
+    fun get(@PathVariable id: String): ResponseEntity<OrderGetResponse> {
+        val detail = queryGateway.query(FindOrderQuery(id), OrderDetail::class.java).join()
+            ?: return ResponseEntity.notFound().build()
+        return ResponseEntity.ok(OrderGetResponse.from(detail))
+    }
+}
+
+// WRONG - Business logic in Controller
+@PostMapping
+fun post(@RequestBody request: OrderPostRequest): ResponseEntity<Any> {
+    // Validation, stock check, calculation... should NOT be in Controller
+    val stock = inventoryRepository.findByProductId(request.productId)
+    if (stock.quantity < request.quantity) {
+        return ResponseEntity.badRequest().body("Insufficient stock")
+    }
+    val total = request.quantity * request.unitPrice * 1.1  // Tax calculation
+    orderRepository.save(OrderEntity(...))
+    return ResponseEntity.ok(...)
+}
+```
+
+### Request/Response DTO Design
+
+Define Request and Response as separate types. Never expose domain models directly via API.
+
+```kotlin
+// Request: validation annotations + init block
+data class OrderPostRequest(
+    @field:NotBlank val customerId: String,
+    @field:NotNull val items: List<OrderItemRequest>
+) {
+    init {
+        require(items.isNotEmpty()) { "Order must contain at least one item" }
+    }
+
+    fun toInput() = PlaceOrderInput(customerId = customerId, items = items.map { it.toItem() })
+}
+
+// Response: factory method from() for conversion
+data class OrderGetResponse(
+    val orderId: String,
+    val status: String,
+    val customerName: String
+) {
+    companion object {
+        fun from(detail: OrderDetail) = OrderGetResponse(
+            orderId = detail.orderId,
+            status = detail.status.name,
+            customerName = detail.customerName
+        )
+    }
+}
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Returning domain model directly as response | REJECT |
+| Business logic in Request DTO | REJECT. Only validation is allowed |
+| Domain logic (calculations, etc.) in Response DTO | REJECT |
+| Same type for Request and Response | REJECT |
+
+### RESTful Action Design
+
+Express state transitions as verb sub-resources.
+
+```
+POST   /api/orders              → Create order
+GET    /api/orders/{id}         → Get order
+GET    /api/orders              → List orders
+POST   /api/orders/{id}/approve → Approve (state transition)
+POST   /api/orders/{id}/cancel  → Cancel (state transition)
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| PUT/PATCH for domain operations (approve, cancel, etc.) | REJECT. Use POST + verb sub-resource |
+| Single endpoint branching into multiple operations | REJECT. Separate endpoints per operation |
+| DELETE for soft deletion | REJECT. Use POST + explicit operation like cancel |
+
+## Validation Strategy
+
+Validation has different roles at each layer. Do not centralize everything in one place.
+
+| Layer | Responsibility | Mechanism | Example |
+|-------|---------------|-----------|---------|
+| API layer | Structural validation | `@NotBlank`, `init` block | Required fields, types, format |
+| UseCase layer | Business rule verification | Read Model queries | Duplicate checks, precondition existence |
+| Domain layer | State transition invariants | `require` | "Cannot approve unless PENDING" |
+
+```kotlin
+// API layer: "Is the input structurally correct?"
+data class OrderPostRequest(
+    @field:NotBlank val customerId: String,
+    val from: LocalDateTime,
+    val to: LocalDateTime
+) {
+    init {
+        require(!to.isBefore(from)) { "End date must be on or after start date" }
+    }
+}
+
+// UseCase layer: "Is this business-wise allowed?" (Read Model reference)
+fun execute(input: PlaceOrderInput) {
+    customerRepository.findById(input.customerId)
+        ?: throw CustomerNotFoundException("Customer does not exist")
+    validateNoOverlapping(input)  // Duplicate check
+    commandGateway.send(buildCommand(input))
+}
+
+// Domain layer: "Is this operation allowed in current state?"
+fun confirm(confirmedBy: String): OrderConfirmedEvent {
+    require(status == OrderStatus.PENDING) { "Cannot confirm in current state" }
+    return OrderConfirmedEvent(orderId, confirmedBy)
+}
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Domain state transition rules in API layer | REJECT |
+| Business rule verification in Controller | REJECT. Belongs in UseCase layer |
+| Structural validation (@NotBlank, etc.) in domain | REJECT. Belongs in API layer |
+| UseCase-level validation inside Aggregate | REJECT. Read Model queries belong in UseCase layer |
+
+## Error Handling
+
+### Exception Hierarchy Design
+
+Domain exceptions are hierarchized using sealed classes. HTTP status code mapping is done at the Controller layer.
+
+```kotlin
+// Domain exceptions: sealed class ensures exhaustiveness
+sealed class OrderException(message: String) : RuntimeException(message)
+class OrderNotFoundException(message: String) : OrderException(message)
+class InvalidOrderStateException(message: String) : OrderException(message)
+class InsufficientStockException(message: String) : OrderException(message)
+
+// Controller layer maps to HTTP status codes
+@RestControllerAdvice
+class OrderExceptionHandler {
+    @ExceptionHandler(OrderNotFoundException::class)
+    fun handleNotFound(e: OrderNotFoundException) =
+        ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND).body(ErrorResponse(e.message))
+
+    @ExceptionHandler(InvalidOrderStateException::class)
+    fun handleInvalidState(e: InvalidOrderStateException) =
+        ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.CONFLICT).body(ErrorResponse(e.message))
+
+    @ExceptionHandler(InsufficientStockException::class)
+    fun handleInsufficientStock(e: InsufficientStockException) =
+        ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.UNPROCESSABLE_ENTITY).body(ErrorResponse(e.message))
+}
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| HTTP status codes in domain exceptions | REJECT. Domain must not know about HTTP |
+| Throwing generic Exception or RuntimeException | REJECT. Use specific exception types |
+| Empty try-catch blocks | REJECT |
+| Controller swallowing exceptions and returning 200 | REJECT |
+
+## Domain Model Design
+
+### Immutable + require
+
+Domain models are designed as `data class` (immutable), with invariants enforced via `init` blocks and `require`.
+
+```kotlin
+data class Order(
+    val orderId: String,
+    val status: OrderStatus = OrderStatus.PENDING
+) {
+    // Static factory method via companion object
+    companion object {
+        fun place(orderId: String, customerId: String): OrderPlacedEvent {
+            require(customerId.isNotBlank()) { "Customer ID cannot be blank" }
+            return OrderPlacedEvent(orderId, customerId)
+        }
+    }
+
+    // Instance method for state transition → returns event
+    fun confirm(confirmedBy: String): OrderConfirmedEvent {
+        require(status == OrderStatus.PENDING) { "Cannot confirm in current state" }
+        return OrderConfirmedEvent(orderId, confirmedBy, LocalDateTime.now())
+    }
+
+    // Immutable state update
+    fun apply(event: OrderEvent): Order = when (event) {
+        is OrderPlacedEvent -> Order(orderId = event.orderId)
+        is OrderConfirmedEvent -> copy(status = OrderStatus.CONFIRMED)
+        is OrderCancelledEvent -> copy(status = OrderStatus.CANCELLED)
+    }
+}
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| `var` fields in domain model | REJECT. Use `copy()` for immutable updates |
+| Factory without validation | REJECT. Enforce invariants with `require` |
+| Domain model calling external services | REJECT. Pure functions only |
+| Direct field mutation via setters | REJECT |
+
+### Value Objects
+
+Wrap primitive types (String, Int) with domain meaning.
+
+```kotlin
+// ID types: prevent mix-ups via type safety
+data class OrderId(@get:JsonValue val value: String) {
+    init { require(value.isNotBlank()) { "Order ID cannot be blank" } }
+    override fun toString(): String = value
+}
+
+// Range types: enforce compound invariants
+data class DateRange(val from: LocalDateTime, val to: LocalDateTime) {
+    init { require(!to.isBefore(from)) { "End date must be on or after start date" } }
+}
+
+// Metadata types: ancillary information in event payloads
+data class ApprovalInfo(val approvedBy: String, val approvalTime: LocalDateTime)
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Same-typed IDs that can be mixed up (orderId and customerId both String) | Consider wrapping in value objects |
+| Same field combinations (from/to, etc.) appearing in multiple places | Extract to value object |
+| Value object without init block | REJECT. Enforce invariants |
+
+## Repository Pattern
+
+Define interface in domain layer, implement in adapter/outbound.
+
+```kotlin
+// domain/: Interface (port)
+interface OrderRepository {
+    fun findById(orderId: String): Order?
+    fun save(order: Order)
+}
+
+// adapter/outbound/persistence/: Implementation (adapter)
+@Repository
+class JpaOrderRepository(
+    private val jpaRepository: OrderJpaRepository
+) : OrderRepository {
+    override fun findById(orderId: String): Order? {
+        return jpaRepository.findById(orderId).orElse(null)?.toDomain()
+    }
+    override fun save(order: Order) {
+        jpaRepository.save(OrderEntity.from(order))
+    }
+}
+```
+
+### Read Model Entity (JPA Entity)
+
+Read Model JPA Entities are defined separately from domain models. `var` (mutable) fields are acceptable here.
+
+```kotlin
+@Entity
+@Table(name = "orders")
+data class OrderEntity(
+    @Id val orderId: String,
+    var customerId: String,
+    @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) var status: OrderStatus,
+    var metadata: String? = null
+)
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Domain model doubling as JPA Entity | REJECT. Separate them |
+| Business logic in Entity | REJECT. Entity is data structure only |
+| Repository implementation in domain layer | REJECT. Belongs in adapter/outbound |
+
+## Authentication & Authorization Placement
+
+Authentication and authorization are cross-cutting concerns handled at the appropriate layer.
+
+| Concern | Placement | Mechanism |
+|---------|-----------|-----------|
+| Authentication (who) | Filter / Interceptor layer | JWT verification, session validation |
+| Authorization (permissions) | Controller layer | `@PreAuthorize("hasRole('ADMIN')")` |
+| Data access control (own data only) | UseCase layer | Verified as business rule |
+
+```kotlin
+// Controller layer: role-based authorization
+@PostMapping("/{id}/approve")
+@PreAuthorize("hasRole('FACILITY_ADMIN')")
+fun approve(@PathVariable id: String, @RequestBody request: ApproveRequest) { ... }
+
+// UseCase layer: data access control
+fun execute(input: DeleteInput, currentUserId: String) {
+    val entity = repository.findById(input.id)
+        ?: throw NotFoundException("Not found")
+    require(entity.ownerId == currentUserId) { "Cannot operate on another user's data" }
+    // ...
+}
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Authorization logic in UseCase or domain layer | REJECT. Belongs in Controller layer |
+| Data access control in Controller | REJECT. Belongs in UseCase layer |
+| Authentication processing inside Controller | REJECT. Belongs in Filter/Interceptor |
+
+## Test Strategy
+
+### Test Pyramid
+
+```
+        ┌─────────────┐
+        │   E2E Test  │  ← Few: verify full API flow
+        ├─────────────┤
+        │ Integration │  ← Repository, Controller integration verification
+        ├─────────────┤
+        │  Unit Test  │  ← Many: independent tests for domain models, UseCases
+        └─────────────┘
+```
+
+### Domain Model Testing
+
+Domain models are framework-independent, enabling pure unit tests.
+
+```kotlin
+class OrderTest {
+    // Helper: build aggregate in specific state
+    private fun pendingOrder(): Order {
+        val event = Order.place("order-1", "customer-1")
+        return Order.from(event)
+    }
+
+    @Nested
+    inner class Confirm {
+        @Test
+        fun `can confirm from PENDING state`() {
+            val order = pendingOrder()
+            val event = order.confirm("admin-1")
+            assertEquals("order-1", event.orderId)
+        }
+
+        @Test
+        fun `cannot confirm from CONFIRMED state`() {
+            val order = pendingOrder().let { it.apply(it.confirm("admin-1")) }
+            assertThrows<IllegalArgumentException> {
+                order.confirm("admin-2")
+            }
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+Testing rules:
+- Build state transitions via helper methods (each test is independent)
+- Group by operation using `@Nested`
+- Test both happy path and error cases (invalid state transitions)
+- Verify exception types with `assertThrows`
+
+### UseCase Testing
+
+Test UseCases with mocks. Inject external dependencies.
+
+```kotlin
+class PlaceOrderUseCaseTest {
+    private val commandGateway = mockk<CommandGateway>()
+    private val customerRepository = mockk<CustomerRepository>()
+    private val useCase = PlaceOrderUseCase(commandGateway, customerRepository)
+
+    @Test
+    fun `throws error when customer does not exist`() {
+        every { customerRepository.findById("unknown") } returns null
+
+        assertThrows<CustomerNotFoundException> {
+            useCase.execute(PlaceOrderInput(customerId = "unknown", items = listOf(...)))
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Using mocks for domain model tests | REJECT. Test domain purely |
+| UseCase tests connecting to real DB | REJECT. Use mocks |
+| Tests requiring framework startup | REJECT for unit tests |
+| Missing error case tests for state transitions | REJECT |
+
+## Anti-Pattern Detection
+
+REJECT when these patterns are found:
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Problem |
+|--------------|---------|
+| Smart Controller | Business logic concentrated in Controller |
+| Anemic Domain Model | Domain model is just a data structure with setters/getters |
+| God Service | All operations concentrated in a single Service class |
+| Direct Repository Access | Controller directly referencing Repository |
+| Domain Leakage | Domain logic leaking into adapter layer |
+| Entity Reuse | JPA Entity reused as domain model |
+| Swallowed Exceptions | Empty catch blocks |
+| Magic Strings | Hardcoded status strings, etc. |

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/cqrs-es.md

@@ -0,0 +1,417 @@
+# CQRS+ES Knowledge
+
+## Aggregate Design
+
+Aggregates hold only fields necessary for decision-making.
+
+Command Model (Aggregate) role is to "receive commands, make decisions, and emit events". Query data is handled by Read Model (Projection).
+
+"Necessary for decision" means:
+- Used in `if`/`require` conditional branches
+- Field value referenced when emitting events in instance methods
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Aggregate spans multiple transaction boundaries | REJECT |
+| Direct references between Aggregates (not ID references) | REJECT |
+| Aggregate exceeds 100 lines | Consider splitting |
+| Business invariants exist outside Aggregate | REJECT |
+| Holding fields not used for decisions | REJECT |
+
+Good Aggregate:
+```kotlin
+// Only fields necessary for decisions
+data class Order(
+    val orderId: String,      // Used when emitting events
+    val status: OrderStatus   // Used for state checking
+) {
+    fun confirm(confirmedBy: String): OrderConfirmedEvent {
+        require(status == OrderStatus.PENDING) { "Cannot confirm in this state" }
+        return OrderConfirmedEvent(
+            orderId = orderId,
+            confirmedBy = confirmedBy,
+            confirmedAt = LocalDateTime.now()
+        )
+    }
+}
+
+// Holding fields not used for decisions (NG)
+data class Order(
+    val orderId: String,
+    val customerId: String,     // Not used for decisions
+    val shippingAddress: Address, // Not used for decisions
+    val status: OrderStatus
+)
+```
+
+Aggregates with no additional operations have ID only:
+```kotlin
+// When only creation, no additional operations
+data class Notification(val notificationId: String) {
+    companion object {
+        fun create(customerId: String, message: String): NotificationCreatedEvent {
+            return NotificationCreatedEvent(
+                notificationId = UUID.randomUUID().toString(),
+                customerId = customerId,
+                message = message
+            )
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+## Event Design
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Event not in past tense (Created → Create) | REJECT |
+| Event contains logic | REJECT |
+| Event contains internal state of other Aggregates | REJECT |
+| Event schema not version controlled | Warning |
+| CRUD-style events (Updated, Deleted) | Needs review |
+
+Good Events:
+```kotlin
+// Good: Domain intent is clear
+OrderPlaced, PaymentReceived, ItemShipped
+
+// Bad: CRUD style
+OrderUpdated, OrderDeleted
+```
+
+Event Granularity:
+- Too fine: `OrderFieldChanged` → Domain intent unclear
+- Appropriate: `ShippingAddressChanged` → Intent is clear
+- Too coarse: `OrderModified` → What changed is unclear
+
+## Command Handlers
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Handler directly manipulates DB | REJECT |
+| Handler modifies multiple Aggregates | REJECT |
+| No command validation | REJECT |
+| Handler executes queries to make decisions | Needs review |
+
+Good Command Handler:
+```
+1. Receive command
+2. Restore Aggregate from event store
+3. Apply command to Aggregate
+4. Save emitted events
+```
+
+## Projection Design
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Projection issues commands | REJECT |
+| Projection references Write model | REJECT |
+| Single projection serves multiple use cases | Needs review |
+| Design that cannot be rebuilt | REJECT |
+
+Good Projection:
+- Optimized for specific read use case
+- Idempotently reconstructible from events
+- Completely independent from Write model
+
+## Query Side Design
+
+Controller uses QueryGateway. Does not use Repository directly.
+
+Types between layers:
+- `application/query/` - Query result types (e.g., `OrderDetail`)
+- `adapter/protocol/` - REST response types (e.g., `OrderDetailResponse`)
+- QueryHandler returns application layer types, Controller converts to adapter layer types
+
+```kotlin
+// application/query/OrderDetail.kt
+data class OrderDetail(
+    val orderId: String,
+    val customerName: String,
+    val totalAmount: Money
+)
+
+// adapter/protocol/OrderDetailResponse.kt
+data class OrderDetailResponse(...) {
+    companion object {
+        fun from(detail: OrderDetail) = OrderDetailResponse(...)
+    }
+}
+
+// QueryHandler - returns application layer type
+@QueryHandler
+fun handle(query: GetOrderDetailQuery): OrderDetail? {
+    val entity = repository.findById(query.id) ?: return null
+    return OrderDetail(...)
+}
+
+// Controller - converts to adapter layer type
+@GetMapping("/{id}")
+fun getById(@PathVariable id: String): ResponseEntity<OrderDetailResponse> {
+    val detail = queryGateway.query(
+        GetOrderDetailQuery(id),
+        OrderDetail::class.java
+    ).join() ?: throw NotFoundException("...")
+
+    return ResponseEntity.ok(OrderDetailResponse.from(detail))
+}
+```
+
+Structure:
+```
+Controller (adapter) → QueryGateway → QueryHandler (application) → Repository
+     ↓                                      ↓
+Response.from(detail)                  OrderDetail
+```
+
+## Eventual Consistency
+
+| Situation | Response |
+|-----------|----------|
+| UI expects immediate updates | Redesign or polling/WebSocket |
+| Consistency delay exceeds tolerance | Reconsider architecture |
+| Compensating transactions undefined | Request failure scenario review |
+
+## Saga vs EventHandler
+
+Saga is used only for "operations between multiple aggregates where contention occurs".
+
+Cases where Saga is needed:
+```
+When multiple actors compete for the same resource
+Example: Inventory reservation (10 people ordering the same product simultaneously)
+
+OrderPlacedEvent
+  ↓ InventoryReservationSaga
+ReserveInventoryCommand → Inventory aggregate (serializes concurrent execution)
+  ↓
+InventoryReservedEvent → ConfirmOrderCommand
+InventoryReservationFailedEvent → CancelOrderCommand
+```
+
+Cases where Saga is not needed:
+```
+Non-competing operations
+Example: Inventory release on order cancellation
+
+OrderCancelledEvent
+  ↓ InventoryReleaseHandler (simple EventHandler)
+ReleaseInventoryCommand
+  ↓
+InventoryReleasedEvent
+```
+
+Decision criteria:
+
+| Situation | Saga | EventHandler |
+|-----------|------|--------------|
+| Resource contention exists | Use | - |
+| Compensating transaction needed | Use | - |
+| Non-competing simple coordination | - | Use |
+| Retry on failure is sufficient | - | Use |
+
+Anti-pattern:
+```kotlin
+// NG - Using Saga for lifecycle management
+@Saga
+class OrderLifecycleSaga {
+    // Tracking all order state transitions in Saga
+    // PLACED → CONFIRMED → SHIPPED → DELIVERED
+}
+
+// OK - Saga only for operations requiring eventual consistency
+@Saga
+class InventoryReservationSaga {
+    // Only for inventory reservation concurrency control
+}
+```
+
+Saga is not a lifecycle management tool. Create it per "operation" that requires eventual consistency.
+
+## Exception vs Event (Failure Handling)
+
+Failures not requiring audit use exceptions, failures requiring audit use events.
+
+Exception approach (recommended: most cases):
+```kotlin
+// Domain model: Throws exception on validation failure
+fun reserveInventory(orderId: String, quantity: Int): InventoryReservedEvent {
+    if (availableQuantity < quantity) {
+        throw InsufficientInventoryException("Insufficient inventory")
+    }
+    return InventoryReservedEvent(productId, orderId, quantity)
+}
+
+// Saga: Catch with exceptionally and perform compensating action
+commandGateway.send<Any>(command)
+    .exceptionally { ex ->
+        commandGateway.send<Any>(CancelOrderCommand(
+            orderId = orderId,
+            reason = ex.cause?.message ?: "Inventory reservation failed"
+        ))
+        null
+    }
+```
+
+Event approach (rare cases):
+```kotlin
+// Only when audit is required
+data class PaymentFailedEvent(
+    val paymentId: String,
+    val reason: String,
+    val attemptedAmount: Money
+) : PaymentEvent
+```
+
+Decision criteria:
+
+| Question | Exception | Event |
+|----------|-----------|-------|
+| Need to check this failure later? | No | Yes |
+| Required by regulations/compliance? | No | Yes |
+| Only Saga cares about the failure? | Yes | No |
+| Is there value in keeping it in Event Store? | No | Yes |
+
+Default is exception approach. Consider events only when audit requirements exist.
+
+## Abstraction Level Evaluation
+
+**Conditional branch proliferation detection:**
+
+| Pattern | Judgment |
+|---------|----------|
+| Same if-else pattern in 3+ places | Abstract with polymorphism → REJECT |
+| switch/case with 5+ branches | Consider Strategy/Map pattern |
+| Event type branching proliferating | Separate event handlers → REJECT |
+| Complex state branching in Aggregate | Consider State Pattern |
+
+**Abstraction level mismatch detection:**
+
+| Pattern | Problem | Fix |
+|---------|---------|-----|
+| DB operation details in CommandHandler | Responsibility violation | Separate to Repository layer |
+| Business logic in EventHandler | Responsibility violation | Extract to domain service |
+| Persistence in Aggregate | Layer violation | Change to EventStore route |
+| Calculation logic in Projection | Hard to maintain | Extract to dedicated service |
+
+Good abstraction examples:
+
+```kotlin
+// Event type branching proliferation (NG)
+@EventHandler
+fun on(event: DomainEvent) {
+    when (event) {
+        is OrderPlacedEvent -> handleOrderPlaced(event)
+        is OrderConfirmedEvent -> handleOrderConfirmed(event)
+        is OrderShippedEvent -> handleOrderShipped(event)
+        // ...keeps growing
+    }
+}
+
+// Separate handlers per event (OK)
+@EventHandler
+fun on(event: OrderPlacedEvent) { ... }
+
+@EventHandler
+fun on(event: OrderConfirmedEvent) { ... }
+
+@EventHandler
+fun on(event: OrderShippedEvent) { ... }
+```
+
+```kotlin
+// Complex state branching (NG)
+fun process(command: ProcessCommand) {
+    when (status) {
+        PENDING -> if (command.type == "approve") { ... } else if (command.type == "reject") { ... }
+        APPROVED -> if (command.type == "ship") { ... }
+        // ...gets complex
+    }
+}
+
+// Abstracted with State Pattern (OK)
+sealed class OrderState {
+    abstract fun handle(command: ProcessCommand): List<DomainEvent>
+}
+class PendingState : OrderState() {
+    override fun handle(command: ProcessCommand) = when (command) {
+        is ApproveCommand -> listOf(OrderApprovedEvent(...))
+        is RejectCommand -> listOf(OrderRejectedEvent(...))
+        else -> throw InvalidCommandException()
+    }
+}
+```
+
+## Anti-pattern Detection
+
+REJECT if found:
+
+| Anti-pattern | Problem |
+|--------------|---------|
+| CRUD Disguise | Just splitting CRUD into Command/Query |
+| Anemic Domain Model | Aggregate is just a data structure |
+| Event Soup | Meaningless events proliferate |
+| Temporal Coupling | Implicit dependency on event order |
+| Missing Events | Important domain events are missing |
+| God Aggregate | All responsibilities in one Aggregate |
+
+## Test Strategy
+
+Separate test strategies by layer.
+
+Test Pyramid:
+```
+        ┌─────────────┐
+        │   E2E Test  │  ← Few: Overall flow confirmation
+        ├─────────────┤
+        │ Integration │  ← Command→Event→Projection→Query coordination
+        ├─────────────┤
+        │  Unit Test  │  ← Many: Each layer tested independently
+        └─────────────┘
+```
+
+Command side (Aggregate):
+```kotlin
+// Using AggregateTestFixture
+@Test
+fun `confirm command emits event`() {
+    fixture
+        .given(OrderPlacedEvent(...))
+        .`when`(ConfirmOrderCommand(orderId, confirmedBy))
+        .expectSuccessfulHandlerExecution()
+        .expectEvents(OrderConfirmedEvent(...))
+}
+```
+
+Query side:
+```kotlin
+// Direct Read Model setup + QueryGateway
+@Test
+fun `can get order details`() {
+    // Given: Setup Read Model directly
+    orderRepository.save(OrderEntity(...))
+
+    // When: Execute query via QueryGateway
+    val detail = queryGateway.query(GetOrderDetailQuery(orderId), ...).join()
+
+    // Then
+    assertEquals(expectedDetail, detail)
+}
+```
+
+Checklist:
+
+| Aspect | Judgment |
+|--------|----------|
+| Aggregate tests verify events not state | Required |
+| Query side tests don't create data via Command | Recommended |
+| Integration tests consider Axon async processing | Required |
+
+## Infrastructure Layer
+
+Check:
+- Is event store choice appropriate?
+- Does messaging infrastructure meet requirements?
+- Is snapshot strategy defined?
+- Is event serialization format appropriate?

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/frontend.md

@@ -1,52 +1,16 @@
-# Frontend Reviewer
+# Frontend Knowledge
 
-You are an expert in **Frontend Development**.
+## Component Design
 
-You review code from the perspective of modern frontend technologies (React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, etc.), state management, performance optimization, accessibility, and UX.
+Do not write everything in one file. Always split components.
 
-## Core Values
-
-The user interface is the only point of contact between the system and users. No matter how excellent the backend is, users cannot receive value if the frontend is poor.
-
-"Fast, usable, and resilient"—that is the mission of frontend development.
-
-## Areas of Expertise
-
-### Component Design
-- Separation of concerns and component granularity
-- Props design and data flow
-- Reusability and extensibility
-
-### State Management
-- Local vs global state decisions
-- State normalization and caching strategies
-- Async state handling
-
-### Performance
-- Rendering optimization
-- Bundle size management
-- Memory leak prevention
-
-### UX/Accessibility
-- Usability principles
-- WAI-ARIA compliance
-- Responsive design
-
-## Review Criteria
-
-### 1. Component Design
-
-**Principle: Do not write everything in one file. Always split components.**
-
-**Required splits:**
+Required splits:
 - Has its own state → Must split
 - JSX over 50 lines → Split
 - Reusable → Split
 - Multiple responsibilities → Split
 - Independent section within page → Split
 
-**Required Checks:**
-
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
 | Component over 200 lines | Consider splitting |
@@ -55,12 +19,12 @@ The user interface is the only point of contact between the system and users. No
 | Props drilling (3+ levels) | Consider state management |
 | Component with multiple responsibilities | REJECT |
 
-**Good Component:**
+Good Component:
 - Single responsibility: Does one thing well
 - Self-contained: Dependencies are clear
 - Testable: Side effects are isolated
 
-**Component Classification:**
+Component Classification:
 
 | Type | Responsibility | Example |
 |------|----------------|---------|
@@ -69,7 +33,7 @@ The user interface is the only point of contact between the system and users. No
 | Layout | Arrangement, structure | `PageLayout`, `Grid` |
 | Utility | Common functionality | `ErrorBoundary`, `Portal` |
 
-**Directory Structure:**
+Directory Structure:
 ```
 features/{feature-name}/
 ├── components/
@@ -81,9 +45,9 @@ features/{feature-name}/
 └── index.ts
 ```
 
-### 2. State Management
+## State Management
 
-**Principle: Child components do not modify their own state. They bubble events to parent, and parent manipulates state.**
+Child components do not modify their own state. They bubble events to parent, and parent manipulates state.
 
 ```tsx
 // ❌ Child modifies its own state
@@ -103,12 +67,10 @@ const Parent = () => {
 }
 ```
 
-**Exception (OK for child to have local state):**
+Exception (OK for child to have local state):
 - UI-only temporary state (hover, focus, animation)
 - Completely local state that doesn't need to be communicated to parent
 
-**Required Checks:**
-
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
 | Unnecessary global state | Consider localizing |
@@ -117,7 +79,7 @@ const Parent = () => {
 | API response stored as-is in state | Consider normalization |
 | Inappropriate useEffect dependencies | REJECT |
 
-**State Placement Guidelines:**
+State Placement Guidelines:
 
 | State Nature | Recommended Placement |
 |--------------|----------------------|
@@ -126,9 +88,9 @@ const Parent = () => {
 | Shared across multiple components | Context or state management library |
 | Server data cache | Data fetching library (TanStack Query, etc.) |
 
-### 3. Data Fetching
+## Data Fetching
 
-**Principle: API calls are made in root (View) components and passed to children via props.**
+API calls are made in root (View) components and passed to children via props.
 
 ```tsx
 // ✅ CORRECT - Fetch at root, pass to children
@@ -155,12 +117,7 @@ const OrderSummary = ({ orderId }) => {
 }
 ```
 
-**Reasons:**
-- Data flow is explicit and traceable
-- Child components are pure presentation (easier to test)
-- No hidden dependencies in child components
-
-**When UI state changes affect parameters (week switching, filters, etc.):**
+When UI state changes affect parameters (week switching, filters, etc.):
 
 Manage state at View level and pass callbacks to components.
 
@@ -190,7 +147,7 @@ const WeeklyCalendar = ({ facilityId }) => {
 }
 ```
 
-**Exceptions (component-level fetching allowed):**
+Exceptions (component-level fetching allowed):
 
 | Case | Reason |
 |------|--------|
@@ -200,9 +157,7 @@ const WeeklyCalendar = ({ facilityId }) => {
 | Real-time updates | WebSocket/Polling auto-updates |
 | Modal detail fetch | Fetch additional data only when opened |
 
-**Decision criteria: "Is there no point in parent managing this / Does it not affect parent?"**
-
-**Required Checks:**
+Decision criteria: "Is there no point in parent managing this / Does it not affect parent?"
 
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
@@ -212,9 +167,9 @@ const WeeklyCalendar = ({ facilityId }) => {
 | No cancellation handling | Warning |
 | N+1 query-like fetching | REJECT |
 
-### 4. Shared Components and Abstraction
+## Shared Components and Abstraction
 
-**Principle: Common UI patterns should be shared components. Copy-paste of inline styles is prohibited.**
+Common UI patterns should be shared components. Copy-paste of inline styles is prohibited.
 
 ```tsx
 // ❌ WRONG - Copy-pasted inline styles
@@ -228,7 +183,7 @@ const WeeklyCalendar = ({ facilityId }) => {
 </IconButton>
 ```
 
-**Patterns to make shared components:**
+Patterns to make shared components:
 - Icon buttons (close, edit, delete, etc.)
 - Loading/error displays
 - Status badges
@@ -237,7 +192,7 @@ const WeeklyCalendar = ({ facilityId }) => {
 - Search input
 - Color legends
 
-**Avoid over-generalization:**
+Avoid over-generalization:
 
 ```tsx
 // ❌ WRONG - Forcing stepper variant into IconButton
@@ -264,12 +219,60 @@ export function StepperButton(props) {
 }
 ```
 
-**Signs to make separate components:**
+Signs to make separate components:
 - Implicit constraints like "this variant is always with this size"
 - Added variant is clearly different from original component's purpose
 - Props specification becomes complex on the usage side
 
-### 5. Abstraction Level Evaluation
+### Theme Differences and Design Tokens
+
+When you need different visuals with the same functional components, manage it with design tokens + theme scope.
+
+Principles:
+- Define color, spacing, radius, shadow, and typography as tokens (CSS variables)
+- Apply role/page-specific differences by overriding tokens in a theme scope (e.g. `.consumer-theme`, `.admin-theme`)
+- Do not hardcode hex colors (`#xxxxxx`) in feature components
+- Keep logic differences (API/state) separate from visual differences (tokens)
+
+```css
+/* tokens.css */
+:root {
+  --color-bg-page: #f3f4f6;
+  --color-surface: #ffffff;
+  --color-text-primary: #1f2937;
+  --color-border: #d1d5db;
+  --color-accent: #2563eb;
+}
+
+.consumer-theme {
+  --color-bg-page: #f7f8fa;
+  --color-accent: #4daca1;
+}
+```
+
+```tsx
+// same component, different look by scope
+<div className="consumer-theme">
+  <Button variant="primary">Submit</Button>
+</div>
+```
+
+Operational rules:
+- Implement shared UI primitives (Button/Card/Input/Tabs) using tokens only
+- In feature views, use theme-common utility classes (e.g. `surface`, `title`, `chip`) to avoid duplicated styling logic
+- For a new theme, follow: "add tokens -> override by scope -> reuse existing components"
+
+Review checklist:
+- No copy-pasted hardcoded colors/spacings
+- No duplicated components per theme for the same UI behavior
+- No API/state-management changes made solely for visual adjustments
+
+Anti-patterns:
+- Creating `ButtonConsumer`, `ButtonAdmin` for styling only
+- Hardcoding colors in each feature component
+- Changing response shaping logic when only the theme changed
+
+## Abstraction Level Evaluation
 
 **Conditional branch bloat detection:**
 
@@ -289,7 +292,8 @@ export function StepperButton(props) {
 | Style calculation logic scattered | Hard to maintain | Extract to utility function |
 | Same transformation in multiple places | DRY violation | Extract to common function |
 
-**Good abstraction examples:**
+Good abstraction examples:
+
 ```tsx
 // ❌ Conditional bloat
 function UserBadge({ user }) {
@@ -343,11 +347,11 @@ function OrderList() {
 }
 ```
 
-### 6. Frontend and Backend Separation of Concerns
+## Frontend and Backend Separation of Concerns
 
-#### 6.1 Display Format Responsibility
+### Display Format Responsibility
 
-**Principle: Backend returns "data", frontend converts to "display format".**
+Backend returns "data", frontend converts to "display format".
 
 ```tsx
 // ✅ Frontend: Convert to display format
@@ -360,36 +364,27 @@ export function formatDate(date: Date): string {
 }
 ```
 
-**Reasons:**
-- Display format is a UI concern, not backend responsibility
-- Easy to support internationalization
-- Frontend can flexibly change display
-
-**Required Checks:**
-
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
 | Backend returns display strings | Suggest design review |
 | Same format logic copy-pasted | Unify to utility function |
 | Inline formatting in component | Extract to function |
 
-#### 6.2 Domain Logic Placement (Smart UI Elimination)
+### Domain Logic Placement (Smart UI Elimination)
 
-**Principle: Domain logic (business rules) belongs in the backend. Frontend only displays and edits state.**
+Domain logic (business rules) belongs in the backend. Frontend only displays and edits state.
 
-**What is domain logic:**
+What is domain logic:
 - Aggregate business rules (stock validation, price calculation, status transitions)
 - Business constraint validation
 - Invariant enforcement
 
-**Frontend responsibilities:**
+Frontend responsibilities:
 - Display state received from server
 - Collect user input and send commands to backend
 - Manage UI-only temporary state (focus, hover, modal open/close)
 - Display format conversion (formatting, sorting, filtering)
 
-**Required Checks:**
-
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
 | Price calculation/stock validation in frontend | Move to backend → **REJECT** |
@@ -397,7 +392,7 @@ export function formatDate(date: Date): string {
 | Business validation in frontend | Move to backend → **REJECT** |
 | Recalculating server-computable values in frontend | Redundant → **REJECT** |
 
-**Good vs Bad Examples:**
+Good vs Bad Examples:
 
 ```tsx
 // ❌ BAD - Business rules in frontend
@@ -451,7 +446,7 @@ function TaskCard({ task }: { task: Task }) {
 }
 ```
 
-**Exceptions (OK to have logic in frontend):**
+Exceptions (OK to have logic in frontend):
 
 | Case | Reason |
 |------|--------|
@@ -460,13 +455,11 @@ function TaskCard({ task }: { task: Task }) {
 | Display condition branching | UI control like "show details if logged in" |
 | Real-time feedback | Preview display during input |
 
-**Decision criteria: "Would the business break if this calculation differs from the server?"**
+Decision criteria: "Would the business break if this calculation differs from the server?"
 - YES → Place in backend (domain logic)
 - NO → OK in frontend (display logic)
 
-### 7. Performance
-
-**Required Checks:**
+## Performance
 
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
@@ -476,13 +469,13 @@ function TaskCard({ task }: { task: Task }) {
 | Unused code in bundle | Check tree-shaking |
 | Excessive memoization | Verify necessity |
 
-**Optimization Checklist:**
-- [ ] Are `React.memo` / `useMemo` / `useCallback` appropriate?
-- [ ] Are large lists using virtual scroll?
-- [ ] Is Code Splitting appropriate?
-- [ ] Are images lazy loaded?
+Optimization Checklist:
+- Are `React.memo` / `useMemo` / `useCallback` appropriate?
+- Are large lists using virtual scroll?
+- Is Code Splitting appropriate?
+- Are images lazy loaded?
 
-**Anti-patterns:**
+Anti-patterns:
 
 ```tsx
 // ❌ New object every render
@@ -493,9 +486,7 @@ const style = useMemo(() => ({ color: 'red' }), []);
 <Child style={style} />
 ```
 
-### 8. Accessibility
-
-**Required Checks:**
+## Accessibility
 
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
@@ -505,16 +496,14 @@ const style = useMemo(() => ({ color: 'red' }), []);
 | Information conveyed by color only | REJECT |
 | Missing focus management (modals, etc.) | REJECT |
 
-**Checklist:**
-- [ ] Using semantic HTML?
-- [ ] Are ARIA attributes appropriate (not excessive)?
-- [ ] Is keyboard navigation possible?
-- [ ] Does it make sense with a screen reader?
-- [ ] Is color contrast sufficient?
+Checklist:
+- Using semantic HTML?
+- Are ARIA attributes appropriate (not excessive)?
+- Is keyboard navigation possible?
+- Does it make sense with a screen reader?
+- Is color contrast sufficient?
 
-### 9. TypeScript/Type Safety
-
-**Required Checks:**
+## TypeScript/Type Safety
 
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
@@ -523,9 +512,7 @@ const style = useMemo(() => ({ color: 'red' }), []);
 | No Props type definition | REJECT |
 | Inappropriate event handler types | Needs fix |
 
-### 10. Frontend Security
-
-**Required Checks:**
+## Frontend Security
 
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
@@ -534,9 +521,7 @@ const style = useMemo(() => ({ color: 'red' }), []);
 | Sensitive data stored in frontend | REJECT |
 | CSRF token not used | Needs verification |
 
-### 11. Testability
-
-**Required Checks:**
+## Testability
 
 | Criteria | Judgment |
 |----------|----------|
@@ -544,9 +529,9 @@ const style = useMemo(() => ({ color: 'red' }), []);
 | Structure difficult to test | Consider separation |
 | Business logic embedded in UI | REJECT |
 
-### 12. Anti-pattern Detection
+## Anti-pattern Detection
 
-**REJECT** if found:
+REJECT if found:
 
 | Anti-pattern | Problem |
 |--------------|---------|
@@ -558,13 +543,3 @@ const style = useMemo(() => ({ color: 'red' }), []);
 | Magic Strings | Hardcoded strings |
 | Hidden Dependencies | Child components with hidden API calls |
 | Over-generalization | Components forced to be generic |
-
-## Important
-
-- **Prioritize user experience**: UX over technical correctness
-- **Performance can't be fixed later**: Consider at design stage
-- **Accessibility is hard to retrofit**: Build in from the start
-- **Beware excessive abstraction**: Keep it simple
-- **Follow framework conventions**: Standard approaches over custom patterns
-- **Data fetching at root**: Don't create hidden dependencies in children
-- **Controlled components**: Data flow is unidirectional

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/research-comparative.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Comparative Research Knowledge
+
+## Comparative Research Principles
+
+When comparing two or more subjects, align same indicators under same conditions.
+
+| Criterion | Judgment |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Both subjects' data aligned on same indicator and year | OK |
+| Only one side has data | REJECT |
+| Indicator definitions differ between subjects | Warning (note the differences) |
+| Comparing absolute values without considering scale | Warning (add per-capita ratios) |
+
+### Aligning Comparison Axes
+
+When subjects differ in scale or background, direct comparison can be misleading. Normalize (per capita, per area, etc.) and explicitly state condition differences.
+
+## Comparative Data Collection
+
+In comparative research, data for only one side halves the value.
+
+| Criterion | Judgment |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Collected from the same data source for all subjects | OK |
+| Collected from different data sources per subject | Warning (verify comparability) |
+| Data missing for some subjects | Note gaps, limit comparison to available range |
+
+### Determining Non-comparability
+
+When indicator definitions fundamentally differ, report "not comparable" rather than forcing comparison. Identify partially comparable items and state the comparable scope.

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/research.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# Research Methodology Knowledge
+
+## Data Reliability Evaluation
+
+Data quality is determined by source reliability and clarity of documentation.
+
+| Criterion | Judgment |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Numbers from official statistics (government, municipality) | High reliability |
+| Numbers in news articles (with source) | Medium reliability |
+| Numbers from personal blogs/SNS (no source) | Low reliability |
+| Year/date of numbers is specified | OK |
+| Year/date of numbers is unknown | Warning |
+| Based on primary sources (official documents, originals) | OK |
+| Secondary sources only, primary source unverifiable | Warning |
+
+### Data Source Priority
+
+| Priority | Data Source | Examples |
+|----------|------------|---------|
+| 1 | Government statistics/white papers | Census, ministry statistics |
+| 2 | Municipal open data | City statistical reports, open data portals |
+| 3 | Industry groups/research institutions | Think tanks, academic research |
+| 4 | News (with primary source reference) | Newspapers, specialized media |
+| 5 | News (without primary source) | Secondary reports, aggregation articles |
+
+## Qualitative Analysis Evaluation
+
+Quality of qualitative analysis is evaluated by logical causality and concrete evidence.
+
+| Criterion | Judgment |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Claims causation with mechanism explanation | OK |
+| Claims causation but only correlation exists | Warning |
+| Digs into structural factors | OK |
+| Stops at surface-level explanation | Insufficient |
+| Backed by concrete examples, system names | OK |
+| Abstract explanation only | Insufficient |
+
+### Distinguishing Causation from Correlation
+
+"A and B occur together" is correlation. "A causes B" is causation. Claiming causation requires mechanism explanation or elimination of alternative factors.
+
+## Handling Un-researchable Items
+
+Report honestly when items cannot be researched. Do not fill gaps with speculation.
+
+| Situation | Response |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Data is not public | Report "Unable to research" with reason |
+| Data exists but not found | Report "Not found" with locations searched |
+| Only partial data available | Report what was found, note gaps |
+| Want to supplement with speculation | Clearly mark as speculation with reasoning |

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/security.md

@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+# Security Knowledge
+
+## AI-Generated Code Security Issues
+
+AI-generated code has unique vulnerability patterns.
+
+| Pattern | Risk | Example |
+|---------|------|---------|
+| 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 | Assumes internal APIs are always safe |
+| Copy-paste vulnerabilities | High | Same dangerous pattern repeated in multiple files |
+
+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)
+- Config files (AI may use dangerous defaults from training data)
+
+## Injection Attacks
+
+**SQL Injection:**
+
+- SQL construction via string concatenation → REJECT
+- Not using parameterized queries → REJECT
+- Unsanitized input in ORM raw queries → REJECT
+
+```typescript
+// NG
+db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`)
+
+// OK
+db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])
+```
+
+**Command Injection:**
+
+- Unvalidated input in `exec()`, `spawn()` → REJECT
+- Insufficient escaping in shell command construction → REJECT
+
+```typescript
+// NG
+exec(`ls ${userInput}`)
+
+// OK
+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
+
+## Authentication & Authorization
+
+**Authentication issues:**
+
+- 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 possibility → REJECT
+
+```typescript
+// NG - No permission check
+app.get('/user/:id', (req, res) => {
+  return db.getUser(req.params.id)
+})
+
+// OK
+app.get('/user/:id', authorize('read:user'), (req, res) => {
+  if (req.user.id !== req.params.id && !req.user.isAdmin) {
+    return res.status(403).send('Forbidden')
+  }
+  return db.getUser(req.params.id)
+})
+```
+
+## 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
+
+**Data validation:**
+
+- Unvalidated input values → REJECT
+- Missing type checks → REJECT
+- No size limits set → REJECT
+
+## Cryptography
+
+- Use of weak crypto algorithms → REJECT
+- Fixed IV/Nonce usage → REJECT
+- Hardcoded encryption keys → Immediate REJECT
+- No HTTPS (production) → REJECT
+
+## File Operations
+
+**Path Traversal:**
+
+- File paths containing user input → REJECT
+- Insufficient `../` sanitization → REJECT
+
+```typescript
+// NG
+const filePath = path.join(baseDir, userInput)
+fs.readFile(filePath)
+
+// OK
+const safePath = path.resolve(baseDir, userInput)
+if (!safePath.startsWith(path.resolve(baseDir))) {
+  throw new Error('Invalid path')
+}
+```
+
+**File Upload:**
+
+- No file type validation → REJECT
+- No file size limits → REJECT
+- Allowing executable file uploads → REJECT
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- Packages with known vulnerabilities → REJECT
+- Unmaintained packages → Warning
+- Unnecessary dependencies → Warning
+
+## Error Handling
+
+- Stack trace exposure in production → REJECT
+- Detailed error message exposure → REJECT
+- Swallowing security events → REJECT
+
+## Rate Limiting & DoS Protection
+
+- No rate limiting (auth endpoints) → Warning
+- Resource exhaustion attack possibility → Warning
+- Infinite loop possibility → REJECT
+
+## Multi-Tenant Data Isolation
+
+Prevent data access across tenant boundaries. Authorization (who can operate) and scoping (which tenant's data) are separate concerns.
+
+| Criteria | Verdict |
+|----------|---------|
+| Reads are tenant-scoped but writes are not | REJECT |
+| Write operations use client-provided tenant ID | REJECT |
+| Endpoint using tenant resolver has no authorization control | REJECT |
+| Some paths in role-based branching don't account for tenant resolution | REJECT |
+
+### Read-Write Consistency
+
+Apply tenant scoping to both reads and writes. Scoping only one side creates a state where data cannot be viewed but can be modified.
+
+When adding a tenant filter to reads, always add tenant verification to corresponding writes.
+
+### Write-Side Tenant Verification
+
+For write operations, use the tenant ID resolved from the authenticated user, not from the request body.
+
+```kotlin
+// NG - Trusting client-provided tenant ID
+fun create(request: CreateRequest) {
+    service.create(request.tenantId, request.data)
+}
+
+// OK - Resolve tenant from authentication
+fun create(request: CreateRequest) {
+    val tenantId = tenantResolver.resolve()
+    service.create(tenantId, request.data)
+}
+```
+
+### Authorization-Resolver Alignment
+
+When a tenant resolver assumes a specific role (e.g., staff), the endpoint must have corresponding authorization controls. Without authorization, unexpected roles can access the endpoint and cause the resolver to fail.
+
+```kotlin
+// NG - Resolver assumes STAFF but no authorization control
+fun getSettings(): SettingsResponse {
+    val tenantId = tenantResolver.resolve()  // Fails for non-STAFF
+    return settingsService.getByTenant(tenantId)
+}
+
+// OK - Authorization ensures correct role
+@Authorized(roles = ["STAFF"])
+fun getSettings(): SettingsResponse {
+    val tenantId = tenantResolver.resolve()
+    return settingsService.getByTenant(tenantId)
+}
+```
+
+For endpoints with role-based branching, verify that tenant resolution succeeds on all paths.
+
+## OWASP Top 10 Checklist
+
+| Category | Check Items |
+|----------|-------------|
+| 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 |
+| A05 Security Misconfiguration | Default settings, unnecessary features |
+| A06 Vulnerable Components | Dependency vulnerabilities |
+| A07 Auth Failures | Authentication mechanisms |
+| A08 Software Integrity | Code signing, CI/CD |
+| A09 Logging Failures | Security logging |
+| A10 SSRF | Server-side requests |

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/takt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+# TAKT Architecture Knowledge
+
+## Core Structure
+
+PieceEngine is a state machine. It manages movement transitions via EventEmitter.
+
+```
+CLI → PieceEngine → Runner (4 types) → RuleEvaluator → next movement
+```
+
+| Runner | Purpose | When to Use |
+|--------|---------|-------------|
+| MovementExecutor | Standard 3-phase execution | Default |
+| ParallelRunner | Concurrent sub-movements | parallel block |
+| ArpeggioRunner | Data-driven batch processing | arpeggio block |
+| TeamLeaderRunner | Task decomposition → parallel sub-agents | team_leader block |
+
+Runners are mutually exclusive. Do not specify multiple runner types on a single movement.
+
+### 3-Phase Execution Model
+
+Normal movements execute in up to 3 phases. Sessions persist across phases.
+
+| Phase | Purpose | Tools | Condition |
+|-------|---------|-------|-----------|
+| Phase 1 | Main work | Movement's allowed_tools | Always |
+| Phase 2 | Report output | Write only | When output_contracts defined |
+| Phase 3 | Status judgment | None (judgment only) | When tag-based rules exist |
+
+## Rule Evaluation
+
+RuleEvaluator determines the next movement via 5-stage fallback. Earlier match takes priority.
+
+| Priority | Method | Target |
+|----------|--------|--------|
+| 1 | aggregate | parallel parent (all/any) |
+| 2 | Phase 3 tag | `[STEP:N]` output |
+| 3 | Phase 1 tag | `[STEP:N]` output (fallback) |
+| 4 | ai() judge | ai("condition") rules |
+| 5 | AI fallback | AI evaluates all conditions |
+
+When multiple tags appear in output, the **last match** wins.
+
+### Condition Syntax
+
+| Syntax | Parsing | Regex |
+|--------|---------|-------|
+| `ai("...")` | AI condition evaluation | `AI_CONDITION_REGEX` |
+| `all("...")` / `any("...")` | Aggregate condition | `AGGREGATE_CONDITION_REGEX` |
+| Plain string | Tag or AI fallback | — |
+
+Adding new special syntax requires updating both pieceParser.ts regex and RuleEvaluator.
+
+## Provider Integration
+
+Abstracted through the Provider interface. SDK-specific details are encapsulated within each provider.
+
+```
+Provider.setup(AgentSetup) → ProviderAgent
+ProviderAgent.call(prompt, options) → AgentResponse
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| SDK-specific error handling leaking outside Provider | REJECT |
+| Errors not propagated to AgentResponse.error | REJECT |
+| Session key collision between providers | REJECT |
+| Session key format `{persona}:{provider}` | OK |
+
+### Model Resolution
+
+Models resolve through 5-level priority. Higher takes precedence.
+
+1. persona_providers model specification
+2. Movement model field
+3. CLI `--model` override
+4. config.yaml (when resolved provider matches)
+5. Provider default
+
+## Facet Assembly
+
+The faceted-prompting module is independent from TAKT core.
+
+```
+compose(facets, options) → ComposedPrompt { systemPrompt, userMessage }
+```
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Import from faceted-prompting to TAKT core | REJECT |
+| TAKT core depending on faceted-prompting | OK |
+| Facet path resolution logic outside faceted-prompting | Warning |
+
+### 3-Layer Facet Resolution Priority
+
+Project `.takt/` → User `~/.takt/` → Builtin `builtins/{lang}/`
+
+Same-named facets are overridden by higher-priority layers. Customize builtins by overriding in upper layers.
+
+## Testing Patterns
+
+Uses vitest. Test file naming conventions distinguish test types.
+
+| Prefix | Type | Content |
+|--------|------|---------|
+| None | Unit test | Individual function/class verification |
+| `it-` | Integration test | Piece execution simulation |
+| `engine-` | Engine test | PieceEngine scenario verification |
+
+### Mock Provider
+
+`--provider mock` returns deterministic responses. Scenario queues compose multi-turn tests.
+
+```typescript
+// NG - Calling real API in tests
+const response = await callClaude(prompt)
+
+// OK - Set up scenario with mock provider
+setMockScenario([
+  { persona: 'coder', status: 'done', content: '[STEP:1]\nDone.' },
+  { persona: 'reviewer', status: 'done', content: '[STEP:1]\napproved' },
+])
+```
+
+### Test Isolation
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Tests sharing global state | REJECT |
+| Environment variables not cleared in test setup | Warning |
+| E2E tests assuming real API | Isolate via `provider` config |
+
+## Error Propagation
+
+Provider errors propagate through: `AgentResponse.error` → session log → console output.
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| SDK error results in empty `blocked` status | REJECT |
+| Error details not recorded in session log | REJECT |
+| No ABORT transition defined for error cases | Warning |
+
+## Session Management
+
+Agent sessions are stored per-cwd. Session resume is skipped during worktree/clone execution.
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Session resuming when `cwd !== projectCwd` | REJECT (cross-project contamination) |
+| Session key missing provider identifier | REJECT (cross-provider contamination) |
+| Session broken between phases | REJECT (context loss) |

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/task-decomposition.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# Task Decomposition Knowledge
+
+## Decomposition Feasibility
+
+Before splitting a task into multiple parts, assess whether decomposition is appropriate. When decomposition is unsuitable, implementing in a single part is more efficient.
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Changed files clearly separate into layers | Decompose |
+| Shared types/IDs span multiple parts | Single part |
+| Broad rename/refactoring | Single part |
+| Fewer than 5 files to change | Single part |
+| Same file needs editing by multiple parts | Single part |
+
+### Detecting Cross-Cutting Concerns
+
+When any of the following apply, independent parts cannot maintain consistency. Consolidate into a single part.
+
+- A new ID, key, or type is generated in one module and consumed in another
+- Both the event emitter and event receiver need changes
+- An existing interface signature changes, requiring updates to all call sites
+
+## File Exclusivity Principle
+
+When decomposing into multiple parts, each part's file ownership must be completely exclusive.
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Same file edited by multiple parts | REJECT (causes conflicts) |
+| Type definition and consumer in different parts | Consolidate into the type definition part |
+| Test file and implementation file in different parts | Consolidate into the same part |
+
+### Grouping Priority
+
+1. **By dependency direction** — keep dependency source and target in the same part
+2. **By layer** — domain layer / infrastructure layer / API layer
+3. **By feature** — independent functional units
+
+## Failure Patterns
+
+### Part Overlap
+
+When two parts own the same file or feature, sub-agents overwrite each other's changes, causing repeated REJECT in reviews.
+
+```
+// NG: part-2 and part-3 own the same file
+part-2: taskInstructionActions.ts — instruct confirmation dialog
+part-3: taskInstructionActions.ts — requeue confirmation dialog
+
+// OK: consolidate into one part
+part-1: taskInstructionActions.ts — both instruct/requeue confirmation dialogs
+```
+
+### Shared Contract Mismatch
+
+When part A generates an ID that part B consumes, both parts implement independently, leading to mismatches in ID name, type, or passing mechanism.
+
+```
+// NG: shared contract across independent parts
+part-1: generates phaseExecutionId
+part-2: consumes phaseExecutionId
+→ part-1 uses string, part-2 expects number → integration error
+
+// OK: single part for consistent implementation
+part-1: implements phaseExecutionId from generation to consumption
+```

builtins/en/facets/knowledge/terraform-aws.md

@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
+# Terraform AWS Knowledge
+
+## Module Design
+
+Split modules by domain (network, database, application layer). Do not create generic utility modules.
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Domain-based module splitting | OK |
+| Generic "utils" module | REJECT |
+| Unrelated resources mixed in one module | REJECT |
+| Implicit inter-module dependencies | REJECT (connect explicitly via outputs→inputs) |
+
+### Inter-Module Dependencies
+
+Pass dependencies explicitly via outputs→inputs. Avoid implicit references (using `data` sources to look up other module resources).
+
+```hcl
+# OK - Explicit dependency
+module "database" {
+  source     = "../../modules/database"
+  vpc_id     = module.network.vpc_id
+  subnet_ids = module.network.private_subnet_ids
+}
+
+# NG - Implicit dependency
+module "database" {
+  source = "../../modules/database"
+  # vpc_id not passed; module uses data "aws_vpc" internally
+}
+```
+
+### Identification Variable Passthrough
+
+Pass identification variables (environment, service name) explicitly from root to child modules. Do not rely on globals or hardcoding.
+
+```hcl
+# OK - Explicit passthrough
+module "database" {
+  environment      = var.environment
+  service          = var.service
+  application_name = var.application_name
+}
+```
+
+## Resource Naming Convention
+
+Compute `name_prefix` in `locals` and apply consistently to all resources. Append resource-specific suffixes.
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Unified naming with `name_prefix` pattern | OK |
+| Inconsistent naming across resources | REJECT |
+| Name exceeds AWS character limits | REJECT |
+| Tag names not in PascalCase | Warning |
+
+```hcl
+# OK - Unified with name_prefix
+locals {
+  name_prefix = "${var.environment}-${var.service}-${var.application_name}"
+}
+
+resource "aws_ecs_cluster" "main" {
+  name = "${local.name_prefix}-cluster"
+}
+
+# NG - Inconsistent naming
+resource "aws_ecs_cluster" "main" {
+  name = "${var.environment}-app-cluster"
+}
+```
+
+### Character Limit Handling
+
+AWS services have name character limits. Use shortened forms when approaching limits.
+
+| Service | Limit | Example |
+|---------|-------|---------|
+| Target Group | 32 chars | `${var.environment}-${var.service}-backend-tg` |
+| Lambda Function | 64 chars | Full prefix OK |
+| S3 Bucket | 63 chars | Full prefix OK |
+
+## Tagging Strategy
+
+Use provider `default_tags` for common tags. No duplicate tagging on individual resources.
+
+| Criteria | Judgment |
+|----------|----------|
+| Centralized via provider `default_tags` | OK |
+| Duplicate tags matching `default_tags` on individual resources | Warning |
+| Only `Name` tag added on individual resources | OK |
+
+```hcl
+# OK - Centralized, individual gets Name only
+provider "aws" {
+  default_tags {
+    tags = {
+      Environment = var.environment
+      ManagedBy   = "Terraform"
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+resource "aws_instance" "main" {
+  tags = {
+    Name = "${local.name_prefix}-instance"
+  }
+}
+
+# NG - Duplicates default_tags
+resource "aws_instance" "main" {
+  tags = {
+    Environment = var.environment
+    ManagedBy   = "Terraform"
+    Name        = "${local.name_prefix}-instance"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## File Organization Patterns
+
+### Environment Directory Structure
+
+Separate environments into directories, each with independent state management.
+
+```
+environments/
+├── production/
+│   ├── terraform.tf       # Version constraints
+│   ├── providers.tf       # Provider config (default_tags)
+│   ├── backend.tf         # S3 backend
+│   ├── variables.tf       # Environment variables
+│   ├── main.tf            # Module invocations
+│   └── outputs.tf         # Outputs
+└── staging/
+    └── ...
+```
+
+### Module File Structure
+
+| File | Contents |
+|------|----------|
+| `main.tf` | `locals` and `data` sources only |
+| `variables.tf` | Input variable definitions only (no resources) |
+| `outputs.tf` | Output definitions only (no resources) |
+| `{resource_type}.tf` | One file per resource category |
+| `templates/` | user_data scripts and other templates |
+
+## Security Best Practices
+
+### EC2 Instance Security
+
+| Setting | Recommended | Reason |
+|---------|-------------|--------|
+| `http_tokens` | `"required"` | Enforce IMDSv2 (SSRF prevention) |
+| `http_put_response_hop_limit` | `1` | Prevent container escapes |
+| `root_block_device.encrypted` | `true` | Data-at-rest encryption |
+
+### S3 Bucket Security
+
+Block all public access with all four settings. Use OAC (Origin Access Control) for CloudFront distributions.
+
+```hcl
+# OK - Complete block
+resource "aws_s3_bucket_public_access_block" "this" {
+  block_public_acls       = true
+  block_public_policy     = true
+  ignore_public_acls      = true
+  restrict_public_buckets = true
+}
+```
+
+### IAM Design
+
+| Pattern | Recommendation |
+|---------|---------------|
+| Per-service role separation | Separate execution role (for ECS Agent) and task role (for app) |
+| CI/CD authentication | OIDC federation (avoid long-lived credentials) |
+| Policy scope | Specify resource ARNs explicitly (avoid `"*"`) |
+
+### Secret Management
+
+| Method | Recommendation |
+|--------|---------------|
+| SSM Parameter Store (SecureString) | Recommended |
+| Secrets Manager | Recommended (when rotation needed) |
+| Direct in `.tfvars` | Conditional OK (gitignore required) |
+| Hardcoded in `.tf` files | REJECT |
+
+Set SSM Parameter initial values to placeholders and use `lifecycle { ignore_changes = [value] }` to manage outside Terraform.
+
+## Cost Optimization Patterns
+
+Document trade-offs with inline comments for cost-impacting choices.
+
+| Choice | Cost Effect | Trade-off |
+|--------|------------|-----------|
+| NAT Instance vs NAT Gateway | Instance ~$3-4/mo vs Gateway ~$32/mo | Lower availability and throughput |
+| Public subnet placement | No VPC Endpoints needed | Weaker network isolation |
+| EC2 + EBS vs RDS | EC2 ~$15-20/mo vs RDS ~$50+/mo | Higher operational burden |
+
+```hcl
+# OK - Trade-off documented
+# Using t3.nano instead of NAT Gateway (~$3-4/mo vs ~$32/mo)
+# Trade-off: single-AZ availability, throughput limits
+resource "aws_instance" "nat" {
+  instance_type = "t3.nano"
+}
+```
+
+## Lifecycle Rule Usage
+
+| Rule | Purpose | Target |
+|------|---------|--------|
+| `prevent_destroy` | Prevent accidental deletion | Databases, EBS volumes |
+| `ignore_changes` | Allow external changes | `desired_count` (Auto Scaling), SSM `value` |
+| `create_before_destroy` | Prevent downtime | Load balancers, security groups |
+
+```hcl
+# OK - Prevent accidental database deletion
+resource "aws_instance" "database" {
+  lifecycle {
+    prevent_destroy = true
+  }
+}
+
+# OK - Let Auto Scaling manage desired_count
+resource "aws_ecs_service" "main" {
+  lifecycle {
+    ignore_changes = [desired_count]
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Version Management
+
+| Setting | Recommendation |
+|---------|---------------|
+| `required_version` | `">= 1.5.0"` or higher (`default_tags` support) |
+| Provider version | Pin minor version with `~>` (e.g., `~> 5.80`) |
+| State locking | `use_lockfile = true` required |

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/ai-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+```markdown
+# AI-Generated Code Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{Summarize the result in one sentence}
+
+## Verified Items
+| Aspect | Result | Notes |
+|--------|--------|-------|
+| Validity of assumptions | ✅ | - |
+| API/library existence | ✅ | - |
+| Context fit | ✅ | - |
+| Scope | ✅ | - |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Category | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|----------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | AI-NEW-src-file-L23 | hallucination | Hallucinated API | `src/file.ts:23` | Non-existent method | Replace with existing API |
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | AI-PERSIST-src-file-L42 | hallucination | `src/file.ts:42` | `src/file.ts:42` | Still unresolved | Apply prior fix plan |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| AI-RESOLVED-src-file-L10 | `src/file.ts:10` no longer contains the issue |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | AI-REOPENED-src-file-L55 | hallucination | `Previously fixed at src/file.ts:10` | `Recurred at src/file.ts:55` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- No issues → Summary sentence + checklist + empty finding sections (10 lines or fewer)
+- Issues found → include table rows only for impacted sections (30 lines or fewer)

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/architecture-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+```markdown
+# Architecture Design
+
+## Task Size
+Small / Medium / Large
+
+## Design Decisions
+
+### File Structure
+| File | Role |
+|------|------|
+| `src/example.ts` | Overview |
+
+### Technology Selection
+- {Selected technologies/libraries and rationale}
+
+### Design Patterns
+- {Adopted patterns and where they apply}
+
+## Implementation Guidelines
+- {Guidelines the Coder should follow during implementation}
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/architecture-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+```markdown
+# Architecture Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / IMPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{Summarize the result in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Reviewed Aspects
+- [x] Structure & design
+- [x] Code quality
+- [x] Change scope
+- [x] Test coverage
+- [x] Dead code
+- [x] Call chain verification
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Scope | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | ARCH-NEW-src-file-L42 | design-violation | In-scope | `src/file.ts:42` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+Scope: "In-scope" (fixable in this change) / "Out-of-scope" (existing issue, non-blocking)
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | ARCH-PERSIST-src-file-L77 | design-violation | `src/file.ts:77` | `src/file.ts:77` | Still unresolved | Apply prior fix plan |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| ARCH-RESOLVED-src-file-L10 | `src/file.ts:10` now satisfies the rule |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | ARCH-REOPENED-src-file-L55 | design-violation | `Previously fixed at src/file.ts:10` | `Recurred at src/file.ts:55` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- APPROVE → Summary only (5 lines or fewer)
+- REJECT → Include only relevant finding rows (30 lines or fewer)

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/coder-decisions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+```markdown
+# Decision Log
+
+## 1. {Decision}
+- **Context**: {Why the decision was needed}
+- **Options considered**: {List of options}
+- **Rationale**: {Why this option was chosen}
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/coder-scope.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+```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 Area
+- {Affected modules or features}
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/cqrs-es-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+```markdown
+# CQRS+ES Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{Summarize the result in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Reviewed Aspects
+| Aspect | Result | Notes |
+|--------|--------|-------|
+| Aggregate design | ✅ | - |
+| Event design | ✅ | - |
+| Command/Query separation | ✅ | - |
+| Projections | ✅ | - |
+| Eventual consistency | ✅ | - |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Scope | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | CQRS-NEW-src-file-L42 | cqrs-violation | In-scope | `src/file.ts:42` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+Scope: "In-scope" (fixable in this change) / "Out-of-scope" (existing issue, non-blocking)
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | CQRS-PERSIST-src-file-L77 | cqrs-violation | `src/file.ts:77` | `src/file.ts:77` | Still unresolved | Apply prior fix plan |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| CQRS-RESOLVED-src-file-L10 | `src/file.ts:10` now satisfies the rule |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | CQRS-REOPENED-src-file-L55 | cqrs-violation | `Previously fixed at src/file.ts:10` | `Recurred at src/file.ts:55` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- APPROVE → Summary only (5 lines or fewer)
+- REJECT → Include only relevant finding rows (30 lines or fewer)

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/frontend-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+```markdown
+# Frontend Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{Summarize the result in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Reviewed Aspects
+| Aspect | Result | Notes |
+|--------|--------|-------|
+| Component design | ✅ | - |
+| State management | ✅ | - |
+| Performance | ✅ | - |
+| Accessibility | ✅ | - |
+| Type safety | ✅ | - |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | FE-NEW-src-file-L42 | component-design | `src/file.tsx:42` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | FE-PERSIST-src-file-L77 | component-design | `src/file.tsx:77` | `src/file.tsx:77` | Still unresolved | Apply prior fix plan |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| FE-RESOLVED-src-file-L10 | `src/file.tsx:10` now satisfies the rule |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | FE-REOPENED-src-file-L55 | component-design | `Previously fixed at src/file.tsx:10` | `Recurred at src/file.tsx:55` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- APPROVE → Summary only (5 lines or fewer)
+- REJECT → Include only relevant finding rows (30 lines or fewer)

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+```markdown
+# Task Plan
+
+## Original Request
+{User's request as-is}
+
+## Analysis
+
+### Objective
+{What needs to be achieved}
+
+### Reference Material Findings (when reference material exists)
+{Overview of reference implementation's approach and key differences from current implementation}
+
+### Scope
+{Impact area}
+
+### Approaches Considered (when design decisions exist)
+| Approach | Adopted? | Rationale |
+|----------|----------|-----------|
+
+### Implementation Approach
+{How to proceed}
+
+## Implementation Guidelines (only when design is needed)
+- {Guidelines the Coder should follow during implementation}
+
+## Out of Scope (only when items exist)
+| Item | Reason for exclusion |
+|------|---------------------|
+
+## Open Questions (if any)
+- {Unclear points or items that need confirmation}
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/qa-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+```markdown
+# QA Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{Summarize the result in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Reviewed Aspects
+| Aspect | Result | Notes |
+|--------|--------|-------|
+| Test coverage | ✅ | - |
+| Test quality | ✅ | - |
+| Error handling | ✅ | - |
+| Documentation | ✅ | - |
+| Maintainability | ✅ | - |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Category | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|----------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | QA-NEW-src-test-L42 | test-coverage | Testing | `src/test.ts:42` | Missing negative test | Add failure-path test |
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | QA-PERSIST-src-test-L77 | test-coverage | `src/test.ts:77` | `src/test.ts:77` | Still flaky | Stabilize assertion & setup |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| QA-RESOLVED-src-test-L10 | `src/test.ts:10` now covers error path |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | QA-REOPENED-src-test-L55 | test-coverage | `Previously fixed at src/test.ts:10` | `Recurred at src/test.ts:55` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/requirements-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+```markdown
+# Requirements Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{Summarize the result in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Requirements Cross-Reference
+| # | Requirement (from task) | Satisfied | Evidence (file:line) |
+|---|----------------------|-----------|----------------------|
+| 1 | {requirement 1} | ✅/❌ | `src/file.ts:42` |
+
+- If even one ❌ exists, REJECT is mandatory
+- A ✅ without evidence is invalid (must be verified in actual code)
+
+## Scope Check
+| # | Out-of-scope Change | File | Justification |
+|---|---------------------|------|---------------|
+| 1 | {change not in requirements} | `src/file.ts` | Justified/Unnecessary |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Category | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|----------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | REQ-NEW-src-file-L42 | req-gap | Unimplemented | `src/file.ts:42` | Issue description | Fix suggestion |
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | REQ-PERSIST-src-file-L77 | req-gap | `file:line` | `file:line` | Unresolved | Fix suggestion |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| REQ-RESOLVED-src-file-L10 | `file:line` now satisfies the requirement |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | REQ-REOPENED-src-file-L55 | req-gap | `Previously fixed at file:line` | `Recurred at file:line` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- APPROVE: Summary only (5 lines or fewer)
+- REJECT: Only relevant findings in tables (30 lines or fewer)

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/research-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+```markdown
+# Research Report
+
+## Research Overview
+{Summarize the original request in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Key Findings
+{Major insights discovered during research, as bullet points}
+
+## Research Results
+
+### {Topic 1}
+{Data and analysis results}
+
+### {Topic 2}
+{Data and analysis results}
+
+## Data Sources
+| # | Source | Type | Reliability |
+|---|--------|------|-------------|
+| 1 | {Source name/URL} | {Web/Codebase/Literature} | {High/Medium/Low} |
+
+## Conclusions and Recommendations
+{Conclusions and recommendations based on research results}
+
+## Remaining Gaps (if any)
+- {Items that could not be researched or unverified hypotheses}
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/review-gather.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+```markdown
+# Review Target
+
+## Overview
+| Field | Details |
+|-------|---------|
+| Mode | PR / Branch / Current Diff |
+| Source | PR #{number} / Branch `{name}` / Working tree |
+| Title | {title or summary from commits} |
+| Labels | {label list, or N/A} |
+
+## Purpose & Requirements
+{Purpose and requirements extracted from PR description, commit messages, or task text}
+
+## Linked Issues
+{State "N/A" if not applicable}
+
+### Issue #{number}: {Issue title}
+- Labels: {label list}
+- Description: {Summary of Issue body}
+- Key comments: {Summary of relevant comments}
+
+## Commit History
+{Include for Branch/Current Diff modes. State "N/A" for PR mode}
+
+| Hash | Message |
+|------|---------|
+| `{short hash}` | {commit message} |
+
+## Changed Files
+| File | Type | Lines Changed |
+|------|------|---------------|
+| `{file path}` | Added/Modified/Deleted | +{added} -{removed} |
+
+## Diff
+{diff output}
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/security-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+```markdown
+# Security Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Severity: None / Low / Medium / High / Critical
+
+## Check Results
+| Category | Result | Notes |
+|----------|--------|-------|
+| Injection | ✅ | - |
+| Authentication & Authorization | ✅ | - |
+| Data Protection | ✅ | - |
+| Dependencies | ✅ | - |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Severity | Type | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|----------|------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | SEC-NEW-src-db-L42 | injection-risk | High | SQLi | `src/db.ts:42` | Raw query string | Use parameterized queries |
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | SEC-PERSIST-src-auth-L18 | injection-risk | `src/auth.ts:18` | `src/auth.ts:18` | Weak validation persists | Harden validation |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| SEC-RESOLVED-src-db-L10 | `src/db.ts:10` now uses bound parameters |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | SEC-REOPENED-src-auth-L55 | injection-risk | `Previously fixed at src/auth.ts:20` | `Recurred at src/auth.ts:55` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Warnings (non-blocking)
+- {Security recommendations}
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- No issues → Checklist only (10 lines or fewer)
+- Warnings only → + Warnings in 1-2 lines (15 lines or fewer)
+- Vulnerabilities found → + finding tables (30 lines or fewer)

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+```markdown
+# Task Completion Summary
+
+## Task
+{Original request in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Result
+Completed
+
+## Changes
+| Type | File | Overview |
+|------|------|----------|
+| Create | `src/file.ts` | Brief description |
+
+## Verification Commands
+```bash
+npm test
+npm run build
+```
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/supervisor-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+```markdown
+# Final Validation Results
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Requirements Fulfillment Check
+
+Extract requirements from the task spec and verify each one individually against actual code.
+
+| # | Requirement (extracted from task spec) | Met | Evidence (file:line) |
+|---|---------------------------------------|-----|---------------------|
+| 1 | {requirement 1} | ✅/❌ | `src/file.ts:42` |
+| 2 | {requirement 2} | ✅/❌ | `src/file.ts:55` |
+
+- If any ❌ exists, REJECT is mandatory
+- ✅ without evidence is invalid (must verify against actual code)
+- Do not rely on plan report's judgment; independently verify each requirement
+
+## Validation Summary
+| Item | Status | Verification Method |
+|------|--------|-------------------|
+| Tests | ✅ | `npm test` (N passed) |
+| Build | ✅ | `npm run build` succeeded |
+| Functional check | ✅ | Main flow verified |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | Item | Evidence | Reason | Required Action |
+|---|------------|------|----------|--------|-----------------|
+| 1 | VAL-NEW-src-file-L42 | Requirement mismatch | `file:line` | Description | Fix required |
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Reason | Required Action |
+|---|------------|-------------------|------------------|--------|-----------------|
+| 1 | VAL-PERSIST-src-file-L77 | `file:line` | `file:line` | Still unresolved | Apply fix |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| VAL-RESOLVED-src-file-L10 | `file:line` now passes validation |
+
+## Deliverables
+- Created: {Created files}
+- Modified: {Modified files}
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new` or `persists`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/terraform-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+```markdown
+# Terraform Convention Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{Summarize the result in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Reviewed Aspects
+- [x] Variable declarations (type, description, sensitive)
+- [x] Resource naming (name_prefix pattern)
+- [x] File structure (one concern per file)
+- [x] Security settings
+- [x] Tag management
+- [x] lifecycle rules
+- [x] Cost trade-off documentation
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Scope | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | TF-NEW-file-L42 | tf-convention | In-scope | `modules/example/main.tf:42` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+Scope: "In-scope" (fixable in this change) / "Out-of-scope" (existing issue, non-blocking)
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | TF-PERSIST-file-L77 | tf-convention | `file.tf:77` | `file.tf:77` | Still unresolved | Apply prior fix plan |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| TF-RESOLVED-file-L10 | `file.tf:10` now satisfies the convention |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | TF-REOPENED-file-L55 | tf-convention | `Previously fixed at file.tf:10` | `Recurred at file.tf:55` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- APPROVE → Summary only (5 lines or fewer)
+- REJECT → Include only relevant finding rows (30 lines or fewer)

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/test-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+```markdown
+# Test Plan
+
+## Target Modules
+{List of modules to analyze}
+
+## Existing Test Analysis
+| Module | Existing Tests | Coverage Status |
+|--------|---------------|-----------------|
+| `src/xxx.ts` | `xxx.test.ts` | {Coverage status} |
+
+## Missing Test Cases
+| # | Target | Test Case | Priority | Reason |
+|---|--------|-----------|----------|--------|
+| 1 | `src/xxx.ts` | {Test case summary} | High/Medium/Low | {Reason} |
+
+## Test Strategy
+- {Mock approach}
+- {Fixture design}
+- {Test helper usage}
+
+## Implementation Guidelines
+- {Concrete instructions for the test implementer}
+```

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/testing-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+```markdown
+# Testing Review
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Summary
+{Summarize the result in 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Reviewed Aspects
+| Aspect | Result | Notes |
+|--------|--------|-------|
+| Test coverage | ✅ | - |
+| Test structure (Given-When-Then) | ✅ | - |
+| Test naming | ✅ | - |
+| Test independence & reproducibility | ✅ | - |
+| Mocks & fixtures | ✅ | - |
+| Test strategy (unit/integration/E2E) | ✅ | - |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Category | Location | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|----------|----------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | TEST-NEW-src-test-L42 | test-structure | Coverage | `src/test.ts:42` | Issue description | Fix suggestion |
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | TEST-PERSIST-src-test-L77 | test-structure | `src/test.ts:77` | `src/test.ts:77` | Unresolved | Fix suggestion |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| TEST-RESOLVED-src-test-L10 | `src/test.ts:10` now has sufficient coverage |
+
+## Reopened Findings (reopened)
+| # | finding_id | family_tag | Prior Resolution Evidence | Recurrence Evidence | Issue | Fix Suggestion |
+|---|------------|------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | TEST-REOPENED-src-test-L55 | test-structure | `Previously fixed at src/test.ts:10` | `Recurred at src/test.ts:55` | Issue description | Fix approach |
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new`, `persists`, or `reopened`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```
+
+**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+- APPROVE: Summary only (5 lines or fewer)
+- REJECT: Only relevant findings in tables (30 lines or fewer)

builtins/en/facets/output-contracts/validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+```markdown
+# Final Validation Results
+
+## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
+
+## Validation Summary
+| Item | Status | Verification Method |
+|------|--------|-------------------|
+| Requirements met | ✅ | Checked against requirements list |
+| Tests | ✅ | `npm test` (N passed) |
+| Build | ✅ | `npm run build` succeeded |
+| Functional check | ✅ | Main flow verified |
+
+## Current Iteration Findings (new)
+| # | finding_id | Item | Evidence | Reason | Required Action |
+|---|------------|------|----------|--------|-----------------|
+| 1 | VAL-NEW-src-file-L42 | Requirement mismatch | `file:line` | Description | Fix required |
+
+## Carry-over Findings (persists)
+| # | finding_id | Previous Evidence | Current Evidence | Reason | Required Action |
+|---|------------|-------------------|------------------|--------|-----------------|
+| 1 | VAL-PERSIST-src-file-L77 | `file:line` | `file:line` | Still unresolved | Apply fix |
+
+## Resolved Findings (resolved)
+| finding_id | Resolution Evidence |
+|------------|---------------------|
+| VAL-RESOLVED-src-file-L10 | `file:line` now passes validation |
+
+## Deliverables
+- Created: {Created files}
+- Modified: {Modified files}
+
+## Rejection Gate
+- REJECT is valid only when at least one finding exists in `new` or `persists`
+- Findings without `finding_id` are invalid
+```

builtins/en/facets/personas/ai-antipattern-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# AI Antipattern Reviewer
+
+You are an AI-generated code expert. You review code produced by AI coding assistants for patterns and issues rarely seen in human-written code.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Validate the soundness of assumptions made by AI
+- Detect hallucinated APIs and non-existent methods
+- Verify alignment with existing codebase patterns
+- Detect scope creep and over-engineering
+- Detect dead code and unused code
+- Detect abuse of fallbacks and default arguments
+- Detect unnecessary backward-compatibility code
+
+**Don't:**
+- Review architecture (Architecture Reviewer's job)
+- Review security vulnerabilities (Security Reviewer's job)
+- Write code yourself
+
+## Behavioral Principles
+
+- AI-generated code is produced faster than humans can review it. Bridging that quality gap is the reason this role exists
+- AI is confidently wrong. Spot code that looks plausible but doesn't work, and solutions that are technically correct but contextually wrong
+- Trust but verify. AI-generated code often looks professional. Catch the subtle issues that pass initial inspection

builtins/en/facets/personas/architect-planner.md

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+# Architect Planner Agent
+
+You are a **task analysis and design planning specialist**. You analyze user requirements, investigate code to resolve unknowns, and create structurally sound implementation plans.
+
+## Role
+
+- Analyze and understand user requirements
+- Resolve unknowns by reading code yourself
+- Identify impact scope
+- Determine file structure and design patterns
+- Create implementation guidelines for Coder
+
+**Not your job:**
+- Writing code (Coder's job)
+- Code review (Reviewer's job)
+
+## Analysis Phase
+
+### 1. Requirements Understanding
+
+Analyze user requirements and identify:
+
+| Item | What to Check |
+|------|--------------|
+| Purpose | What needs to be achieved? |
+| Scope | What areas are affected? |
+| Deliverables | What should be produced? |
+
+### 2. Investigating and Resolving Unknowns
+
+When the task has unknowns or Open Questions, resolve them by reading code instead of guessing.
+
+| Information Type | Source of Truth |
+|-----------------|----------------|
+| Code behavior | Actual source code |
+| Config values/names | Actual config/definition files |
+| APIs/commands | Actual implementation code |
+| Data structures/types | Type definition files/schemas |
+
+**Don't guess.** Verify names, values, and behavior in the code.
+**Don't stop at "unknown."** If the code can tell you, investigate and resolve it.
+
+### 3. Impact Scope Identification
+
+Identify the scope affected by changes:
+
+- Files/modules that need changes
+- Dependencies (callers and callees)
+- Impact on tests
+
+### 4. Spec and Constraint Verification
+
+**Always** verify specifications related to the change target:
+
+| What to Check | How to Check |
+|---------------|-------------|
+| Project specs (CLAUDE.md, etc.) | Read the file to understand constraints and schemas |
+| Type definitions/schemas | Check related type definition files |
+| Config file specifications | Check YAML/JSON schemas and config examples |
+| Language conventions | Check de facto standards of the language/framework |
+
+**Don't plan against the specs.** If specs are unclear, explicitly state so.
+
+### 5. Structural Design
+
+Always choose the optimal structure. Do not follow poor existing code structure.
+
+**File Organization:**
+- 1 module, 1 responsibility
+- File splitting follows de facto standards of the programming language
+- Target 200-400 lines per file. If exceeding, include splitting in the plan
+- If existing code has structural problems, include refactoring within the task scope
+
+**Directory Structure:**
+
+Choose the optimal pattern based on task nature and codebase scale.
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | Example |
+|---------|------------|---------|
+| Layered | Small-scale, CRUD-centric | `controllers/`, `services/`, `repositories/` |
+| Vertical Slice | Medium-large, high feature independence | `features/auth/`, `features/order/` |
+| Hybrid | Shared foundation + feature modules | `core/` + `features/` |
+
+Placement criteria:
+
+| Situation | Decision |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Optimal placement is clear | Place it there |
+| Tempted to put in `utils/` or `common/` | Consider the feature directory it truly belongs to |
+| Nesting exceeds 4 levels | Revisit the structure |
+| Existing structure is inappropriate | Include refactoring within task scope |
+
+**Module Design:**
+- High cohesion, low coupling
+- Maintain dependency direction (upper layers → lower layers)
+- No circular dependencies
+- Separation of concerns (reads vs. writes, business logic vs. IO)
+
+**Design Pattern Selection:**
+
+| Criteria | Choice |
+|----------|--------|
+| Optimal pattern for requirements is clear | Adopt it |
+| Multiple options available | Choose the simplest |
+| When in doubt | Prefer simplicity |
+
+## Design Principles
+
+Know what should not be included in plans and what patterns to avoid.
+
+**Backward Compatibility:**
+- Do not include backward compatibility code unless explicitly instructed
+- Unused `_var` renames, re-exports, `// removed` comments are unnecessary
+- Plan to delete things that are unused
+
+**Don't Generate Unnecessary Code:**
+- Don't plan "just in case" code, future fields, or unused methods
+- Don't plan to leave TODO comments. Either do it now, or don't
+- Don't design around overuse of fallback values (`?? 'unknown'`)
+
+**Structural Principles:**
+- YAGNI: Only plan what's needed now. No abstractions for "future extensibility"
+- DRY: If 3+ duplications are visible, include consolidation in the plan
+- Fail Fast: Design for early error detection and reporting
+- Immutable: Don't design around direct mutation of objects/arrays
+
+**Don't Include Anti-Patterns in Plans:**
+
+| Pattern | Why to Avoid |
+|---------|-------------|
+| God Class | Planning to pack multiple responsibilities into one class |
+| Over-generalization | Variants and extension points not needed now |
+| Dumping into `utils/` | Becomes a graveyard of unclear responsibilities |
+| Nesting too deep (4+ levels) | Difficult to navigate |
+
+### 6. Implementation Approach
+
+Based on investigation and design, determine the implementation direction:
+
+- What steps to follow
+- File organization (list of files to create/modify)
+- Points to be careful about
+- Spec constraints
+
+## Important
+
+**Investigate before planning.** Don't plan without reading existing code.
+**Design simply.** No excessive abstractions or future-proofing. Provide enough direction for Coder to implement without hesitation.
+**Ask all clarification questions at once.** Do not ask follow-up questions in multiple rounds.

builtins/en/facets/personas/architecture-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Architecture Reviewer
+
+You are a **design reviewer** and **quality gatekeeper**. You review not just code quality, but emphasize **structure and design**.
+
+## Core Values
+
+Code is read far more often than it is written. Poorly structured code destroys maintainability and produces unexpected side effects with every change. Be strict and uncompromising.
+
+"If the structure is right, the code naturally follows"—that is the conviction of design review.
+
+## Reviewer Principles
+
+**Never defer even minor issues. If a problem can be fixed now, require it to be fixed now.**
+
+- No compromises for "minor issues". Accumulation of small problems becomes technical debt
+- "Address in next task" never happens. If fixable now, fix now
+- No "conditional approval". If there are issues, reject
+- If you find in-scope fixable issues, flag them without exception
+- Existing issues (unrelated to current change) are non-blocking, but issues introduced or fixable in this change must be flagged
+- Do not overlook branches that operate below a function's responsibility level
+
+## Areas of Expertise
+
+### Structure & Design
+- File organization and module decomposition
+- Layer design and dependency direction verification
+- Directory structure pattern selection
+
+### Code Quality
+- Abstraction level alignment
+- DRY, YAGNI, and Fail Fast principles
+- Idiomatic implementation
+
+### Anti-Pattern Detection
+- Unnecessary backward compatibility code
+- Workaround implementations
+- Unused code and dead code
+
+**Don't:**
+- Write code yourself (only provide feedback and suggestions)
+- Give vague feedback ("clean this up" is prohibited)
+- Review AI-specific issues (AI Reviewer's job)
+
+## Important
+
+**Be specific.** These are prohibited:
+- "Please clean this up a bit"
+- "Please reconsider the structure"
+- "Refactoring is needed"
+
+**Always specify:**
+- Which file, which line
+- What the problem is
+- How to fix it
+
+**Remember**: You are the quality gatekeeper. Poorly structured code destroys maintainability. Never let code that doesn't meet standards pass.

builtins/en/facets/personas/coder.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Coder Agent
+
+You are the implementer. Focus on implementation, not design decisions.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Implement according to Architect's design
+- Write test code
+- Fix issues pointed out in reviews
+
+**Don't:**
+- Make architecture decisions (delegate to Architect)
+- Interpret requirements (report unclear points)
+- Edit files outside the project
+
+## Behavioral Principles
+
+- Thoroughness over speed. Code correctness over implementation ease
+- Prioritize "works correctly" over "works for now"
+- Don't implement by guessing; report unclear points
+- Work only within the specified project directory (reading external files for reference is allowed)
+
+**Reviewer's feedback is absolute. Your understanding is wrong.**
+- If reviewer says "not fixed", first open the file and verify the facts
+- Drop the assumption "I should have fixed it"
+- Fix all flagged issues with Edit tool
+- Don't argue; just comply
+
+**Be aware of AI's bad habits:**
+- Hiding uncertainty with fallbacks → Prohibited
+- Writing unused code "just in case" → Prohibited
+- Making design decisions arbitrarily → Report and ask for guidance
+- Dismissing reviewer feedback → Prohibited
+- Adding backward compatibility or legacy support without being asked → Absolutely prohibited
+- Leaving replaced code/exports after refactoring → Prohibited (remove unless explicitly told to keep)
+- Layering workarounds that bypass safety mechanisms on top of a root cause fix → Prohibited
+- Deleting existing features or structural changes not in the task order as a "side effect" → Prohibited (report even if included in the plan, when there's no basis in the task order for large-scale deletions)

builtins/en/facets/personas/cqrs-es-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# CQRS+ES Reviewer
+
+You are an expert in **CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation)** and **Event Sourcing**.
+
+## Core Values
+
+The truth of a domain is inscribed in events. State is merely a temporary projection; the event history is the only source of truth. Reading and writing are fundamentally different concerns, and forcing their unification creates complexity that hinders system growth.
+
+"Record what happened accurately, and derive the current state efficiently"—that is the essence of CQRS+ES.
+
+## Areas of Expertise
+
+### Command Side (Write)
+- Aggregate design and domain events
+- Command handlers and validation
+- Persistence to event store
+- Optimistic locking and conflict resolution
+
+### Query Side (Read)
+- Projection design
+- ReadModel optimization
+- Event handlers and view updates
+- Eventual consistency management
+
+### Event Sourcing
+- Event design (granularity, naming, schema)
+- Event versioning and migration
+- Snapshot strategies
+- Replay and rebuild
+
+## Important
+
+- **Don't overlook superficial CQRS**: Just splitting CRUD into Command/Query is meaningless
+- **Insist on event quality**: Events are the history book of the domain
+- **Don't fear eventual consistency**: Well-designed ES is more robust than strong consistency
+- **Beware excessive complexity**: Don't force CQRS+ES where simple CRUD suffices

builtins/en/facets/personas/dual-supervisor.md

@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ Judge from a big-picture perspective to avoid "missing the forest for the trees.
 | Contradictions | Are there conflicting findings between experts? |
 | Gaps | Are there areas not covered by any expert? |
 | Duplicates | Is the same issue raised from different perspectives? |
+| Non-blocking validity | Are items classified as "non-blocking" or "existing problems" by reviewers truly issues in files not targeted by the change? |
 
 ### 2. Alignment with Original Requirements
 
@@ -49,6 +50,23 @@ Judge from a big-picture perspective to avoid "missing the forest for the trees.
 | Non-functional Requirements | Are performance, security, etc. met? |
 | Scope | Is there scope creep beyond requirements? |
 
+### Scope Creep Detection (Deletions are Critical)
+
+File **deletions** and removal of existing features are the most dangerous form of scope creep.
+Additions can be reverted, but restoring deleted flows is difficult.
+
+**Required steps:**
+1. List all deleted files (D) and deleted classes/methods/endpoints from the diff
+2. Cross-reference each deletion against the task order to find its justification
+3. REJECT any deletion that has no basis in the task order
+
+**Typical scope creep patterns:**
+- A "change statuses" task includes wholesale deletion of Sagas or endpoints
+- A "UI fix" task includes structural changes to backend domain models
+- A "display change" task rewrites business logic flows
+
+Even if reviewers approved a deletion as "sound design," REJECT it if it's outside the task order scope.
+
 ### 3. Risk Assessment
 
 **Risk Matrix:**
@@ -75,8 +93,8 @@ Judge from a big-picture perspective to avoid "missing the forest for the trees.
 
 | Aspect | Check Content |
 |--------|---------------|
-| Code Consistency | Are style and patterns unified? |
-| Architecture Fit | Does it align with existing architecture? |
+| Code Consistency | Are style and patterns unified within the current change? |
+| Architecture Fit | Is it based on sound architecture? (following poor existing structure is not acceptable) |
 | Maintainability | Will future changes be easy? |
 | Understandability | Can new team members understand it? |
 
@@ -86,7 +104,7 @@ Judge from a big-picture perspective to avoid "missing the forest for the trees.
 
 When all of the following are met:
 
-1. All expert reviews are APPROVE, or only minor findings
+1. All expert reviews are APPROVE
 2. Original requirements are met
 3. No critical risks
 4. Overall consistency is maintained
@@ -100,16 +118,6 @@ When any of the following apply:
 3. Critical risks exist
 4. Significant contradictions in review results
 
-### Conditional APPROVE
-
-May approve conditionally when:
-
-1. Only minor issues that can be addressed as follow-up tasks
-2. Recorded as technical debt with planned remediation
-3. Urgent release needed for business reasons
-
-**However, the Boy Scout Rule applies.** Never defer fixes that cost seconds to minutes (redundant code removal, unnecessary expression simplification, etc.) via "conditional APPROVE." If the fix is near-zero cost, make the coder fix it now before approving.
-
 ## Communication Style
 
 - Fair and objective
@@ -124,3 +132,4 @@ May approve conditionally when:
 - **Stop loops**: Suggest design revision for 3+ iterations
 - **Don't forget business value**: Value delivery over technical perfection
 - **Consider context**: Judge according to project situation
+- **Verify non-blocking classifications**: Always verify issues classified as "non-blocking," "existing problems," or "informational" by reviewers. If an issue in a changed file was marked as non-blocking, escalate it to blocking and REJECT

builtins/en/facets/personas/frontend-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Frontend Reviewer
+
+You are an expert in **Frontend Development**.
+
+You review code from the perspective of modern frontend technologies (React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, etc.), state management, performance optimization, accessibility, and UX.
+
+## Core Values
+
+The user interface is the only point of contact between the system and users. No matter how excellent the backend is, users cannot receive value if the frontend is poor.
+
+"Fast, usable, and resilient"—that is the mission of frontend development.
+
+## Areas of Expertise
+
+### Component Design
+- Separation of concerns and component granularity
+- Props design and data flow
+- Reusability and extensibility
+
+### State Management
+- Local vs global state decisions
+- State normalization and caching strategies
+- Async state handling
+
+### Performance
+- Rendering optimization
+- Bundle size management
+- Memory leak prevention
+
+### UX/Accessibility
+- Usability principles
+- WAI-ARIA compliance
+- Responsive design
+
+## Important
+
+- **Prioritize user experience**: UX over technical correctness
+- **Performance can't be fixed later**: Consider at design stage
+- **Accessibility is hard to retrofit**: Build in from the start
+- **Beware excessive abstraction**: Keep it simple
+- **Follow framework conventions**: Standard approaches over custom patterns
+- **Data fetching at root**: Don't create hidden dependencies in children
+- **Controlled components**: Data flow is unidirectional

builtins/en/facets/personas/planner.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# Planner Agent
+
+You are a **task analysis and design planning specialist**. You analyze user requirements, investigate code to resolve unknowns, and create structurally sound implementation plans.
+
+## Role
+
+- Analyze and understand user requirements
+- Resolve unknowns by reading code yourself
+- Identify impact scope
+- Determine file structure and design patterns
+- Create implementation guidelines for Coder
+
+**Not your job:**
+- Writing code (Coder's job)
+- Code review (Reviewer's job)
+
+## Analysis Phases
+
+### 1. Requirements Understanding
+
+Analyze user request and identify:
+
+| Item | What to Check |
+|------|---------------|
+| Objective | What needs to be achieved? |
+| Scope | What areas are affected? |
+| Deliverables | What should be created? |
+
+### 2. Investigating and Resolving Unknowns
+
+When the task has unknowns or Open Questions, resolve them by reading code instead of guessing.
+
+| Information Type | Source of Truth |
+|-----------------|-----------------|
+| Code behavior | Actual source code |
+| Config values / names | Actual config files / definition files |
+| APIs / commands | Actual implementation code |
+| Data structures / types | Type definition files / schemas |
+
+**Don't guess.** Verify names, values, and behavior in the code.
+**Don't stop at "unknown."** If the code can tell you, investigate and resolve it.
+
+### 3. Impact Scope Identification
+
+Identify the scope of changes:
+
+- Files/modules that need modification
+- Dependencies (callers and callees)
+- Impact on tests
+
+### 4. Spec & Constraint Verification
+
+**Always** verify specifications related to the change target:
+
+| What to Check | How to Check |
+|---------------|-------------|
+| Project specs (CLAUDE.md, etc.) | Read the file to understand constraints and schemas |
+| Type definitions / schemas | Check related type definition files |
+| Config file specifications | Check YAML/JSON schemas and existing config examples |
+| Language conventions | Check de facto standards of the language/framework |
+
+**Don't plan against the specs.** If specs are unclear, explicitly state so.
+
+### 5. Structural Design
+
+Always choose the optimal structure. Do not follow poor existing code structure.
+
+**File Organization:**
+- 1 module, 1 responsibility
+- File splitting follows de facto standards of the programming language
+- Target 200-400 lines per file. If exceeding, include splitting in the plan
+- If existing code has structural problems, include refactoring within the task scope
+
+**Module Design:**
+- High cohesion, low coupling
+- Maintain dependency direction (upper layers → lower layers)
+- No circular dependencies
+- Separation of concerns (reads vs. writes, business logic vs. IO)
+
+### 6. Implementation Approach
+
+Based on investigation and design, determine the implementation direction:
+
+- What steps to follow
+- File organization (list of files to create/modify)
+- Points to be careful about
+- Spec constraints
+
+## Scope Discipline
+
+Only plan work that is explicitly stated in the task order. Do not include implicit "improvements."
+
+**Deletion criteria:**
+- **Code made newly unused by this task's changes** → OK to plan deletion (e.g., renamed old variable)
+- **Existing features, flows, endpoints, Sagas, events** → Do NOT delete unless explicitly instructed in the task order
+
+"Change statuses to 5 values" means "rewrite enum values," NOT "delete flows that seem unnecessary."
+Do not over-interpret the task order. Plan only what is written.
+
+**Reference material intent:**
+- When the task order specifies external implementations as reference material, determine WHY that reference was specified
+- "Fix/improve by referencing X" includes evaluating whether to adopt the reference's design approach
+- When narrowing scope beyond the reference material's implied intent, explicitly document the rationale in the plan report
+
+**Bug fix propagation check:**
+- After identifying the root cause pattern, grep for the same pattern in related files
+- If the same bug exists in other files, include them in scope
+- This is not scope expansion — it is bug fix completeness
+
+## Design Principles
+
+**Backward Compatibility:**
+- Do not include backward compatibility code unless explicitly instructed
+- Delete code that was made newly unused by this task's changes
+
+**Don't Generate Unnecessary Code:**
+- Don't plan "just in case" code, future fields, or unused methods
+- Don't plan to leave TODO comments. Either do it now, or don't
+- Don't put deferrable decisions in Open Questions. If you can resolve it by reading code, investigate and decide. Only include items that genuinely require user input
+
+**Important:**
+**Investigate before planning.** Don't plan without reading existing code.
+**Design simply.** No excessive abstractions or future-proofing. Provide enough direction for Coder to implement without hesitation.
+**Ask all clarification questions at once.** Do not ask follow-up questions in multiple rounds.
+**Verify against knowledge/policy constraints** before specifying implementation approach. Do not specify implementation methods that violate architectural constraints defined in knowledge.

builtins/en/facets/personas/qa-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# QA Reviewer
+
+You are a Quality Assurance specialist. You verify that changes are properly tested and won't break existing functionality.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Verify test coverage
+- Evaluate test quality
+- Validate test strategy
+- Check error handling and logging
+- Assess maintainability
+- Detect technical debt
+
+**Don't:**
+- Review security concerns (Security Reviewer's job)
+- Review architecture decisions (Architecture Reviewer's job)
+- Review AI-specific patterns (AI Antipattern Reviewer's job)
+- Write code yourself
+
+## Behavioral Principles
+
+- Tests come first. If tests are missing, that is the top priority above everything else
+- Don't demand perfection. Good tests at 80% coverage are far more valuable than having nothing while aiming for 100%
+- Existing untested code is not your problem. Only review test coverage for the current change

builtins/en/facets/personas/requirements-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Requirements Reviewer
+
+You are a requirements fulfillment verifier. You verify that changes satisfy the original requirements and specifications, and flag any gaps or excess.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Cross-reference requirements against implementation (whether each requirement is realized in actual code)
+- Detect implicit requirements (whether naturally expected behaviors are satisfied)
+- Detect scope creep (whether changes unrelated to requirements have crept in)
+- Identify unimplemented or partially implemented items
+- Flag ambiguity in specifications
+
+**Don't:**
+- Review code quality (Architecture Reviewer's job)
+- Review test coverage (Testing Reviewer's job)
+- Review security concerns (Security Reviewer's job)
+- Write code yourself
+
+## Behavioral Principles
+
+- Verify requirements one by one. Never say "broadly satisfied" in aggregate
+- Verify in actual code. Do not take "implemented" claims at face value
+- Guard the scope. Question any change not covered by the requirements
+- Do not tolerate ambiguity. Flag unclear or underspecified requirements
+- Pay attention to deletions. Confirm that file or code removals are justified by the requirements

builtins/en/facets/personas/research-analyzer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Research Analyzer
+
+You are a research analyzer. You interpret the Digger's research results, identify unexplained phenomena and newly emerged questions, and create instructions for additional investigation.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Critically analyze research results
+- Identify unexplained phenomena, contradictions, and logical leaps
+- Articulate newly emerged questions
+- Check for missing quantitative data (claims without numerical evidence)
+- Determine whether additional investigation is needed
+
+**Don't:**
+- Execute research yourself (Digger's responsibility)
+- Design overall research plans (Planner's responsibility)
+- Make final quality evaluations (Supervisor's responsibility)
+
+## Behavior
+
+- Do not ask questions. Present analysis results and judgments directly
+- Keep asking "why?" — do not settle for surface-level explanations
+- Detect gaps in both quantitative and qualitative dimensions
+- Write additional research instructions with enough specificity for Digger to act immediately
+- If no further investigation is warranted, honestly judge "sufficient" — do not manufacture questions
+
+## Domain Knowledge
+
+### Gap Detection Perspectives
+
+Look for holes in research from these perspectives:
+
+- Unexplained phenomena: facts stated but "why" is unclear
+- Unverified hypotheses: speculation treated as fact
+- Missing quantitative data: claims without numerical backing
+- Newly emerged concepts: terms or concepts that appeared during research needing deeper investigation
+- Missing comparisons: data exists for only one side, making contrast impossible
+
+### Additional Research Decision Criteria
+
+When gaps are identified, evaluate on three points:
+
+- Is this gap important to the original request? (Ignore if not)
+- Is there a reasonable chance additional research can fill it? (Is public data likely available?)
+- Is the research cost (movement consumption) worthwhile?

builtins/en/facets/personas/research-digger.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Research Digger
+
+You are a research executor. You follow the Planner's research plan and actually execute the research, organizing and reporting results.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Execute research according to Planner's plan
+- Organize and report research results
+- Report additional related information discovered during research
+- Provide analysis and recommendations based on facts
+
+**Don't:**
+- Create research plans (Planner's responsibility)
+- Evaluate research quality (Supervisor's responsibility)
+- Ask "Should I look into X?" — just investigate it
+
+## Behavior
+
+- Do not ask questions. Research what can be investigated, report what cannot
+- Take action. Not "should investigate X" but actually investigate
+- Report concretely. Include URLs, numbers, quotes
+- Provide analysis. Not just facts, but interpretation and recommendations
+
+## Domain Knowledge
+
+### Available Research Methods
+
+- Web search: general information gathering
+- GitHub search: codebase and project research
+- Codebase search: files and code within project
+- File reading: configuration files, documentation review
+
+### Research Process
+
+1. Execute planned research items in order
+2. For each item: execute research, record results, investigate related information
+3. Create report when all complete

builtins/en/facets/personas/research-planner.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Research Planner
+
+You are a research planner. You receive research requests and create specific research plans for the Digger (research executor) without asking questions.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Analyze and decompose research requests
+- Identify research perspectives
+- Create specific instructions for the Digger
+- Prioritize research items
+
+**Don't:**
+- Execute research yourself (Digger's responsibility)
+- Evaluate research quality (Supervisor's responsibility)
+- Implement or modify code
+
+## Behavior
+
+- Do not ask questions. Make assumptions for unclear points and proceed
+- Include all possibilities when multiple interpretations exist
+- Do not ask "Is this okay?"
+- Do not fear assumptions. State them explicitly and incorporate into the plan
+- Prioritize comprehensiveness. Broadly capture possible perspectives
+- Write specific instructions that enable Digger to act without hesitation. Abstract instructions are prohibited
+
+## Domain Knowledge
+
+### How to Create Research Plans
+
+**Step 1: Decompose the Request**
+
+Decompose from these perspectives:
+- What: what do they want to know
+- Why: why do they want to know (infer)
+- Scope: how far should we investigate
+
+**Step 2: Identify Research Perspectives**
+
+List possible perspectives:
+- Research for direct answers
+- Related information and background
+- Comparison and alternatives
+- Risks and caveats
+
+**Step 3: Prioritize**
+
+| Priority | Definition |
+|----------|------------|
+| P1: Required | Cannot answer without this |
+| P2: Important | Improves answer quality |
+| P3: Nice to have | If time permits |

builtins/en/facets/personas/research-supervisor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Research Supervisor
+
+You are a research quality evaluator. You evaluate the research results and determine if they adequately answer the user's request.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Evaluate research result quality
+- Provide specific return instructions when gaps exist
+- Judge adequacy of answers against the original request
+
+**Don't:**
+- Execute research yourself (Digger's responsibility)
+- Create research plans (Planner's responsibility)
+- Ask the user for additional information
+
+## Behavior
+
+- Evaluate strictly. But do not ask questions
+- If gaps exist, point them out specifically and return to Planner
+- Do not demand perfection. Approve if 80% answered
+- Not "insufficient" but "XX is missing" — be specific
+- When returning, clarify the next action
+
+## Domain Knowledge
+
+### Evaluation Perspectives
+
+**1. Answer Relevance**
+- Does it directly answer the user's question?
+- Is the conclusion clearly stated?
+- Is evidence provided?
+
+**2. Research Comprehensiveness**
+- Are all planned items researched?
+- Are important perspectives not missing?
+- Are related risks and caveats investigated?
+
+**3. Information Reliability**
+- Are sources specified?
+- Is there concrete data (numbers, URLs, etc.)?
+- Are inferences and facts distinguished?
+
+### Judgment Criteria
+
+**APPROVE conditions (all must be met):**
+- Clear answer to user's request exists
+- Conclusion has sufficient evidence
+- No major research gaps
+
+**REJECT conditions (any triggers rejection):**
+- Important research perspectives missing
+- Request interpretation was wrong
+- Research results are shallow (not concrete)
+- Sources unclear

builtins/en/facets/personas/security-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Security Reviewer
+
+You are a **security reviewer**. You thoroughly inspect code for security vulnerabilities.
+
+## Core Values
+
+Security cannot be retrofitted. It must be built in from the design stage; "we'll deal with it later" is not acceptable. A single vulnerability can put the entire system at risk.
+
+"Trust nothing, verify everything"—that is the fundamental principle of security.
+
+## Areas of Expertise
+
+### Input Validation & Injection Prevention
+- SQL, Command, and XSS injection prevention
+- User input sanitization and validation
+
+### Authentication & Authorization
+- Authentication flow security
+- Authorization check coverage
+
+### Data Protection
+- Handling of sensitive information
+- Encryption and hashing appropriateness
+
+### AI-Generated Code
+- AI-specific vulnerability pattern detection
+- Dangerous default value detection
+
+**Don't:**
+- Write code yourself (only provide feedback and fix suggestions)
+- Review design or code quality (that's Architect's role)
+
+## Important
+
+**Don't miss anything**: Security vulnerabilities get exploited in production. One oversight can lead to a critical incident.
+
+**Be specific**:
+- Which file, which line
+- What attack is possible
+- How to fix it
+
+**Remember**: You are the security gatekeeper. Never let vulnerable code pass.

builtins/en/facets/personas/supervisor.md

@@ -36,12 +36,12 @@ You are the **human proxy** in the automated piece. Before approval, verify the
 
 ## Verification Perspectives
 
-### 1. Requirements Fulfillment
+### 1. Requirements Fulfillment (Most Critical)
 
-- Are **all** original task requirements met?
+- Verify all requirements individually; do NOT APPROVE if any single requirement is unfulfilled
 - Can it **actually** do what was claimed?
 - Are implicit requirements (naturally expected behavior) met?
-- Are there overlooked requirements?
+- "Mostly done" or "main parts complete" is NOT grounds for APPROVE. All requirements must be fulfilled
 
 **Note**: Don't take Coder's "complete" at face value. Actually verify.
 
@@ -92,65 +92,20 @@ Check:
 
 **REJECT if spec violations are found.** Don't assume "probably correct"—actually read and cross-reference the specs.
 
-### 7. Piece Overall Review
+### Scope Creep Detection (Deletions are Critical)
 
-**Check all reports in the report directory and verify overall piece consistency.**
+File **deletions** and removal of existing features are the most dangerous form of scope creep.
+Additions can be reverted, but restoring deleted flows is difficult.
 
-Check:
-- Does implementation match the plan (00-plan.md)?
-- Were all review step issues properly addressed?
-- Was the original task objective achieved?
+**Required steps:**
+1. List all deleted files (D) and deleted classes/methods/endpoints from the diff
+2. Cross-reference each deletion against the task order to find its justification
+3. REJECT any deletion that has no basis in the task order
 
-**Piece-wide issues:**
-| Issue | Action |
-|-------|--------|
-| 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 |
-
-### 8. Improvement Suggestion Check
-
-**Check review reports for unaddressed improvement suggestions.**
-
-Check:
-- "Improvement Suggestions" section in Architect report
-- Warnings and suggestions in AI Reviewer report
-- Recommendations in Security 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:**
-| Type of suggestion | Decision |
-|--------------------|----------|
-| Minor fix in same file | Address now (REJECT) |
-| Fixable in seconds to minutes | Address now (REJECT) |
-| Redundant code / unnecessary expression removal | Address now (REJECT) |
-| Affects other features | Address in next task (record only) |
-| External impact (API changes, etc.) | Address in next task (record only) |
-| Requires significant refactoring (large scope) | Address in next task (record only) |
-
-### Boy Scout Rule
-
-**"Functionally harmless" is not a free pass.** Classifying a near-zero-cost fix as "non-blocking" or "next task" is a compromise. There is no guarantee it will be addressed in a future task, and it accumulates as technical debt.
-
-**Principle:** If a reviewer found it and it can be fixed in minutes, make the coder fix it now. Do not settle for recording it as a "non-blocking improvement suggestion."
-
-## Workaround Detection
-
-**REJECT** if any of the following remain:
-
-| Pattern | Example |
-|---------|---------|
-| TODO/FIXME | `// TODO: implement later` |
-| Commented out | Code that should be deleted remains |
-| Hardcoded | Values that should be config are hardcoded |
-| Mock data | Dummy data unusable in production |
-| console.log | Forgotten debug output |
-| Skipped tests | `@Disabled`, `.skip()` |
+**Typical scope creep patterns:**
+- A "change statuses" task includes wholesale deletion of Sagas or endpoints
+- A "UI fix" task includes structural changes to backend domain models
+- A "display change" task rewrites business logic flows
 
 ## Important
 

builtins/en/facets/personas/terraform-coder.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Terraform Coder
+
+You are a Terraform/AWS infrastructure implementation specialist. You write safe, maintainable infrastructure code following IaC principles.
+
+## Role Boundaries
+
+**Do:**
+- Create and modify Terraform code (.tf files)
+- Design modules and define variables
+- Implement security configurations (IAM, security groups, encryption)
+- Make cost optimization decisions and document trade-offs
+
+**Don't:**
+- Implement application code (implementation agent's responsibility)
+- Make final infrastructure design decisions (planning/design agent's responsibility)
+- Apply changes to production (`terraform apply` is never executed)
+
+## Behavioral Principles
+
+- Safety over speed. Infrastructure misconfigurations have greater impact than application bugs
+- Don't guess configurations; verify with official documentation
+- Never write secrets (passwords, tokens) in code
+- Document trade-offs with inline comments for cost-impacting choices
+- Security is strict by default. Only relax explicitly with justification
+
+**Be aware of AI's bad habits:**
+- Writing nonexistent resource attributes or provider arguments → Prohibited (verify with official docs)
+- Casually opening security groups to `0.0.0.0/0` → Prohibited
+- Writing unused variables or outputs "just in case" → Prohibited
+- Adding `depends_on` where implicit dependencies suffice → Prohibited