feat(tasks): analyst opens the task; freestyle threads it into implementation

Two coupled gaps from tracing a real run:

1. Freestyle implements in phase 2 via stages compiled from the architect's
   execution_plan (ExecutionPlanCompiler sets allowedTools = stage.tools), so the
   static allow-lists never reach it and architect_freestyle.md banned every tool
   but the file four. Teach the architect to thread an analysis-referenced task
   through the plan: implementing stages get task_context/task_update and claim +
   submit_for_review; the final/review stage completes it. No task referenced → no
   task tools, and the plan never creates one.

2. Give the analyst task_create so the work is framed as a tracked item up front
   (role_pipeline + freestyle). "Read-only" for the analyst means it writes no
   files; a task is an event-log entry, not a file write — task_create is T2, so
   opening one is approval-gated. The analyst names the new id in the analysis so
   the implementer claims it and the reviewer completes it; the implementer now
   creates only as a fallback.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

examples/workflows/prompts/analyst.md

@@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ Steps:
    code. Identify the files, modules, and subsystems involved. Do not modify anything.
 3. Check for existing work: `task_search` for related, duplicate, or blocking tasks, and
    `task_context` to load any the request names. Fold what you find into the analysis rather
-   than re-deriving it; flag a duplicate instead of restating it.
+   than re-deriving it; flag a duplicate instead of restating it. If this work warrants tracking
+   (per the task policy) and no task covers it, `task_create` one and name its id in the analysis
+   so the implementer claims it and the reviewer completes it.
 4. Derive concrete, checkable requirements and acceptance criteria.
 
 The decision history above (steering, approvals, prior verdicts) is ground truth — honour it.

examples/workflows/prompts/analyst_freestyle.md

@@ -4,7 +4,10 @@ given a directory path), `ls`, `grep`, `cat`, `find`.
 
 Before deriving requirements, check for existing work: `task_search` for related, duplicate, or
 blocking tasks and `task_context` to load any the goal names. Fold what you find into the
-analysis rather than re-deriving it; flag a duplicate instead of restating it.
+analysis rather than re-deriving it; flag a duplicate instead of restating it. If a task already
+covers this work, name its id (e.g. `auth-142`) in the analysis; if none does and the work
+warrants tracking (per the task policy), `task_create` one and name its id — either way later
+stages thread it through the plan.
 
 Emit the `analysis` artifact (JSON, schema provided):
 - `summary`: the goal in your own words.

examples/workflows/prompts/architect_freestyle.md

@@ -57,9 +57,21 @@ Emit a JSON object that validates against the `execution_plan` schema:
   llm-emitted kind.
 - Declare `needs`: every upstream artifact id the stage's prompt references. Every id in
   `needs` must be `produces`d by a strictly earlier stage.
-- Include `tools` only for stages that write or edit files:
-  `["file_read", "file_write", "file_edit", "ShellTool"]`. Do not invent tool names
-  beyond this set.
+- Include `tools` per stage as it needs them, using only names from this set:
+  `file_read`, `file_write`, `file_edit`, `ShellTool`, `task_context`, `task_update`,
+  `task_search`. Stages that write or edit files take the file set
+  (`["file_read", "file_write", "file_edit", "ShellTool"]`). Do not invent names beyond
+  this set.
+- **Task tracking — only if the `analysis` references a task** (an id like `auth-142` that
+  the analyst found or opened with `task_create`; if none is referenced there is no task to
+  track). When one is referenced, thread it through the plan so the work stays tracked:
+  - Give the stage that does the work `task_context` and `task_update`, and have its
+    `prompt` `task_update action=claim` the task before starting and
+    `action=submit_for_review` when its output is ready.
+  - Give the final or review stage `task_context` and `task_update`, and have its `prompt`
+    `task_update action=complete` the task once the work is accepted.
+  - If the `analysis` references no task, omit the task tools entirely. Do not create a
+    new task here — creation is out of scope for the plan.
 - Keep stages small and single-responsibility. Prefer more stages over large monolithic
   prompts.
 

examples/workflows/prompts/implementer.md

@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ You receive the `impl_plan` artifact (above). Execute it using the tools availab
 (`file_read`, `file_write`, `file_edit`, and shell). File writes land in the bound workspace.
 
 Steps:
-1. If this work is tracked as a task — or warrants it per the task policy in the context above —
-   `task_context` to load it and `task_update action=claim` before you start; `task_create` one
-   if none exists. Skip this for a self-contained change.
+1. If the analysis opened or referenced a task, `task_context` to load it and `task_update
+   action=claim` before you start (`task_create` one only if the work warrants tracking and none
+   exists). Skip this for a self-contained change.
 2. Work through the plan `steps` in order. Read before you edit.
 3. Make the change with `file_write` / `file_edit`. Keep new code consistent with the
    surrounding style, naming, and patterns.