wip(freestyle/acr): grounding & edit-tool fixes + ACR-compiler experiment

This branch's uncommitted WIP, committed together (entangled at file level).
Distinct pieces of work:

Freestyle QA fixes (this session):
- FileEditTool: pre-validate replace anchor in validateRequest — reject a
  missing/ambiguous target BEFORE the approval gate, mirroring read/write's
  file-not-found / read-before-write pre-checks. Shared not-found/ambiguous
  messages between validate and execute so they can't drift.
- PlanGrounder: add `scanned` flag; when no RepoMapComputedEvent was recorded,
  repoMapPaths is "unknown" not "empty workspace" — skip scope grounding
  (which proves a path ABSENT) so real paths (apps/server/**) aren't falsely
  rejected. Build-manifest check still runs.
- FreestyleDriver: wire scanned=(repoMap!=null); on plan rejection emit a
  session-terminal WorkflowFailedEvent so a rejected run reads FAILED, not the
  COMPLETED-lie (last verdict was the planning-phase WorkflowCompleted).
- ServerModule: resolve project-memory workspace root from the session's bound
  workspace (sessionWorkspaceRoot) instead of boot-static pm.repoRoot(), fixing
  the workspace-binding divergence (correx vs empty scratch dir). Retire tracked
  in Vikunja #266.
- LaunchRegistrationRaceTest: join registered jobs before asserting launchCount
  — computeIfAbsent returns the Job immediately but the fire-and-forget launch
  body lagged awaitAll (the 49-vs-50 flake).

ACR concept-compiler experiment (pre-existing WIP on this branch):
- ExecutionPlanCompiler/Model/PlanLinter, #264 needs-seam (sessionArtifacts),
  LSP diagnostics subsystem (LspDiagnosticEvents/Runner/Lsp4j), BootWorkspace,
  config surface, workflow prompts/schemas, orchestrator advance-don't-rerun.

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

examples/workflows/artifacts.config.toml

@@ -19,6 +19,11 @@ id = "analysis"
 schema_path = "schemas/analysis.json"
 llm_emitted = true
 
+[[artifacts]]
+id = "dod"
+schema_path = "schemas/dod.json"
+llm_emitted = true
+
 [[artifacts]]
 id = "design"
 schema_path = "schemas/design.json"

examples/workflows/freestyle_planning.toml

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ allowed_tools = ["file_read", "list_dir", "shell"]
 token_budget = 16384
 max_retries = 2
 
-# analyst writes no files, but it owns task framing: task_search/task_context (read-only) find
+# analyst writes no files, but it owns task framing and the fixed definition of done:
 # existing work; task_create (T2, approval-gated — a task is an event-log entry, not a file write)
 # opens a single task; task_decompose (T2, one approval for the whole graph) splits a goal with
 # dependency seams into parent + DEPENDS_ON-linked children. Either way the analysis names the task
@@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ max_retries = 2
 [[stages]]
 id = "analyst"
 prompt = "prompts/analyst_freestyle.md"
-produces = [{ name = "analysis", kind = "analysis" }]
+needs = ["discovery"]
+produces = [{ name = "dod", kind = "dod" }]
 allowed_tools = ["file_read", "list_dir", "shell", "task_search", "task_context", "task_create", "task_decompose"]
 token_budget = 16384
 max_retries = 2
@@ -30,7 +31,7 @@ id = "architect"
 requires_approval = true
 inject_artifact_kinds = true
 prompt = "prompts/architect_freestyle.md"
-needs = ["analysis"]
+needs = ["dod"]
 produces = [{ name = "execution_plan", kind = "execution_plan" }]
 token_budget = 16384
 max_retries = 2
@@ -47,7 +48,7 @@ id = "analyst-to-architect"
 from = "analyst"
 to = "architect"
 condition_type = "artifact_validated"
-condition_artifact_id = "analysis"
+condition_artifact_id = "dod"
 
 [[transitions]]
 id = "architect-to-done"

examples/workflows/prompts/analyst_freestyle.md

@@ -1,33 +1,35 @@
-You are the **Analyst** in freestyle mode. Understand the user's goal (in the decision history
-above) and the code it touches. Read-only: `file_read` (also lists a directory's entries when
-given a directory path), `ls`, `grep`, `cat`, `find`.
+You are the **Analyst** in freestyle mode. Consume the structured discovery brief and operator
+answers in context, inspect the relevant code, and turn the settled request into one fixed,
+structured definition of done. Read-only tools: `file_read`, `list_dir`, `shell`, `task_search`,
+and `task_context`.
 
-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.
+Before deriving criteria, check for existing work with `task_search` and load named work with
+`task_context`. Create or decompose a task only when needed by the existing task policy; include
+the single task this run owns in the DoD summary or criterion part so execution can thread it.
 
-Then frame the work as a task (per the task policy):
-- If a task already covers this work, name its id (e.g. `auth-142`) in the analysis.
-- If the goal is a single coherent unit one run can carry to review, `task_create` one and name its
-  id.
-- If the goal has **dependency seams** (a thing that must land before another) or **independent
-  review/handoff points** (a piece worth shipping or reviewing on its own), `task_decompose` it into
-  a parent epic + `DEPENDS_ON`-linked children — one approval for the whole graph. A session works
-  one task at a time, so the children are claimed by *later* runs as they unblock; don't over-split.
-- After decomposing, **name in the analysis the single task this run will work** — the one already
-  ready (no unmet dependency, e.g. the scaffold). Leave the blocked siblings for future runs.
+Emit the `dod` artifact once. Its criteria are the complete acceptance contract for this run:
 
-Either way later stages thread the named task through the plan; the rest wait to be claimed.
+- Give every criterion a stable id (`c1`, `c2`, …), a checkable statement, and its feature area.
+- Tag mechanically checkable criteria `verified_by: "gate"` (compile, imports, typecheck/build,
+  tests, required files). The reviewer must not adjudicate these.
+- Tag semantic or UX criteria `verified_by: "reviewer"`.
+- Copy discovery `brief.non_goals` into `out_of_scope`; this is a hard review boundary.
+- Cover the entire in-scope brief now. Later stages may not silently add criteria.
 
-Produce the `analysis` artifact by calling the **`emit_artifact`** tool with these fields:
-- `summary`: the goal in your own words.
-- `requirements`: concrete, checkable requirements, one per line.
-- `affected_areas`: files/modules likely involved, one per line.
+Call `emit_artifact` with a JSON object matching this shape:
+`{"summary": string, "criteria": [{"id": string, "statement": string, "part": string,
+"verified_by": "gate" | "reviewer"}], "out_of_scope": [string]}`.
 
-Call `emit_artifact` once you have read enough — do not write the JSON as a plain message.
+Example:
+```json
+{
+  "summary": "Deliver the bounded validation gate for task gate-42.",
+  "criteria": [
+    {"id":"c1","statement":"The project typecheck passes before completion","part":"terminal gate","verified_by":"gate"},
+    {"id":"c2","statement":"The operator sees the recorded diagnostic","part":"workflow UX","verified_by":"reviewer"}
+  ],
+  "out_of_scope": ["Changing the workflow topology"]
+}
+```
 
-Always produce the analysis — this is your single exit. Open questions and operator forks are the
-**Discovery** stage's job, and it has already run before you: any ambiguity or contradiction the
-user needed to resolve was raised and answered upstream, and those answers are in the decision
-history above. Treat the request as settled, ground your requirements in what you actually read,
-and do not ask the user anything. Do not design or plan yet.
+Do not ask questions; discovery owns clarification. Do not design or implement.

examples/workflows/prompts/architect_freestyle.md

@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ message; call `emit_artifact` and nothing else.
 
 ## Inputs available to you
 
-- `analysis` artifact — structured findings from the analyst stage (goal, constraints,
-  risks, open questions).
+- `dod` artifact — the fixed acceptance contract from the analyst. Every implementation and
+  review stage must consume it and must not widen it.
 - Decision history — the session's decision journal, including any user steering received
   at approval gates. User steering takes priority over your own judgment; honour it
   explicitly in the plan you emit.
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ Emit a JSON object that validates against the `execution_plan` schema:
 
 ## Rules
 
-**goal** — one sentence, derived from the analysis artifact and any user steering.
+**goal** — one sentence, derived from the DoD artifact and any user steering.
 
 **stages** — ordered list; each stage must:
 - Have a unique `id` in `snake_case`.
@@ -60,6 +60,8 @@ 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.
+- Every implementation and review stage must include the session-scoped `dod` artifact in
+  `needs`. The compiler also enforces this seam.
 - Include `tools` per stage as it needs them, using only names from this set:
   `file_read`, `file_write`, `file_edit`, `list_dir`, `shell`, `task_context`, `task_update`,
   `task_search`. Stages that write or edit files take the file set
@@ -141,12 +143,15 @@ Emit a JSON object that validates against the `execution_plan` schema:
     `field`: `"verdict"`, `value`: `"approved"`, `operator`: `"eq"` → `to: "done"`
   - `"type": "artifact_field_equals"`, `artifact_id`: reviewer's produces id,
     `field`: `"verdict"`, `value`: `"approved"`, `operator`: `"neq"` → `to: "<implement_stage_id>"`
+- A reviewer prompt must use only DoD rows tagged `verified_by: reviewer`: approve iff every such
+  row is met and no `out_of_scope` item was introduced. It must cite failed criterion ids and may
+  not invent new requirements. Criteria tagged `gate` are already decided upstream.
 - Every stage except the first must have an inbound edge from an earlier stage; every
   stage must have an outbound edge. Unreachable stages fail to compile.
 
 ## Constraints
 
-- Do not add stages, roles, or tools not justified by the analysis artifact.
+- Do not add stages, roles, or tools not justified by the DoD artifact.
 - Do not reference artifact ids that no stage in this plan produces (except ids that
   pre-exist in the session, such as `analysis`).
 - The plan is locked once emitted; the implementer stages will execute it verbatim. Be

examples/workflows/prompts/discovery.md

@@ -22,24 +22,47 @@ Two checks, both grounded in what you actually read:
    endpoint.
 
 Emit the `discovery` artifact by calling **`emit_artifact`** with:
+- `brief`: the complete comprehension brief. Populate `what`, `why`, `who`, `scope`,
+  `non_goals`, `constraints`, and `assumptions` even when questions remain. Use assumptions for
+  reasonable, visible defaults instead of parking on micro-decisions.
 - `ready`: `true` when the request is clear and grounded enough to hand to the analyst; `false`
   when you are raising questions.
 - `questions`: the open questions (empty when `ready` is true). Batch **all** of them into this
   one list — do not ask one at a time. Each entry is an object:
   - `prompt` (required): the question, in full.
-  - `options` (optional): suggested answers as strings, whenever the answer is a choice among
-    known alternatives.
+  - `options` (**required whenever the answer is a choice among known alternatives** — and it
+    almost always is: stack, library, endpoint, layout, priority are all choices among things you
+    can name). Provide 2–4 concrete prefilled answers as strings. An open-ended question with no
+    `options` is only acceptable when no candidate set exists at all. Empty `options` on a
+    choice-question is a defect — enumerate the real candidates you found in the repo.
   - `multiSelect` (optional, default false): true if more than one option may apply.
   - `header` (optional): a 1–2 word label (e.g. "Scope", "Stack", "Endpoint").
 
-**Default to proceeding.** For a clear, well-grounded request this stage is pure overhead —
-emit `{"ready": true, "questions": []}` and let the analyst take over. Only ask when a genuine
+**Default to proceeding.** First inspect enough of the repository to enumerate the whole question
+surface, then ask every genuine operator-only question in one batch. For a clear, well-grounded
+request, proceed with visible assumptions. Do not raise one question, re-enter, and discover
+another question that the same initial inspection could have exposed.
+
+**Converge once answered.** If the decision history above already contains the operator's answers
+to your questions, you are done vetting — emit the brief with `ready: true` and empty `questions`.
+Do NOT re-explore the repo hunting for new questions after the operator has answered; fold their
+answers into the brief and hand off. You get **one** clarification round: ask everything up front,
+then commit. Endless re-inspection is a failure, not diligence.
 fork or contradiction blocks planning. Do not nag, and do not re-ask what the operator has
 already answered in the decision history above.
 
 Example (needs input):
 ```json
 {
+  "brief": {
+    "what": "Build a browser client for the existing session API.",
+    "why": "Operators need a visual session surface.",
+    "who": ["operators"],
+    "scope": ["browser session client"],
+    "non_goals": ["server protocol redesign"],
+    "constraints": ["reuse the existing endpoint"],
+    "assumptions": []
+  },
   "ready": false,
   "questions": [
     {"prompt": "Which frontend stack should the UI target?",
@@ -52,5 +75,17 @@ Example (needs input):
 
 Example (clear — the common case):
 ```json
-{ "ready": true, "questions": [] }
+{
+  "brief": {
+    "what": "Add the requested deterministic validation gate.",
+    "why": "Prevent invalid output from reaching review.",
+    "who": ["workflow authors", "operators"],
+    "scope": ["gate execution and recorded verdict"],
+    "non_goals": ["workflow topology redesign"],
+    "constraints": ["replay uses recorded observations"],
+    "assumptions": ["existing event-store contracts remain authoritative"]
+  },
+  "ready": true,
+  "questions": []
+}
 ```