docs: refresh live product and technical gap baseline

[devin-ai-integration]

Summary

Rebinds the central product and technical gap baseline to the current protected main HEAD and the live .github PR inventory.

• Adds docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md with CWL Master Context, naruon fix(review): list applyable suggestion ranges in overview receipts #974, GitHub Project Add Palette journal for profile repo #1, PRD/TRD/UML bounds, gap register G-01..G-14, and 30 open PR rows bound to exact head SHAs and merge metadata.
• Adds docs/adr/0002-product-technical-gap-baseline.md stating the control-plane scope and Figma File ID: N/A boundary.
• Adds tests/test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py to regression-check governance markers, SHA-bound inventory completeness, and the UI ADR boundary.

This supersedes the stale, conflicted docs/product-technical-gap-baseline-20260820 PR (#1163), which had a merge conflict and a failed quality check from an outdated snapshot.

No source code changes; the new regression test passes locally with python -m pytest tests/test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py -q.

Link to Devin session: https://app.devin.ai/sessions/545e042630f94159a4a57f2ca36accce

---

[devin-ai-integration]

Original prompt from Automation

당신은 ContextualWisdomLab 조직의 자율 개발 루프를 수행합니다. 이 세션은 스케줄에 의해 무인으로 시작되며, 사람에게 중간 보고를 하지 않습니다. 실행 결과를 보고하지 말고 다음 루프 작업을 계속하십시오. 질문으로 멈추지 말고, 판단 가능한 것은 스스로 판단해 진행하십시오.

#``# 0. 대상 선택

• 저장소는 고정되어 있지 않습니다. 매 실행마다 ContextualWisdomLab 조직에서 소유자가 온전한 권리를 가진 저장소들을 살펴보고, 레버리지가 큰 순서대로 작업 대상을 스스로 선택하십시오.
• 저장소를 선택할 때에는 이름이 아니라 제품·책임·재사용 경계와 기존 문서·구현 구조, 소비 저장소까지 대조해 실제 PR 위치가 맞는지 확인하십시오.
• 참고 저장소:
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/.github
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/contextual-orchestrator
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/TEPP
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/fast-mlsirm
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/keyverse
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/RankWeave
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/ThreadWeave
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/disksage
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/wardnet
  • @ContextualWisdomLab/LineageWeave
  • naruon 저장소 및 조직 중앙 .github 와의 연계를 항상 고려하십시오.

#``# 1. 기본 루프 (중간 보고 없이 반복)
열린 PR마다: 리뷰 확인 → 수정 → Checks 재검증 → 병합 → 다음 개발.

1. 대상 저장소의 열린 PR과 Issue를 모두 수집합니다.
2. 각 PR의 리뷰 코멘트와 GitHub Checks 상태를 확인하고, 실패가 있으면 원인을 추적(Root Cause Analysis)해 근본 원인을 고칩니다.
3. not-merge-ready 상태의 PR은 직접 merge-ready 상태로 만듭니다.
4. Stacking 가능한 PR은 Stacking 하여 효율을 높입니다. Stacking 된 PR에서 중앙 OpenCode Agent가 리뷰를 하지 않으면 ContextualWisdomLab/.github 저장소를 수정합니다.
5. 병합 가능한 PR은 병합합니다. 조직 내 유관 프로젝트의 PR이 있으면 함께 처리합니다(대개 원인이 엮여 있습니다).
6. PR과 Issue가 모두 소진되면, 구매자가 체감할 제품 Gap을 찾아 개발을 이어가고 새 PR을 만들어 같은 루프를 반복합니다.
7. 소프트웨어를 완성하기 위한 Loop을 스스로 지속적으로 작성/제거하며 갱신하십시오. ADR과 Goal을 수시로 설정/변경/업데이트하고, Goal 수정이 불가능하면 Loop을 갱신하십시오.
8. 이 예약 프롬프트 자체가 개선되어야 한다고 판단되면 Devin Automation을 업데이트해 프롬프트를 개선하십시오.

기준: 이 소프트웨어를 200억 달러에 판매할 수 있다는 자신이 있어야 합니다. 상용 소프트웨어 수준을 목표로 하십시오.

#``# 2. Gap 베이스라인 문서
ADR 및 리서치 자료, 현행 데이터를 근거로 기능 명세, PRD, TRD, UML 등을 도출하고 Gap을 찾으십시오. 현행 PR을 포함해 점검한 결과를 docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md에 작성/갱신하고, 그 문서에 적힌 Gap을 개발하는 것도 루프에 포함합니다.

#``# 3. 아키텍처 원칙

• 조직 중앙 .github, naruon, 기타 저장소와 연결 가능한 구조. 따로 또 같이 쓰는 모듈러 MSA: 개별 소프트웨어로도 동작하고, 모듈로 반입해도 훌륭히 동작해야 합니다.
• 단일 소프트웨어가 Monolithic 하게 비대해지면 과감히 저장소를 분리하십시오.
• 소프트웨어 이름과 내부 호출자 이름이 크게 다르면(옛 이름 잔존 등) 교체하십시오.
• 코드 장애 ... (3993 chars truncated...)

[devin-ai-integration]

🤖 Devin AI Engineer

I'll be helping with this pull request! Here's what you should know:

✅ I will automatically:

• Address comments on this PR. Add '(aside)' to your comment to have me ignore it.
• Look at CI failures and help fix them

Note: I can only respond to comments from users who have write access to this repository.

⚙️ Control Options:

• Disable automatic comment, CI, and merge conflict monitoring

[seonghobae]

Steward receipt — independent review required

• Exact head: f7b0fd3253747efeef590859df150fd759aaf306
• Merge state: CLEAN / mergeable
• Hosted Checks: 26 successful, 18 skipped, 3 neutral; no current-head failure
• Review: Devin informational thread is resolved; zero unresolved threads; zero formal approvals

Org ruleset CWL Central required workflows (18156473) still requires two independent approvals and latest-push approval. This comment is not an approval. Please perform a fresh independent substantive review of this exact head. Do not treat skipped or predecessor Checks as success.

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review current-head review for ceeaf192f689b456a05abd5537d4ae9b63350c1f.

This refresh binds the live 108-PR snapshot including #1257, removes the trailing whitespace that failed qualitygit diff --check, and retargets the missing Strix cryptography doctoring link to requirements-strix-ci-overrides.txt. The inventory is not merge authorization.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review current-head review for b0100b3bfe3d5b3bea52e137522f8ff7b497f0fe.

Live inventory is now 104 open PRs (G-01/G-04), #1253-#1256 closed unmerged with #1213 as the Strix successor (G-03), and ContextualWisdomLab/naruon#975 is Done (G-06). The SHA table is a snapshot, not merge authorization. Unresolved docs/CWL-MASTER-CONTEXT.md thread is answered with a contract test that pins narrative pointers only.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review current-head review for b5f5ee025f025e5ba9341fa195cac6888c789162.

Follow-up to the 104-row inventory: the PR-count header regex now fail-closes with a readable assertion. Threads from the prior head are resolved. The SHA table is a snapshot, not merge authorization.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review current-head review for 4088aa3e3721515698f653f205031dde768149d1.

Live inventory is 108 open PRs including #1258-#1261. Prior CWL-MASTER-CONTEXT threads are resolved. The table is not merge authorization.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review current-head review for d912aa19d2ee2716d8b593da2362ecc6c3f308b3.

Live inventory now includes #1262 (G-03 main-line LiteLLM openai-direct rewrite). GitHub CLEAN on the previous head is not merge authorization. Independent current-head approval is required.

[seonghobae]

Independent current-head review request for exact HEAD 11e84587b3b1abc3239e03ffdeaa529f91bc69d4.

Gap G-03: required Strix still fail-closes 0-vuln complete scans on MODEL QUALITY WARNING and openai-direct/ LiteLLM LLM Provider NOT provided until #1263 (b05edc069cba461ad1d641ce8809027ad909c14b) is independently approved and merged. Predecessor-head reviews are not merge evidence. Do not self-approve. COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN is not used.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review current-head review for 81b7fa453cdfa27493380565f64817c71a6ba58f.

Live inventory is 103 open PRs after #1260/#1261 closed unmerged. G-03 successor remains #1263. The SHA table is a snapshot, not merge authorization.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review current-head review for 7356a0ac49441aeb7d2794d50b9d492812bee48d.

Previous head 81b7fa45 was GitHub CLEAN with hosted Checks green and no opinionated reviews. Independent current-head OpenCode APPROVE is still required before --match-head-commit. The 99-row inventory is not merge authorization.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review current-head review for 295214894284330d5837ee92fadfdce18049e6f3.

Live inventory is 97 open PRs including #1267/#1269. Independent current-head OpenCode APPROVE is required; the SHA table is not merge authorization.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 295214894284330d5837ee92fadfdce18049e6f3
• Workflow run: 32656752464
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: APPROVE (exit 0)

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (4 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (4 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Inspected changed files including docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md, tests/test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, and docs/CWL-MASTER-CONTEXT.md hunks. Approval sufficiency: trusted Coverage execution evidence PASS supports the documented snapshot contracts. Verification posture: repository-native python3 -m pytest tests executed by the trusted workflow at head 2952148. Linter/static: no lint surface changed; hadolint/packaging surfaces untouched. TDD/regression: four new regression tests pin markers, SHA-bound row completeness, the ADR Figma N/A boundary, and section-10 pointers. Coverage: Coverage execution evidence shows Result: PASS, supported repository test suites passed (python3 -m pytest tests). Docstring coverage: Coverage execution evidence shows configured repository docstring gates passed or advisory. DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed base-to-head flowchart maps entry-point pointers to the new snapshot and the new test assertions to the passing pytest verification. PoC/execution: trusted Coverage Decision PASS receipt; no browser/runtime-tool claims made. DDD/domain: control-plane documentation domain, consistent with sibling doctoring documents. CDD/context: snapshot isolated in docs/ with explicit not-merge-authorization framing preserved. Similar issues: matches the established refresh pattern (docs: bind live 107-PR/104-PR inventories) in per-file history. Claim/concept check: PR-body claims (30-row SHA-bound inventory, delta section, ADR Figma N/A, APA 7th doctoring) are each enforced by test assertions verified at head. Standards search: no external standards claim requires adjudication; APA 7th references confined to doctoring format. Compatibility/convention: naming review found no reserved-word or single-word identifiers; new file names follow docs/adr, docs/doctoring, and tests/ conventions; no API/schema/config names changed. Breaking-change/backcompat: none — additive docs plus additive tests. Performance: no runtime code changed. Developer experience: DX surface is agent-bootstrap documentation; pointers reduce stale-inventory ambiguity and match existing entry-point patterns. User experience: UX surface is reviewer/operator-facing docs rendering on GitHub; tables and headers unchanged in shape. Visual/DOM: non-web interaction surface reviewed (markdown docs and pytest output), no web UI changed. Accessibility/i18n: Korean/English mixed docs retained as-is; no UI text changed. Supply-chain/license: no dependencies added or upgraded. Packaging: unpackaged_source_surfaces empty; pyproject.toml test/docstring/security commands remain the contract. Security/privacy: snapshot exposes only public PR numbers, head SHAs, and GitHub merge states; tests assert merge authorization language is absent from rows. Implementation completeness: no placeholder bodies; all four tests are executable. Residual evidence limits: Failed-check collector timed out (no active failed checks listed) and PR review/comment lists could not be collected; current-head sections report no unresolved threads.

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including AGENTS.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, CHANGELOG.md, CLAUDE.md, docs/CWL-MASTER-CONTEXT.md, and 4 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects AGENTS.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source claims require trusted bounded source evidence prepared outside the isolated model process; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: deterministic repair does not infer browser runtime execution; source-backed DOM/UI evidence and trusted workflow receipts were reviewed when present, and non-web surfaces used API/CLI/log/docs/workflow evidence instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

Adversarial validation

{"status":"passed","probes":[{"path":"tests/test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py","line":91,"hypothesis":"The section-10 rebinding of docs/CWL-MASTER-CONTEXT.md dropped the live-baseline pointer, naruon#974/#975 references, Done status, or the merge-authorization disclaimer, silently regressing agent navigation.","attack_or_counterexample":"Scan current-head docs/CWL-MASTER-CONTEXT.md for each pinned narrative marker (product-technical-gap-baseline.md, Figma File ID, N/A, ContextualWisdomLab/naruon#974, #975, Done, merge authorization) using the shipped regression test.","evidence":"Trusted source trace at tests/test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py:91: CodeGraph verbatim current-head source lines 79-91 assert all seven markers in docs/CWL-MASTER-CONTEXT.md, and trusted Coverage execution evidence records Result: PASS with supported repository test suites passed (python3 -m pytest tests), so every assertion held at this head; Trusted current-head source binding at tests/test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py:91; source-line-sha256=b0d0ac5dae33f9130bedec44b0e99bc37aa6915a4505877626374e0bc530bdd5","outcome":"falsified"},{"path":"AGENTS.md","line":4,"hypothesis":"The new AGENTS.md entry-point sentence links to nonexistent files or misstates the Figma boundary, breaking agent bootstrap on this repo.","attack_or_counterexample":"Resolve both newly linked targets (docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md, docs/adr/0002-product-technical-gap-baseline.md) against the current-head Changed files list and against the ADR boundary assertions.","evidence":"Trusted source trace at AGENTS.md:4: focused changed hunks show the entry sentence linking both targets; the Changed files section marks both as A (added at this head), CodeGraph verbatim source of tests/test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py lines 68-76 asserts 'Figma File ID: N/A' and 'Storybook' in the ADR, and trusted Coverage execution evidence records Result: PASS for the suite at this head; Trusted current-head source binding at AGENTS.md:4; source-line-sha256=20e3a4d380ad1b2fa201ea0b3a27e3393ca454d5e17ee34ea0b1ad3c3b075ff9","outcome":"falsified"}],"residual_risk":"The failed-check collector timed out, so the approval gate re-queries current-head GitHub Checks before merge; the frozen open-PR count decays as the live queue moves and requires the next routine snapshot refresh."}

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: Docs-plus-test rebinding of the live gap baseline is internally consistent, preserves the not-merge-authorization trust boundary, and is verified by trusted passing repository test suites at this head.
• Head SHA: 295214894284330d5837ee92fadfdce18049e6f3
• Workflow run: 32656752464
• Workflow attempt: 1