test(dynamic-workflow): mechanical claims table and reflection formation example

[modacker]

What changes

1. Mechanical claims table (VERIFICATION.md + scripts/verify-claims.mjs): the claims a machine can re-check are tabulated in a ```verify fenced block. The runner executes each row via /bin/sh -c, prints one PASS/FAIL line per claim, and exits 0 only when every row matches its expected exit status (1 on the first mismatch, 2 when the tool itself cannot run). Rows needing development dependencies say so (npm ci first); non-mechanical claims (dashboard acceptance, real-agent calls, platform coverage) intentionally stay prose.
2. Reflection formation example (examples/reflection.js): draft → independent critique → revision, three phases with separate agents, a checkpoint snapshot of the draft, and explicit open-issue handling — styled after examples/audit.js.

Verification

• node scripts/verify-claims.mjs: 4/4 PASS on a committed tree. V-04 failing on a dirty tree is the feature: it detects drifted committed assets.
• examples/reflection.js passes validateScript
• Repository npm run check: green

---

^{Need help on this PR? Tag @codesmith-bot with what you need. Autofix is disabled.}

[modacker]

Related: #47 (zh/en term-consistency audit) — same spirit as the claims table here, extending mechanical checks from behavior to documentation. No action needed on this PR.

[hetaoBackend]

Request changes for exact current head 8d4a56e.

Blocking issues:

1. The PR changes the maintained plugins/hetaoBackend/mcode-dynamic-workflows/ tree, while the PR author/commits are modacker / moc <moc@sgmov.com> and the manifests still identify hetaoBackend as owner (plugin.json:6, .claude-plugin/plugin.json:5). Under CONTRIBUTING.md:28,80, provide explicit owner authorization or move the change to the contributor's own plugin scope before merge.
2. scripts/verify-claims.mjs:10-17 extracts Markdown cells and passes each cell directly to /bin/sh -c. This turns a modified verification document into arbitrary local command execution, with no allowlist for commands/argv or shell metacharacters. Replace it with structured, fixed commands/argv (or an explicit documented trusted-only policy plus strict validation); do not use an unrestricted shell for a claims verifier.
3. The parser only collects rows matching one regex (verify-claims.mjs:12) and silently ignores malformed/unexpected/duplicate rows. It can exit 0 after verifying a subset while claiming “every row”. Validate the header, exact expected IDs/order, uniqueness, columns, and that every table row is consumed; add focused parser tests.
4. The new verifier and examples/reflection.js are not executed by the current CI workflow. The green checks cover the existing 73 source checks and package test, but not node scripts/verify-claims.mjs or validateScript on the reflection example. Add both checks to CI and provide exact-head output.
5. examples/reflection.js:12-15 gives the revision agent the draft and critique but not the original task/material passed to the critic. The runtime contract says agents are self-contained and do not inherit the parent conversation; the revision cannot independently verify the critique evidence. Pass the original material (or a bounded equivalent) to revision and add a regression assertion.

The current [code]smith check is SKIPPED and is not evidence. Reconcile the ownership issue and add the missing executable CI evidence before approval.

[modacker]

Note on the failing validate (ubuntu-latest): the two failures (new-branch attribution considers baselines beyond the first 256 tips, a workspace fetch makes commit attribution explicitly unavailable) are both in cli-agent-bridge's git-attribution tests — the same intermittent family documented with three runs of evidence in #43 (comment). This PR touches only dynamic-workflow docs/examples and a verification script; zero overlap with the failing plugin. Evidence thread on #43 has the details.

[modacker]

Thank you for the exact-head review — all five blockers are actionable. Point-by-point:

1. Ownership (CONTRIBUTING.md:28,80): fix(dynamic-workflow): deterministic wait polling and checkpoint lineage in repair reuse #44 — same maintained plugin tree, same commit authorship, reviewed against exact head and approved+merged — was our basis for treating contributor fixes to mcode-dynamic-workflows as authorized. If that reading is wrong: this is the explicit request for the owner's authorization for this PR's changes to your plugin scope (and for feat(dynamic-workflow): tamper-evident integrity ledger for repair_cache and events #48/feat(dynamic-workflow): opt-in content-addressed cross-run reuse #49, already under your review). If you prefer a different authorization form, say the word.
2. verify-claims shell execution: agreed — /bin/sh -c over document cells is an execution hazard. Reworking to your preferred first shape: claims as fixed argv data in the script (no shell, no markdown on the execution path; node resolved to process.execPath), with the markdown table demoted to a validated mirror (a consistency test asserts the mirror equals the executable claims — malformed or smuggled rows fail loudly instead of being silently skipped).
3. Parser strictness: subsumed by (2); the mirror-consistency test covers exact ID/column/uniqueness/consumption parity.
4. CI coverage: we cannot push .github/workflows/** (OAuth token lacks workflow scope). Two options — (a) maintainer adds two steps (snippet will be in the rework: node scripts/verify-claims.mjs and an examples demo-smoke); or (b) we complete a one-time workflow-scope authorization and add them ourselves. Exact-head outputs of both commands will be posted on this PR with the rework.
5. reflection.js: agreed — agents are self-contained; the revision node will receive the original task/material alongside draft+critique, the example will be made demo-executor-safe, and a demo-mode end-to-end regression check is being added.

Rework incoming on this branch; will re-request review against the exact new head.