chore(gitignore): ignore Office lock files (~$*)

[stevenobiajulu]

Summary

• Add ~$* to .gitignore so Office lock files don't show up in git status during DOCX fixture or template work.

Why

Word/Excel/PowerPoint create lock files like ~$test-doc.docx next to the open document. When testing or authoring DOCX fixtures locally with the document open in Word, these land in git status and can be accidentally staged.

Test plan

• CI green.
• git check-ignore -v ~\$foo.docx prints the new rule.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
site	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 27, 2026 5:20pm

[github-actions]

LLM-Based Quality Gate

Overall: ✅ PASS (14 pass · 0 warn · 14 total)

	Check	Verdict
✅	read_file response metadata parity	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not touch packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/read_file.ts or response metadata.
✅	Live DOM namespace-safe OOXML writes	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not touch packages/docx-core/src/primitives/comments.ts or write prefixed OOXML elements/attributes.
✅	Deleted field markup keeps w:fldChar outside w:del	The PR only modifies the .gitignore file and does not touch field atomization or any field-related markup/logic.
✅	Field validation per story, not global	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not touch packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts, splitStories, validateFieldStructure, side-part merge logic, or footnote/endnote field handling.
✅	Revision IDs seeded from all revision-bearing side parts	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not touch packages/docx-mcp/src/session/manager.ts or any revision-ID allocation logic.
✅	Accept/reject sweep side parts and caches	The PR only modifies the root .gitignore file to ignore temporary Office lock files and does not touch DocxDocument.acceptChanges, DocxDocument.rejectChanges, or any side-part revision markup.
✅	DocumentViewNode.heading stays canonical	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not touch packages/docx-core/src/primitives/document_view.ts, HeadingValue, heading heuristics, ListMetadata.header_style, or Google Docs document-view heading normalization.
✅	AI-author parity across entry points	The PR only modifies the .gitignore file and does not touch the specified entry points or SessionManager construction call sites in packages/docx-mcp.
✅	Property-change wrapper discipline	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not touch packages/docx-core/src/primitives/layout.ts, packages/docx-core/src/primitives/text.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/clear_formatting.ts, or packages/docx-core/src/primitives/track-changes-emitter.ts.
✅	SUPPORT.md Table A drift vs. implementation	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not touch OOXML revision emission behavior in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/** or packages/docx-core/SUPPORT.md.
✅	Table A / Table B boundary on side-part revisions	The PR only modifies the .gitignore file and does not touch comments.ts, footnotes.ts, or other side-part primitives.
✅	Canonical-emission surface completeness	The PR only modifies the .gitignore file and does not touch any tracked-edit surface in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/ or packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/.
✅	Lean predicate drift against engine semantics (asymmetric)	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not touch atomizer behavior, Lean proofs, or the Lean-spec bridge tests.
✅	Unit-test quality (avoid tautological / change-detector tests)	The PR only modifies .gitignore and does not add or modify any test files.

Full checklist questions

1. read_file response metadata parity: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/read_file.ts, budgeted pagination returns, or additive response metadata like warnings / comment_load_error, do every successful return path (default budgeted early return, non-budget fallthrough, explicit limit/node_ids) preserve the same additive diagnostic fields? read_file has multiple success exits; diagnostics have already disappeared on one path before. Reference: fix(docx-core): declare xmlns:w14/w15 on comments root before writing prefixed attributes (#154) #180 surfaced comment_load_error, fix(docx-mcp): warn when read_file budget is exceeded by a single node (closes #184) #186 added an early budget return + warnings, fix(docx-mcp): surface comment_load_error on the default budgeted read path (closes #189) #191 fixed the missing comment_load_error on the default budgeted path.

2. Live DOM namespace-safe OOXML writes: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/comments.ts or writes prefixed OOXML attributes/elements (w14:*, w15:*, xmlns:*, comments.xml, commentsExtended.xml, people.xml), are prefixed OOXML names written with namespace-aware APIs — root aliases bound with setAttributeNS(XMLNS_NS, ...), prefixed attributes with setAttributeNS(W14_NS/W15_NS, ...), and is there a test that proves the live DOM works before serialization/reparse? String-prefixed attributes can serialize plausibly while the live DOM still throws namespace errors. Reference: fix(docx-core): declare xmlns:w14/w15 on comments root before writing prefixed attributes (#154) #180 (xmlns:w14/w15 declared on comments root before writing prefixed attrs).

3. Deleted field markup keeps w:fldChar outside w:del: If this PR touches field atomization, validateFieldStructure, hasFldCharInsideDel, w:fldChar, w:instrText, w:delInstrText, or collapsed field comparison logic, does deleted field output stay ECMA-376-conformant — w:fldChar sibling-level (never inside w:del), deleted instructions use w:delInstrText only inside valid delete wrappers, accept/reject safety checks still reject malformed combined output? Word treats deleted field-state markup in the wrong container as document-corrupting. References: fix(docx-core): validate w:delInstrText placement and reject w:fldChar inside <w:del> #211, fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225, fix(docx-core): fragment w:fldChar outside w:del per ECMA-376 Part 4 #228.

4. Field validation per story, not global: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts, splitStories, validateFieldStructure, side-part merge logic, or footnote/endnote field handling, is field validation run independently per ECMA story (document.xml, each footnote, each endnote), with sidecars from both original and revised archives considered, and global counter balance not treated as sufficient? A document can be globally balanced but have an invalid field sequence inside one story. References: fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225, fix(docx-core): fragment w:fldChar outside w:del per ECMA-376 Part 4 #228, feat(docx-core): sweep side-part revisions on accept/reject #218.

5. Revision IDs seeded from all revision-bearing side parts: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/session/manager.ts (especially getRevisionContextForSession or FIXED_REVISION_ID_SEED_PARTS), createRevisionContext, revision-ID allocation, or MCP tools that create tracked changes/comments/footnotes, does revision-ID allocation scan all relevant package parts before issuing new IDs — comments, footnotes, endnotes, glossary, headers, footers — ignore non-revision w:id values (comment IDs, bookmarks), and handle malformed optional parts gracefully? Revision IDs are package-wide; document-only seeding collides with existing side-part revisions. Reference: fix(docx-mcp): seed revision ids from side parts #216 (seed revision ids from side parts).

6. Accept/reject sweep side parts and caches: If this PR touches DocxDocument.acceptChanges, DocxDocument.rejectChanges, REVISION_STORY_PART_PATHS, accept_changes, reject_changes, or side-part revision markup, does accept/reject process every revision-bearing story — updating document.xml + footnotes.xml + endnotes.xml + comments.xml, writing back only changed side parts while refreshing cached XML, and pruning orphan footnotes without deleting reserved separator entries? Accepting only in the main document leaves stale revisions and dangling references in the package. References: feat(docx-core): sweep side-part revisions on accept/reject #218, fix(docx-mcp): seed revision ids from side parts #216, fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225.

7. DocumentViewNode.heading stays canonical: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/document_view.ts, HeadingValue, heading heuristics, ListMetadata.header_style, or Google Docs document-view heading normalization, does node.heading remain a structural heading signal — exact Word styles Heading1–Heading6 win, heuristic sources suppressed inside table cells while real Word heading styles still pass, ordinary body paragraphs omit the heading key? Consumers use node.heading != null as a structural test; heuristic false positives break downstream navigation. References: fix(docx-core): harden heading detection (#157 Phase 1) #178, fix(docx-core): suppress non-sectional false-positive headings (closes #187) #188, feat(docx-core): add derived heading object to DocumentViewNode (closes #179) #190.

8. AI-author parity across entry points: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/server.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/cli/tool_runner.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/cli/commands/**, or adds any new new SessionManager(...) call site in docx-mcp, does every entry point that constructs a SessionManager resolve SAFE_DOCX_AI_AUTHOR with the same three-way semantics (set → use it; empty string → opt out to untracked; unset → defaultAiAuthor), or has a new entry path silently bypassed tracked emission? Each entry path looks locally correct while diverging from another; tracked emission has gone dark in one path before anyone noticed. References: feat(docx-mcp): wire configurable AI author through MCP layer (#142) #172 (production MCP wiring would have kept tracked emission dark), fix(docx-mcp): honor SAFE_DOCX_AI_AUTHOR in CLI entry points (#181) #182 (CLI runners constructing bare SessionManager() silently produced untracked edits).

9. Property-change wrapper discipline: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/layout.ts, packages/docx-core/src/primitives/text.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/clear_formatting.ts, or packages/docx-core/src/primitives/track-changes-emitter.ts, do tracked formatting/property edits emit exactly one correct *PrChange wrapper (pPrChange / rPrChange / trPrChange / tcPrChange) carrying a snapshot of the prior live properties — not stacking stale wrappers, not stripping valid historical children (cellIns/cellDel/cellMerge), and not omitting the snapshot when the operation is formatting-aware? Emitted OOXML is visually plausible but subtle snapshot mistakes only surface during later accept/reject or in Word's tracked-changes UI. References: feat(docx-core): emit pPrChange/trPrChange/tcPrChange from layout setters (#140) #167 (duplicate pPrChange/trPrChange/tcPrChange stacking + over-broad tcPr exclusion), feat(docx-mcp): emit rPrChange from clear_formatting MCP tool (#141) #170 (clear_formatting failing to strip stale rPrChange), feat(docx-core): emit rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements #215 (rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements + filtering nested stale records).

10. SUPPORT.md Table A drift vs. implementation: If this PR modifies OOXML revision emission behavior (w:ins, w:del, w:rPrChange, etc.) in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/**, or touches packages/docx-core/SUPPORT.md, does the PR symmetrically update Table A in SUPPORT.md when the supported revision-emission surface in primitives changed — added, removed, or weakened — or is the documented contract now lying about what's supported? Reviewers focus on TS AST correctness and golden tests; Markdown contract tables get treated as an afterthought, so the documented surface drifts from the actual surface. Reference: [120.8] Regression suite for canonical revision emission across the surface #143 review caught replaceParagraphTextRange should emit w:rPrChange when run formatting changes #173 (formatting mismatch in Table A) and addCommentReply should emit body revision markup OR SUPPORT.md should be softened #174 (comment body revision omission forcing a Table A softening) late in peer review.

11. Table A / Table B boundary on side-part revisions: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/comments.ts, packages/docx-core/src/primitives/footnotes.ts, or other side-part primitives, and adds/changes revision markup (w:ins, w:del), does tracked-change revision logic stay scoped to Table A (document-body content inside the side part) without leaking revision markup into Table B (the side-part package bootstrap — comments.xml/footnotes.xml element registration itself)? Body runs and side-part package elements share nearly identical XML namespace schemas; revisions emitted in the wrong table corrupt the package contract while looking plausible. References: [120.3] Emit w:ins/w:del for comment body anchors #138 (comment-body straddle constraints), [120.4] Emit w:ins/w:del for footnote reference and text #139 (footnote-reference straddle constraints).

12. Canonical-emission surface completeness: If this PR adds or changes a tracked-edit surface in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/** or packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/**, are the paired artifacts updated together — packages/docx-core/src/integration/canonical-emission-regression.test.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/integration/canonical-emission-mcp.test.ts, and the documented emitter surface (Table A) — or is the rollout only partially wired? The primitive change looks done before the MCP path, regression matrix, and documented contract are wired through; partial rollouts ship undocumented surface that drifts. References: feat(docx-mcp): wire configurable AI author through MCP layer (#142) #172 (RevisionContext threaded through every Table A MCP tool), test(docx-core,docx-mcp): final regression suite for canonical emission (#143) #175 (24-test regression suite + verified write-time emitter rows), feat(docx-core): emit rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements #215 (re-enabled rPrChange regression + updated support surface for replaceParagraphTextRange).

13. Lean predicate drift against engine semantics (asymmetric): If this PR changes field-wrapper semantics, the proof boundary, or atomizer behavior — packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/**, verification/lean/LeanSpike/Spec.lean, verification/lean/Tier2/**, or packages/docx-core/src/integration/lean-spec-bridge.test.ts — and if the TS engine semantics shifted, did the PR also update the Lean residual predicate and bridge tests, or is the proof now pinned to a stale stronger/weaker assumption? Asymmetric: a TS change without a corresponding Lean update is WARN; a Lean-only change without a TS update should not fire. The Lean side can still compile while the abstraction boundary is subtly wrong for the next engine refactor. References: feat(verification): close inv_field_001 with Tier 2 OoxmlDoc subset #208 (closed inv_field_001 using stronger recursivelyWellformed), refactor(verification): weaken inv_field_001 axiom to document-level preservationFriendly (rebased follow-up to #208) #220 (weakened the axiom to document-level preservationFriendly to avoid breakage when field fragmentation lands).

14. Unit-test quality (avoid tautological / change-detector tests): If this PR adds or modifies any **/*.test.ts (or other test files), are the test assertions independent of the system under test — expected values constructed from first principles rather than re-derived from the function under test, mocks limited to external boundaries (filesystem, network, clocks) rather than mocking the SUT itself, assertions making concrete semantic claims rather than just snapshotting current behavior or asserting non-null, and any test added alongside a bug fix actually exercising the bug? Tests that re-implement the production code as the "expected" value, or mock out the system under test, pass green while providing no regression protection.

Estimated cost (this run): $0.0099 — 28,426 input + 527 output tokens (≈4 chars/token) on gemini-3.5-flash. Char-count estimate, not provider telemetry.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!