@jabworks/condux@0.10.2

0.10.2

Patch Changes

• e5403d1 Thanks @vi-hieu! - Eval-corpus triage for the condux member skills (docket #37, family A): seven
  cases gain accept alternates where the sibling the router actually chose is
  doctrinally correct — preflight/finalize/release on "ship it", preflight ↔
  live-verification on post-implementation "verify it", spec-browser on loading a
  spec, workflow on stimuli that are genuinely plain implementation requests.
  Each carries a note recording the rationale.

  No trigger contract changed. workflow chosen over a downstream condux skill
  deliberately stays a miss — those misses are the eval's power to detect drift
  toward the entry point, and they are the evidence for which downstream
  contracts are too weak to win.

• 6c9829b Thanks @vi-hieu! - test-first-development now claims the two things it already owned but never advertised.

  Advisory questions about the practice. "should I tdd ui components" missed
  0/3 in two independent variance bands — never once routed, the most stable miss
  in the corpus. The contract said "trigger when the user explicitly asks for
  tests-first", so a question about whether to read as a question, not a
  request, and the router declined. But deciding when tests-first applies is this
  skill's whole opt-in design. The contract now says so, mirroring workflow's
  "also the operating manual" clause.

  Requests to change a passing-by-editing test, in user phrasing. The rule was
  already there — "whenever an existing test spec is about to be edited to make it
  pass" — but written from the agent's side in passive voice, describing a state
  the agent is about to enter. The router only ever sees a user message, so
  matching it required a two-step inference it made about a third of the time.
  Named in user phrasing now: just fix the test, update the failing test to match
  the new behavior.

  No exclusion clause was added, deliberately. Across 582 cases, nothing wrongly
  routed to this skill in either band — zero false positives — so a "not for
  ordinary test work" clause would have bought nothing measurable (docket #37).