Adopt shared policies and align ReleaseKit documentation and licensing

docs/policy/agents.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+# Agent Policy
+
+**Base Policy Version:** 1.3
+
+**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
+
+**Upstream Source:** [agents.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/agents.md)
+
+## Purpose
+
+Agents must read and follow these rules.
+
+## Implementation Discipline
+
+**KEY PRINCIPLES:** Write the simplest idiomatic code that satisfies the user's
+request. Do not implicitly strengthen requirements, restrictions, or guarantees
+beyond what the user actually requested.
+
+**Keep implementation machinery proportionate.** Use straightforward,
+idiomatic code and introduce only the machinery needed to support the requested
+behavior and flexibility. Optimize for conceptual simplicity and
+maintainability, not for the fewest lines, fewest options, or narrowest product
+surface.
+
+**Do not invent restrictions.** Do not reject, prohibit, constrain, cap,
+harden, or otherwise narrow behavior unless required by the user, an explicit
+repository contract, or an unavoidable correctness constraint. Preserve
+operator and caller choice where policy has not been established. If an
+additional restriction appears advisable, present it as a decision rather than
+silently implementing it.
+
+A correctness constraint must follow from the requested behavior or an
+established invariant, not from the convenience of the chosen implementation.
+Explain the specific failure it prevents and why a less restrictive
+implementation cannot satisfy the contract.
+
+**Do not invent guarantees.** Do not strengthen public contracts, guarantees,
+or invariants beyond those expressly requested by the user.
+
+**Use the standard library.** For example: in almost every case, the best
+approach to copying files is to use the standard library. Writing custom code to
+implement power-loss protection at the application level, or to guard against
+bad actors with privileged and concurrent access to the host's filesystem,
+is wasteful, unnecessary, and not idiomatic. Stick to the simple, standard, and
+idiomatic approach unless another path is expressly requested by the user.
+
+**An implementation detail is not repository policy.** Tests and documentation
+must not elevate incidental behavior into a durable guarantee or restriction
+unless that behavior was expressly selected as part of the contract.
+
+Existing explicit contracts remain authoritative. Changing one requires a
+deliberate decision. Agent-authored plans, tests, documentation, and prior
+implementations do not independently establish additional contracts. Identify
+the authorizing requirement or decision; when that authority is unclear, surface
+the ambiguity rather than treating repetition as approval.
+
+## Git Commit Policy
+
+By default, commit each completed, nonempty unit of work using a
+concise, plain-English message describing what changed. This policy is standing
+authorization to create those local commits; a separate user request is not
+required. An explicit user instruction to leave work uncommitted takes precedence.
+
+A unit of work is a focused, reviewable outcome, including its relevant tests and
+documentation.
+Complete the appropriate validation before committing. If work is incomplete or
+validation is blocked, report that state accurately.
+
+Before committing:
+
+1. Run `git status --short` and review the relevant diff, including any staged
+   changes. Identify changes that predate the current unit of work.
+2. Exclude secrets, local environment files, generated junk, and unrelated changes.
+3. Stage only the files or hunks belonging to the completed unit. Use `git add .`
+   only when every included change belongs to that unit. Preserve unrelated
+   staged and unstaged work.
+4. Review `git diff --staged` and run appropriate checks for the change. Reuse
+   successful checks for unchanged content.
+5. Review `git log --oneline -n 10` and use
+   `git commit -m "<concise plain-English commit message>"`.
+6. Report the commit identifier and any remaining uncommitted work.
+
+If the unit cannot be safely separated from pre-existing work, leave it uncommitted
+and explain the overlap rather than silently including that work. If a commit
+fails, preserve the changes and report the failure; do not bypass hooks.
+
+Default commit authorization does not authorize pushing, publishing, amending,
+resetting, reverting, or rewriting history. Those actions require a separate user
+instruction. Do not use `git commit -a` or `git commit --no-verify` to bypass the
+staging and validation discipline above.

docs/policy/architecture.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+# Architecture Policy
+
+**Base Policy Version:** 1.3
+
+**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
+
+**Upstream Source:** [architecture.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/architecture.md)
+
+## Purpose And Ownership
+
+ReleaseKit is being designed as an opinionated Go library and release executable
+for common publication, builds, version injection, and delivery. This policy owns
+responsibility boundaries, dependency direction, and adopted constraints for
+development. The [product roadmap](../roadmap/releasekit.md) owns proposed
+capabilities, implementation status, and sequencing.
+
+Describe concrete package inventory and implementation mechanics in internal
+documentation when those packages exist. Link to canonical public contracts
+for exact behavior and to ADRs for decision rationale.
+
+## Adopted Constraints And Implemented Structure
+
+Architectural constraints govern current and future development. Record
+implemented structure accurately, proposals and implementation status in the
+roadmap, and significant decisions and rationale in ADRs. Describe a target
+structure as implemented when its changes land.
+
+Constraints must reflect deliberately selected requirements and decisions.
+Do not promote incidental implementation choices into architectural invariants.
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+Evaluate ReleaseKit development and adoption against both criteria:
+
+1. Applications delete substantial release infrastructure while retaining clear
+   ownership of product-specific checks and compatibility decisions.
+2. Consumers adopt one coherent set of deliberately selected release conventions.
+
+Consumer implementations supply evidence of needs. ReleaseKit selects a common
+model and enough flexibility to express genuine product requirements. API
+designs should demonstrate reduced consumer infrastructure and consistent
+conventions through representative consumers.
+
+## Responsibility Boundaries
+
+ReleaseKit owns the mechanics of selected publication, version injection,
+cross-build, and delivery conventions. Applications supply product identity,
+their main package, selected build targets, application-specific candidate
+checks, and delivery declarations. Applications own their compatibility
+decisions and adaptation of version output to the supported runtime accessor.
+
+The release executable invokes the supported orchestration facade and owns
+argument parsing, output, and exit codes. Library operations return meaningful
+errors and outcomes, including partial progress and uncertain publication state.
+Consumers map those values to their own user interfaces.
+
+ReleaseKit builds and tests independently of consuming repositories. Production
+dependencies use supported public contracts; consumer-private packages and local
+checkout paths remain outside its dependency graph. Temporary local development
+configuration stays outside committed module and workspace state.
+
+## Public Facades And Dependency Direction
+
+[ADR 0001](../adr/0001-public-facade.md) records the accepted decision for the root
+`releasekit` orchestration facade and separate `buildinfo` runtime facade.
+Both belong to one Go module and share its versioning and compatibility
+obligations. Each facade exposes a cohesive consumer contract.
+
+Public named types belong to their facade. Exported signatures, fields,
+callbacks, and method sets use facade-owned types and deliberately selected
+public dependencies. Handles retain private implementation state, with explicit
+forwarding and conversions preserving supported identity, ownership, error
+semantics, and callback lifetime.
+
+Implementation packages live under Go's `internal/` boundary. Dependencies run
+from facades into internal implementation; internal production packages depend
+on internal contracts. Git operations, Go toolchain execution, Gitea integration,
+and orchestration bookkeeping belong behind that boundary. Additional public
+packages and extension interfaces require a deliberate decision grounded in a
+durable consumer need.
+
+Go declarations and GoDoc own exact API contracts. Compiled-export checks,
+dependency checks, and external-package behavioral tests protect the selected
+facade boundaries as implementation lands.
+
+## Runtime Version Boundary
+
+The `buildinfo` public API exposes only runtime information justified by
+consumer needs. Its implementation uses the standard library and a small
+internal dependency graph independent of release orchestration. Applications
+read their embedded version through its supported accessor.
+
+The builder and runtime implementation own the linker symbol and injection
+mechanism together. Dependency checks protect the runtime boundary;
+build-and-run integration tests verify that the builder injects the selected
+version and the public accessor reports it correctly.
+
+## External Effects
+
+Keep Git, filesystem, Go toolchain, and Gitea effects behind proportionate
+internal boundaries and perform them through explicit operations. Select
+interfaces and package layout for actual responsibilities and testability.
+The library owns reusable outcomes and failure handling; the executable owns
+presentation and process exits.
+
+Source publication and asynchronous delivery have distinct outcomes. The
+[release policy](release.md) governs releases of ReleaseKit itself. Consumer
+release capabilities and their implementation remain in the product roadmap
+until supported contracts exist.
+
+## Trust Boundaries And Threat Scope
+
+Base defenses and guarantees on selected requirements. Candidate validation,
+remote-state changes, transport failures, and partial delivery require explicit
+handling when those operations are implemented. Additional threat scenarios
+require a deliberate scope decision under the [agent policy](agents.md).
+
+Credential supply and runtime handling belong in the applicable public or
+integration contracts when implemented. Internal documents own the mechanisms.
+Tests use local collaborators and controlled failures as specified by the
+[testing policy](testing.md).

docs/policy/documentation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+# Documentation Policy
+
+**Base Policy Version:** 1.11
+
+**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
+
+**Upstream Source:** [documentation.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/documentation.md)
+
+## Purpose
+
+This policy assigns each documentation topic to one canonical owner. Its goal is
+to keep ReleaseKit's documentation accurate, concise, discoverable, and resistant
+to drift for consumers, maintainers, developers, and coding agents.
+
+## Core Rules
+
+### One Canonical Owner
+
+Each authoritative fact belongs in one document. A non-owning document may give
+a short, stable summary for orientation, but it must link to the canonical owner
+for volatile details.
+
+Volatile details include commands, flags, configuration fields and defaults,
+module keys, schemas, file names, paths, status codes, retry behavior, and
+runtime guarantees. If readers could reasonably treat a statement as a
+contract, maintain it only in the owning document.
+
+### Current And Future Behavior
+
+Outside `docs/roadmap/`, documentation describes implemented behavior only.
+Partial features may be described only to their implemented boundary.
+
+Architectural constraints may govern future changes. Describe current structure
+from implemented behavior.
+
+ADRs may record an accepted architectural decision before implementation. The
+roadmap owns implementation status and sequencing until the decision is
+implemented. Current architecture, user, operator, integration, and internal
+documentation are updated when the behavior lands.
+
+### Audience And Detail
+
+Write for the document's stated audience and include only the detail needed for
+its owned topic. Keep user and operator docs focused on using and operating the
+application. Developer docs should link to user-facing and external contracts
+for their definitions.
+
+### Examples
+
+Complete copyable files belong in `examples/`. Documentation may use the
+smallest illustrative snippet needed to explain its owned topic, but should link
+to maintained examples for complete copyable files.
+
+Examples must be valid, secret-free, and tested where practical. Commands and
+configuration used in documentation should match the application.
+
+### Security And Privacy
+
+Documentation and examples must not contain real credentials, private keys,
+private environment dumps, sensitive source material, or private infrastructure
+details unless intentionally public. Document secret-handling mechanisms, not
+secret values.
+
+## Canonical Ownership
+
+| Topic | Canonical owner | Owned content | Content owned elsewhere |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Product orientation and minimal example | `README.md` | Purpose, current status, shortest useful example when implemented, and navigation, including licensing and attribution. | Complete command reference, configuration reference, operational procedures, implementation detail. |
+| Contributor entry point | `docs/development.md` | Task-oriented reading guide, contributor orientation, baseline validation commands, and canonical links. | Package inventory, architecture rules, subsystem behavior, detailed change recipes. |
+| ReleaseKit architecture policy | `docs/policy/architecture.md` | System shape, normative ownership, dependency direction, boundaries, invariants, safety properties, and non-goals. | Concrete package inventory, implementation mechanics, contributor procedures, decision history, future work. |
+| Policy-set provenance and upstream navigation | `docs/policy/meta.md` | Policy-set origin, local authority, adoption baselines, and upstream adoption and update links. | Task-specific reading triggers, detailed adoption procedures, and formal attribution notices. |
+| Agent policy | `docs/policy/agents.md` | Proportionate, idiomatic implementation; rules against inventing requirements, restrictions, guarantees, or policy. | Application contracts, architecture, testing policy, and contributor procedures. |
+| Documentation policy | `docs/policy/documentation.md` | Documentation ownership, audience boundaries, maintenance rules, and ADR/document lifecycle. | Application architecture or product behavior. |
+| Testing policy | `docs/policy/testing.md` | Test philosophy, risk sufficiency, boundaries, doubles, coverage, regressions, and test maintenance. | Subsystem behavior, application contracts, subsystem-specific test inventories, and implementation plans. |
+| Release policy | `docs/policy/release.md` | Versioning, compatibility, release integrity and immutability, release documentation, proportionate gates, publication controls, completion, and required versus optional checks. | Repository-specific commands, product installation guidance, CLI version semantics, historical release summaries, and CI implementation detail. |
+| Open source licensing and attribution policy | `docs/policy/oss.md` | License defaults and author choices, COPYRIGHT and attribution formats, license/notice links, discoverability, maintenance, and concrete exceptions. | Component entries, license texts, release commands, and dependency security review. |
+| Project copyright and license grant | `COPYRIGHT` | Project identity, copyright holders and years, SPDX expression, grant, separately licensed document scope, warranty disclaimer, and third-party statement. | Complete license texts and upstream component attribution. |
+| Project license texts | `LICENSE` | Complete project and incorporated companion license texts, with required project-specific fields. | General licensing policy and upstream component attribution. |
+| Upstream component attribution | `docs/oss/attribution.md` | House Format component entries: identity, material scope and modifications where applicable, copyright, license, required notices, and license, notice, and source links. | General attribution policy, exception reasoning, research narratives, compliance commentary, and complete standard license texts. |
+| Standard license texts | `docs/oss/licenses/` | Complete, verbatim standard license texts shared by applicable entries, including copied documentation. | Project-specific upstream notices, attribution prose, and policy interpretation. |
+| Repository-specific release procedure | `docs/release.md` | Maintainer prerequisites, candidate preparation, validation and publication commands and automated guards, asynchronous deliverables, delivery status, optional consumer verification, and recovery. | General release requirements, product installation guidance, historical release summaries, and current compatibility contracts. |
+| CLI contract (if applicable) | `docs/cli.md` | Commands, arguments, flags, invocation semantics, and exit codes. | End-to-end operating procedures, configuration field definitions, runtime filesystem layout, module implementation details. |
+| Configuration contract (if applicable) | `docs/config.md` | Discovery, precedence, fields, defaults, environment inputs, and validation for implemented configuration. | Complete example files, CLI syntax, runtime state lifecycle, implementation details. |
+| Exported Go API (when implemented) | Go declarations and GoDoc | Exact symbol contracts, errors, ownership, and lifecycle semantics for each facade. | Consumer walkthroughs, CLI contracts, integration protocols, and internal mechanics. |
+| Consumer guidance for the public Go API (if applicable) | `docs/consumers/` | Task-oriented public Go API usage, minimal examples, and consumer responsibilities. | HTTP wire semantics, external protocol contracts, internal implementation detail. |
+| Integration contracts for external components (if applicable) | `docs/integrations/` | External formats and protocols, upstream and downstream contracts, logical output paths and schemas, media types, and compatibility. | Physical runtime placement and lifecycle, internal transformations, CLI syntax, configuration defaults. |
+| Inventory of implemented internal packages | `docs/internal/overview.md` | Implemented packages and components, responsibilities, and links to focused internal docs. | Normative architecture, contributor reading policy, external contracts. |
+| Behavior and architecture of internal packages | Other files under `docs/internal/` | Implementation flow, collaborators, state transitions, package-local guarantees and failures, and relevant tests. | Global architecture invariants, configuration definitions and defaults, external schemas, operator procedures. |
+| Architectural decision records | `docs/adr/` | Significant decisions, context, alternatives, rationale, consequences, and supersession history. | Current behavior reference, implementation status, task sequencing. |
+| Future work and implementation status | `docs/roadmap/` | Proposed, accepted, deferred, or rejected work; implementation status, sequencing, and task breakdowns. | Implemented behavior reference and architectural decision rationale. |
+| Release-note history | `docs/releases/` | One checked-in summary per source release under the procedure; the note at its immutable tag is the release record. | Current commands, behavior, contracts, and compatibility definitions. |
+| Complete copyable artifacts | `examples/` | Maintained configuration, inputs, and other copyable or runnable files. | Field-by-field reference, command reference, prose explanation. |
+
+Create supporting documents for existing interfaces and responsibilities when
+substantive content is available. The CLI, configuration, consumer, integration,
+internal, example, and release-procedure owners become documents as their
+corresponding implementation lands. Keep implementation status in the roadmap
+and avoid empty owners.
+
+## Boundary Rules
+
+### Orientation
+
+Link among orientation, architecture, and internal documents; maintain each
+package or behavior description in its canonical owner.
+
+### Go API, CLI, And Configuration
+
+Go declarations and GoDoc own exact exported contracts. Consumer guidance
+explains tasks and links to those declarations. CLI documentation owns invocation
+and exit semantics; configuration documentation owns settings. Release procedures
+own maintainer publication and recovery workflows. Link across those owners
+when a task spans their boundaries.
+
+### Releases
+
+The release policy defines requirements and invariants that every release must
+satisfy. The repository-specific release procedure defines the commands and
+workflow maintainers use to satisfy that policy. Release notes record history
+at immutable tags. Maintain current behavior in its canonical documentation,
+update it with the corresponding behavior changes, and keep release procedures
+consistent with adopted policy.
+
+### Project Licensing And Upstream Attribution
+
+README and release documents link to the canonical licensing and attribution
+materials under the [OSS policy](oss.md). The release procedure owns URL
+construction and publication mechanics.
+
+### Contracts And Implementation
+
+GoDoc, CLI, configuration, and integration documents define externally observable
+shapes and semantics. Internal documents explain how ReleaseKit implements or
+consumes those contracts. Internal docs may name a field, file, or protocol to
+identify a dependency, but must link to its canonical contract for the definition.
+
+### Security Topics
+
+This policy owns what documentation and examples may contain. Architecture owns
+selected security invariants. Public API, configuration, and integration
+contracts own credential supply and observable handling. Internal docs own
+implementation mechanisms only.
+
+## Architecture Decision Records
+
+Use sequentially numbered ADR filenames such as
+`0001-record-architecture-decisions.md`. Follow the lightweight Nygard format:
+
+1. title;
+2. status;
+3. date;
+4. context;
+5. decision;
+6. alternatives considered;
+7. consequences.
+
+Treat the decision content of an accepted ADR as immutable. When a decision
+changes, create a new ADR and update the earlier ADR's status to superseded.
+Rejected architectural alternatives belong in the ADR; rejected product ideas
+belong in the roadmap. Routine choices need no ADR.
+
+## Maintenance
+
+When behavior changes, update its canonical owner in the same change. If
+ownership moves, remove the old definition and replace it with a link where
+navigation remains useful.
+
+Before completing documentation work:
+
+- verify affected behavior and examples;
+- check commands, flags, fields, defaults, schemas, and paths against their
+  implementation;
+- keep unimplemented behavior in the roadmap, subject to the ADR exception;
+- remove stale references and validate links;
+- confirm that non-owning documents summarize and link rather than redefine;
+- confirm that no secrets or sensitive private data were added.

docs/policy/meta.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Policy Set Provenance
+
+**Base Policy Version:** 1.0
+
+**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
+
+**Upstream Source:** [meta.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/meta.md)
+
+## Origin And Local Authority
+
+This repository's policy set is adapted from
+[Standard Repository Policies](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy).
+The adopted local policies govern work in this repository. Upstream revisions
+become local policy through deliberate adoption, preserving local decisions.
+Each policy's `Upstream Source` identifies its adopted baseline.
+
+## Adoption And Updates
+
+For policy adoption, upstream revision reviews, and updates, consult the
+[upstream adoption and update guide](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/branch/main/docs/adoption.md).
+That guide and the reference example collection are maintained upstream and
+accessed through links. Keep discovery links pointed at the current upstream
+project and guide; keep adopted-source and example links pinned to commits.
+
+The local [developer guide](../development.md) routes tasks to applicable
+policies. Formal credit and licensing notices for the copied policy material
+belong in the local [attribution document](../oss/attribution.md).

docs/policy/oss.md

@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+# Open Source Licensing And Attribution Policy
+
+**Base Policy Version:** 1.8
+
+**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
+
+**Upstream Source:** [oss.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/oss.md)
+
+## Purpose And Scope
+
+This policy defines project licensing conventions and a repeatable House Format
+for upstream attribution and license notices. It covers the project's own code
+and upstream components incorporated into or distributed with the application
+or library, including relevant transitive dependencies and copied code,
+documentation, or assets.
+Determine treatment from the component's terms and actual use.
+
+Consulting development guidance or using tooling alone does not require an
+attribution entry. Copying or adapting documentation for inclusion in the
+repository is different: preserve its applicable attribution and license terms.
+A material's role as development guidance does not exempt copied documents.
+Apply any express permissions for attribution-free reuse of example formatting.
+
+The baseline is a publicly available source repository with releases published
+alongside it. The format is independent of language, forge, and build system.
+It does not require attribution for every development tool, establish license
+compatibility, or resolve every obligation arising from use or distribution.
+
+## Canonical Locations
+
+The [documentation policy](documentation.md) assigns ownership:
+
+- `COPYRIGHT`: project name, copyright statements, SPDX expression, grant,
+  warranty disclaimer, and third-party statement.
+- `LICENSE` contains the complete, unmodified project license text, including
+  incorporated companion text. Dependency attribution does not relicense the project.
+- `docs/oss/attribution.md`: canonical component entries.
+- `docs/oss/licenses/`: complete, verbatim standard and applicable companion texts.
+
+Use recognizable license filenames, such as `Apache-2.0.txt` or `LGPL-3.0.txt`.
+A shared standard text may serve multiple entries. Keep explanations outside
+license texts and preserve distinct versions and exceptions.
+
+## Upstream Reference Examples
+
+Use the commit-pinned upstream examples to create actual project notices.
+Retain their links and keep the example collection upstream; keep applicable
+license texts locally as specified above.
+
+The pinned upstream [standard license reference collection](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/oss/licenses/README.md)
+provides texts to copy for applicable licenses and their companions.
+
+## Project Licensing
+
+ReleaseKit's selected grant is LGPL version 3 or later, recorded in
+[COPYRIGHT](../../COPYRIGHT). It applies to the library and a future release
+executable. Adapted policy documents, agent orientation, and the policy reading
+guide retain their CC-BY-SA-4.0 scope as identified there and in the
+[attribution document](../oss/attribution.md).
+
+Unless the author specifies otherwise, use **GPL version 3 or later**
+(`GPL-3.0-or-later`) for applications and **LGPL version 3 or later**
+(`LGPL-3.0-or-later`) for libraries. An author's explicit choice takes precedence:
+for example, a one-off script may use MIT. Such a choice requires no exception
+rationale, additional approval, or compensating controls under this policy.
+
+These defaults guide new license selection. Adopting this policy does not
+relicense existing code or override third-party terms. Preserve an existing
+license unless the author deliberately changes it. For mixed-purpose projects,
+follow the author's selected scope rather than inferring different licenses for
+individual packages.
+
+Use the upstream [application COPYRIGHT example](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/examples/licensing/application/COPYRIGHT)
+or [library COPYRIGHT example](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/examples/licensing/library/COPYRIGHT)
+to create the project’s root `COPYRIGHT` file.
+Use verified project names, contribution years, and copyright holders.
+For another selected license, adapt the grant, SPDX expression, disclaimer, and
+text references together to reflect the author's selected grant.
+
+For GPLv3 projects, copy the complete GPLv3 text into `LICENSE`. For LGPLv3
+projects, place the complete LGPLv3 text followed by the complete GPLv3 text in
+`LICENSE`; the LGPL incorporates the GPL terms. Keep the texts unmodified and
+place project-specific statements in `COPYRIGHT`. For the default grants, the
+grant and SPDX expression in `COPYRIGHT` must expressly identify `or-later`;
+follow the author’s choice if a different grant is selected.
+
+For other licenses, provide their complete text and any required project-specific
+fields; the standard reference collection remains unchanged. Keep `COPYRIGHT`,
+`LICENSE`, SPDX expressions, and README descriptions consistent with the actual
+grant. This convention introduces no blanket requirement for per-file headers;
+preserve notices or add them where the applicable terms require them.
+
+Identify separately licensed documentation or assets in the project grant, with
+links to their attribution and license information. An application's default
+code license does not override the terms of incorporated documentation.
+
+## Upstream Attribution House Format
+
+Begin `docs/oss/attribution.md` with `# Open Source Attribution Notices`,
+followed directly by component entries. These comprise the complete document.
+
+Each entry presents these five fields in order, with blank lines between them:
+
+1. **Project name** as a level-two heading. An optional identification paragraph
+   may follow, such as `Selected module: MODULE at VERSION.` with the module and
+   version in backticks. For copied documentation, a concise `Material:` sentence
+   may identify the affected files and whether they were adapted or copied
+   without modification. A factual qualifier such as `(transitive dependency)`
+   is permitted. Limit optional identification prose to factual component and
+   material scope.
+2. **Upstream copyright statement or statements**, preserving their wording.
+   Put multiple statements in separate paragraphs. Include this field when the
+   selected upstream source supplies an applicable statement; otherwise, omit it.
+3. **SPDX license identifier or expression**, when applicable, using
+   `SPDX-License-Identifier: EXPRESSION`.
+4. **License and notice links**, beginning `License and notices:`, separated
+   by ` | `, and ending with a period. Label local standard texts by license
+   name, such as `MIT` or `Apache 2.0`. Label upstream files by their actual
+   filenames, such as `COPYRIGHT`, `LICENSE`, `NOTICE`, or `PATENTS`.
+5. **Source repository link**, rendered exactly as `[Source](COMMIT_URL).`.
+
+Use the upstream [attribution example](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/examples/licensing/attribution.md)
+to create the project’s `docs/oss/attribution.md`.
+The example illustrates omitted fields and multiple copyrights and licenses.
+Replace the uppercase placeholders and illustrative URLs with actual component
+information. Local license links are relative to the destination
+`docs/oss/attribution.md`; copy the applicable texts into its `licenses/`
+directory. Do not copy example entries for components the project does not use.
+
+These are five fields, not a line limit. Omit the SPDX field when no applicable
+identifier exists; identify nonstandard terms through the linked text. Preserve
+licensing alternatives and exceptions, and record a selected option when
+relevant through the factual license identification. Do not invent an identifier
+or silently resolve an unsettled licensing choice.
+
+Keep entries factual. Do not add agent-authored explanations of license
+expressions, file-level license scope, research performed, retained source
+notices, or compliance conclusions. Avoid filler such as "none is invented
+here" and embellished link labels such as "upstream LICENSE", "additional
+patent grant", or "at the imported commit". Preserve actual required upstream
+content; this rule excludes editorial additions, not required notices. Policy
+interpretation and exception reasoning belong in the adopted OSS policy or an
+appropriate decision record, not the attribution document.
+
+## License Texts And Upstream Links
+
+Link standard license texts to their local copies. Link project-specific
+notices to their upstream copies. Every upstream repository or notice link must
+identify the exact commit corresponding to the
+imported version, including the selected source revision for copied material.
+
+Classify material according to its contents. An upstream `LICENSE`,
+`COPYING`, or similar file may contain project-specific notices or exceptions
+in addition to standard wording. Link both the local standard text and the
+commit-specific upstream file when needed. Make companion license texts directly
+reachable from the entry.
+
+For project-specific license and attribution material, this policy accepts
+direct links to the applicable upstream texts as satisfying reproduction,
+inclusion, or copy requirements. This is the adopted house interpretation.
+Agents must apply it without adding local-copy requirements or seeking repeated
+approval solely because a license uses those terms.
+
+This interpretation concerns notice reproduction. Concrete obligations such as
+marking modified files or supplying corresponding source receive their own
+applicable treatment. Preserve required notices already present in incorporated
+source files; the central attribution entry does not authorize stripping them.
+
+## Discoverability
+
+End the project's README with two friendly statements linking to its actual
+grant in `COPYRIGHT` and the attribution document. For example, for a project
+with the stated license:
+
+```markdown
+ReleaseKit is licensed under the [LGPL v3.0 or later](COPYRIGHT).
+
+[Open Source attribution notices](docs/oss/attribution.md) are available.
+```
+
+Each new checked-in release document and its hosted download page must end
+with links whose visible text is `COPYRIGHT | LICENSE | ATTRIBUTION`. Use absolute
+URLs to those files at the release's immutable tag or corresponding immutable source
+revision so the links work in both locations. This release navigation is distinct
+from upstream component links, which must use the imported commit.
+
+Reuse the checked-in release document as the hosted release body where supported.
+The release procedure owns concrete URLs and publication mechanics for delivering
+the links through the selected channel. Do not maintain duplicate notice lists.
+These conventions do not by themselves require separate downloadable license
+assets, source bundles, or a different binary package format.
+
+## Maintenance And Exceptions
+
+Update project licensing statements together when the author changes the grant
+or its scope. Update upstream notices in the change that adds, removes, upgrades,
+copies, or changes the distribution of a relevant component. Check the selected source's license
+and notices rather than assuming they are unchanged. Update affected entries,
+commit links, and texts; retain historical versions through Git.
+
+Check affected statements, faithful standard-text copies, and link destinations
+as part of ordinary change review. For a future release tag, check intended file
+paths against the candidate source; the tag need not resolve remotely before
+publication. Do not add publication-time network checks, CI polling, recurring
+legal sign-offs, mandatory scanners, or a full software bill of materials merely
+to implement this policy.
+
+Use the House Format routinely. Raise an exception only for a concrete obligation
+or unresolved rights question it does not address, including any arising from a
+particular distribution channel. Record the issue and selected treatment in the
+adopted OSS policy or an appropriate decision record. Attribution entries
+contain the resulting factual identification and required material, without
+repeating that reasoning. Resolve the issue before the affected use or
+distribution without reopening settled choices.
+Common ownership of projects is neither required nor a blanket exception.
+
+Apply the formatting convention prospectively. Do not rewrite published tags,
+notes, binaries, or checksums to retrofit it. Address actual omissions deliberately
+under the applicable terms and the [release correction policy](release.md#immutability-and-failure-recovery).
+Ordinary attribution maintenance and release links are preparation work, not new
+release approval gates.

docs/policy/release.md

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+# Release Policy
+
+**Base Policy Version:** 1.4
+
+**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
+
+**Upstream Source:** [release.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/release.md)
+
+## Purpose
+
+This policy defines a proportionate workflow for validating and publishing an
+intended source revision under a fresh version. Releases should require little
+routine intervention, avoid repeated work, and preserve published contents.
+
+The repository-specific commands belong in `docs/release.md`. Historical release
+summaries belong in `docs/releases/`. The procedure must agree with the adopted
+policy and link to it rather than introduce additional release requirements.
+
+This policy governs releases of ReleaseKit itself. Consumer release capabilities
+are designed in the [product roadmap](../roadmap/releasekit.md) and acquire exact
+public contracts when implemented. ReleaseKit currently has no publication
+command. Create the maintainer runbook alongside the first working command;
+the [policy adoption roadmap](../roadmap/policy.md#4-define-releasekits-own-release-path)
+owns that pending work.
+
+## Release Model And Completion
+
+A source release identifies one exact committed source revision through an
+immutable version tag and a version-matched, checked-in release note. The
+primary release branch is `main`.
+The procedure must name the authoritative publication remote.
+
+A successful push of the intended annotated tag, with its source commit already
+published on authoritative `main`, completes the release. The remote branch must
+identify the validated candidate before the command publishes only the exact
+intended tag object. The runbook will identify the authoritative endpoint and
+command when publication is implemented.
+
+Release commands must finish at successful publication. They must not wait for
+or poll CI, require successful CI status, inspect downloadable artifacts, or
+check consumer installation or Go module availability as completion gates.
+A failed or ambiguous push requires resolving the authoritative remote state
+before declaring success or retrying; successful pushes do not require a
+separate remote read-back gate.
+
+ReleaseKit's initial deliverable is source only. Distributing executable builds
+requires a deliberate update identifying the deliverables, selected targets,
+and automation responsibilities. Supporting cross-builds for consumers does not
+declare ReleaseKit binaries. Additional declared deliverables may be published
+asynchronously from the tagged source, must be traceable to that source, and
+must identify the same version.
+
+Track source-release completion and artifact delivery separately. Report delivery
+failures and optional investigations under artifact-delivery status.
+
+## Versioning And Compatibility
+
+Stable releases use Semantic Versioning in the form `vMAJOR.MINOR.PATCH`, with
+no leading zeroes. Prereleases require an explicit adopted policy defining
+their format and use.
+
+The selected version must be unused locally and on the authoritative remote.
+Do not require queries to every configured remote or publication service.
+A version known to have already been published must not be reused, even if the
+normal guards do not inspect that channel. Adding a distribution channel
+requires a deliberate update to the policy and procedure where needed.
+
+For releases at or after `v1.0.0`:
+
+- a major release may make intentional incompatible changes;
+- a minor release may add backward-compatible behavior; and
+- a patch release may make backward-compatible fixes.
+
+Before `v1.0.0`, a minor release may change a documented public, operational,
+configuration, data, integration, or compatibility contract when the release
+note explains the impact and required consumer action. A patch release must
+not intentionally break those contracts within its minor line.
+
+Additional compatibility promises and deliberate exceptions belong in the
+adopted policy or canonical contract documentation. Release notes explain
+changes; they do not redefine current compatibility contracts.
+
+## Release Documentation And Preparation
+
+Every new release must include `docs/releases/<version>.md` in the tagged
+source tree. Use the complete version tag as the filename and begin with a
+title containing the product name and that exact version.
+
+Include a short summary and any relevant compatibility impact or upgrade
+instructions. Choose sections suited to the release and keep the note
+proportionate to the change.
+
+Keep exact current contracts in their canonical documents and update affected
+documentation with the behavior change. Link to those documents from the note
+where useful. Derive the annotated tag's message from the checked-in note.
+
+Include the release footer defined by the [OSS policy](oss.md#discoverability)
+in each new release document and preserve it on the hosted download page. The
+release procedure defines the concrete URLs and publication mechanics. Prepare
+these links with the release note; they do not add a network check or approval
+gate.
+
+Handle version selection, release-note content, and retirement of completed
+roadmaps during preparation. Preserve planned and deferred work and repair
+affected links when retiring roadmaps. Reuse ordinary change review for
+unintended files, credentials, and private data. Scope release-content review
+to the tagged source.
+
+## Candidate Validation
+
+Provide one publication command that validates the final committed candidate,
+checks publication state, and publishes the intended refs. A validation-only
+mode or command may be provided for diagnosis, but must not be a required step
+before publication repeats the same checks.
+
+Run the complete deterministic, offline default test suite once for the final
+candidate, following the [testing policy](testing.md). For repositories that
+publish builds, verify the required build targets. Select those targets for
+the project's actual support commitments; native testing on each platform
+and access to particular hardware are not default release prerequisites.
+
+The default suite and its runnable command will be established with the Go
+implementation. Documentation adoption checks validate this change; they do not
+create permanent release gates. ReleaseKit's source-only deliverable adds no
+binary target matrix.
+
+Additional gates must address a concrete risk that the existing checks do not
+adequately cover. Do not automatically require linting, race testing, module
+hygiene audits, documentation audits, credential scans, example validation, or
+expanded platform matrices solely because they are possible. Retain such
+checks when their distinct protection justifies their cost. A one-time migration
+check must not silently become a permanent release requirement.
+
+Release tests must not require real credentials, mutable application services,
+paid APIs, or live service probes. The procedure may describe dependency
+preparation separately from offline validation.
+
+Avoid duplicate validation across release phases. Successful checks for the
+same final candidate need not be repeated solely to satisfy another phase;
+any reuse must clearly apply to that exact candidate. Persistent validation
+caches are not required. If the candidate changes, validate the new candidate.
+Cheap publication-state checks may be repeated immediately before pushing
+because local or remote state may have changed during validation.
+
+Automate mechanical guards. Human review gates are strongly disfavored: add one
+only through an explicit project-specific policy decision explaining the
+concrete risk and why ordinary change review or automation is insufficient.
+Do not add routine confirmations for checks the command can perform itself.
+
+## Publication Guards
+
+Automate the checks needed to publish the intended source under a fresh version:
+
+- the version has the adopted format and is unused locally and on the
+  authoritative remote;
+- the worktree and index are clean on the primary release branch;
+- the source being published is the exact candidate that passed validation,
+  including its matching release note;
+- authoritative `main` already identifies that candidate; and
+- the annotated tag identifies the validated candidate and only its exact object
+  is published through an explicit tag ref.
+
+Fetch the authoritative branch and tag state as needed for these checks.
+Do not force branch or tag updates to bypass a failed guard. Publish explicit
+refs rather than all local tags. Do not require CI success, publication-service
+availability checks, or a separate manual confirmation for each guard.
+
+## Immutability And Failure Recovery
+
+Published version tags and published contents are immutable. Do not move,
+overwrite, recreate, or delete a published tag, or replace a published artifact,
+checksum, signature, provenance statement, or release note under that version.
+The checked-in note at the immutable tag is that release's historical record.
+
+If validation fails before publication, correct and commit the candidate and
+rerun the publication command. If a push fails or its outcome is ambiguous,
+query the authoritative tag ref once. Confirm success only when it identifies
+the exact intended tag object on the validated commit; otherwise report failed
+or unknown status and retain the local tag. Resolve that authoritative state
+before retrying. Remove an unpublished local tag only after confirming it was
+never published or used by a release channel.
+An unavailable remote leaves publication status unknown; do not overwrite a tag
+to resolve uncertainty.
+
+Transient network, authentication, CI, or consumer-availability failures do not
+by themselves require a new version. Asynchronous delivery may be retried from
+the same immutable tag. Missing artifacts may be published later, provided
+existing published contents are not replaced and the additions remain consistent
+with the tagged source and any already-published checksum manifest. If that
+cannot be achieved, publish a new version.
+
+A defect requiring changes to published source or contents requires a corrected
+commit, a new semantically appropriate version, a matching release note, and
+the release procedure again. Leave the original release intact. A channel's
+yank, deprecation, or advisory mechanism may warn consumers away from a defective
+release without replacing its contents or reusing its version.
+
+## Repository Release Procedure
+
+Create and maintain `docs/release.md` with the first working publication command
+as a short, executable maintainer runbook. It must identify:
+
+1. prerequisites, primary branch, and authoritative remote;
+2. version and release-note preparation;
+3. one publication command with its selected local checks and automated guards;
+4. declared deliverables, required build targets, and automation responsibilities;
+5. the successful-push completion point and separately reported delivery status;
+   and
+6. failure handling, ambiguous-push recovery, and asynchronous delivery retries.
+
+Use copyable commands where practical. Keep optional diagnostics and consumer
+verification clearly optional. The procedure must not turn preparation work,
+ordinary change review, or post-publication investigation into additional
+release gates.

docs/policy/testing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
+# Testing Policy
+
+**Base Policy Version:** 1.3
+
+**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
+
+**Upstream Source:** [testing.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/testing.md)
+
+## Purpose
+
+Our tests exist to make **incorrect changes expensive and correct changes cheap**.
+
+We optimize for sufficient confidence in important behavior while minimizing friction on future development.
+
+## Every test has a cost
+
+Every test has an immediate and continuing cost: writing, review, execution,
+diagnosis, fixture maintenance, and updates when legitimate behavior changes.
+Tests can also constrain refactoring, duplicate policy, and add failure noise.
+
+A test is warranted only when the confidence it provides justifies these costs.
+Evaluate that tradeoff at two levels:
+
+1. **Per test:** What realistic defect does this test detect, how consequential would that defect be, and is that protection worth the test's lifetime cost?
+2. **Across the suite:** Does this collection provide materially more confidence than a smaller, simpler suite would?
+
+Some friction is intentional. Tests should make dangerous changes—such as breaking compatibility, corrupting data, violating security boundaries, or reintroducing subtle bugs—require deliberate review. Keep ordinary internal changes inexpensive.
+
+Evaluate maintenance cost against the specific failure being protected. When omitting a plausible test, be able to state why the protected failure is low-risk, already covered, obvious, reversible, or cheaper to detect elsewhere. For consequential, subtle, or difficult-to-observe behavior, the presumption should favor testing.
+
+## Default testing style
+
+Use a **classical/Detroit-style** approach:
+
+- Test observable behavior, resulting state, contracts, and invariants.
+- Use real internal collaborators when they are fast and deterministic.
+- Use fakes, stubs, or mocks primarily at expensive, nondeterministic, destructive, or external boundaries.
+- Prefer package-level behavioral tests over tests coupled to private helpers or internal call sequences.
+- Treat exact collaborator interactions as testable behavior only when the interaction itself is a requirement.
+
+Examples of appropriate seams include clocks, randomness, subprocesses, remote APIs, object storage, email, and paid LLM calls.
+
+## Test execution requirements
+
+Tests in the default suite must be deterministic, offline, and independent of real credentials. They must not invoke paid APIs or depend on mutable external services. Tests that require live infrastructure must be explicitly opt-in and clearly separated from the default suite.
+
+Control clocks, randomness, environment variables, and other process-global or machine-specific state when they affect behavior. Tests should be safe to run repeatedly and alongside other tests without depending on execution order or state left by an earlier test.
+
+## ReleaseKit Priorities
+
+As the corresponding features are implemented, prioritize:
+
+- publication of the exact validated candidate and tag object, using temporary
+  local Git repositories and remotes;
+- remote advancement, rejected pushes, lost acknowledgments, and unavailable
+  remotes, with accurate failed, successful, and unknown outcomes;
+- preservation of published content and consistent retries after partial asset
+  delivery, using a local HTTP server for Gitea interactions;
+- cross-build target selection and version injection, including a host-runnable
+  application whose public `buildinfo` accessor reports the selected version;
+- public type ownership, exported signatures and method sets, error identity,
+  and dependency direction across both facades; and
+- a `buildinfo` dependency graph restricted to the standard library and small
+  internal runtime implementation, independent of orchestration.
+
+These priorities guide risk-based tests as features land. Compilation of a
+cross-built binary establishes build compatibility; execution requires a
+compatible host. The developer guide owns actual test commands.
+
+## What deserves tests
+
+To the extent the following features are present in the application, prioritize tests for:
+
+1. Public and package-level contracts.
+2. Domain rules and important invariants.
+3. Boundary conditions and malformed input.
+4. Failure handling, cancellation, retries, recovery, and partial success.
+5. Serialization, schemas, compatibility, and round trips.
+6. Previously observed or plausible regressions.
+7. Representative integration and end-to-end workflows.
+
+A package-level contract comprises behavior relied upon by another package or major collaborator.
+
+Choose tests for requested behavior and established contracts. Tests must not
+introduce new restrictions, guarantees, or threat scenarios merely because they
+could be asserted. Follow the [agent policy](agents.md) when deciding whether a
+behavior belongs to the contract; current implementation behavior alone is not
+sufficient authority.
+
+For established behavior involving **data integrity, destructive operations,
+compatibility, security, concurrency, idempotency, or recovery**, favor durable
+tests for realistic failures whose consequences warrant protection. Identify
+the failure and the existing contract it would violate. These categories call
+for attention, not an automatic test inventory or permission to strengthen the
+application's guarantees. Account for protection already provided at other layers.
+
+Do not add tests merely because a function, branch, or line exists. Do not add a test when the same meaningful risk is already adequately protected elsewhere.
+
+## Choose the right test boundary
+
+Choose the narrowest stable boundary that expresses the behavior clearly and
+provides durable confidence with minimal incidental coupling.
+
+This is often the package API, but it may instead be:
+
+- a smaller pure function when dense domain logic is most clearly isolated there;
+- a package-level operation when several internal collaborators jointly produce the behavior; or
+- a larger integration boundary when correctness emerges from interaction with a real dependency.
+
+## Test behavior, not implementation
+
+A test should protect a selected decision, contract, or invariant.
+
+A test is suspect when it primarily detects changes to private constants or
+helpers, equivalent operation ordering, incidental formatting, equivalent
+algorithms, or internal structure that preserves behavior.
+
+Behavioral tests should normally remain stable through internal refactoring that preserves the contract.
+
+## Expected effects of different changes
+
+Use the following expectations when evaluating test failures and test maintenance:
+
+| Change | Expected effect on tests |
+|---|---|
+| Internal refactor that preserves behavior | Existing tests should normally remain unchanged and continue to pass. |
+| Change to an internal default with no contractual significance | Behavioral tests should normally remain unchanged; tests should derive expectations from configuration or relationships rather than duplicate the old value. |
+| Intentional change to public behavior, policy, schema, or compatibility guarantees | The relevant tests should be reviewed and changed deliberately. |
+| Accidental violation of a contract or invariant | Tests should fail; fix the production code rather than rewriting the tests to accept the defect. |
+
+A test failing is not the same as a test needing to be edited. Many tests may correctly fail because of one production defect. The maintenance smell is a correct internal change that requires unrelated expectation updates throughout the suite.
+
+## Separate mechanism from policy
+
+Derive expectations from test-controlled configuration and relationships.
+
+For this example, assume the selected contract rejects a request to start more
+processes than a configured limit. Do not encode its production default indirectly:
+
+```go
+// Production default:
+const maxConcurrency = 4
+
+// Brittle test:
+err := startProcesses(5)
+require.Error(t, err)
+```
+
+Instead, test the mechanism relationally:
+
+```go
+const limit = 2
+runner := NewRunner(limit)
+
+require.NoError(t, runner.Start(limit))
+require.ErrorIs(t, runner.Start(limit+1), ErrTooMuchConcurrency)
+```
+
+For this selected contract, the test should prove:
+
+- the configured limit is accepted; and
+- one beyond the configured limit is rejected.
+
+Rejection is not a general requirement for concurrency control. If the selected
+contract queues excess work or limits active workers while accepting larger
+batches, test that behavior instead. Do not add rejection or a configurable
+limit solely to reproduce this example.
+
+The production default should be tested exactly only when its literal value is itself a public, operational, safety, protocol, or compatibility requirement.
+
+Apply the same rule to limits, timeouts, capacities, retry counts, and ranges: test relationships and behavior.
+
+For established concurrency limits, distinguish these behaviors where the contract requires them:
+
+1. **Configuration handling:** values are accepted or rejected according to the selected contract.
+2. **Runtime enforcement:** observed peak concurrency never exceeds the configured limit.
+
+Use a test-controlled limit and measure the behavior relative to that limit.
+
+## Assign each behavior a test owner
+
+Where these layers exist, assign ownership as follows:
+
+- Parser tests own parsing cases.
+- Validator tests own validation rules.
+- Domain tests own transformations and invariants.
+- Adapter tests own external integration behavior.
+- Orchestrator tests own coordination and failure propagation.
+- CLI tests own argument and configuration mapping.
+- End-to-end tests prove that representative assembled workflows work.
+
+Give each layer its distinct responsibility and keep expectation updates localized to the contract being changed.
+
+## Use test doubles deliberately
+
+Choose the least elaborate test double that provides the required control or observation.
+
+As a default:
+
+1. Prefer real collaborators when they are fast and deterministic.
+2. Use small in-memory fakes when realistic stateful behavior is helpful.
+3. Use stubs when a dependency only needs to provide controlled responses.
+4. Use mocks when the interaction itself is contractual.
+
+Mocks are appropriate when the contract includes facts such as:
+
+- a notification is sent exactly once;
+- a transaction is committed only after successful writes;
+- cancellation reaches a subprocess;
+- an expensive API is called no more than once; or
+- a security audit event is emitted.
+
+## Go-specific guidance
+
+Select techniques by behavior and risk:
+
+- table-driven tests for meaningful behavioral categories and boundaries;
+- `t.TempDir()` for real filesystem behavior;
+- `httptest.Server` for realistic HTTP interactions;
+- fuzz tests when exploring broad input spaces, such as parsers or path handling, adds useful protection beyond representative cases;
+- golden files only when the complete output is intentionally stable;
+- integration tests where correctness depends on component interaction; and
+- a small number of representative end-to-end tests when assembled workflows expose meaningful risks not adequately covered at narrower boundaries.
+
+Prefer `errors.Is`, `errors.As`, typed errors, or structured error fields. Use exact error-wording assertions only when the wording is contractual.
+
+At CLI boundaries, prefer exit classifications, structured output, and the smallest stable semantic fragment needed to identify the error. Use complete diagnostic snapshots only when the wording is contractual.
+
+Golden-file updates must require an explicit local flag. CI must not update golden files automatically, and reviewers must inspect the semantic diff before accepting an update.
+
+Keep tests readable and direct. Size test helpers and fixture frameworks to the maintenance benefit they provide.
+
+## Coverage
+
+Use coverage to locate untested critical branches and unexpectedly weak packages. Evaluate test quality through meaningful behavioral protection and choose coverage according to risk.
+
+Pure domain logic will often warrant higher coverage than CLI wiring or external adapters. Uneven coverage is acceptable when it reflects risk.
+
+## Regression tests
+
+A bug fix should normally include a regression test that fails before the fix and passes afterward.
+
+Retain the test when the defect could realistically recur and its consequences justify the ongoing cost. Prefer the narrowest durable test of the violated contract or invariant.
+
+Remove or consolidate a test when the underlying design has made recurrence impossible, its protection is redundant, or a stronger invariant test subsumes it.
+
+## Deleting or rewriting tests
+
+Delete or rewrite tests when maintenance cost exceeds their continuing
+protective value.
+
+Strong candidates include tests that:
+
+- require updates after harmless internal changes;
+- assert incidental private constants or snapshot large amounts of incidental output;
+- verify mock choreography rather than outcomes;
+- duplicate policy across layers, retest trivial helpers covered by package
+  behavior, or protect risks covered more effectively elsewhere;
+- are flaky, misleading, obsolete, or disproportionately expensive to diagnose; or
+- no longer correspond to a plausible failure mode.
+
+Several brittle tests may encode one genuine requirement. Consolidate them into one durable behavior-level or invariant test.
+
+## Reviewing a proposed test
+
+Use the following questions when a proposed test needs closer evaluation. Significant test additions should be reviewable against them; written answers are optional for routine tests.
+
+1. Which requested behavior or established contract does it protect, and what realistic defect would violate it?
+2. How likely and consequential is that defect, and is it already protected elsewhere?
+3. What is the narrowest stable boundary that can test it clearly?
+4. Would a correct internal refactor or a change to an incidental default require test edits?
+5. Does its confidence justify its maintenance, execution, and diagnostic cost, or would a smaller test suffice?
+
+## Definition of sufficient
+
+A test suite is sufficient when:
+
+- important requested behavior and established contracts are protected against realistic, consequential failures;
+- boundaries and component interactions have coverage where they introduce meaningful risks not protected elsewhere;
+- failures provide useful, distinct signals;
+- tests usually remain stable through legitimate internal changes; and
+- additional tests would mostly repeat existing protection or preserve inconsequential implementation details.
+
+Reassess sufficiency as the application, its users, and the consequences of
+failure evolve.