宜博 / lemongraph

now 默认值从 time.monotonic 改成 time.time（墙钟），使 quota 等待的
已耗时计算能在进程重启后正确续算；run_work_node 对已 done 的节点直接
返回存量结果不重跑，对 retrying/waiting_for_quota 节点从持久化的
retry_count/quota_wait_started_at 续算而非清零；needs_worktree=True
时复用已存在的 worktree 而不是重新 create。新增
resume_work_graph_run() 返回一次 run 里尚未完成的 node_exec_id 列表，
并对内部不一致的持久化状态统一抛 CorruptPersistedStateError。

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Re-checking REQ-14's boundary case against the letter of its text found a
real functional gap, not just a testing gap: U-013's opus handling only
did "skip backoff" -- it never actually retried on a downgraded model,
just failed immediately. REQ-14 boundary says "不走退避轮询，直接降级到非
Opus 模型重试" (skip backoff, retry immediately on a non-opus model) --
the retry was the part that was missing.

Fixed: run_fn's signature is now run_fn(cwd, model=None); an opus quota
signal retries immediately (no backoff) with opus_downgrade_model
(default "claude-sonnet-5"). If the downgraded model somehow also reports
an opus signal (shouldn't happen -- it's not using Opus), this doesn't
loop forever chasing it, raises UsageLimitWaitTimeoutError instead.

work_graph_execute.py's own opus handling (U-012) deliberately NOT changed
to match: REQ-14's coverage only names c_work_node_run/c_org_node_trigger,
and that mechanism (a multi-agent dynamic workflow, no single top-level
--agent identity) has no one "the model" to downgrade -- a deeper A-1
question, documented as out of scope rather than silently left
inconsistent without explanation.

Also filled in a real test gap: quota_limit_type=weekly (detection +
recovery, and the 9-day timeout) was never tested despite the mechanism
already supporting it since U-013.

11 new/changed stdlib unittest cases across work_node_run.py's test suite
(all existing run_fn lambdas updated for the new signature). 178 total
across U-001-020, all passing.

This closes PH2-S3 alongside U-019. REQ-14 is now genuinely complete, not
just "mostly right."

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Found running U-014's full real closed loop: the Validator gave an
INCONCLUSIVE verdict and explicitly said it had no Bash tool, despite its
frontmatter granting one. Isolated with a minimal test subagent: any
"Bash(...)" scoped pattern (e.g. "Bash(git commit:*)") in a subagent's
disallowedTools frontmatter field disables Bash *entirely*, not just that
subcommand -- confirmed by comparing a disallowedTools=[Edit,Write] agent
(Bash works) against one adding a single Bash(git commit:*) entry (Bash
breaks completely). The CLI's own --disallowedTools flag documents this
exact scoped syntax as supported; subagent frontmatter just doesn't honor
it the same way, and nothing in the docs says so.

Fixed agent_profile.py's validator FRONTMATTER to disallowedTools=
[Edit, Write] only -- dropping the four Bash(git *) entries that were
silently breaking test execution. The "don't commit/push/reset/clean"
constraint now relies on the prose instruction already in the migrated
AGENTS.md instead of a tool-level block that never actually worked; fixed
that file's own (now-false) claim that it was enforced at the tool level,
and documented the finding centrally in 05-实施约束与依赖.md §5.4.1.2 since
it'll matter for any future agent definition, not just this one.

Verified for real, redeployed: Bash now works for the actual Validator
identity, Edit/Write remain correctly blocked.

1 test fixed (was asserting the now-removed scoped pattern) + 1 new test
(disallowedTools frontmatter must never contain "Bash(" again). 174 total
across U-001-019, all passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

check_budget(): accumulates current_usage on success (04-P monitoring->
monitoring), and on reaching/exceeding limit_value transitions the task to
blocked_pending_human with blocked_reason='budget_exceeded' (never
'usage_limit_wait_timeout' -- 04-P is explicit these two guardrails, human-
configured budget vs Claude Code's own plan quota, must not share a
blocked_reason) and raises BudgetExceededError rather than returning
allowed=false silently, matching 03-C §3.12's own errors list.

update_budget_limit_and_resume(): REQ-10's boundary case needs "raise the
limit -> paused tasks resume" to be real; built the minimal version this
Unit needs rather than the full settings-page controller
(c_budget_config_update, U-030/PH3's job) -- reuses U-016's manual_resume
(org_loop_route.route_org_loop) for the actual status restoration instead
of reimplementing it.

6 new stdlib unittest cases, all real (sqlite, no mocking needed). 173
total across U-001-019, all passing.

Also: the U-014 full real closed-loop run that's been going in a detached
background process since earlier this session finished -- 957s (~16min).
All 4 real BRD/PRD/SDD/Benchmark docs, a real JS snake-game implementation
(engine.js/engine.test.js/index.html/app.js) from the Coder, and a
genuinely careful INCONCLUSIVE verdict from the Validator: it explicitly
refused to accept the Coder's own claimed "10/10 passed, verified with
headless Chrome" without being able to reproduce it, correctly citing its
own migrated SOUL.md rule ("工具错误和权限不足属于INCONCLUSIVE，不能洗成PASS").
It also caught a real test-fidelity gap (T3/T7 not matching the Benchmark's
literal wording) via careful static tracing. Result preserved at
/private/tmp/.../scratchpad/snake-game-result for inspection. The Validator
also reported no Bash tool available despite its frontmatter granting one
-- investigating that as a follow-up, separate from this commit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

update_skill(): writes new Skill content to skills/<skill_id>/SKILL.md and
commits it (03-C §3.8: file write + git commit must be atomic -- the DB
insert only happens after the commit succeeds, so a git failure naturally
leaves no orphaned skill_iteration row, no separate rollback machinery
needed), rejects a missing triggered_by_bug_id (MISSING_TRIGGER_REF).
rollback_skill(): restores the pre-iteration content from
before_git_commit_sha and commits *that* as a new commit + new
skill_iteration row (03-C §3.9: rollback is itself a new iteration, not a
history rewrite); the rollback record's triggered_by_bug_id reuses the
original iteration's, since c_skill_rollback's input contract has no bug_id
of its own and that FK is NOT NULL.

repo_path has no default (caught and fixed during this Unit, not shipped
with the bug): an earlier draft defaulted it to this repo's own root,
which would have made any test that forgot to override it silently commit
into graphlemon's actual git history. Every call site must now be
explicit; git log confirms nothing leaked into this repo while building
and testing it.

Resolves U-015's deferred skill_defect gap: re-reading 04-P §4.3's own
transition table, bug_recorded (c_bug_record_create alone) and
skill_iteration_triggered (-> c_skill_update) are separate, sequential
transitions, not one atomic call -- so 03-C §3.10's "必须同时创建
skill_iteration_suggestion" is a same-flow requirement, not a same-API-call
one. bug_record.py already accepted skill_defect (it was never actually
rejected, just undocumented as resolved); update_skill() now fills in
bug_record.skill_iteration_suggestion_id once the real iteration exists.

Known gap, not this Unit's job: no real Skill content has been migrated
from the Hermes profiles yet (05 §5.1 names the skills; agent_profile.py's
frontmatter only references them by name) -- tests seed a placeholder
skill file, same pattern as U-010/011 seeding placeholder artifacts for
upstream producers that don't exist yet.

10 new stdlib unittest cases, all real (git + sqlite, no LLM call needed --
same category as U-013's worktree tests). 167 total across U-001-018, all
passing.

This closes PH2-S2. REQ-08 is now real code, and U-015's skill_defect note
is resolved rather than left permanently deferred.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

run_fix_loop() chains U-015 (3-perspective root-cause judgment) + U-016
(routing) + real Coder/Planner/Validator calls into architecture doc §11's
4th MVP acceptance criterion: judge -> create bug_record -> route
(fast_lane for category=coder, full_replan for category=planning -- a
fixed mapping this Unit defines, since bug_record.suggested_route is
technically an independent Validator judgment but REQ-05/architecture §11's
scenarios always correlate the two, so no extra Agent call was added just
to re-decide it) -> trigger the fixer -> re-trigger Validator -> close_task_
done on confirmed PASS.

3 new mocked stdlib unittest cases (route branching, verification-fails
leaves the task out of 'done'). 160 total mocked tests across U-001-017,
all passing.

Real coverage reuses U-015's wall-collision scenario but this time drives
an actual fix: a real Coder call edits collision.py in the repo, a real
Validator call reads the fixed file and confirms it, running as a detached
background process (survives this session's own restarts, unlike two
earlier real runs this session that got silently orphaned by a session
teardown with no completion record -- lesson learned, not repeated).

This closes PH2-S1 (U-015/016/017): REQ-04/05/09 and architecture doc §11
criterion 4 are now real, verified code, not just planned intent.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

route_org_loop(): fast_lane -> coding/coder, full_replan ->
planning_brd_prd_sdd/planner, loop_round += 1, writes an
execution_event(event_type=loop_routed) recording the decision.
loop_round >= 3 forces blocked_pending_human (blocked_reason=
'loop_limit_reached') and raises LoopLimitReachedError instead of routing
(03-C §3.11: "不接受常规路由请求，只接受 manual_resume"). manual_resume walks
execution_event's task_status_changed history backwards to find what
status preceded the most recent transition into blocked_pending_human, and
restores it -- 04-P says "恢复到触发前状态" but task has no
previous_status column, so this reconstructs it from the event log
already being written everywhere in this codebase, rather than adding a
new column for a value that's already reconstructable.

Also built close_task_done() (validating->done, validator_pass): 04-P
names this transition but not a controller for it, and nothing in this
codebase had ever set task.status='done' before this commit -- REQ-05's
happy case ends there, so it had to exist for that to be reachable.
Documented as a deliberate scope extension, not silently assumed.

Simplification, noted rather than silently collapsed: 04-P models
fast_lane/full_replan as two hops (validating -> routed_fast_lane ->
coding) but c_org_loop_route's own 03-C contract returns the final state
directly and no controller owns the second hop -- implemented as one
atomic transition, with the route decision preserved via the loop_routed
event instead of a persisted intermediate status. Neither REQ-05 nor
REQ-09 check for that literal intermediate state.

11 new stdlib unittest cases, all real (sqlite is fast/free/local, no
mocking needed). 157 total across U-001-016, all passing.

This closes PH2-S1 (U-015 + U-016): REQ-04, REQ-05, and REQ-09 are now
all real code, not just planned.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Closes the c_artifact_write gap U-011 flagged (03-C §3.7, unowned by any
Unit despite REQ-02 needing it directly): src/artifact_write.py writes
content to the target project, commits it to the target's own git history,
validates depends_on_artifact_ids against existing rows before writing
anything (REQ-02's failure case), creates the immutable artifact row.
validation_status is set to 'passed' unconditionally -- noted as a real
simplification (semantic content review, e.g. REQ-02's "PRD 里出现矛盾" boundary
case, needs its own LLM-judgment step this codebase doesn't build yet).

src/e2e_pipeline.py orchestrates architecture doc §11's MVP criteria 1-3:
plan_documents() makes 4 real sequential Planner calls (BRD, then PRD
referencing BRD, then SDD referencing PRD, then Benchmark referencing SDD),
writing each via c_artifact_write with correct lineage. implement_code()
calls Coder once, captures the resulting `git diff` as code_diff and the
Coder's own response as test_report. validate_implementation() calls
Validator once and parses an explicit 'VERDICT: PASS|FAIL|INCONCLUSIVE'
line. run_end_to_end() chains create_task -> plan -> implement -> validate,
using U-010's trigger_org_node_full only for task.status bookkeeping (a
lightweight "confirm ready" call per phase) and plain org_node_trigger
calls for actual content generation, since trigger_org_node_full's
contract returns a status dict, not text.

Real-verified: plan_documents ran for real against "实现贪吃蛇游戏" -- all 4
documents produced, correctly lineaged, validation_status=passed, real
content (>100 chars each), ~5m45s total for the 4 sequential calls.
Deliberately NOT run for real: run_end_to_end's Coder/Validator half (real
code generation + real test execution) is a different order of magnitude
in cost/time/uncertainty than every other real call this session -- built
and mock-tested, but not executed without checking first.

19 new mocked stdlib unittest cases (4 for artifact_write, 5 for the
pipeline orchestration, all real/unmocked for artifact_write since git
operations are fast/free/local same as U-013's worktree tests) + 1 gated
real test. 127 total mocked/real-local tests across U-001-014, all passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

run_work_node(): the per-node contract -- input schema check (rejects
outright, never starts, vs. output schema failure which retries), status
machine (pending->running->(reflecting/retrying up to caller-specified
max_retries)->done|blocked), execution_log_file lifecycle (active on start,
closed in a finally so it closes even when run_fn raises), and
USAGE_LIMIT_REACHED handling using 03-C §3.6's *exact* detection regex
(`hit your (session|weekly|opus) limit`, case-insensitive) -- more precise
than the phrase-matching approximations U-010/U-012 used before this Unit
existed to give quota_wait_started_at/quota_limit_type a real owner.

git worktree isolation (create_worktree/merge_worktree/remove_worktree)
tested for real, no LLM call needed: two independent nodes each get their
own worktree + branch, each run_fn writes and commits a different file,
both merge back into the main checkout with --no-ff, git log confirms both
commits landed, git_worktree_ref differs per node. This is REQ-03's
boundary case, verified end to end with real git.

"actual work" is an explicit required run_fn(cwd) dependency, not a hidden
default calling `claude` -- what a node does is inherently node-specific
(the whole point of "give each node a contract"); production callers wire
in a real subprocess call, tests inject fakes.

Corrects the same Done-line overreach as U-009/010/011/012 (5th occurrence):
REQ-03's happy case needs c_artifact_write (still unowned, per U-011's
flagged gap) and a real Coder session, neither of which U-013 has access
to via its own dependencies (U-012 only). Boundary is what's real here.

10 new stdlib unittest cases, all real (no mocking needed -- git and the DB
are both fast/free/local). 117 total across U-001-013, all passing.

This closes PH1-S2, the sub-phase development-plan.md's own text flagged as
"本项目风险最高的 Sub-phase" (highest-risk in the project).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Extends U-006's execute_work_graph in place (same controller, being
completed, not a parallel module):
- ClassifierBlockedError: raised when a response's permission_denials array
  has >=3 entries (03-C §3.5 says "3 consecutive or 20 cumulative" -- true
  cross-call cumulative tracking needs persistence U-013 doesn't provide
  yet, so this is a documented, conservative per-call approximation).
- UsageLimitReachedError (carries quota_limit_type) + a new
  execute_work_graph_with_usage_limit_retry() implementing p_usage_limit_wait
  (04-P §4.4.1): 5->10->20->30min backoff (repeating at 30) for
  session/weekly quota hits, timeout after 8h/9d -> UsageLimitWaitTimeoutError;
  opus quota hits skip backoff and fail immediately (model-downgrade retry
  is a caller decision, not this function's). sleep/now are injectable so
  tests don't block on real waits.

Retry operates at the whole-work-graph-call level, not per individual
work_node_execution row -- U-013 (c_work_node_run, which actually owns that
table) doesn't exist yet, so node-level quota tracking isn't attempted
here; noted explicitly in development-plan.md rather than silently
simplified.

Also corrects the same class of Done-line overreach as U-009/U-010/U-011
(4th occurrence): REQ-07's happy case literally asks for REQ-01~06 all
passing end to end, which needs PH2 (Validator root-cause tracing, Org-level
Loop, breakpoint recovery) -- U-012 only owns REQ-07's boundary/failure and
REQ-14's happy case, which was already correctly scoped.

23 new/changed mocked stdlib unittest cases (existing U-006 tests untouched
and still passing -- subclassing WorkGraphExecuteError keeps them
backward-compatible). 107 total mocked tests across U-001-012, all passing;
both existing real-agent tests (U-006's reused spike, U-011's planner call)
re-verified against the refactored code.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

plan_work_graph(): real `claude --agent <org_node> -p` call, produces a
graph_manifest (4 nodes for brd/prd/sdd/benchmark, dependency-chained
sdd->prd->brd, each edge tagged zero_token/needs_judgment per 03-C §3.4),
recorded as a work_graph_run row (status='planning' -- 04-P
p_work_graph_execution start_state). Does not execute the plan or produce
real artifacts -- 03-C §3.4 says so explicitly ("不执行，只规划").

Real call surfaced a genuine, undocumented constraint: --json-schema is
silently ignored when combined with --agent (structured_output never
appears; the identity itself works fine -- the response referenced the
migrated SOUL.md's own principle numbering). First attempt at this Unit
failed against the real API for exactly this reason. Fixed by asking the
model to fence its JSON and parsing it out of `result` instead
(_extract_graph_manifest, tolerant of bare JSON / fenced blocks / an extra
wrapper key). Documented centrally in 05-实施约束与依赖.md §5.4.1.1 since
this will matter for any future Unit needing agent-identity + structured
output together, not just this one.

Also corrects the same class of Done-line overreach as U-009/U-010
(development-plan.md claimed U-011 alone satisfies REQ-02's happy case,
but c_work_graph_plan's own contract explicitly excludes execution) and
flags a real, previously-invisible gap found while tracing REQ-02's actual
dependencies: no Unit in development-plan.md's 43-unit breakdown owns
c_artifact_write (03-C §3.7), despite REQ-02's happy AND failure cases both
requiring it directly. Not fixed here -- noted for whichever Unit (U-012/
U-013, most likely) needs it first.

15 new mocked stdlib unittest cases + 1 gated real test (re-run and passing
after the --json-schema fix). 98 total mocked tests across U-001-011, all
passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

trigger_org_node_full(): guards (TASK_NOT_READY -- wrong task.status or
required artifacts not validation_status=passed; CONCURRENCY_LIMIT_REACHED
-- only on the planner/queued transition, per 04-P's guard column;
USAGE_LIMIT_REACHED -- detected from the underlying claude error text,
best-effort against REQ-14's cited "hit your session limit" phrasing) then
calls U-005's trigger_org_node for the real subprocess call, then advances
task.status: queued->planning_brd_prd_sdd (planner), planning_brd_prd_sdd
->coding (coder, gated on brd/prd/sdd/benchmark all passed),
coding->validating (validator, gated on code_diff/test_report both passed).

Verified for real: all three Org Agents actually triggered in sequence
(chained claude --agent calls, ~15s/~$0.15 total) with task.status
advancing correctly at each step -- not just planner like U-004/U-005's
tests, all three personas confirmed invokable.

Also corrects two more development-plan.md issues found while scoping
this Unit, same class as U-002/U-009/U-036:
- U-010's Done line cited '架构文档 §11"手工调用验证"里程碑' -- that phrase
  doesn't exist in architecture doc §11 at all. The real source is 05
  §5.5's rollout step 2 ("手工调用验证...三个 Org Agent 分别可被触发"),
  whose "分别" (separately/respectively) is the load-bearing word: verify
  each CAN be triggered, not that a full artifact-validated chain runs
  end to end. That distinction is why this Unit's scope is exactly what
  got built -- not chasing planning_failed/coding_failed retries or
  validator PASS/FAIL routing, which need real Work Graph output (U-011+)
  or Org-level Loop routing (U-015/016, PH2) that don't exist yet.
- Added an explicit scope note spelling out exactly which 3 transitions
  this Unit owns vs. which parts of p_org_task_lifecycle it deliberately
  doesn't touch, so nobody has to re-derive this from the code later.

11 new mocked stdlib unittest cases + 1 gated real chained-trigger test.
87 total mocked tests across U-001-010, all passing; the real test
independently re-run and confirmed passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

create_task(): validates goal_text/project_id/task_type (INVALID_PARAM per
03-C §3.1), inserts the task row (status=queued, assigned_org_node=planner,
loop_round=0 -- 04-P p_org_task_lifecycle start_state) plus a
task_status_changed execution_event, both in one transaction (explicit
rollback on failure between the two inserts, tested by dropping
execution_event mid-call). c_project_create isn't reimplemented -- it's
already complete in U-002 (project_scaffold.create_project).

Corrects another Done-line overreach found while scoping this Unit:
development-plan.md claimed U-009 alone satisfies all three REQ-01 cases
(happy/boundary/failure), but the happy case ("依次触发 planner/coder/
validator...task.status 按状态机正确流转") needs c_org_node_trigger's full
implementation -- U-010's own Done criterion is almost that exact sentence,
and U-009 doesn't depend on U-010 or even touch org-node triggering. Same
class of issue as the U-002/U-036 corrections earlier this session (an
SDD/plan line claiming more than the Unit's actual dependencies support),
judged low-stakes enough (doesn't change what code to write, just when the
REQ-01 happy case gets marked satisfied) to fix directly rather than stop
and ask, per the graduated caution this session has been using. Boundary
(concurrency limit doesn't block task *creation*, only later scheduling)
and failure (INVALID_PARAM) are both fully real at U-009's scope and
tested; happy completes cumulatively once U-010 lands.

12 new stdlib unittest cases. 75 total across U-001-009, all passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Resolves the A-2 assumption with a real `claude --agent planner -p` call
(--permission-mode auto, $0.05) against a deployed target project: the
migrated identity comes through correctly, not the default assistant
persona. Verdict is "部分成立" (partially confirmed), per the criterion
development-plan.md's U-004 line pre-registered for exactly this outcome --
Planner/Validator's SOUL.md migrated almost verbatim, but Coder's SOUL.md
needed real rewriting: the original hardcoded a live Feishu Base API token
(redacted, never committed), strongly bound its task-claiming to
`lark-cli`/Base status vocabulary, and told itself to shell out
`claude --dangerously-skip-permissions` (conflicts directly with 05
§5.3.1's `auto`-mode decision). All three replaced with graphlemon's own
task table / c_org_node_trigger / task.status vocabulary.

Also resolves a second, higher-stakes conflict found while scoping this
Unit: where does `.claude/agents/<org_node>.md` actually live? Architecture
doc §13.1 says graphlemon's own platform repo; 03-C §3.3 and 05 §5.1 (both
core SDD, not the architecture PRD) explicitly say the target project --
matching how Claude Code's --agent flag actually discovers subagents
(relative to invocation cwd). User confirmed 03-C/05 win. Resolved as two
different files, not a contradiction: agents/<org_node>/SOUL.md (+
validator/AGENTS.md) here is the canonical migrated source (01-M 1.9
agent_profile.soul_file_path, a singleton with no target-project
reference); src/agent_profile.py compiles that into the deployable
.claude/agents/<org_node>.md and writes it into a target project via
deploy_agent_definitions(). Does not reopen the U-002 correction from the
previous commit -- .graphlemon/ scaffolding and agent deployment are
different, non-conflicting concerns.

validator's tools/disallowedTools frontmatter encodes qa/AGENTS.md's
original workspace-permission contract (read-only on source, no git
mutation commands) as actual Claude Code permissions instead of prose.

14 new stdlib unittest cases (test_agent_profile.py, all real) + 1 gated
real-agent test (test_agent_e2e.py, RUN_REAL_AGENT_E2E=1, mirrors
graphloop's pattern per CLAUDE.md's Testing constraint -- this is the first
Unit that actually shells out to `claude`, so this is also where that
harness gets built, per the harness-ownership decision from the earlier
"什么还需要" review). 41 total tests across U-001-004, all passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Implements c_project_create (03-C §3.0) as a plain function for U-007 to
wire up later: idempotent by target_folder_path, creates .graphlemon/ +
one init commit in an existing git repo, PATH_NOT_FOUND/PATH_NOT_WRITABLE/
GIT_INIT_DECLINED per contract, never silently `git init`s (02-V §2.1).

Also corrects a real SDD-vs-plan conflict found while scoping this Unit:
development-plan.md's U-002 line cited architecture doc §7.3's directory
tree (.claude/agents/, skills/, top-level runs/) as what to create inside
a target project. But §13.1 (a later, confirmed decision) states those are
graphlemon's own platform-repo assets (U-003 scope), and 01-M's own
graphlemon_subdir_initialized field already points at §13.2, whose target-
project tree is only .git/ + .graphlemon/ + the target's pre-existing
src/. §7.3 predates the "target project is an independent code space"
pivot and was superseded by it. Corrected development-plan.md,
unit_matrix.json, CLAUDE.md, and 05-实施约束与依赖.md accordingly (user
confirmed, 2026-07-31).

23 stdlib unittest cases (src/test_schema.py + new src/test_project_scaffold.py),
all passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Establishes the first commit for graphlemon before U-001 work begins:
architecture/SDD docs (including the PH5 self-hosting design already
folded into 01-M/03-C/04-P/mvcp-contract v1.7.0), the A-1 spike results,
the graphloop-adapted supervisor/isolation utilities, PH3 wireframe
prototypes (now cross-referenced from 02-V), and this session's
development-plan review (U-024 dependency split, U-035 regression
requirement, new U-004.5 e2e-harness unit, src/ directory convention).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>