mcp tuning

.kilocode/mcp.json

@@ -1 +1 @@
-{"mcpServers":{"axiom-core":{"command":"/home/busya/dev/ast-mcp-core-server/.venv/bin/python","args":["-c","from src.server import main; main()"],"env":{"PYTHONPATH":"/home/busya/dev/ast-mcp-core-server"},"alwaysAllow":["read_grace_outline_tool","ast_search_tool","get_semantic_context_tool","build_task_context_tool","audit_contracts_tool","diff_contract_semantics_tool","simulate_patch_tool","patch_contract_tool","rename_contract_id_tool","move_contract_tool","extract_contract_tool","infer_missing_relations_tool","map_runtime_trace_to_contracts_tool","scaffold_contract_tests_tool","search_contracts_tool","reindex_workspace_tool","prune_contract_metadata_tool","workspace_semantic_health_tool","trace_tests_for_contract_tool","guarded_patch_contract_tool","impact_analysis_tool","update_contract_metadata_tool","wrap_node_in_contract_tool","rename_semantic_tag_tool","scan_vulnerabilities"]},"chrome-devtools":{"command":"npx","args":["chrome-devtools-mcp@latest","--browser-url=http://127.0.0.1:9222"],"disabled":false,"alwaysAllow":["take_snapshot"]}}}
+{"mcpServers":{"axiom-core":{"command":"/home/busya/dev/ast-mcp-core-server/.venv/bin/python","args":["-c","from src.server import main; main()"],"env":{"PYTHONPATH":"/home/busya/dev/ast-mcp-core-server"},"alwaysAllow":["read_grace_outline_tool","ast_search_tool","get_semantic_context_tool","build_task_context_tool","audit_contracts_tool","diff_contract_semantics_tool","simulate_patch_tool","patch_contract_tool","rename_contract_id_tool","move_contract_tool","extract_contract_tool","infer_missing_relations_tool","map_runtime_trace_to_contracts_tool","scaffold_contract_tests_tool","search_contracts_tool","reindex_workspace_tool","prune_contract_metadata_tool","workspace_semantic_health_tool","trace_tests_for_contract_tool","guarded_patch_contract_tool","impact_analysis_tool","update_contract_metadata_tool","wrap_node_in_contract_tool","rename_semantic_tag_tool","scan_vulnerabilities","find_contract_tool","safe_patch_tool","run_workspace_command_tool"]},"chrome-devtools":{"command":"npx","args":["chrome-devtools-mcp@latest","--browser-url=http://127.0.0.1:9222"],"disabled":false,"alwaysAllow":["take_snapshot"]}}}

.kilocode/workflows/speckit.analyze.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
 
 ## Goal
 
-Identify inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, and underspecified items across the three core artifacts (`spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`) before implementation. This command MUST run only after `/speckit.tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`.
+Identify inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, underspecified items, and decision-memory drift across the core artifacts (`spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`, and ADR sources) before implementation. This command MUST run only after `/speckit.tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`.
 
 ## Operating Constraints
 
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --inclu
 - SPEC = FEATURE_DIR/spec.md
 - PLAN = FEATURE_DIR/plan.md
 - TASKS = FEATURE_DIR/tasks.md
+- ADR = `docs/architecture.md` and/or feature-local decision files when present
 
 Abort with an error message if any required file is missing (instruct the user to run missing prerequisite command).
 For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
@@ -37,7 +38,7 @@ For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot
 
 Load only the minimal necessary context from each artifact:
 
-**From spec.md:**
+**From `spec.md`:**
 
 - Overview/Context
 - Functional Requirements
@@ -45,20 +46,29 @@ Load only the minimal necessary context from each artifact:
 - User Stories
 - Edge Cases (if present)
 
-**From plan.md:**
+**From `plan.md`:**
 
 - Architecture/stack choices
 - Data Model references
 - Phases
 - Technical constraints
+- ADR references or emitted decisions
 
-**From tasks.md:**
+**From `tasks.md`:**
 
 - Task IDs
 - Descriptions
 - Phase grouping
 - Parallel markers [P]
 - Referenced file paths
+- Guardrail summaries derived from `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`
+
+**From ADR sources:**
+
+- `[DEF:id:ADR]` nodes
+- `@RATIONALE`
+- `@REJECTED`
+- `@RELATION`
 
 **From constitution:**
 
@@ -73,6 +83,7 @@ Create internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output):
 - **User story/action inventory**: Discrete user actions with acceptance criteria
 - **Task coverage mapping**: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories (inference by keyword / explicit reference patterns like IDs or key phrases)
 - **Constitution rule set**: Extract principle names and MUST/SHOULD normative statements
+- **Decision-memory inventory**: ADR ids, accepted paths, rejected paths, and the tasks/contracts expected to inherit them
 
 ### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)
 
@@ -112,13 +123,21 @@ Focus on high-signal findings. Limit to 50 findings total; aggregate remainder i
 - Task ordering contradictions (e.g., integration tasks before foundational setup tasks without dependency note)
 - Conflicting requirements (e.g., one requires Next.js while other specifies Vue)
 
+#### G. Decision-Memory Drift
+
+- ADR exists in planning but has no downstream task guardrail
+- Task carries a guardrail with no upstream ADR or plan rationale
+- Task text accidentally schedules an ADR-rejected path
+- Missing preventive `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED` summaries for known traps
+- Rejected-path notes that contradict later plan or task language without explicit decision revision
+
 ### 5. Severity Assignment
 
 Use this heuristic to prioritize findings:
 
-- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality
-- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security/performance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion
-- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case
+- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, missing blocking ADR, rejected path scheduled as work, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality
+- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security/performance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion, ADR guardrail drift
+- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case, incomplete decision-memory propagation
 - **LOW**: Style/wording improvements, minor redundancy not affecting execution order
 
 ### 6. Produce Compact Analysis Report
@@ -138,6 +157,11 @@ Output a Markdown report (no file writes) with the following structure:
 | Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |
 |-----------------|-----------|----------|-------|
 
+**Decision Memory Summary Table:**
+
+| ADR / Guardrail | Present in Plan | Propagated to Tasks | Rejected Path Protected | Notes |
+|-----------------|-----------------|---------------------|-------------------------|-------|
+
 **Constitution Alignment Issues:** (if any)
 
 **Unmapped Tasks:** (if any)
@@ -150,6 +174,8 @@ Output a Markdown report (no file writes) with the following structure:
 - Ambiguity Count
 - Duplication Count
 - Critical Issues Count
+- ADR Count
+- Guardrail Drift Count
 
 ### 7. Provide Next Actions
 
@@ -179,6 +205,7 @@ Ask the user: "Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the t
 - **Prioritize constitution violations** (these are always CRITICAL)
 - **Use examples over exhaustive rules** (cite specific instances, not generic patterns)
 - **Report zero issues gracefully** (emit success report with coverage statistics)
+- **Treat missing ADR propagation as a real defect, not a documentation nit**
 
 ## Context
 

.kilocode/workflows/speckit.checklist.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ description: Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user r
 
 ## Checklist Purpose: "Unit Tests for English"
 
-**CRITICAL CONCEPT**: Checklists are **UNIT TESTS FOR REQUIREMENTS WRITING** - they validate the quality, clarity, and completeness of requirements in a given domain.
+**CRITICAL CONCEPT**: Checklists are **UNIT TESTS FOR REQUIREMENTS WRITING** - they validate the quality, clarity, completeness, and decision-memory readiness of requirements in a given domain.
 
 **NOT for verification/testing**:
 
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ description: Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user r
 - ✅ "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" (consistency)
 - ✅ "Are accessibility requirements defined for keyboard navigation?" (coverage)
 - ✅ "Does the spec define what happens when logo image fails to load?" (edge cases)
+- ✅ "Do repo-shaping choices have explicit rationale and rejected alternatives before task decomposition?" (decision memory)
 
 **Metaphor**: If your spec is code written in English, the checklist is its unit test suite. You're testing whether the requirements are well-written, complete, unambiguous, and ready for implementation - NOT whether the implementation works.
 
@@ -47,7 +48,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    1. Extract signals: feature domain keywords (e.g., auth, latency, UX, API), risk indicators ("critical", "must", "compliance"), stakeholder hints ("QA", "review", "security team"), and explicit deliverables ("a11y", "rollback", "contracts").
    2. Cluster signals into candidate focus areas (max 4) ranked by relevance.
    3. Identify probable audience & timing (author, reviewer, QA, release) if not explicit.
-   4. Detect missing dimensions: scope breadth, depth/rigor, risk emphasis, exclusion boundaries, measurable acceptance criteria.
+   4. Detect missing dimensions: scope breadth, depth/rigor, risk emphasis, exclusion boundaries, measurable acceptance criteria, decision-memory needs.
    5. Formulate questions chosen from these archetypes:
       - Scope refinement (e.g., "Should this include integration touchpoints with X and Y or stay limited to local module correctness?")
       - Risk prioritization (e.g., "Which of these potential risk areas should receive mandatory gating checks?")
@@ -55,6 +56,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
       - Audience framing (e.g., "Will this be used by the author only or peers during PR review?")
       - Boundary exclusion (e.g., "Should we explicitly exclude performance tuning items this round?")
       - Scenario class gap (e.g., "No recovery flows detected—are rollback / partial failure paths in scope?")
+      - Decision-memory gap (e.g., "Do we need explicit ADR and rejected-path checks for this feature?")
 
    Question formatting rules:
    - If presenting options, generate a compact table with columns: Option | Candidate | Why It Matters
@@ -76,9 +78,10 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - Infer any missing context from spec/plan/tasks (do NOT hallucinate)
 
 4. **Load feature context**: Read from FEATURE_DIR:
-   - spec.md: Feature requirements and scope
-   - plan.md (if exists): Technical details, dependencies
-   - tasks.md (if exists): Implementation tasks
+   - `spec.md`: Feature requirements and scope
+   - `plan.md` (if exists): Technical details, dependencies, ADR references
+   - `tasks.md` (if exists): Implementation tasks and inherited guardrails
+   - ADR artifacts (if present): `[DEF:id:ADR]`, `@RATIONALE`, `@REJECTED`
 
    **Context Loading Strategy**:
    - Load only necessary portions relevant to active focus areas (avoid full-file dumping)
@@ -102,6 +105,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - **Consistency**: Do requirements align with each other?
    - **Measurability**: Can requirements be objectively verified?
    - **Coverage**: Are all scenarios/edge cases addressed?
+   - **Decision Memory**: Are durable choices and rejected alternatives explicit before implementation starts?
 
    **Category Structure** - Group items by requirement quality dimensions:
    - **Requirement Completeness** (Are all necessary requirements documented?)
@@ -112,6 +116,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - **Edge Case Coverage** (Are boundary conditions defined?)
    - **Non-Functional Requirements** (Performance, Security, Accessibility, etc. - are they specified?)
    - **Dependencies & Assumptions** (Are they documented and validated?)
+   - **Decision Memory & ADRs** (Are architectural choices, rationale, and rejected paths explicit?)
    - **Ambiguities & Conflicts** (What needs clarification?)
 
    **HOW TO WRITE CHECKLIST ITEMS - "Unit Tests for English"**:
@@ -127,8 +132,8 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" [Consistency]
    - "Are keyboard navigation requirements defined for all interactive UI?" [Coverage]
    - "Is the fallback behavior specified when logo image fails to load?" [Edge Cases]
-   - "Are loading states defined for asynchronous episode data?" [Completeness]
-   - "Does the spec define visual hierarchy for competing UI elements?" [Clarity]
+   - "Are blocking architecture decisions recorded with explicit rationale and rejected alternatives before task generation?" [Decision Memory]
+   - "Does the plan make clear which implementation shortcuts are forbidden for this feature?" [Decision Memory, Gap]
 
    **ITEM STRUCTURE**:
    Each item should follow this pattern:
@@ -163,6 +168,11 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - "Are visual hierarchy requirements measurable/testable? [Acceptance Criteria, Spec §FR-1]"
    - "Can 'balanced visual weight' be objectively verified? [Measurability, Spec §FR-2]"
 
+   Decision Memory:
+   - "Do all repo-shaping technical choices have explicit rationale before tasks are generated? [Decision Memory, Plan]"
+   - "Are rejected alternatives documented for architectural branches that would materially change implementation scope? [Decision Memory, Gap]"
+   - "Can a coder determine from the planning artifacts which tempting shortcut is forbidden? [Decision Memory, Clarity]"
+
    **Scenario Classification & Coverage** (Requirements Quality Focus):
    - Check if requirements exist for: Primary, Alternate, Exception/Error, Recovery, Non-Functional scenarios
    - For each scenario class, ask: "Are [scenario type] requirements complete, clear, and consistent?"
@@ -171,7 +181,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
 
    **Traceability Requirements**:
    - MINIMUM: ≥80% of items MUST include at least one traceability reference
-   - Each item should reference: spec section `[Spec §X.Y]`, or use markers: `[Gap]`, `[Ambiguity]`, `[Conflict]`, `[Assumption]`
+   - Each item should reference: spec section `[Spec §X.Y]`, or use markers: `[Gap]`, `[Ambiguity]`, `[Conflict]`, `[Assumption]`, `[ADR]`
    - If no ID system exists: "Is a requirement & acceptance criteria ID scheme established? [Traceability]"
 
    **Surface & Resolve Issues** (Requirements Quality Problems):
@@ -181,6 +191,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - Assumptions: "Is the assumption of 'always available podcast API' validated? [Assumption]"
    - Dependencies: "Are external podcast API requirements documented? [Dependency, Gap]"
    - Missing definitions: "Is 'visual hierarchy' defined with measurable criteria? [Gap]"
+   - Decision-memory drift: "Do tasks inherit the same rejected-path guardrails defined in planning? [Decision Memory, Conflict]"
 
    **Content Consolidation**:
    - Soft cap: If raw candidate items > 40, prioritize by risk/impact
@@ -193,7 +204,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - ❌ "Displays correctly", "works properly", "functions as expected"
    - ❌ "Click", "navigate", "render", "load", "execute"
    - ❌ Test cases, test plans, QA procedures
-   - ❌ Implementation details (frameworks, APIs, algorithms)
+   - ❌ Implementation details (frameworks, APIs, algorithms) unless the checklist is asking whether those decisions were explicitly documented and bounded by rationale/rejected alternatives
 
    **✅ REQUIRED PATTERNS** - These test requirements quality:
    - ✅ "Are [requirement type] defined/specified/documented for [scenario]?"
@@ -202,6 +213,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - ✅ "Can [requirement] be objectively measured/verified?"
    - ✅ "Are [edge cases/scenarios] addressed in requirements?"
    - ✅ "Does the spec define [missing aspect]?"
+   - ✅ "Does the plan record why [accepted path] was chosen and why [rejected path] is forbidden?"
 
 6. **Structure Reference**: Generate the checklist following the canonical template in `.specify/templates/checklist-template.md` for title, meta section, category headings, and ID formatting. If template is unavailable, use: H1 title, purpose/created meta lines, `##` category sections containing `- [ ] CHK### <requirement item>` lines with globally incrementing IDs starting at CHK001.
 
@@ -210,6 +222,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - Depth level
    - Actor/timing
    - Any explicit user-specified must-have items incorporated
+   - Whether ADR / decision-memory checks were included
 
 **Important**: Each `/speckit.checklist` command invocation creates a checklist file using short, descriptive names unless file already exists. This allows:
 
@@ -262,6 +275,15 @@ Sample items:
 - "Are security requirements consistent with compliance obligations? [Consistency]"
 - "Are security failure/breach response requirements defined? [Gap, Exception Flow]"
 
+**Architecture Decision Quality:** `architecture.md`
+
+Sample items:
+
+- "Do all repo-shaping architecture choices have explicit rationale before tasks are generated? [Decision Memory]"
+- "Are rejected alternatives documented for each blocking technology branch? [Decision Memory, Gap]"
+- "Can an implementer tell which shortcuts are forbidden without re-reading research artifacts? [Clarity, ADR]"
+- "Are ADR decisions traceable to requirements or constraints in the spec? [Traceability, ADR]"
+
 ## Anti-Examples: What NOT To Do
 
 **❌ WRONG - These test implementation, not requirements:**
@@ -282,6 +304,7 @@ Sample items:
 - [ ] CHK004 - Is the selection criteria for related episodes documented? [Gap, Spec §FR-005]
 - [ ] CHK005 - Are loading state requirements defined for asynchronous episode data? [Gap]
 - [ ] CHK006 - Can "visual hierarchy" requirements be objectively measured? [Measurability, Spec §FR-001]
+- [ ] CHK007 - Do planning artifacts state why the accepted architecture was chosen and which alternative is rejected? [Decision Memory, ADR]
 ```
 
 **Key Differences:**

.kilocode/workflows/speckit.implement.md

@@ -56,35 +56,36 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
 
 3. Load and analyze the implementation context:
    - **REQUIRED**: Read `.ai/standards/semantics.md` for strict coding standards and contract requirements
-   - **REQUIRED**: Read tasks.md for the complete task list and execution plan
-   - **REQUIRED**: Read plan.md for tech stack, architecture, and file structure
-   - **IF EXISTS**: Read data-model.md for entities and relationships
-   - **IF EXISTS**: Read contracts/ for API specifications and test requirements
-   - **IF EXISTS**: Read research.md for technical decisions and constraints
-   - **IF EXISTS**: Read quickstart.md for integration scenarios
+   - **REQUIRED**: Read `tasks.md` for the complete task list and execution plan
+   - **REQUIRED**: Read `plan.md` for tech stack, architecture, and file structure
+   - **REQUIRED IF PRESENT**: Read ADR artifacts containing `[DEF:id:ADR]` nodes and build a blocked-path inventory from `@REJECTED`
+   - **IF EXISTS**: Read `data-model.md` for entities and relationships
+   - **IF EXISTS**: Read `contracts/` for API specifications and test requirements
+   - **IF EXISTS**: Read `research.md` for technical decisions and constraints
+   - **IF EXISTS**: Read `quickstart.md` for integration scenarios
 
 4. **Project Setup Verification**:
    - **REQUIRED**: Create/verify ignore files based on actual project setup:
 
    **Detection & Creation Logic**:
-   - Check if the following command succeeds to determine if the repository is a git repo (create/verify .gitignore if so):
+   - Check if the following command succeeds to determine if the repository is a git repo (create/verify `.gitignore` if so):
 
      ```sh
      git rev-parse --git-dir 2>/dev/null
      ```
 
-   - Check if Dockerfile* exists or Docker in plan.md → create/verify .dockerignore
-   - Check if .eslintrc* exists → create/verify .eslintignore
-   - Check if eslint.config.* exists → ensure the config's `ignores` entries cover required patterns
-   - Check if .prettierrc* exists → create/verify .prettierignore
-   - Check if .npmrc or package.json exists → create/verify .npmignore (if publishing)
-   - Check if terraform files (*.tf) exist → create/verify .terraformignore
-   - Check if .helmignore needed (helm charts present) → create/verify .helmignore
+   - Check if Dockerfile* exists or Docker in `plan.md` → create/verify `.dockerignore`
+   - Check if `.eslintrc*` exists → create/verify `.eslintignore`
+   - Check if `eslint.config.*` exists → ensure the config's `ignores` entries cover required patterns
+   - Check if `.prettierrc*` exists → create/verify `.prettierignore`
+   - Check if `.npmrc` or `package.json` exists → create/verify `.npmignore` (if publishing)
+   - Check if terraform files (`*.tf`) exist → create/verify `.terraformignore`
+   - Check if `.helmignore` needed (helm charts present) → create/verify `.helmignore`
 
    **If ignore file already exists**: Verify it contains essential patterns, append missing critical patterns only
    **If ignore file missing**: Create with full pattern set for detected technology
 
-   **Common Patterns by Technology** (from plan.md tech stack):
+   **Common Patterns by Technology** (from `plan.md` tech stack):
    - **Node.js/JavaScript/TypeScript**: `node_modules/`, `dist/`, `build/`, `*.log`, `.env*`
    - **Python**: `__pycache__/`, `*.pyc`, `.venv/`, `venv/`, `dist/`, `*.egg-info/`
    - **Java**: `target/`, `*.class`, `*.jar`, `.gradle/`, `build/`
@@ -107,11 +108,12 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - **Terraform**: `.terraform/`, `*.tfstate*`, `*.tfvars`, `.terraform.lock.hcl`
    - **Kubernetes/k8s**: `*.secret.yaml`, `secrets/`, `.kube/`, `kubeconfig*`, `*.key`, `*.crt`
 
-5. Parse tasks.md structure and extract:
+5. Parse `tasks.md` structure and extract:
    - **Task phases**: Setup, Tests, Core, Integration, Polish
    - **Task dependencies**: Sequential vs parallel execution rules
    - **Task details**: ID, description, file paths, parallel markers [P]
    - **Execution flow**: Order and dependency requirements
+   - **Decision-memory requirements**: which tasks inherit ADR ids, `@RATIONALE`, and `@REJECTED` guardrails
 
 6. Execute implementation following the task plan:
    - **Phase-by-phase execution**: Complete each phase before moving to the next
@@ -119,6 +121,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - **Follow TDD approach**: Execute test tasks before their corresponding implementation tasks
    - **File-based coordination**: Tasks affecting the same files must run sequentially
    - **Validation checkpoints**: Verify each phase completion before proceeding
+   - **ADR guardrail discipline**: if a task packet or local contract forbids a path via `@REJECTED`, do not treat it as an implementation option
 
 7. Implementation execution rules:
    - **Strict Adherence**: Apply `.ai/standards/semantics.md` rules:
@@ -134,8 +137,10 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
      - For Python Complexity 5 modules, `belief_scope(...)` is mandatory and the critical path must be irrigated with `logger.reason()` / `logger.reflect()` according to the contract.
      - For Svelte components, require `@UX_STATE`, `@UX_FEEDBACK`, `@UX_RECOVERY`, and `@UX_REACTIVITY`; runes-only reactivity is allowed (`$state`, `$derived`, `$effect`, `$props`).
      - Reject pseudo-semantic markup: docstrings containing loose `@PURPOSE` / `@PRE` text do **NOT** satisfy the protocol unless represented in canonical anchored metadata blocks.
+     - Preserve and propagate decision-memory tags. Upstream `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED` are mandatory when carried by the task packet or contract.
+     - If `logger.explore()` or equivalent runtime evidence leads to a retained workaround, mutate the same contract header with reactive Micro-ADR tags: `@RATIONALE` and `@REJECTED`.
    - **Self-Audit**: The Coder MUST use `axiom-core` tools (like `audit_contracts_tool`) to verify semantic compliance before completion.
-   - **Semantic Rejection Gate**: If self-audit reveals broken anchors, missing closing tags, missing required metadata for the effective complexity, orphaned critical classes/functions, or Complexity 4/5 Python code without required belief-state logging, the task is NOT complete and cannot be handed off as accepted work.
+   - **Semantic Rejection Gate**: If self-audit reveals broken anchors, missing closing tags, missing required metadata for the effective complexity, orphaned critical classes/functions, Complexity 4/5 Python code without required belief-state logging, or retained workarounds without decision-memory tags, the task is NOT complete and cannot be handed off as accepted work.
    - **CRITICAL Contracts**: If a task description contains a contract summary (e.g., `CRITICAL: PRE: ..., POST: ...`), these constraints are **MANDATORY** and must be strictly implemented in the code using guards/assertions (if applicable per protocol).
    - **Setup first**: Initialize project structure, dependencies, configuration
    - **Tests before code**: If you need to write tests for contracts, entities, and integration scenarios
@@ -150,11 +155,13 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - Provide clear error messages with context for debugging.
    - Suggest next steps if implementation cannot proceed.
    - **IMPORTANT** For completed tasks, mark as [X] only AFTER local verification and self-audit.
+   - If blocked because the only apparent fix is listed in upstream `@REJECTED`, escalate for decision revision instead of silently overriding the guardrail.
 
 9. **Handoff to Tester (Audit Loop)**:
    - Once a task or phase is complete, the Coder hands off to the Tester.
    - Handoff includes: file paths, declared complexity, expected contracts (`@PRE`, `@POST`, `@SIDE_EFFECT`, `@DATA_CONTRACT`, `@INVARIANT` when applicable), and a short logic overview.
    - Handoff MUST explicitly disclose any contract exceptions or known semantic debt. Hidden semantic debt is forbidden.
+   - Handoff MUST disclose decision-memory changes: inherited ADR ids, new or updated `@RATIONALE`, new or updated `@REJECTED`, and any blocked paths that remain active.
    - The handoff payload MUST instruct the Tester to execute the dedicated testing workflow [`.kilocode/workflows/speckit.test.md`](.kilocode/workflows/speckit.test.md), not just perform an informal review.
 
 10. **Tester Verification & Orchestrator Gate**:
@@ -164,11 +171,12 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
      - Reject code that only imitates the protocol superficially, such as free-form docstrings with `@PURPOSE` text but without canonical `[DEF]...[/DEF]` anchors and header metadata.
      - Verify that effective complexity and required metadata match [`.ai/standards/semantics.md`](.ai/standards/semantics.md).
      - Verify that Python Complexity 4/5 implementations include required belief-state instrumentation (`belief_scope`, `logger.reason()`, `logger.reflect()`).
+     - Verify that upstream rejected paths were not silently restored.
      - Emulate algorithms "in mind" step-by-step to ensure logic consistency.
      - Verify unit tests match the declared contracts.
    - If Tester finds issues:
-     - Emit `[AUDIT_FAIL: semantic_noncompliance | contract_mismatch | logic_mismatch | test_mismatch | speckit_test_not_run]`.
-     - Provide concrete file-path-based reasons, for example: missing anchors, module/class contract mismatch, missing `@DATA_CONTRACT`, missing `logger.reason()`, illegal docstring-only annotations, or missing execution of [`.kilocode/workflows/speckit.test.md`](.kilocode/workflows/speckit.test.md).
+     - Emit `[AUDIT_FAIL: semantic_noncompliance | contract_mismatch | logic_mismatch | test_mismatch | speckit_test_not_run | rejected_path_regression]`.
+     - Provide concrete file-path-based reasons, for example: missing anchors, module/class contract mismatch, missing `@DATA_CONTRACT`, missing `logger.reason()`, illegal docstring-only annotations, missing decision-memory tags, re-enabled upstream rejected path, or missing execution of [`.kilocode/workflows/speckit.test.md`](.kilocode/workflows/speckit.test.md).
      - Notify the Orchestrator.
      - Orchestrator redirects the feedback to the Coder for remediation.
    - Orchestrator green-status rule:
@@ -187,7 +195,9 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
       - class/function-level docstring contracts standing in for canonical anchors,
       - missing closing anchors,
       - missing required metadata for declared complexity,
-      - Complexity 5 repository/service code using only `belief_scope(...)` without explicit `logger.reason()` / `logger.reflect()` checkpoints.
+      - Complexity 5 repository/service code using only `belief_scope(...)` without explicit `logger.reason()` / `logger.reflect()` checkpoints,
+      - retained workarounds missing local `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`,
+      - silent resurrection of paths already blocked by upstream ADR or task guardrails.
     - Report final status with summary of completed and audited work.
 
-Note: This command assumes a complete task breakdown exists in tasks.md. If tasks are incomplete or missing, suggest running `/speckit.tasks` first to regenerate the task list.
+Note: This command assumes a complete task breakdown exists in `tasks.md`. If tasks are incomplete or missing, suggest running `/speckit.tasks` first to regenerate the task list.

.kilocode/workflows/speckit.plan.md

@@ -28,12 +28,13 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - Fill Technical Context (mark unknowns as "NEEDS CLARIFICATION")
    - Fill Constitution Check section from constitution
    - Evaluate gates (ERROR if violations unjustified)
-   - Phase 0: Generate research.md (resolve all NEEDS CLARIFICATION)
-   - Phase 1: Generate data-model.md, contracts/, quickstart.md
+   - Phase 0: Generate `research.md` (resolve all NEEDS CLARIFICATION)
+   - Phase 1: Generate `data-model.md`, `contracts/`, `quickstart.md`
+   - Phase 1: Generate global ADR artifacts and connect them to the plan
    - Phase 1: Update agent context by running the agent script
    - Re-evaluate Constitution Check post-design
 
-4. **Stop and report**: Command ends after Phase 2 planning. Report branch, IMPL_PLAN path, and generated artifacts.
+4. **Stop and report**: Command ends after Phase 2 planning. Report branch, IMPL_PLAN path, generated artifacts, and ADR decisions created.
 
 ## Phases
 
@@ -58,9 +59,9 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - Rationale: [why chosen]
    - Alternatives considered: [what else evaluated]
 
-**Output**: research.md with all NEEDS CLARIFICATION resolved
+**Output**: `research.md` with all NEEDS CLARIFICATION resolved
 
-### Phase 1: Design & Contracts
+### Phase 1: Design, ADRs & Contracts
 
 **Prerequisites:** `research.md` complete
 
@@ -72,7 +73,23 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
 1. **Extract entities from feature spec** → `data-model.md`:
    - Entity name, fields, relationships, validation rules.
 
-2. **Design & Verify Contracts (Semantic Protocol)**:
+2. **Generate Global ADRs (Decision Memory Root Layer)**:
+   - Read `spec.md`, `research.md`, and the technical context to identify repo-shaping decisions: storage, auth pattern, framework boundaries, integration patterns, deployment assumptions, failure strategy.
+   - For each durable architectural choice, emit a standalone semantic ADR block using `[DEF:DecisionId:ADR]`.
+   - Every ADR block MUST include:
+     - `@COMPLEXITY: 3` or `4` depending on blast radius
+     - `@PURPOSE`
+     - `@RATIONALE`
+     - `@REJECTED`
+     - `@RELATION` back to the originating spec/research/plan boundary or target module family
+   - Preferred destinations:
+     - `docs/architecture.md` for cross-cutting repository decisions
+     - feature-local design docs when the decision is feature-scoped
+     - root module headers only when the decision scope is truly local
+   - **Hard Gate**: do not continue to task decomposition until the blocking global decisions have been materialized as ADR nodes.
+   - **Anti-Regression Goal**: a later orchestrator must be able to read these ADRs and avoid creating tasks for rejected branches.
+
+3. **Design & Verify Contracts (Semantic Protocol)**:
    - **Drafting**: Define semantic headers, metadata, and closing anchors for all new modules strictly from `.ai/standards/semantics.md`.
    - **Complexity Classification**: Classify each contract with `@COMPLEXITY: [1|2|3|4|5]` or `@C:`. Treat `@TIER` only as a legacy compatibility hint and never as the primary rule source.
    - **Adaptive Contract Requirements**:
@@ -81,34 +98,42 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
      - **Complexity 3**: require `@PURPOSE` and `@RELATION`; UI also requires `@UX_STATE`.
      - **Complexity 4**: require `@PURPOSE`, `@RELATION`, `@PRE`, `@POST`, `@SIDE_EFFECT`; Python modules must define a meaningful `logger.reason()` / `logger.reflect()` path or equivalent belief-state mechanism.
      - **Complexity 5**: require full level-4 contract plus `@DATA_CONTRACT` and `@INVARIANT`; Python modules must require `belief_scope`; UI modules must define UX contracts including `@UX_STATE`, `@UX_FEEDBACK`, `@UX_RECOVERY`, and `@UX_REACTIVITY`.
+   - **Decision-Memory Propagation**:
+     - If a module/function/component realizes or is constrained by an ADR, add local `@RATIONALE` and `@REJECTED` guardrails before coding begins.
+     - Use `@RELATION: IMPLEMENTS ->[AdrId]` when the contract realizes the ADR.
+     - Use `@RELATION: DEPENDS_ON ->[AdrId]` when the contract is merely constrained by the ADR.
+     - Record known LLM traps directly in the contract header so the implementer inherits the guardrail from the start.
    - **Relation Syntax**: Write dependency edges in canonical GraphRAG form: `@RELATION: [PREDICATE] ->[TARGET_ID]`.
-   - **Context Guard**: If a target relation, DTO, or required dependency cannot be named confidently, stop generation and emit `[NEED_CONTEXT: target]` instead of inventing placeholders.
+   - **Context Guard**: If a target relation, DTO, required dependency, or decision rationale cannot be named confidently, stop generation and emit `[NEED_CONTEXT: target]` instead of inventing placeholders.
    - **Testing Contracts**: Add `@TEST_CONTRACT`, `@TEST_SCENARIO`, `@TEST_FIXTURE`, `@TEST_EDGE`, and `@TEST_INVARIANT` when the design introduces audit-critical or explicitly test-governed contracts, especially for Complexity 5 boundaries.
    - **Self-Review**:
      - *Complexity Fit*: Does each contract include exactly the metadata and contract density required by its complexity level?
-     - *Completeness*: Do `@PRE`/`@POST`, `@SIDE_EFFECT`, `@DATA_CONTRACT`, and UX tags cover the edge cases identified in Research and UX Reference?
+     - *Completeness*: Do `@PRE`/`@POST`, `@SIDE_EFFECT`, `@DATA_CONTRACT`, UX tags, and decision-memory tags cover the edge cases identified in Research and UX Reference?
      - *Connectivity*: Do `@RELATION` tags form a coherent graph using canonical `@RELATION: [PREDICATE] ->[TARGET_ID]` syntax?
      - *Compliance*: Are all anchors properly opened and closed, and does the chosen comment syntax match the target medium?
      - *Belief-State Requirements*: Do Complexity 4/5 Python modules explicitly account for `logger.reason()`, `logger.reflect()`, and `belief_scope` requirements?
+     - *ADR Continuity*: Does every blocking architectural decision have a corresponding ADR node and at least one downstream guarded contract?
    - **Output**: Write verified contracts to `contracts/modules.md`.
 
-3. **Simulate Contract Usage**:
+4. **Simulate Contract Usage**:
    - Trace one key user scenario through the defined contracts to ensure data flow continuity.
    - If a contract interface mismatch is found, fix it immediately.
+   - Verify that no traced path accidentally realizes an alternative already named in any ADR `@REJECTED` tag.
 
-4. **Generate API contracts**:
+5. **Generate API contracts**:
    - Output OpenAPI/GraphQL schema to `/contracts/` for backend-frontend sync.
 
-5. **Agent context update**:
+6. **Agent context update**:
    - Run `.specify/scripts/bash/update-agent-context.sh kilocode`
    - These scripts detect which AI agent is in use
    - Update the appropriate agent-specific context file
    - Add only new technology from current plan
    - Preserve manual additions between markers
 
-**Output**: data-model.md, /contracts/*, quickstart.md, agent-specific file
+**Output**: `data-model.md`, `/contracts/*`, `quickstart.md`, ADR artifact(s), agent-specific file
 
 ## Key rules
 
 - Use absolute paths
 - ERROR on gate failures or unresolved clarifications
+- Do not hand off to [`speckit.tasks`](.kilocode/workflows/speckit.tasks.md) until blocking ADRs exist and rejected branches are explicit

.kilocode/workflows/speckit.semantics.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
 
 ## Goal
 
-Ensure the codebase adheres to the semantic standards defined in `.ai/standards/semantics.md` by using the AXIOM MCP semantic graph as the primary execution engine. This involves reindexing the workspace, measuring semantic health, auditing contract compliance, and optionally delegating contract-safe fixes through MCP-aware agents.
+Ensure the codebase adheres to the semantic standards defined in `.ai/standards/semantics.md` by using the AXIOM MCP semantic graph as the primary execution engine. This involves reindexing the workspace, measuring semantic health, auditing contract compliance, auditing decision-memory continuity, and optionally delegating contract-safe fixes through MCP-aware agents.
 
 ## Operating Constraints
 
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ Ensure the codebase adheres to the semantic standards defined in `.ai/standards/
 7. **ID NAMING (CRITICAL)**: NEVER use fully-qualified Python import paths in `[DEF:id:Type]`. Use short, domain-driven semantic IDs (e.g., `[DEF:AuthService:Class]`). Follow the exact style shown in `.ai/standards/semantics.md`.
 8. **ORPHAN PREVENTION**: To reduce the orphan count, you MUST physically wrap actual class and function definitions with `[DEF:id:Type] ... [/DEF]` blocks in the code. Modifying `@RELATION` tags does NOT fix orphans. The AST parser flags any unwrapped function as an orphan.
    - **Exception for Tests**: In test modules, use `BINDS_TO` to link major helpers to the module root. Small helpers remain C1 and don't need relations.
+9. **DECISION-MEMORY CONTINUITY**: Audit ADR nodes, preventive task guardrails, and reactive Micro-ADR tags as one anti-regression chain. Missing or contradictory `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED` is a first-class semantic defect.
 
 ## Execution Steps
 
@@ -48,8 +49,13 @@ Treat high orphan counts and unresolved relations as first-class health indicato
 Use [`audit_contracts_tool`](.kilo/mcp.json) and classify findings into:
 - **Critical Parsing/Structure Errors**: malformed or incoherent semantic contract regions
 - **Critical Contract Gaps**: missing [`@DATA_CONTRACT`](.ai/standards/semantics.md), [`@PRE`](.ai/standards/semantics.md), [`@POST`](.ai/standards/semantics.md), [`@SIDE_EFFECT`](.ai/standards/semantics.md) on CRITICAL contracts
+- **Decision-Memory Gaps**:
+  - missing standalone `[DEF:id:ADR]` for repo-shaping decisions
+  - missing `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED` where task or implementation context clearly requires guardrails
+  - retained workaround code without local reactive Micro-ADR tags
+  - implementation that silently re-enables a path declared in upstream `@REJECTED`
 - **Coverage Gaps**: missing [`@TIER`](.ai/standards/semantics.md), missing [`@PURPOSE`](.ai/standards/semantics.md)
-- **Graph Breakages**: unresolved relations, broken references, isolated critical contracts
+- **Graph Breakages**: unresolved relations, broken references, isolated critical contracts, ADR nodes without downstream guarded contracts
 
 ### 4. Build Remediation Context
 
@@ -58,12 +64,14 @@ For the top failing contracts, use MCP semantic context tools such as [`get_sema
 2. Upstream/downstream semantic impact
 3. Related tests and fixtures
 4. Whether relation recovery is needed
+5. Whether decision-memory continuity is broken between ADR, task contract, and implementation
 
 ### 5. Execute Fixes (Optional/Handoff)
 
 If $ARGUMENTS contains `fix` or `apply`:
 - Handoff to the [`semantic`](.kilocodemodes) mode or a dedicated implementation agent instead of applying naive textual edits in orchestration.
 - Require the fixing agent to prefer MCP contract mutation tools such as [`simulate_patch_tool`](.kilo/mcp.json), [`guarded_patch_contract_tool`](.kilo/mcp.json), [`patch_contract_tool`](.kilo/mcp.json), and [`infer_missing_relations_tool`](.kilo/mcp.json).
+- Require the fixing agent to preserve or restore `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED` continuity whenever blocked-path knowledge exists.
 - After changes, re-run reindex, health, and audit MCP steps to verify the delta.
 
 ### 6. Review Gate
@@ -74,8 +82,9 @@ Before completion, request or perform an MCP-based review path aligned with the
 
 Provide a summary of the semantic state:
 - **Health Metrics**: contracts / relations / orphans / unresolved_relations / files
-- **Status**: [PASS/FAIL] (FAIL if CRITICAL gaps or semantically significant unresolved relations exist)
+- **Status**: [PASS/FAIL] (FAIL if CRITICAL gaps, rejected-path regressions, or semantically significant unresolved relations exist)
 - **Top Issues**: List top 3-5 contracts or files needing attention.
+- **Decision Memory**: summarize missing ADRs, missing guardrails, and rejected-path regression risks.
 - **Action Taken**: Summary of MCP analysis performed, context gathered, and fixes or handoffs initiated.
 
 ## Context

.kilocode/workflows/speckit.tasks.md

@@ -24,26 +24,29 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
 1. **Setup**: Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json` from repo root and parse FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list. All paths must be absolute. For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
 
 2. **Load design documents**: Read from FEATURE_DIR:
-   - **Required**: plan.md (tech stack, libraries, structure), spec.md (user stories with priorities), ux_reference.md (experience source of truth)
-   - **Optional**: data-model.md (entities), contracts/ (API endpoints), research.md (decisions), quickstart.md (test scenarios)
+   - **Required**: `plan.md` (tech stack, libraries, structure), `spec.md` (user stories with priorities), `ux_reference.md` (experience source of truth)
+   - **Optional**: `data-model.md` (entities), `contracts/` (API endpoints), `research.md` (decisions), `quickstart.md` (test scenarios)
+   - **Required when present in plan output**: ADR artifacts such as `docs/architecture.md` or feature-local architecture decision files containing `[DEF:id:ADR]` nodes
    - Note: Not all projects have all documents. Generate tasks based on what's available.
 
 3. **Execute task generation workflow**:
-   - Load plan.md and extract tech stack, libraries, project structure
-   - Load spec.md and extract user stories with their priorities (P1, P2, P3, etc.)
-   - If data-model.md exists: Extract entities and map to user stories
-   - If contracts/ exists: Map endpoints to user stories
-   - If research.md exists: Extract decisions for setup tasks
+   - Load `plan.md` and extract tech stack, libraries, project structure
+   - Load `spec.md` and extract user stories with their priorities (P1, P2, P3, etc.)
+   - Load ADR nodes and build a decision-memory inventory: `DecisionId`, `@RATIONALE`, `@REJECTED`, dependent modules
+   - If `data-model.md` exists: Extract entities and map to user stories
+   - If `contracts/` exists: Map endpoints to user stories
+   - If `research.md` exists: Extract decisions for setup tasks
    - Generate tasks organized by user story (see Task Generation Rules below)
    - Generate dependency graph showing user story completion order
    - Create parallel execution examples per user story
    - Validate task completeness (each user story has all needed tasks, independently testable)
+   - Validate guardrail continuity: no task may realize an ADR path named in `@REJECTED`
 
-4. **Generate tasks.md**: Use `.specify/templates/tasks-template.md` as structure, fill with:
-   - Correct feature name from plan.md
+4. **Generate `tasks.md`**: Use `.specify/templates/tasks-template.md` as structure, fill with:
+   - Correct feature name from `plan.md`
    - Phase 1: Setup tasks (project initialization)
    - Phase 2: Foundational tasks (blocking prerequisites for all user stories)
-   - Phase 3+: One phase per user story (in priority order from spec.md)
+   - Phase 3+: One phase per user story (in priority order from `spec.md`)
    - Each phase includes: story goal, independent test criteria, tests (if requested), implementation tasks
    - Final Phase: Polish & cross-cutting concerns
    - All tasks must follow the strict checklist format (see Task Generation Rules below)
@@ -51,18 +54,20 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
    - Dependencies section showing story completion order
    - Parallel execution examples per story
    - Implementation strategy section (MVP first, incremental delivery)
+   - Decision-memory notes for guarded tasks when ADRs or known traps apply
 
-5. **Report**: Output path to generated tasks.md and summary:
+5. **Report**: Output path to generated `tasks.md` and summary:
    - Total task count
    - Task count per user story
    - Parallel opportunities identified
    - Independent test criteria for each story
    - Suggested MVP scope (typically just User Story 1)
    - Format validation: Confirm ALL tasks follow the checklist format (checkbox, ID, labels, file paths)
+   - ADR propagation summary: which ADRs were inherited into task guardrails and which paths were rejected
 
 Context for task generation: $ARGUMENTS
 
-The tasks.md should be immediately executable - each task must be specific enough that an LLM can complete it without additional context.
+The `tasks.md` should be immediately executable - each task must be specific enough that an LLM can complete it without additional context.
 
 ## Task Generation Rules
 
@@ -72,10 +77,11 @@ The tasks.md should be immediately executable - each task must be specific enoug
 
 ### UX & Semantic Preservation (CRITICAL)
 
-- **Source of Truth**: `ux_reference.md` for UX, `.ai/standards/semantics.md` for Code.
-- **Violation Warning**: If any task violates UX or GRACE standards, flag it immediately.
+- **Source of Truth**: `ux_reference.md` for UX, `.ai/standards/semantics.md` for code, and ADR artifacts for upstream technology decisions.
+- **Violation Warning**: If any task violates UX, ADR guardrails, or GRACE standards, flag it immediately.
 - **Verification Task (UX)**: Add a task at the end of each Story phase: `- [ ] Txxx [USx] Verify implementation matches ux_reference.md (Happy Path & Errors)`
 - **Verification Task (Audit)**: Add a mandatory audit task at the end of each Story phase: `- [ ] Txxx [USx] Acceptance: Perform semantic audit & algorithm emulation by Tester`
+- **Guardrail Rule**: If an ADR or contract says `@REJECTED`, task text must not schedule that path as implementation work.
 
 ### Checklist Format (REQUIRED)
 
@@ -91,7 +97,7 @@ Every task MUST strictly follow this format:
 2. **Task ID**: Sequential number (T001, T002, T003...) in execution order
 3. **[P] marker**: Include ONLY if task is parallelizable (different files, no dependencies on incomplete tasks)
 4. **[Story] label**: REQUIRED for user story phase tasks only
-   - Format: [US1], [US2], [US3], etc. (maps to user stories from spec.md)
+   - Format: [US1], [US2], [US3], etc. (maps to user stories from `spec.md`)
    - Setup phase: NO story label
    - Foundational phase: NO story label  
    - User Story phases: MUST have story label
@@ -111,7 +117,7 @@ Every task MUST strictly follow this format:
 
 ### Task Organization
 
-1. **From User Stories (spec.md)** - PRIMARY ORGANIZATION:
+1. **From User Stories (`spec.md`)** - PRIMARY ORGANIZATION:
    - Each user story (P1, P2, P3...) gets its own phase
    - Map all related components to their story:
      - Models needed for that story
@@ -127,12 +133,18 @@ Every task MUST strictly follow this format:
    - Map each contract/endpoint → to the user story it serves
    - If tests requested: Each contract → contract test task [P] before implementation in that story's phase
 
-3. **From Data Model**:
+3. **From ADRs and Decision Memory**:
+   - For each implementation task constrained by an ADR, append a concise guardrail summary drawn from `@RATIONALE` and `@REJECTED`.
+   - Example: `- [ ] T021 [US1] Implement payload parsing guardrails in src/api/input.py (RATIONALE: strict validation because frontend sends numeric strings; REJECTED: json.loads() without schema validation)`
+   - If a task would naturally branch into an ADR-rejected alternative, rewrite the task around the accepted path instead of leaving the choice ambiguous.
+   - If no safe executable path remains because ADR context is incomplete, stop and emit `[NEED_CONTEXT: target]`.
+
+4. **From Data Model**:
    - Map each entity to the user story(ies) that need it
    - If entity serves multiple stories: Put in earliest story or Setup phase
    - Relationships → service layer tasks in appropriate story phase
 
-4. **From Setup/Infrastructure**:
+5. **From Setup/Infrastructure**:
    - Shared infrastructure → Setup phase (Phase 1)
    - Foundational/blocking tasks → Foundational phase (Phase 2)
    - Story-specific setup → within that story's phase
@@ -145,3 +157,11 @@ Every task MUST strictly follow this format:
   - Within each story: Tests (if requested) → Models → Services → Endpoints → Integration
   - Each phase should be a complete, independently testable increment
 - **Final Phase**: Polish & Cross-Cutting Concerns
+
+### Decision-Memory Validation Gate
+
+Before finalizing `tasks.md`, verify all of the following:
+- Every repo-shaping ADR from planning is either represented in a setup/foundational task or inherited by a downstream story task.
+- Every guarded task that could tempt an implementer into a known wrong branch carries preventive `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED` guidance in its text.
+- No task instructs the implementer to realize an ADR path already named as rejected.
+- At least one explicit audit/verification task exists for checking rejected-path regressions in code review or test stages.

.kilocode/workflows/speckit.test.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
 
 ## Goal
 
-Execute semantic audit and full testing cycle: verify contract compliance, emulate logic, ensure maximum coverage, and maintain test quality.
+Execute semantic audit and full testing cycle: verify contract compliance, verify decision-memory continuity, emulate logic, ensure maximum coverage, and maintain test quality.
 
 ## Operating Constraints
 
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ Execute semantic audit and full testing cycle: verify contract compliance, emula
 2. **NEVER duplicate tests** - Check existing tests first before creating new ones
 3. **Use TEST_FIXTURE fixtures** - For CRITICAL tier modules, read @TEST_FIXTURE from .ai/standards/semantics.md
 4. **Co-location required** - Write tests in `__tests__` directories relative to the code being tested
+5. **Decision-memory regression guard** - Tests and audits must not normalize silent reintroduction of any path documented in upstream `@REJECTED`
 
 ## Execution Steps
 
@@ -31,18 +32,25 @@ Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --inclu
 
 Determine:
 - FEATURE_DIR - where the feature is located
-- TASKS_FILE - path to tasks.md
+- TASKS_FILE - path to `tasks.md`
 - Which modules need testing based on task status
+- Which ADRs or task guardrails define rejected paths for the touched scope
 
 ### 2. Load Relevant Artifacts
 
-**From tasks.md:**
+**From `tasks.md`:**
 - Identify completed implementation tasks (not test tasks)
 - Extract file paths that need tests
+- Extract guardrail summaries and blocked paths
 
-**From .ai/standards/semantics.md:**
-- Read @TIER annotations for modules
-- For CRITICAL modules: Read @TEST_ fixtures
+**From `.ai/standards/semantics.md`:**
+- Read effective complexity expectations
+- Read decision-memory rules for ADR, preventive guardrails, and reactive Micro-ADR
+- For CRITICAL modules: Read `@TEST_` fixtures
+
+**From ADR sources and touched code:**
+- Read `[DEF:id:ADR]` nodes when present
+- Read local `@RATIONALE` and `@REJECTED` in touched contracts
 
 **From existing tests:**
 - Scan `__tests__` directories for existing tests
@@ -52,9 +60,9 @@ Determine:
 
 Create coverage matrix:
 
-| Module | File | Has Tests | TIER | TEST_FIXTURE Available |
-|--------|------|-----------|------|----------------------|
-| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+| Module | File | Has Tests | Complexity / Tier | TEST_FIXTURE Available | Rejected Path Guarded |
+|--------|------|-----------|-------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
 
 ### 4. Semantic Audit & Logic Emulation (CRITICAL)
 
@@ -66,9 +74,12 @@ Before writing tests, the Tester MUST:
    - Reject Python Complexity 4+ modules that omit meaningful `logger.reason()` / `logger.reflect()` checkpoints.
    - Reject Python Complexity 5 modules that omit `belief_scope(...)`, `@DATA_CONTRACT`, or `@INVARIANT`.
    - Treat broken or missing closing anchors as blocking violations.
+   - Reject retained workaround code if the local contract lacks `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`.
+   - Reject code that silently re-enables a path declared in upstream ADR or local guardrails as rejected.
 3. **Emulate Algorithm**: Step through the code implementation in mind.
    - Verify it adheres to the `@PURPOSE` and `@INVARIANT`.
    - Verify `@PRE` and `@POST` conditions are correctly handled.
+   - Verify the implementation follows accepted-path rationale rather than drifting into a blocked path.
 4. **Validation Verdict**:
    - If audit fails: Emit `[AUDIT_FAIL: semantic_noncompliance]` with concrete file-path reasons and notify Orchestrator.
    - Example blocking case: [`backend/src/services/dataset_review/repositories/session_repository.py`](backend/src/services/dataset_review/repositories/session_repository.py) contains a module anchor, but its nested repository class/method semantics are expressed as loose docstrings instead of canonical anchored contracts; this MUST be rejected until remediated or explicitly waived.
@@ -79,7 +90,7 @@ Before writing tests, the Tester MUST:
 For each module requiring tests:
 
 1. **Check existing tests**: Scan `__tests__/` for duplicates.
-2. **Read TEST_FIXTURE**: If CRITICAL tier, read @TEST_FIXTURE from semantics header.
+2. **Read TEST_FIXTURE**: If CRITICAL tier, read `@TEST_FIXTURE` from semantics header.
 3. **Do not normalize broken semantics through tests**:
    - The Tester must not write tests that silently accept malformed semantic protocol usage.
    - If implementation is semantically invalid, stop and reject instead of adapting tests around the invalid structure.
@@ -87,6 +98,8 @@ For each module requiring tests:
    - Python: `src/module/__tests__/test_module.py`
    - Svelte: `src/lib/components/__tests__/test_component.test.js`
 5. **Use mocks**: Use `unittest.mock.MagicMock` for external dependencies
+6. **Add rejected-path regression coverage when relevant**:
+   - If ADR or local contract names a blocked path in `@REJECTED`, add or verify at least one test or explicit audit check that would fail if that forbidden path were silently restored.
 
 ### 4a. UX Contract Testing (Frontend Components)
 
@@ -103,9 +116,10 @@ For Svelte components with `@UX_STATE`, `@UX_FEEDBACK`, `@UX_RECOVERY` tags:
      expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar')).toHaveClass('expanded');
    });
    ```
-3. **Test @UX_FEEDBACK**: Verify visual feedback (toast, shake, color changes)
-4. **Test @UX_RECOVERY**: Verify error recovery mechanisms (retry, clear input)
-5. **Use @UX_TEST fixtures**: If component has `@UX_TEST` tags, use them as test specifications
+3. **Test `@UX_FEEDBACK`**: Verify visual feedback (toast, shake, color changes)
+4. **Test `@UX_RECOVERY`**: Verify error recovery mechanisms (retry, clear input)
+5. **Use `@UX_TEST` fixtures**: If component has `@UX_TEST` tags, use them as test specifications
+6. **Verify decision memory**: If the UI contract declares `@REJECTED`, ensure browser-visible behavior does not regress into the rejected path.
 
 **UX Test Template:**
 ```javascript
@@ -139,6 +153,8 @@ tests/
     └── YYYY-MM-DD-report.md
 ```
 
+Include decision-memory coverage notes when ADR or rejected-path regressions were checked.
+
 ### 6. Execute Tests
 
 Run tests and report results:
@@ -155,10 +171,11 @@ cd frontend && npm run test
 
 ### 7. Update Tasks
 
-Mark test tasks as completed in tasks.md with:
+Mark test tasks as completed in `tasks.md` with:
 - Test file path
 - Coverage achieved
 - Any issues found
+- Whether rejected-path regression checks passed or remain manual audit items
 
 ## Output
 
@@ -188,10 +205,15 @@ Generate test execution report:
 - Verdict: PASS | FAIL
 - Blocking Violations:
   - [file path] -> [reason]
+- Decision Memory:
+  - ADRs checked: [...]
+  - Rejected-path regressions: PASS | FAIL
+  - Missing `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`: [...]
 - Notes:
   - Reject docstring-only semantic pseudo-markup
   - Reject complexity/contract mismatches
   - Reject missing belief-state instrumentation for Python Complexity 4/5
+  - Reject silent resurrection of rejected paths
 
 ## Issues Found
 
@@ -203,6 +225,7 @@ Generate test execution report:
 
 - [ ] Fix failed tests
 - [ ] Fix blocking semantic violations before acceptance
+- [ ] Fix decision-memory drift or rejected-path regressions
 - [ ] Add more coverage for [module]
 - [ ] Review TEST_FIXTURE fixtures
 ```