Problem Solved

Describe the failure mode, user need, or workflow gap this PR solves.

Scope Fit

• This belongs in core rather than an integration.
• This belongs in an integration rather than core.
• This is docs/examples/tooling only.

Explain the choice:

Provider or Harness Tested

Name the provider, harness, or generic workflow tested:

Quality Profile

Profile selected:

Edge-case pack used:

Auto-escalations applied:

Evidence

Add transcript, command output, screenshot, or example:

Review Packet

• Independent review completed or explicitly queued.
• Untracked/new files were included in the review packet.
• Verification output was included in the review packet.
• Bonus findings were triaged as backlog/input rather than discarded.

Reviewer verdict:

Docs Updated

• README updated if public behavior changed.
• Integration docs updated if provider behavior changed.
• Examples updated if workflow behavior changed.
• Status labels remain honest.

Verification

• npm run validate
• npm run smoke-test
• npm run workflow-evals
• npm pack --dry-run

Skipped checks and why:

Diff Hygiene

• Diff is scoped to the approved plan.
• No generated churn, debug output, or unrelated refactors.
• No hidden provider metadata or unvalidated adapter claims.

Human Review

• I want human review before merge.

Safety

• No credentials, private paths, chat identifiers, or private project data.
• No unvalidated native marketplace/plugin metadata.