Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into worktree/web-multimodal-image-input

.agents/notes/implemented/architecture/2026-07-30-command-row-copy-contract.i18n.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# Bilingual-pair consistency record (docs/i18n/README.md): the git blob hash of each
+# side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
+# after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
+#   pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/architecture/2026-07-30-command-row-copy-contract.md
+2026-07-30-command-row-copy-contract.md: f6d5199389b3907780c501894e2861e6add85e77
+2026-07-30-command-row-copy-contract.zh.md: 4afaf31640c07e88765060681739f262f322769e

.agents/notes/implemented/architecture/2026-07-30-command-row-copy-contract.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Agent Note: Command row copy is split between the row and the handler
+
+Status: implemented
+
+English | [中文](2026-07-30-command-row-copy-contract.zh.md)
+
+## Problem
+
+The web command row renders `title · summary` from one logged [command lifecycle pair](../../proposed/architecture/2026-07-27-session-projection-and-command-log.md): the title was the dispatched line rebuilt from `command/run` (`/permission workspace-write`) and the summary was `command/done`'s verbatim `text` (`Permission preset: workspace-write.`). Both halves were written without knowing about the other, so the row said the command name twice and its argument twice — the single worst case being the row a user gets for every Access-chip pick.
+
+## Decision
+
+The row's two halves have disjoint jobs, and each side is written to its own half alone.
+
+The row title is the bare command name — no `/`, no arguments. The `/` belongs to the composer's input grammar, not to a settled record, and the argument is not the row's to report: the summary already says what the command did. `GenericCommandCard` keeps the `命令` fallback for a cross-window node whose `command/run` page fell out of the client's window.
+
+A command handler's settlement `text` therefore never labels its value with the command's own name, because the surface that renders it has already said it. `/permission` returns `preset workspace-write`, bare `current preset workspace-write (available: …)`, and for a bad argument `unknown preset "bogus" (available: …)`. Read as a row this is `permission · preset workspace-write`; read as a standalone line — the TUI appends the same text as a notice — it still states which preset now applies.
+
+The rule bans the *label*, not the vocabulary. `Permission preset: workspace-write.` lost because `Permission preset:` is a caption for a value whose caption is already the title. A domain noun that happens to contain the command's name is not a caption and stays: `/plan` keeps `Plan mode off.` and `Plan mode on. Use /plan off to leave.` (`plan · Plan mode off.` names the mode, and the tail is an instruction, not an echo), and `/goal` keeps `Goal cleared.`. A handler that finds itself writing `<Command> <noun>:` in front of its own value is the case this rule catches.
+
+The log is unchanged: `command/run` keeps the structured `name`/`args` split, so a richer registered command row can still render arguments from the same node without a second data channel.
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+**Keep the dispatched line as the title and only shorten the settlement text.** The argument would still appear on both sides of the separator (`permission workspace-write · preset workspace-write`), which is the repetition complained about.
+
+**Drop the settlement text from the collapsed row instead of the arguments.** It inverts the row's value: the outcome is what a durable record is for, and an error text would then have nowhere to land.
+
+**Have the row strip a leading command name from the settlement text.** Presentation would silently rewrite handler-authored text, and every handler that phrased its outcome differently would defeat the heuristic.
+
+**Ban the command's name from its settlement text outright, rewriting `/plan` and `/goal` to match.** The broader ban costs more than it buys: `Plan mode off.` and `Goal cleared.` are the clearest sentences those outcomes have, in the row and as standalone TUI notices both, and the shortenings that satisfy a name ban (`off.`, `cleared.`) read as fragments. Captions are the redundancy worth removing.
+
+## Consequences
+
+Every command row gets shorter, and the rule scales: a new command's author writes its outcome without knowing which surface renders it, and no surface has to de-duplicate. The cost is that the dispatched arguments leave the collapsed row — while a command is still executing the row shows only its name and `执行中…` — and that the no-caption rule is a convention the reviewer enforces, not a gate. The `/permission` texts are pinned by the permission package's command tests, and the assembled row copy by the [seeded-history](../../../../apps/web/tests/snapshots/seeded-history/command-row.expected.md) web golden, which reaches a real settled command row keylessly because `/permission` runs entirely on the host.

.agents/notes/implemented/architecture/2026-07-30-command-row-copy-contract.zh.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Agent Note: Command row copy is split between the row and the handler
+
+Status: implemented
+
+[English](2026-07-30-command-row-copy-contract.md) | 中文
+
+## Problem
+
+Web 命令行由一对落库的[命令生命周期事件](../../proposed/architecture/2026-07-27-session-projection-and-command-log.md)渲染出 `标题 · 摘要`：标题是由 `command/run` 重建的分派命令行（`/permission workspace-write`），摘要是 `command/done` 的原样 `text`（`Permission preset: workspace-write.`）。两半各自成文、互不知情，于是一行里命令名出现两次、参数也出现两次——最糟的一例正是用户每次用 Access chip 切换权限时得到的那一行。
+
+## Decision
+
+命令行两半的职责互不重叠，各自只按自己那一半来写。
+
+行标题就是裸命令名——没有 `/`，也没有参数。`/` 属于编辑器的输入语法，不属于一条已落定的记录；参数也不该由这一行来报告：摘要已经说清了这条命令做了什么。对于 `command/run` 那一页已滑出客户端窗口的跨窗口节点，`GenericCommandCard` 仍保留 `命令` 兜底标题。
+
+因此，命令 handler 的落定 `text` 绝不用命令自身的名字给自己的值加标签——渲染它的界面已经说过一次了。`/permission` 返回 `preset workspace-write`，裸调用时返回 `current preset workspace-write (available: …)`，参数非法时返回 `unknown preset "bogus" (available: …)`。作为一行读是 `permission · preset workspace-write`；作为独立一句读——TUI 把同一段 text 作为通知追加——它依然说明了当下生效的是哪个预设。
+
+这条规则禁的是*标签*，不是用词。`Permission preset: workspace-write.` 之所以出局，是因为 `Permission preset:` 是给一个值加的题头，而这个题头正是标题本身。恰好含有命令名的领域名词不是题头，因此保留：`/plan` 仍返回 `Plan mode off.` 与 `Plan mode on. Use /plan off to leave.`（`plan · Plan mode off.` 说的是那个模式，句尾是一条指引，不是回声），`/goal` 仍返回 `Goal cleared.`。真正被这条规则拦下的，是 handler 在自己的值前面写出 `<命令名> <名词>：` 的那一类。
+
+日志本身未变：`command/run` 保留结构化的 `name`／`args` 拆分，因此更丰富的已注册命令行仍可从同一个节点渲染参数，无需第二条数据通道。
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+**保留分派命令行作标题，只缩短落定文案。** 参数仍会出现在分隔点两侧（`permission workspace-write · preset workspace-write`），而这正是被指出的重复。
+
+**从折叠行中去掉落定文案，而不是去掉参数。** 这颠倒了这一行的价值：持久记录存在的意义就是结果，而错误文案将无处落脚。
+
+**由这一行从落定文案里剥掉开头的命令名。** 呈现层会悄悄改写 handler 写就的文案，而任何换一种措辞表达结果的 handler 都会让这套启发式失效。
+
+**彻底禁止命令名出现在自己的落定文案里，并把 `/plan`、`/goal` 一并改写。** 这种更宽的禁令代价大于收益：无论在行上还是作为独立的 TUI 通知，`Plan mode off.` 与 `Goal cleared.` 都是这些结果最清楚的句子，而满足"禁名字"所需的缩写（`off.`、`cleared.`）读起来只是残句。值得去掉的冗余是题头。
+
+## Consequences
+
+每一条命令行都变短了，而且这条规则可扩展：新命令的作者写结果时无需知道由哪个界面渲染，任何界面也都不必再去重。代价是分派参数离开了折叠行——命令仍在执行时，行上只有名字和 `执行中…`——以及"不加题头"这条规则是靠评审执行的约定，而非门禁。`/permission` 的文案由 permission 包的命令测试钉住，装配后的行文案由 [seeded-history](../../../../apps/web/tests/snapshots/seeded-history/command-row.expected.md) web 预期输出钉住：因为 `/permission` 完全在 host 上执行，它能无密钥地抵达一条真实的落定命令行。

.agents/notes/implemented/simplification/2026-07-30-sidebar-resize-without-visible-pill.i18n.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# Bilingual-pair consistency record (docs/i18n/README.md): the git blob hash of each
+# side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
+# after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
+#   pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/simplification/2026-07-30-sidebar-resize-without-visible-pill.md
+2026-07-30-sidebar-resize-without-visible-pill.md: cc41898990fa23ff2937140186a8324217911d2e
+2026-07-30-sidebar-resize-without-visible-pill.zh.md: 9f1f521df2848b15f5015719bfa6f0e0e9b7be0c

.agents/notes/implemented/simplification/2026-07-30-sidebar-resize-without-visible-pill.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Agent Note: Sidebar resize without a visible pill
+
+Status: implemented
+
+English | [中文](2026-07-30-sidebar-resize-without-visible-pill.zh.md)
+
+## Problem
+
+The AppFrame exposed identical floating pills on both column borders. The left pill added unnecessary visual weight beside primary navigation, but the sidebar's resize interaction remains useful.
+
+## Decision
+
+AppFrame keeps the sidebar's 8px resize hit strip, `col-resize` cursor, pointer capture, animation-frame throttling, and width updates, but does not generate the sidebar handle's pill pseudo-element. The details boundary retains both its hit strip and floating pill.
+
+The layout component test continues to pin sidebar dragging and both handles' collapse lifecycle. A keyless browser scenario reads the generated pseudo-elements from the shipped composition and drags the invisible sidebar boundary to prove the interaction remains live.
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+**Remove the sidebar drag interaction with the pill.** Rejected because the requested change is visual; removing a working geometry control would unnecessarily narrow the interaction.
+
+**Keep the pill but reduce its emphasis.** A smaller or lower-contrast pill still leaves an unwanted object on the sidebar boundary.
+
+## Consequences
+
+The sidebar boundary is visually quiet while pointer resizing remains available from the boundary and retains the resize cursor. Unlike the details control, that interaction has no visible pill.

.agents/notes/implemented/simplification/2026-07-30-sidebar-resize-without-visible-pill.zh.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Agent Note: 侧边栏缩放不显示胶囊
+
+Status: implemented
+
+[English](2026-07-30-sidebar-resize-without-visible-pill.md) | 中文
+
+## 问题
+
+AppFrame 在两个栏位边界都显示相同的浮动胶囊。左侧胶囊在主导航旁增加了不必要的视觉负担，但侧边栏的缩放交互仍有用。
+
+## 决策
+
+AppFrame 保留侧边栏宽 8px 的缩放命中条带、`col-resize` 光标、指针捕获、动画帧节流和宽度更新，但不再生成侧边栏手柄的胶囊形伪元素。详情栏边界同时保留命中条带和浮动胶囊。
+
+布局组件测试继续固定侧边栏拖动行为，以及两个手柄随面板折叠时的生命周期。一个无密钥浏览器场景读取实际交付组合所生成的伪元素，并拖动不可见的侧边栏边界，证明该交互仍然有效。
+
+## 曾考虑的替代方案
+
+**随胶囊一并移除侧边栏拖动交互。** 不予采纳，因为本次要求只改视觉表现；移除正常工作的几何控制会不必要地缩减交互方式。
+
+**保留胶囊，但降低其视觉强调。** 更小或对比度更低的胶囊仍会在侧边栏边界留下一个不需要的物体。
+
+## 后果
+
+侧边栏边界在视觉上保持简洁，同时仍可在边界处通过指针调整宽度，并保留缩放光标。与详情栏控件不同，该交互没有可见胶囊。