Merge origin/master into feature/tui-first-run-welcome

.agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-07-30-plan-review-presentation-intent.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/feature/2026-07-30-plan-review-presentation-intent.md
+2026-07-30-plan-review-presentation-intent.md: aeab12aac308c24aa5c4b5953a60ae0f2cf6c5b5
+2026-07-30-plan-review-presentation-intent.zh.md: 4096018e374212c821675ce6ed3a2355df20edc9

.agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-07-30-plan-review-presentation-intent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Agent Note: Plan review as a decision, not a question
+
+Status: implemented
+
+English | [中文](2026-07-30-plan-review-presentation-intent.zh.md)
+
+## Problem
+
+`exit_plan_mode` presents a finished plan for review through `ctx.userInteraction.ask()`, the same seam `ask_user_question` uses. On the Web GUI that made a plan review render as the generic question flow of [the ask-question Web presentation](2026-07-29-ask-question-web-presentation.md): a `1 / 1` pager, the plan as a question's supporting detail, the two verdicts as numbered radio rows with descriptions, an "Other — enter a custom answer" row, and `Skip this question` / `Submit` in the footer.
+
+Every one of those affordances is wrong for the surface. Reviewing a plan is one decision over one document, and the quiz chrome told the user they were being examined rather than asked to approve work — reported as "让人很困惑以为在做题". The paging controls page a set of one. Skipping is not an outcome the tool accepts (it folds into keep-planning). Worst, the surface gave no hint that this was the plan gate at all, while the adjacent waiting-approval takeover already had exactly the right shape for a decision: a tinted strip naming what is being decided, the subject as the body, and a right-aligned action row.
+
+## Decision
+
+A question may declare a **presentation intent**, and the Web composer renders a declared intent as its own surface. `AskUserQuestionItem` gains `intent?: AskUserQuestionIntent`, a tagged shape whose one member is `{ kind: 'plan-review', approve: string }`; `plan-mode` sets it on the review question, naming `Approve` as the label that approves.
+
+An intent shapes presentation only. The answer protocol is untouched: a UI honouring the intent answers with the same option labels a generic UI would send, so `exit_plan_mode` reads one answer shape regardless of which surface collected it, and a UI that does not know a tag renders the generic flow with nothing lost but the layout.
+
+`approve` names the affirmative option instead of relying on option order, so no UI infers a verdict from a position. Two assertions an intent makes are beyond the types, and `UserInteractionService.ask()` rejects both as `BAD_INTENT` at the asker: an `approve` naming none of that question's own options — before any UI can answer a choice never offered — and an intent on a question with no `detail`, the thing it declares itself a review of, which would ask the user to approve something invisible. On the wire the intent is a discriminated union, so an unrecognised tag is a rejected frame rather than a silently generic render.
+
+`ui-question` renders the intent as `PlanReviewPanel`, in the waiting-approval card language: the amber strip carries `Plan review`, the plan is the scrolling markdown body, and the decision row holds three actions — `Chat about it`, `Refuse`, `Approve`. The question text becomes the card's accessible name rather than a headline, because the buttons already say what the decision is. Approve and Refuse answer with the asker's own option labels and keep the asker's descriptions as tooltips; `Chat about it` cancels the request, which returns the composer so the user can simply say what they want. All copy is bilingual under the existing `question` namespace.
+
+Routing lives inside the single composer entry (`QuestionComposer` chooses the shape) rather than in a second chain registration, and `planReviewOf` claims a request only when the card can send every answer that request allows: one question declaring the intent, the plan as its `detail`, the named approve label offered, and a binary single choice — at most one option besides approve, and not multi-select. A third option or a multi-select batch has answers two buttons cannot express, so the generic flow keeps it, and keeps anything else the card cannot render. "Presentation only" is therefore literal: an intent never costs the user a reachable answer, and the client — downstream of a wire boundary — leaves every request answerable.
+
+Dismissal became its own model-facing outcome. `ASK_CANCELLED` previously reached the model as "the user cancelled ask_user_question", naming a tool it never called; `exit_plan_mode` now reports that the user dismissed the review to speak instead and to stay in plan mode and wait. Every other ask failure — an abort from turn cancel or provider teardown, where no user is coming — keeps its own message.
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+**Make plan review its own pending kind (`plan-review/requested`).** Rejected as the wrong size for a presentation problem. It buys an honest response shape (approve / decline / discuss instead of an answer batch) at the cost of a third `PendingKind`, new requested/resolved frames and schemas, an api-proxy registry and respond branch, client session and baseline-replay handling, and a new three-package capability seam for a decision the question protocol already expresses. Worth revisiting only if plan review grows outcomes the answer shape cannot carry.
+
+**Route the card on the question's `id` or `header` (`plan-review` / `Plan review`).** Rejected: string-sniffing a foreign package's copy across a wire boundary, which any wording change silently breaks. The intent is the declaration that makes the routing legible.
+
+**Order the options and let the card read position 0 as approve.** Rejected: a positional contract at a package seam, invisible in both the type and the wire frame, and unenforceable — a producer that reorders its options would invert a user's verdict. Naming the label costs one string.
+
+**Register a second composer-chain entry for the plan card.** Rejected: two entries would select over the same pending question carrier, making the surface depend on chain priority and on whether the plan package's client half is composed at all. One entry that picks its own shape cannot race itself, and the generic flow is the built-in fallback.
+
+**Put the panel in `ui-plan` beside the plan chip.** Rejected: the panel's whole behavior is the question carrier's answer encoding (`PendingQuestion`), which `ui-question` owns; the intent is a question-protocol field, not plan-mode's private channel. Rendering declared intents belongs to the package that owns question rendering, as tool render intents belong to the tool renderer.
+
+**Extract a shared takeover card with `ui-conversation`'s `ApprovalPanel`.** Not done: the two takeovers agree on tokens and geometry but not on content — this body is scrolling markdown, that one a headline plus a command line — and the shared shell would be two elements wide. They are kept in step by token, not by component.
+
+**Give `Chat about it` its own protocol outcome.** Rejected: dismissing a request is a verb the generic flow already has (the `×` that cancels the batch). Promoting it to a labelled button is presentation; inventing a fourth wire outcome for it is not.
+
+## Consequences
+
+The question protocol now carries a presentation axis. Adding a second intent is a tag on the union, a producer that sets it, a schema member, and a panel — no new frame, service, or answer shape. The cost is that the question seam knows presentation exists at all, and that `ui-question` knows the word "plan"; both are the price of one entry owning every question surface.
+
+The plan gate reads as a plan gate: the plan is the card's content, the verdict is two labelled buttons, and taking the turn back is a third. The generic flow is untouched for every other question, and its committed goldens did not move.
+
+A deployment whose client half predates this change still shows the quiz layout — correct, answerable, and merely unstyled — because the intent is additive and the fallback is the generic flow.
+
+## Testing
+
+`ui-question` tests pin the narrowing (single-question batch, intent present, plan as detail, named approve label offered, binary single choice, decline absent when only approve is offered) and the panel (strip, markdown plan, accessible name, absence of pager/radio/skip/custom, approve and decline answering with the asker's labels, dismissal cancelling, one-shot latch with re-arm and message on a rejected receipt, tooltips present and absent, both locales). `user-interaction` tests pin both `BAD_INTENT` rejections and intent pass-through; `plan-mode` tests pin the declared intent against its own option list and both failure messages; the apiproxy schema test pins wire acceptance and an unknown tag's rejection.
+
+The `plan-review` Web e2e lane records `/plan` entering plan mode for real, the model calling `exit_plan_mode`, the decision card taking the composer (asserting the generic flow did **not** claim the request), and the card's own Approve completing the turn — two keyless goldens, the waiting card and the approved transcript.

.agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-07-30-plan-review-presentation-intent.zh.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Agent Note：计划审阅是一次决定，不是一道题
+
+Status: implemented
+
+[English](2026-07-30-plan-review-presentation-intent.md) | 中文
+
+## 问题
+
+`exit_plan_mode` 通过 `ctx.userInteraction.ask()` 把写好的计划交给用户审阅，而这正是 `ask_user_question` 使用的同一个 seam。在 Web GUI 上，这导致计划审阅渲染为[ask-question Web 呈现](2026-07-29-ask-question-web-presentation.md)里的通用问题流程：一个 `1 / 1` 分页器、计划作为问题的补充说明、两个裁决作为带描述的编号单选行、一行"其他，请填写自定义答案"，以及底部的 `跳过本题` / `提交`。
+
+这些可交互元素对这个界面而言无一正确。审阅一份计划是对一份文档做一次决定，而做题式的界面告诉用户他正在被考试，而不是被请求批准一份工作 —— 实际反馈是"让人很困惑以为在做题"。分页控件在给只有一项的集合分页。跳过并不是该工具接受的结果（它会折叠成继续规划）。最糟的是，这个界面完全没有暗示这就是计划关口，而旁边的等待审批接管早就具备了一次决定该有的形状：一条带色条带说明正在决定什么、主体是决定的对象、右对齐的操作行。
+
+## 决定
+
+一个问题可以声明**呈现意图（presentation intent）**，Web 输入区把已声明的意图渲染为它自己的界面。`AskUserQuestionItem` 新增 `intent?: AskUserQuestionIntent`，一个带标签的形状，目前唯一成员是 `{ kind: 'plan-review', approve: string }`；`plan-mode` 在审阅问题上设置它，并指明 `Approve` 是表示批准的标签。
+
+意图只塑造呈现。回答协议不变：遵循意图的 UI 回答的仍是通用 UI 会发送的那些选项标签，因此无论由哪个界面收集，`exit_plan_mode` 读到的都是同一种回答形状；而不认识某个标签的 UI 渲染通用流程，除布局之外一无所失。
+
+`approve` 指名肯定选项，而不依赖选项顺序，因此没有任何 UI 会从位置推断裁决。意图作出的两项断言超出类型的表达能力，`UserInteractionService.ask()` 都以 `BAD_INTENT` 在提问方一侧拒绝：`approve` 未命中该问题自身的任一选项 —— 早于任何 UI 回答一个从未被提供过的选择；以及意图落在没有 `detail` 的问题上，而 `detail` 正是它自称在审阅的东西，那会让用户去批准一件看不见的事。在协议格式（wire format）上意图是可辨识联合，因此无法识别的标签是被拒绝的帧，而不是静默退回通用渲染。
+
+`ui-question` 把该意图渲染为 `PlanReviewPanel`，沿用等待审批卡片的语言：琥珀色条带写着 `Plan review`，计划是可滚动的 markdown 主体，决定行放三个操作 —— `Chat about it`、`Refuse`、`Approve`。问题文本成为卡片的无障碍名称而非标题，因为按钮已经说明了这次决定是什么。Approve 与 Refuse 用提问方自己的选项标签回答，并把提问方的描述保留为 tooltip；`Chat about it` 取消该请求，从而让输入区归位，用户直接说他想说的话即可。所有文案在既有 `question` 命名空间下双语。
+
+路由住在单一输入区条目内部（由 `QuestionComposer` 选择形状），而不是第二个链式注册；`planReviewOf` 仅在卡片能够发出该请求允许的每一个答案时才接管：只有一个问题且声明了意图、以 `detail` 承载计划、提供了被指名的批准标签，且是二元单选 —— 除批准外最多一个选项，且非多选。出现第三个选项或多选批次时，其答案是两个按钮无法表达的，通用流程保留它，也保留其他任何卡片渲染不了的请求。因此"只塑造呈现"是字面意义上的：意图绝不让用户失去一个可达的答案，而位于协议边界下游的客户端让每个请求都保持可回答。
+
+放弃审阅成为面向模型的独立结果。`ASK_CANCELLED` 以前传到模型的是"the user cancelled ask_user_question"，指名了一个它从未调用的工具；现在 `exit_plan_mode` 报告用户放弃审阅是为了改用说话，并要求留在 plan mode 中等待。其余每一种 ask 失败 —— 轮次取消或提供方拆卸导致的中止，那里并没有用户会来 —— 保留它们自己的消息。
+
+## 备选方案
+
+**让计划审阅成为自己的待处理种类（`plan-review/requested`）。** 否决：对一个呈现问题来说尺寸不对。它换来的是诚实的响应形状（approve / decline / discuss 而非一批回答），代价是第三个 `PendingKind`、新的 requested/resolved 帧与 schema、一个 api-proxy 注册表与响应分支、客户端会话与基线重放处理，以及为一个问题协议已能表达的决定新增一个三包能力 seam。只有当计划审阅长出回答形状承载不了的结果时才值得重新考虑。
+
+**按问题的 `id` 或 `header`（`plan-review` / `Plan review`）路由卡片。** 否决：这是跨协议边界嗅探另一个包的文案字符串，任何措辞改动都会静默破坏它。意图才是让路由可读的那个声明。
+
+**约定选项顺序，让卡片把第 0 个位置读作批准。** 否决：这是包边界上的位置约定，在类型和协议帧里都看不见，也无法强制 —— 生产方一旦重排选项，就会颠倒用户的裁决。指名标签只花一个字符串。
+
+**为计划卡片注册第二个输入区链条目。** 否决：两个条目会对同一个待回答问题载体做选择，使界面取决于链优先级、以及计划包的客户端半边是否被组合。一个自己挑形状的条目不会和自己抢，而通用流程正是内建的回退。
+
+**把面板放在 `ui-plan` 里、紧挨计划状态标签。** 否决：面板的全部行为就是问题载体的回答编码（`PendingQuestion`），那是 `ui-question` 拥有的；意图是问题协议的字段，不是 plan-mode 的私有通道。渲染已声明的意图属于拥有问题渲染的那个包，正如工具渲染意图属于工具渲染方。
+
+**与 `ui-conversation` 的 `ApprovalPanel` 抽出共享的接管卡片。** 未做：两个接管在 token 和几何上一致，但内容不一致 —— 这边的主体是可滚动 markdown，那边是一行标题加一行命令 —— 共享外壳只会剩两个元素宽。它们靠 token 保持一致，而不是靠组件。
+
+**给 `Chat about it` 自己的协议结果。** 否决：放弃一个请求是通用流程已有的动词（取消整批的 `×`）。把它提升为带标签的按钮属于呈现；为它发明第四种协议结果不属于。
+
+## 结果
+
+问题协议从此带有一个呈现轴。新增第二个意图 = 联合上的一个标签、一个设置它的生产方、一个 schema 成员、一个面板 —— 不需要新的帧、服务或回答形状。代价是问题 seam 从此知道"呈现"这件事存在，且 `ui-question` 知道"plan"这个词；两者都是由单一条目拥有全部问题界面所要付的价钱。
+
+计划关口读起来就像计划关口：计划是卡片的内容，裁决是两个带标签的按钮，把轮次拿回来是第三个。通用流程对其他每个问题都未受影响，其已提交的 golden 也没有变动。
+
+客户端半边早于本次改动的部署仍然显示做题式布局 —— 正确、可回答、只是没有专门样式 —— 因为意图是增量的，而回退就是通用流程。
+
+## 测试
+
+`ui-question` 测试钉住收窄（单问题批、意图存在、计划作为 detail、被指名的批准标签确实被提供、二元单选、只提供批准时 decline 缺席）与面板（条带、markdown 计划、无障碍名称、无分页/单选/跳过/自定义、批准与拒绝用提问方的标签回答、放弃触发取消、一次性闭锁在回执被拒时重新武装并给出消息、tooltip 有与无、两种语言）。`user-interaction` 测试钉住两种 `BAD_INTENT` 拒绝与意图透传；`plan-mode` 测试钉住已声明的意图与其自身选项列表的一致、以及两条失败消息；apiproxy schema 测试钉住协议接受与未知标签的拒绝。
+
+`plan-review` Web e2e 通道录制了 `/plan` 真实进入 plan mode、模型调用 `exit_plan_mode`、决定卡片接管输入区（并断言通用流程**没有**接管该请求）、以及卡片自身的 Approve 完成该轮 —— 两份无密钥 golden：等待中的卡片与批准后的会话记录。

.agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-07-30-web-result-card.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/feature/2026-07-30-web-result-card.md
+2026-07-30-web-result-card.md: deec27832aba2d5d868889f7306cbaef4f0b90b4
+2026-07-30-web-result-card.zh.md: 037e029332fbb665d90860d7e11c2fd117e6eb45

.agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-07-30-web-result-card.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Agent Note: Web result card — a structured render intent for web_search and web_fetch
+
+Status: implemented
+
+English | [中文](2026-07-30-web-result-card.zh.md)
+
+## Problem
+
+The `web_search` and `web_fetch` tools each declared a generic pending card (`presentCall`, `kind: 'search'`/`'fetch'`) but no `presentResult`, so a completed web call reached a UI only as the model-facing render text. For a web frontend that wants to render a citation list or a fetch summary, that text is lossy: `web_search`'s render collapses each source's `title`, `snippet`, and `publishedAt` into one free-text markdown line labelled by title OR hostname (`formatSearchOutput` in `packages/web/tool-web/src/search.ts`), so reparsing the render cannot recover the per-source fields; and `web_fetch`'s render carries `url` and `statusCode` only in a header line. The render-intent contract ([tagged union](../architecture/2026-07-02-tool-render-intent-union.md)) had no arm a web tool could declare to carry a structured result.
+
+## Decision
+
+Add one `card: 'web'` result arm to `ToolResultView` (`packages/core/tools/src/presentation.ts`), a union `WebResultView = WebSearchResultView | WebFetchResultView` discriminated by a `kind: 'search' | 'fetch'` field, plus a `WebSource` shape for one citeable source. Both tools now declare `presentResult`.
+
+One tag with a `kind` discriminant, not two tags. Both calls are web retrieval and a web frontend renders them with one component family (a retrieval card whose body differs by kind), so a shared `card` keeps every card consumer's switch to one added arm and lets the frontend branch on `kind` inside it. Two tags would force every present and future consumer to add two arms for what is one visual family. The `kind` values match the two tools' existing generic call-view `kind`s, so a call and its result read as the same category.
+
+`presentationMeta` carries what render text cannot. The structured result object a tool returns from `execute` does NOT reach a client over the wire — only the model-facing `render` text and, when declared, the `output.presentationMeta` JSON projected onto the `tool/result` event's `meta` do. For `web_search` the meta is the ONLY faithful route to `{url, title?, snippet?, publishedAt?}`: the render collapses those fields into one lossy free-text line, so a consumer cannot reparse them. For `web_fetch` the meta is a smaller but real gain: `url`/`statusCode` are recoverable from the deterministic `Fetched <url> (HTTP <n>)` header line, but `truncated` is the effective truncation — provider cap, pre-conversion source cut, or the deployment's `fetchMaxOutputChars` output cap — which a client cannot recompute because it does not know that cap. The fetch card and the model-facing text derive `truncated` from one shared `renderFetchOutput(result, maxOutputChars)` helper, so the card never disagrees with the footer the model saw. This mirrors the write/edit diff template (`packages/fs/tool-fs/src/diff.ts`): a `*MetaFromValue` projector feeds `output.presentationMeta`, and a `*MetaFromResult` narrower reads `result.meta` back with a defensive fallback to the generic card. `web_fetch`'s body is already markdown in the result content, so it is not duplicated into meta.
+
+Neither result view carries a `content` copy. A UI that does not render the structured `web` card falls back to the raw `tool/result` content. The TUI does exactly this: it renders no structured web body, and its transcript renderer routes a `web` view's fallback content through the same dim Markdown path as a generic card's content (`packages/ui/tui/src/components/transcript.ts`, where both `render` and `renderBody` narrow the `generic` arm to `view.content` and give a `web` view the same `this.result?.content` fallback). Copying the result content into the view would duplicate up to `fetchMaxOutputChars` characters on the same delivered frame for no gain (the same rejection the meta section applies to the fetch body), so the views omit it and the fallback path renders the identical text. Each view sets its result-state `title` from the call args (`args.query` / `args.url`) so a window-truncated replay that dropped the call head still has a title, the way write/edit reset title at result time.
+
+`presentResult` returns `undefined` (the generic card) on an error result and on absent or malformed `meta`, because presentation runs on replay of arbitrary logged results (possibly from an older schema) and must never throw. The narrowers validate every field defensively; an empty source list is valid meta, not malformed.
+
+## Consequences
+
+The web frontend consumer is a separate later PR: this PR adds the contract arm and makes the two tools emit it, with no client-side rendering. The one observable change is that the `web_search`/`web_fetch` `tool/result` events now persist a `data.meta` payload (the `web-fetch` keyless snapshot is refreshed accordingly); the model-facing render text and the TUI presentation are unchanged (the TUI falls back to the same result content). The assembled-application transcript snapshot that exercises a `web` card belongs to the consumer PR that renders it, delivered there. Any existing `ToolResultView` consumer that switches exhaustively must add a `web` arm; the TUI does not switch exhaustively and needs none. `apiproxy`'s session schema already accepts any `card` string (`packages/host/apiproxy/src/api/sessions.schema.ts`), so the new view crosses the wire without a schema change.
+
+A future web tool that wants this card declares `presentResult` returning a `card: 'web'` view with its own `kind`; adding a third `kind` is a union edit plus the frontend's branch, not a new card tag.
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+**Two card tags (`web-search`, `web-fetch`).** Rejected: it doubles the arm count at every card consumer for one visual family, and the two shapes already share enough (a titled retrieval card with fallback content) that a `kind` discriminant expresses the difference without a second tag.
+
+**Reparse the render text in `presentResult` instead of projecting meta.** Rejected for `web_search`: the render's source list is lossy (title-or-hostname label, snippet and date concatenated into free text), so reparsing cannot faithfully recover the structured fields. `presentationMeta` is the only route that preserves them.
+
+**Carry the fetch body in meta, or copy the result content into either view.** Rejected: the body is already the model-facing markdown in the result content, and duplicating it into meta or into a view `content` field would double the persisted or delivered payload for no gain; a UI without the `web` capability falls back to the existing result content, which is the same text.
+
+## Testing
+
+`packages/web/tool-web/tests/tool-web.spec.ts` covers, per-file to the 100% gate: `searchMetaFromValue`/`fetchMetaFromValue` projection including omission of absent optional fields, and the fetch `truncated` projection agreeing with the render footer both when only the output cap cut the body and when nothing did; `searchMetaFromResult`/`fetchMetaFromResult` narrowing with a round-trip and every malformed-shape rejection (non-object, wrong field types, a malformed source entry) plus the empty-source-list accept; `presentSearchResult`/`presentFetchResult` typed views including the args-derived title, the absence of a `content` copy, the truncated signal, the error-result fallback, and the malformed-meta fallback; and two real-registry executions asserting the tool projects the meta onto `result.meta` and its registered `presentResult` derives the `card: 'web'` view.
+
+## Related
+
+- [Tagged render-intent union for tool-call presentation](../architecture/2026-07-02-tool-render-intent-union.md) — the `card`-tagged vocabulary this extends with the `web` arm.
+- [Web terminal card](2026-07-28-web-terminal-card.md) — the precedent that carried the bash `terminal` render intent to the browser; the web frontend consumer of this arm is its analogue, deferred to a later PR.

.agents/notes/implemented/feature/2026-07-30-web-result-card.zh.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Agent Note: Web result card — a structured render intent for web_search and web_fetch
+
+Status: implemented
+
+[English](2026-07-30-web-result-card.md) | 中文
+
+## Problem
+
+`web_search` 与 `web_fetch` 工具各自声明了一个 generic 待定卡片（`presentCall`，`kind: 'search'`/`'fetch'`），但没有 `presentResult`，因此一个已完成的 web 调用抵达 UI 时只剩下面向模型的 render 文本。对于想渲染引用列表或抓取摘要的 web 前端而言，该文本是有损的：`web_search` 的 render 把每个来源的 `title`、`snippet`、`publishedAt` 压进一行以 title 或 hostname 标注的自由文本 markdown（`packages/web/tool-web/src/search.ts` 中的 `formatSearchOutput`），因此重新解析 render 无法恢复各来源字段；`web_fetch` 的 render 也仅在一行 header 里携带 `url` 与 `statusCode`。渲染意图契约（[标签联合类型](../architecture/2026-07-02-tool-render-intent-union.md)）此前没有一个可供 web 工具声明、用以携带结构化结果的分支。
+
+## Decision
+
+向 `ToolResultView`（`packages/core/tools/src/presentation.ts`）新增一个 `card: 'web'` 结果分支，它是以 `kind: 'search' | 'fetch'` 字段作判别的联合 `WebResultView = WebSearchResultView | WebFetchResultView`，并附一个表示单个可引用来源的 `WebSource` 形状。两个工具现在都声明 `presentResult`。
+
+采用一个标签加 `kind` 判别，而非两个标签。两个调用都是 web 检索，web 前端会用同一族组件渲染它们（一个检索卡片，正文按 kind 不同），因此共用一个 `card` 让每个 card 消费者的 switch 只需新增一个分支，并让前端在其内部按 `kind` 分岔。两个标签会迫使当前及未来每个消费者为本属同一视觉族的东西添加两个分支。这两个 `kind` 取值与两个工具既有的 generic 调用视图 `kind` 一致，因此一个调用与它的结果读起来是同一类别。
+
+`presentationMeta` 携带 render 文本无法携带的东西。工具从 `execute` 返回的结构化结果对象**不会**经由 wire 抵达客户端——只有面向模型的 `render` 文本，以及（声明时）投影到 `tool/result` 事件 `meta` 上的 `output.presentationMeta` JSON 会。对 `web_search`，meta 是得到 `{url, title?, snippet?, publishedAt?}` 的**唯一**忠实途径：render 把这些字段压进一行有损的自由文本，消费者无法重新解析。对 `web_fetch`，meta 是更小但真实的收益：`url`/`statusCode` 可从确定格式的 `Fetched <url> (HTTP <n>)` header 行还原，但 `truncated` 是有效截断——provider cap、转换前源截断，或部署的 `fetchMaxOutputChars` 输出上限——客户端无法重算，因为它不知道那个上限。抓取卡片与面向模型的文本都从同一个 `renderFetchOutput(result, maxOutputChars)` helper 派生 `truncated`，因此卡片绝不会与模型看到的脚注分叉。这照搬 write/edit 的 diff 模板（`packages/fs/tool-fs/src/diff.ts`）：一个 `*MetaFromValue` 投影器喂给 `output.presentationMeta`，一个 `*MetaFromResult` 收窄器读回 `result.meta`，并在失败时防御性回退到 generic 卡片。`web_fetch` 的正文已是结果内容中的 markdown，因此不重复写入 meta。
+
+两个结果视图都不携带 `content` 副本。不渲染结构化 `web` 卡片的 UI 回退到原始 `tool/result` 内容。TUI 正是如此：它不渲染结构化的 web 正文，其 transcript 渲染器把 `web` 视图的回退内容与 generic 卡片的内容路由进同一条 dim Markdown 路径（`packages/ui/tui/src/components/transcript.ts` 中 `render` 与 `renderBody` 都把 `generic` 分支收窄为 `view.content`，并给 `web` 视图相同的 `this.result?.content` 回退）。把结果内容复制进视图会在同一投递帧上重复最多 `fetchMaxOutputChars` 个字符却毫无收益（与 meta 一节对抓取正文的否决同理），因此视图省略它，回退路径渲染完全相同的文本。每个视图从调用参数设置其结果期 `title`（`args.query`／`args.url`），因此丢掉了调用头的窗口截断重放仍有标题，与 write/edit 在结果期重设 title 的做法一致。
+
+`presentResult` 在错误结果、以及 `meta` 缺失或畸形时返回 `undefined`（即 generic 卡片），因为 presentation 会在对任意已记录结果（可能来自旧 schema）的重放中运行，绝不能抛错。收窄器防御性地校验每个字段；空来源列表是有效 meta，而非畸形。
+
+## Consequences
+
+web 前端消费者是一个独立的后续 PR：本 PR 新增契约分支并让两个工具发出它，不含客户端渲染。唯一可观察的变化是 `web_search`/`web_fetch` 的 `tool/result` 事件现在持久化一个 `data.meta` 载荷（`web-fetch` keyless 快照随之刷新）；面向模型的 render 文本与 TUI 呈现不变（TUI 回退到相同的结果内容）。渲染 `web` 卡片的组装应用 transcript 快照属于渲染它的消费者 PR，在那里交付。任何做穷尽 switch 的现有 `ToolResultView` 消费者都必须新增一个 `web` 分支；TUI 并不穷尽 switch，无需新增。`apiproxy` 的会话 schema 已接受任意 `card` 字符串（`packages/host/apiproxy/src/api/sessions.schema.ts`），因此新视图无需 schema 变更即可跨 wire。
+
+未来想用此卡片的 web 工具，声明一个返回带自有 `kind` 的 `card: 'web'` 视图的 `presentResult`；新增第三个 `kind` 是一次联合类型编辑加前端的分岔，而非一个新的 card 标签。
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+**两个 card 标签（`web-search`、`web-fetch`）。** 否决：它在每个 card 消费者处为一个视觉族翻倍分支数，而两个形状已共享得够多（一个带回退内容的带标题检索卡片），`kind` 判别无需第二个标签即可表达差异。
+
+**在 `presentResult` 里重新解析 render 文本，而非投影 meta。** 对 `web_search` 否决：render 的来源列表是有损的（title 或 hostname 标签，snippet 与日期拼进自由文本），因此重新解析无法忠实恢复结构化字段。`presentationMeta` 是唯一保留它们的途径。
+
+**把抓取正文放进 meta，或把结果内容复制进任一视图。** 否决：正文已是结果内容中面向模型的 markdown，把它复制进 meta 或视图的 `content` 字段会为无收益的目的翻倍持久化或投递载荷；不具备 `web` 能力的 UI 回退到既有的结果内容，那是相同的文本。
+
+## Testing
+
+`packages/web/tool-web/tests/tool-web.spec.ts` 覆盖以下内容，满足按文件 100% 的门禁：`searchMetaFromValue`/`fetchMetaFromValue` 投影，含对缺席可选字段的省略，以及抓取 `truncated` 投影在仅输出上限截断正文时、以及在毫无截断时都与 render 脚注一致；`searchMetaFromResult`/`fetchMetaFromResult` 收窄，含一次往返与每种畸形形状的拒绝（非对象、字段类型错误、畸形来源条目）以及空来源列表的接受；`presentSearchResult`/`presentFetchResult` 类型化视图，含从参数派生的 title、无 `content` 副本、truncated 信号、错误结果回退与畸形 meta 回退；以及两次真实注册表执行，断言工具把 meta 投影到 `result.meta` 上，其注册的 `presentResult` 推导出 `card: 'web'` 视图。
+
+## Related
+
+- [标签化的工具调用渲染意图联合类型](../architecture/2026-07-02-tool-render-intent-union.md) —— 本卡片以 `web` 分支扩展的 `card` 标签词汇表。
+- [Web terminal card](2026-07-28-web-terminal-card.md) —— 把 bash `terminal` 渲染意图带到浏览器的先例；本分支的 web 前端消费者是它的对应物，推迟到后续 PR。