仓库自包含化：CI/文档/规范入库，升级 echarts，填关于页链接

.trellis/spec/guides/code-reuse-thinking-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+# Code Reuse Thinking Guide
+
+> **Purpose**: Stop and think before creating new code - does it already exist?
+
+---
+
+## The Problem
+
+**Duplicated code is the #1 source of inconsistency bugs.**
+
+When you copy-paste or rewrite existing logic:
+- Bug fixes don't propagate
+- Behavior diverges over time
+- Codebase becomes harder to understand
+
+---
+
+## Before Writing New Code
+
+### Step 1: Search First
+
+```bash
+# Search for similar function names
+grep -r "functionName" .
+
+# Search for similar logic
+grep -r "keyword" .
+```
+
+### Step 2: Ask These Questions
+
+| Question | If Yes... |
+|----------|-----------|
+| Does a similar function exist? | Use or extend it |
+| Is this pattern used elsewhere? | Follow the existing pattern |
+| Could this be a shared utility? | Create it in the right place |
+| Am I copying code from another file? | **STOP** - extract to shared |
+
+---
+
+## Common Duplication Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Copy-Paste Functions
+
+**Bad**: Copying a validation function to another file
+
+**Good**: Extract to shared utilities, import where needed
+
+### Pattern 2: Similar Components
+
+**Bad**: Creating a new component that's 80% similar to existing
+
+**Good**: Extend existing component with props/variants
+
+### Pattern 3: Repeated Constants
+
+**Bad**: Defining the same constant in multiple files
+
+**Good**: Single source of truth, import everywhere
+
+### Pattern 4: Repeated Payload Field Extraction
+
+**Bad**: Multiple consumers cast the same JSON/event fields locally:
+
+```typescript
+const description = (ev as { description?: string }).description;
+const context = (ev as { context?: ContextEntry[] }).context;
+```
+
+This is duplicated contract logic even when the code is only two lines. Each
+consumer now has its own definition of what a valid payload means.
+
+**Good**: Put the decoder, type guard, or projection next to the data owner:
+
+```typescript
+if (isThreadEvent(ev)) {
+  renderThreadEvent(ev);
+}
+```
+
+**Rule**: If the same untyped payload field is read in 2+ places, create a
+shared type guard / normalizer / projection before adding a third reader.
+
+---
+
+## When to Abstract
+
+**Abstract when**:
+- Same code appears 3+ times
+- Logic is complex enough to have bugs
+- Multiple people might need this
+
+**Don't abstract when**:
+- Only used once
+- Trivial one-liner
+- Abstraction would be more complex than duplication
+
+---
+
+## After Batch Modifications
+
+When you've made similar changes to multiple files:
+
+1. **Review**: Did you catch all instances?
+2. **Search**: Run grep to find any missed
+3. **Consider**: Should this be abstracted?
+
+### Reducers Should Use Exhaustive Structure
+
+When state is derived from action-like values (`action`, `kind`, `status`,
+`phase`), prefer a reducer with one `switch` over scattered `if/else` updates.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD - action-specific state transitions are hard to audit
+if (action === "opened") { ... }
+else if (action === "comment") { ... }
+else if (action === "status") { ... }
+
+// GOOD - one reducer owns the transition table
+switch (event.action) {
+  case "opened":
+    ...
+    return;
+  case "comment":
+    ...
+    return;
+}
+```
+
+This matters when the event log is the source of truth. A reducer is the
+documented replay model; display code and commands should not duplicate pieces
+of that replay model.
+
+---
+
+## Checklist Before Commit
+
+- [ ] Searched for existing similar code
+- [ ] No copy-pasted logic that should be shared
+- [ ] No repeated untyped payload field extraction outside a shared decoder
+- [ ] Constants defined in one place
+- [ ] Similar patterns follow same structure
+- [ ] Reducer/action transitions live in one reducer or command dispatcher
+
+---
+
+## Gotcha: Python if/elif/else Exhaustive Check
+
+**Problem**: Python's if/elif/else chains have no compile-time exhaustive check. When you add a new value to a `Literal` type (e.g., `Platform`), existing if/elif/else chains silently fall through to `else` with wrong defaults.
+
+**Symptom**: New platform works partially — some methods return Claude defaults instead of platform-specific values. No error is raised.
+
+**Example** (`cli_adapter.py`):
+```python
+# BAD: "gemini" falls through to else, returns "claude"
+@property
+def cli_name(self) -> str:
+    if self.platform == "opencode":
+        return "opencode"
+    else:
+        return "claude"  # gemini silently gets "claude"!
+
+# GOOD: explicit branch for every platform
+@property
+def cli_name(self) -> str:
+    if self.platform == "opencode":
+        return "opencode"
+    elif self.platform == "gemini":
+        return "gemini"
+    else:
+        return "claude"
+```
+
+**Prevention**: When adding a new value to a Python `Literal` type, search for ALL if/elif/else chains that switch on that type and add explicit branches. Don't rely on `else` being correct for new values.
+
+---
+
+## Gotcha: Asymmetric Mechanisms Producing Same Output
+
+**Problem**: When two different mechanisms must produce the same file set (e.g., recursive directory copy for init vs. manual `files.set()` for update), structural changes (renaming, moving, adding subdirectories) only propagate through the automatic mechanism. The manual one silently drifts.
+
+**Symptom**: Init works perfectly, but update creates files at wrong paths or misses files entirely.
+
+**Prevention**:
+- **Best**: Eliminate the asymmetry — have the manual path call the automatic one (e.g., `collectTemplateFiles()` calls `getAllScripts()` instead of maintaining its own list)
+- **If asymmetry is unavoidable**: Add a regression test that compares outputs from both mechanisms
+- When migrating directory structures, search for ALL code paths that reference the old structure
+
+**Real example**: `trellis update` had a manual `files.set()` list for 11 scripts that `getAllScripts()` already tracked. Fix: replaced the manual list with a `for..of getAllScripts()` loop. See `update.ts` refactor in v0.4.0-beta.3.
+
+---
+
+## Template File Registration (Trellis-specific)
+
+When adding new files to `src/templates/trellis/scripts/`:
+
+**Single registration point**: `src/templates/trellis/index.ts`
+
+1. Add `export const xxxScript = readTemplate("scripts/path/file.py");`
+2. Add to `getAllScripts()` Map
+
+That's it. `commands/update.ts` uses `getAllScripts()` directly — no manual sync needed.
+
+**Why this matters**: Without registration in `getAllScripts()`, `trellis update` won't sync the file to user projects. Bug fixes and features won't propagate.
+
+**History**: Before v0.4.0-beta.3, `update.ts` had its own hand-maintained file list that frequently fell out of sync with `getAllScripts()`. This caused 11 Python files to be silently skipped during `trellis update`. The fix was to eliminate the duplicate list and use `getAllScripts()` as the single source of truth.
+
+### Quick Checklist for New Scripts
+
+```bash
+# After adding a new .py file, verify it's in getAllScripts():
+grep -l "newFileName" src/templates/trellis/index.ts  # Should match
+```
+
+### Template Sync Convention
+
+`.trellis/scripts/` (dogfooded) and `packages/cli/src/templates/trellis/scripts/` (template) must stay identical. After editing `.trellis/scripts/`, always sync:
+
+```bash
+rsync -av --delete --exclude='__pycache__' .trellis/scripts/ packages/cli/src/templates/trellis/scripts/
+```
+
+**Gotcha**: Running rsync with wrong source/destination paths can create nested garbage directories (e.g., `.trellis/scripts/packages/cli/...`). Always double-check paths before running.

.trellis/spec/guides/cross-layer-thinking-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
+# Cross-Layer Thinking Guide
+
+> **Purpose**: Think through data flow across layers before implementing.
+
+---
+
+## The Problem
+
+**Most bugs happen at layer boundaries**, not within layers.
+
+Common cross-layer bugs:
+
+- API returns format A, frontend expects format B
+- Database stores X, service transforms to Y, but loses data
+- Multiple layers implement the same logic differently
+
+---
+
+## Before Implementing Cross-Layer Features
+
+### Step 1: Map the Data Flow
+
+Draw out how data moves:
+
+```
+Source → Transform → Store → Retrieve → Transform → Display
+```
+
+For each arrow, ask:
+
+- What format is the data in?
+- What could go wrong?
+- Who is responsible for validation?
+
+### Step 2: Identify Boundaries
+
+| Boundary              | Common Issues                     |
+| --------------------- | --------------------------------- |
+| API ↔ Service         | Type mismatches, missing fields   |
+| Service ↔ Database    | Format conversions, null handling |
+| Backend ↔ Frontend    | Serialization, date formats       |
+| Component ↔ Component | Props shape changes               |
+
+### Step 3: Define Contracts
+
+For each boundary:
+
+- What is the exact input format?
+- What is the exact output format?
+- What errors can occur?
+
+---
+
+## Common Cross-Layer Mistakes
+
+### Mistake 1: Implicit Format Assumptions
+
+**Bad**: Assuming date format without checking
+
+**Good**: Explicit format conversion at boundaries
+
+### Mistake 2: Scattered Validation
+
+**Bad**: Validating the same thing in multiple layers
+
+**Good**: Validate once at the entry point
+
+### Mistake 3: Leaky Abstractions
+
+**Bad**: Component knows about database schema
+
+**Good**: Each layer only knows its neighbors
+
+### Mistake 4: Every Consumer Parses The Same Payload
+
+**Bad**: A command reads JSONL events and casts fields inline:
+
+```typescript
+const thread = (ev as { thread?: string }).thread;
+const labels = (ev as { labels?: string[] }).labels;
+```
+
+This looks local, but it means every consumer owns a private version of the
+event contract. The next field change will update one command and miss another.
+
+**Good**: Decode once at the event boundary, then export typed projections:
+
+```typescript
+if (!isThreadEvent(ev)) return false;
+return ev.thread === filter.thread;
+```
+
+**Rule**: For append-only logs, JSON streams, RPC payloads, or config files,
+create one owner for:
+
+- event / payload type definitions
+- type guards and normalization from `unknown`
+- metadata projections used by UI commands
+- reducers that replay state from the source of truth
+
+Rendering code may format fields, but it must not redefine the payload contract.
+
+---
+
+## Checklist for Cross-Layer Features
+
+Before implementation:
+
+- [ ] Mapped the complete data flow
+- [ ] Identified all layer boundaries
+- [ ] Defined format at each boundary
+- [ ] Decided where validation happens
+
+After implementation:
+
+- [ ] Tested with edge cases (null, empty, invalid)
+- [ ] Verified error handling at each boundary
+- [ ] Checked data survives round-trip
+- [ ] Checked that consumers import shared decoders / projections instead of
+      casting payload fields locally
+- [ ] Checked that derived state points back to the source event identifier
+      (`seq`, `id`, `version`) instead of inventing a second cursor
+
+---
+
+## Cross-Platform Template Consistency
+
+In Trellis, command templates (e.g., `record-session.md`) exist in **multiple platforms** with identical or near-identical content. This is a cross-layer boundary.
+
+### Checklist: After Modifying Any Command Template
+
+- [ ] Find all platforms with the same command: `find src/templates/*/commands/trellis/ -name "<command>.*"`
+- [ ] Update all platform copies (Markdown `.md` and TOML `.toml`)
+- [ ] For Gemini TOML: adapt line continuations (`\\` vs `\`) and triple-quoted strings
+- [ ] Run `/trellis:check-cross-layer` to verify nothing was missed
+
+**Real-world example**: Updated `record-session.md` in Claude to use `--mode record`, but forgot iFlow, Kilo, OpenCode, and Gemini — caught by cross-layer check.
+
+---
+
+## Generated Runtime Template Upgrade Consistency
+
+Some generated files are both documentation and runtime input. In Trellis,
+`.trellis/workflow.md` is parsed by `get_context.py`, `workflow_phase.py`,
+SessionStart filters, and per-turn hooks. Template changes must be validated
+against both fresh init and upgrade paths.
+
+### Checklist: After Modifying A Runtime-Parsed Template
+
+- [ ] Identify every runtime parser that reads the template, not just the file
+      writer that installs it
+- [ ] Check whether relevant syntax lives outside obvious managed regions
+      such as tag blocks
+- [ ] Verify fresh `init` output and a versioned `update` scenario that writes
+      the older `.trellis/.version`
+- [ ] Add an upgrade regression using an older pristine template fixture, then
+      assert the installed file reaches the current packaged shape
+- [ ] Update the backend spec that owns the runtime contract
+
+---
+
+## Versioned Documentation Boundary
+
+Versioned documentation is a cross-layer boundary: source paths, `docs.json`
+version routing, and the rendered version selector must all describe the same
+release line.
+
+### Checklist: Before Editing Versioned Docs
+
+- [ ] Identify the target release line: stable, beta, or RC
+- [ ] Verify the edited MDX path matches that line:
+  - stable: `docs-site/{start,advanced,...}` and `docs-site/zh/{start,advanced,...}`
+  - beta: `docs-site/beta/**` and `docs-site/zh/beta/**`
+  - RC: `docs-site/rc/**` and `docs-site/zh/rc/**`
+- [ ] Verify `docs.json` navigation points the version label to the same paths
+- [ ] Grep the opposite tree for release-line-specific terms before committing
+- [ ] Treat beta content appearing under root release paths as a source-path bug,
+      not a rendering bug
+
+**Real-world example**: A beta-only task workflow change documented
+`prd.md` + `design.md` + `implement.md`, task-creation consent, and Codex
+mode banners under root `start/` and `advanced/` paths. The docs site then
+served 0.6 beta behavior under the Release selector. The fix was to restore root
+release docs, move the 0.6 content to `beta/` and `zh/beta/`, and add a grep
+audit for beta markers against the root release tree.
+
+**Real-world example**: Codex inline mode changed workflow platform markers from
+`[Codex]` / `[Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]` to `[codex-sub-agent]` /
+`[codex-inline, Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]`. Fresh init was correct, but
+`trellis update` only merged `[workflow-state:*]` blocks and preserved stale
+markers outside those blocks. Result: upgraded projects got new hook scripts
+but old workflow routing, so `get_context.py --mode phase --platform codex`
+could return empty Phase 2.1 detail.
+
+---
+
+## Mode-Detection Probe Checklist
+
+When a CLI auto-detects a mode by probing a remote resource (e.g., checking if `index.json` exists to decide marketplace vs direct download):
+
+### Before implementing:
+
+- [ ] Probe runs in **ALL** code paths that use the result (interactive, `-y`, `--flag` combos)
+- [ ] 404 vs transient error are distinguished — don't treat both as "not found"
+- [ ] Transient errors **abort or retry**, never silently switch modes
+- [ ] Shared state (caches, prefetched data) is **reset** when context changes (e.g., user switches source)
+- [ ] **Shortcut paths** (e.g., `--template` skipping picker) must have the same error-handling quality as the probed path — check that downstream functions don't call catch-all wrappers
+
+### After implementing:
+
+- [ ] Trace every path from probe result to the mode-decision branch — no fallthrough
+- [ ] External format contracts (giget URI, raw URLs) are tested or at least documented as comments
+- [ ] Metadata reads consume a complete response or use a streaming parser — never parse a fixed-size prefix as full JSON
+- [ ] When reconstructing a composite identifier from parsed parts, verify **all** fields are included and in the **correct position** (e.g., `provider:repo/path#ref` not `provider:repo#ref/path`)
+- [ ] Verify that **action functions** called after a shortcut don't internally use the old catch-all fetch — they must use the probe-quality variant when error distinction matters
+
+**Real-world example**: Custom registry flow had 8 bugs across 3 review rounds: (1) probe only ran in interactive mode, (2) transient errors fell through to wrong mode, (3) giget URI had `#ref` in wrong position, (4) prefetched templates leaked across source switches, (5) `--template` shortcut bypassed probe but `downloadTemplateById` internally used catch-all `fetchTemplateIndex`, turning timeouts into "Template not found".
+
+**Real-world example**: Agent-session update hints fetched npm `latest` metadata with `response.read(4096)` and then parsed it as complete JSON. The `@mindfoldhq/trellis` package metadata exceeded 4 KB, so the JSON was truncated, parse failed silently, and the first session injection showed no update hint. Fix: read the complete response before parsing, and add a regression where `version` is followed by an 8 KB metadata tail.
+
+---
+
+## Cross-Platform Template Consistency
+
+In Trellis, command templates (e.g., `record-session.md`) exist in **multiple platforms** with identical or near-identical content. This is a cross-layer boundary.
+
+### Checklist: After Modifying Any Command Template
+
+- [ ] Find all platforms with the same command: `find src/templates/*/commands/trellis/ -name "<command>.*"`
+- [ ] Update all platform copies (Markdown `.md` and TOML `.toml`)
+- [ ] For Gemini TOML: adapt line continuations (`\\` vs `\`) and triple-quoted strings
+- [ ] Run `/trellis:check-cross-layer` to verify nothing was missed
+
+**Real-world example**: Updated `record-session.md` in Claude to use `--mode record`, but forgot iFlow, Kilo, OpenCode, and Gemini — caught by cross-layer check.
+
+---
+
+## Generated Runtime Template Upgrade Consistency
+
+Some generated files are both documentation and runtime input. In Trellis,
+`.trellis/workflow.md` is parsed by `get_context.py`, `workflow_phase.py`,
+SessionStart filters, and per-turn hooks. Template changes must be validated
+against both fresh init and upgrade paths.
+
+### Checklist: After Modifying A Runtime-Parsed Template
+
+- [ ] Identify every runtime parser that reads the template, not just the file
+  writer that installs it
+- [ ] Check whether relevant syntax lives outside obvious managed regions
+  such as tag blocks
+- [ ] Verify fresh `init` output and a versioned `update` scenario that writes
+  the older `.trellis/.version`
+- [ ] Add an upgrade regression using an older pristine template fixture, then
+  assert the installed file reaches the current packaged shape
+- [ ] Update the backend spec that owns the runtime contract
+
+**Real-world example**: Codex inline mode changed workflow platform markers from
+`[Codex]` / `[Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]` to `[codex-sub-agent]` /
+`[codex-inline, Kilo, Antigravity, Windsurf]`. Fresh init was correct, but
+`trellis update` only merged `[workflow-state:*]` blocks and preserved stale
+markers outside those blocks. Result: upgraded projects got new hook scripts
+but old workflow routing, so `get_context.py --mode phase --platform codex`
+could return empty Phase 2.1 detail.
+
+---
+
+## Mode-Detection Probe Checklist
+
+When a CLI auto-detects a mode by probing a remote resource (e.g., checking if `index.json` exists to decide marketplace vs direct download):
+
+### Before implementing:
+- [ ] Probe runs in **ALL** code paths that use the result (interactive, `-y`, `--flag` combos)
+- [ ] 404 vs transient error are distinguished — don't treat both as "not found"
+- [ ] Transient errors **abort or retry**, never silently switch modes
+- [ ] Shared state (caches, prefetched data) is **reset** when context changes (e.g., user switches source)
+- [ ] **Shortcut paths** (e.g., `--template` skipping picker) must have the same error-handling quality as the probed path — check that downstream functions don't call catch-all wrappers
+
+### After implementing:
+- [ ] Trace every path from probe result to the mode-decision branch — no fallthrough
+- [ ] External format contracts (giget URI, raw URLs) are tested or at least documented as comments
+- [ ] Metadata reads consume a complete response or use a streaming parser — never parse a fixed-size prefix as full JSON
+- [ ] When reconstructing a composite identifier from parsed parts, verify **all** fields are included and in the **correct position** (e.g., `provider:repo/path#ref` not `provider:repo#ref/path`)
+- [ ] Verify that **action functions** called after a shortcut don't internally use the old catch-all fetch — they must use the probe-quality variant when error distinction matters
+
+**Real-world example**: Custom registry flow had 8 bugs across 3 review rounds: (1) probe only ran in interactive mode, (2) transient errors fell through to wrong mode, (3) giget URI had `#ref` in wrong position, (4) prefetched templates leaked across source switches, (5) `--template` shortcut bypassed probe but `downloadTemplateById` internally used catch-all `fetchTemplateIndex`, turning timeouts into "Template not found".
+
+**Real-world example**: Agent-session update hints fetched npm `latest` metadata with `response.read(4096)` and then parsed it as complete JSON. The `@mindfoldhq/trellis` package metadata exceeded 4 KB, so the JSON was truncated, parse failed silently, and the first session injection showed no update hint. Fix: read the complete response before parsing, and add a regression where `version` is followed by an 8 KB metadata tail.
+
+---
+
+## When to Create Flow Documentation
+
+Create detailed flow docs when:
+
+- Feature spans 3+ layers
+- Multiple teams are involved
+- Data format is complex
+- Feature has caused bugs before
+
+---
+
+## Event Log / Projection Boundary
+
+Append-only logs are cross-layer contracts. A single event travels through:
+
+```
+CLI input → event writer → events.jsonl → reader → filter → reducer → display
+```
+
+### Checklist: After Adding A New Event Kind Or Field
+
+- [ ] Add the event kind to the central event taxonomy
+- [ ] Add a typed event variant or type guard at the event layer
+- [ ] Add normalization helpers for array/object fields that come from
+      user input or JSON
+- [ ] Keep `seq` / `id` assignment in the event writer only
+- [ ] Make filters and reducers consume the typed event guard, not local casts
+- [ ] Make display code consume reducer output or typed events, not raw JSON
+- [ ] Add at least one regression that proves history replay and live filtering
+      use the same filter model
+
+**Real-world example**: Thread channels added `kind: "thread"`, `description`,
+`context`, labels, and `lastSeq`. The first implementation replayed thread
+state correctly, but several commands still re-parsed event payload fields with
+local casts. The fix was to make the core event layer own `ThreadChannelEvent`
+and `isThreadEvent`, make `reduceChannelMetadata` the only channel metadata
+projection, and make `reduceThreads` the only thread replay reducer.

.trellis/spec/guides/design-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Claude Design 设计稿工作流
+
+> 设计稿在 **Claude Design**(claude.ai/design)中产出与评审:云端项目制文件工作区,Claude 通过 MCP 工具直接读写项目文件,用户在网页编辑器中实时查看、点选修改、评论,双方操作同一份文件。
+
+## 产物形态
+
+- 设计稿是 **`.dc.html`(Design Components)文件**:HTML 承载视觉,`<x-dc>` 模板 + `support.js` 运行时(服务端下发,不手写)让用户能在 Claude Design 编辑器里点选任意元素直接改文案/样式,而不是只读预览。
+- 交互原型(视图切换、筛选、hover 态)由文件内的逻辑类驱动,单文件即可承载多视图的完整面板原型。
+- 设计 token 不依赖平台 design system,以 [styling-design-tokens.md](../frontend/styling-design-tokens.md) 的 Anthropic 风 token 直接内嵌为设计稿的样式事实源。
+
+## 工作流
+
+| 阶段 | 动作 | 说明 |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| ① 加载规范 | `get_claude_design_prompt` | 每次会话先加载平台设计规范(.dc.html 约定、反 AI-slop 内容准则),再动手 |
+| ② 建项目 | `create_project` | 一个设计主题一个项目;返回 claude.ai/design 项目链接 |
+| ③ 写运行时 | `create_support_js` | 每个含 .dc.html 的目录一次,服务端写入当前 dc-runtime |
+| ④ 声明与写入 | `finalize_plan` → `write_files` | 先声明本批要写的路径拿 plan_token;写入时带 etag(if_match)防止覆盖用户在编辑器里的并发修改 |
+| ⑤ 渲染验证 | `render_preview` + playwright-cli | 渲染循环:截图 1440×900、查 console 错误/404/空白 → 修复 → 重渲,直到干净;再以"新眼睛"逐条核对需求与反模式清单 |
+| ⑥ 交付评审 | 分享 claude.ai/design 页面链接 | 用户在编辑器里直接批注/修改;`?embed=1` 链接可实时看 Claude 的每次写入 |
+
+## 协作与边界
+
+- **并发安全**:用户可能同时在编辑器里改文件,所有写入必须带上次读到的 etag,冲突时以用户改动为基准重新套用变更,绝不无条件覆盖。
+- **链接纪律**:交付给人的永远是 claude.ai/design 链接;`serve_url`(claudeusercontent.com)是带项目令牌的短时链接,仅供自动化浏览器验证,不得外发。
+- **平台边界**:Claude Design 没有本地 skill/plugin 市场与内部生成 agent,设计由当前会话直接产出;风格底座与评审职责由 token 清单(含反模式)与渲染验证循环承接。
+- **导出衔接**:定稿 .dc.html 即结构化 HTML/CSS,实现阶段按 `.trellis/frontend/` 前端规范翻译成 Vue SFC + Naive UI themeOverrides,token 一一对应。

.trellis/spec/guides/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+# Thinking Guides
+
+> **Purpose**: Expand your thinking to catch things you might not have considered.
+
+---
+
+## Why Thinking Guides?
+
+**Most bugs and tech debt come from "didn't think of that"**, not from lack of skill:
+
+- Didn't think about what happens at layer boundaries → cross-layer bugs
+- Didn't think about code patterns repeating → duplicated code everywhere
+- Didn't think about edge cases → runtime errors
+- Didn't think about future maintainers → unreadable code
+
+These guides help you **ask the right questions before coding**.
+
+---
+
+## Available Guides
+
+| Guide | Purpose | When to Use |
+|-------|---------|-------------|
+| [Code Reuse Thinking Guide](./code-reuse-thinking-guide.md) | Identify patterns and reduce duplication | When you notice repeated patterns |
+| [Cross-Layer Thinking Guide](./cross-layer-thinking-guide.md) | Think through data flow across layers | Features spanning multiple layers |
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: Thinking Triggers
+
+### When to Think About Cross-Layer Issues
+
+- [ ] Feature touches 3+ layers (API, Service, Component, Database)
+- [ ] Data format changes between layers
+- [ ] Multiple consumers need the same data
+- [ ] You're not sure where to put some logic
+- [ ] You are adding an event kind, JSONL record, RPC payload, or config field
+- [ ] UI / command code starts casting raw payload fields directly
+
+→ Read [Cross-Layer Thinking Guide](./cross-layer-thinking-guide.md)
+
+### When to Think About Code Reuse
+
+- [ ] You're writing similar code to something that exists
+- [ ] You see the same pattern repeated 3+ times
+- [ ] You're adding a new field to multiple places
+- [ ] **You're modifying any constant or config**
+- [ ] **You're creating a new utility/helper function** ← Search first!
+- [ ] Two files read the same untyped payload field with local casts
+- [ ] Multiple branches update the same derived state from `kind` / `action`
+
+→ Read [Code Reuse Thinking Guide](./code-reuse-thinking-guide.md)
+
+### When Verifying AI Cross-Review Results
+
+- [ ] Reviewer claims "user input can be malicious" → Check the actual data source (internal manifest? user config? external API?)
+- [ ] Reviewer flags "missing validation" → Is the data from a trusted internal source?
+- [ ] Reviewer says "behavior change" → Read the code comments — is it intentional design?
+- [ ] Reviewer identifies a "bug" in test → Mentally delete the feature being tested — does the test still pass? If yes → tautological test
+
+**Common AI reviewer false-positive patterns**:
+1. **Trust boundary confusion**: Treating internal data (bundled JSON manifests) as untrusted external input
+2. **Ignoring design comments**: Flagging intentional behavior documented in code comments as bugs
+3. **Variable misreading**: Not tracing a variable to its actual definition (e.g., Map keyed by path vs name)
+
+**Verification rule**: Every CRITICAL/WARNING finding must be verified against the actual code before prioritizing. Budget ~35% false-positive rate for AI reviews.
+
+---
+
+## Pre-Modification Rule (CRITICAL)
+
+> **Before changing ANY value, ALWAYS search first!**
+
+```bash
+# Search for the value you're about to change
+grep -r "value_to_change" .
+```
+
+This single habit prevents most "forgot to update X" bugs.
+
+---
+
+## How to Use This Directory
+
+1. **Before coding**: Skim the relevant thinking guide
+2. **During coding**: If something feels repetitive or complex, check the guides
+3. **After bugs**: Add new insights to the relevant guide (learn from mistakes)
+
+---
+
+## Contributing
+
+Found a new "didn't think of that" moment? Add it to the relevant guide.
+
+---
+
+**Core Principle**: 30 minutes of thinking saves 3 hours of debugging.