docs(roadmap): update execution order and clarify dependencies for Ph…

docs/roadmap/current.md

@@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ pending a Gemini pricing decision.
 
 **The unified build order across both phases is in
 [Execution order — Phase 2.5.5 + Phase 2.6](#execution-order--phase-255--phase-26-temporary) below** — a
-temporary section, deleted when both phases close. Short version: **merge PR #76 first**, because Phase
-2.5.5's whole backlog is written against `f88b0e8`, which lives only on `development`.
+temporary section, deleted when both phases close. Its baseline step is discharged (PRs #76 and #77 merged);
+**the next unit of work is Wave 0's single `ci.yml`/`turbo.json`/`tsup.config.ts` PR.**
 
 ## Execution order — Phase 2.5.5 + Phase 2.6 (temporary)
 
@@ -46,25 +46,25 @@ temporary section, deleted when both phases close. Short version: **merge PR #76
 > Derived 2026-07-26 from a full pass over both phase files, their own sequencing sections, and the live
 > tree. Where it departs from a phase file's own prose, see [Departures](#departures-from-the-phase-files-own-sequencing).
 
-### Ordering root — collapse to one baseline before anything else
+### Ordering root — one baseline ✅ **discharged 2026-07-26**
 
-Verified against the live tree on 2026-07-26, and stated in neither phase file:
+The plan opened on a divergence neither phase file modelled: Phase 2.5.5's whole backlog is written against
+`f88b0e8`, which existed only on `development` behind PR #76, so every `file:line` citation in it resolved
+against a tree nobody was branching from. **PR #76 and #77 are both merged** — `f88b0e8` is on `origin/main`,
+`origin/development` and `origin/main` hold identical trees, and there are no open PRs. Every citation in
+this plan now resolves.
 
-| Fact | Value |
-|------|-------|
-| `development` vs `origin/main` | **64 commits ahead, 0 behind** |
-| Where `f88b0e8` (the 2.5.5 review baseline) lives | **`development` only — not on `main`** |
-| Open PRs | **#76** (`development` → `main`) — the only one |
-| Local `main` vs `origin/main` | **126 commits behind** |
+One consequence survives and is worth keeping until the phases close:
 
-Phase 2.5.5's entire backlog is written against `f88b0e8`. Until PR #76 merges, every `file:line`
-citation in it resolves against a tree nobody branches from, the three picker bugs and the param-rejection
-self-heal are invisible from `main`, and `a10f37b` — landed *after* the 2026-07-19 review and therefore
-unreviewed by it — silently invalidates the premise of 2.5.5.B's `#emitSuccess` catch-narrowing item and
-part of the adapter-parity sweep.
+> **Branch from `origin/development`, never from a local `main`.** A long-lived `development` merged into
+> `main` by merge commit leaves a stale local `main` behind after every PR, silently and without conflict.
+> Run `git fetch` and cut from `origin/development`.
 
-**Start here: merge PR #76.** Then publish the rule *branch from `origin/development`, never local `main`* —
-local `main` contains neither 2.6.F nor 2.6.C.
+Also settled while discharging this: `main` now carries branch protection (PR required, `lint · typecheck ·
+test` required, force-push and deletion blocked) and a `v*` tag ruleset restricting tag creation to the
+maintain/admin roles — closing the Phase-0 obligation that made `ci.yml`'s own "REQUIRED status check"
+comment untrue. `release.yml` asserts its ref is reachable from `main` before `pack`, so **2.5.5.H's `G26`
+is closed ahead of Wave 0**.
 
 ### The three axes this order is built on
 
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ any order"* — never as headcount.
 
 ```mermaid
 flowchart TD
-    W0["Wave 0 — One true baseline<br/>PR #76 · CI truth · numbers"]
+    W0["Wave 0 — One true baseline<br/>baseline ✅ · CI truth · numbers"]
     W1["Wave 1 — Stop the bleeding<br/>3 CRITICALs · cost cap"]
     W2["Wave 2 — Shut the doors<br/>MCP · fs jail · secrets<br/>certifies 2.5.5 EXIT 1–3"]
     W3["Wave 3 — Clear the ground<br/>god-file decomposition · CLI net"]
@@ -103,23 +103,27 @@ flowchart TD
 Collapse the divergence, make the required gate execute the artifact it ships, and fix the review
 checklists before ~30 security-gated PRs are reviewed against them.
 
-1. **Merge PR #76** (carries 2.6.Q P1–P5, ADR-0071/0072, the three picker bugs, the param self-heal).
+1. ✅ **Merge PR #76** (2.6.Q P1–P5, ADR-0071/0072, the three picker bugs, the param self-heal) — **done
+   2026-07-26**, along with #77 (this plan + the Phase-2.5.5 opening + `release.yml`'s `G26` ancestry gate).
 2. **Reserve numbers**, one per number in landing order — migrations end at `0012` and ADRs at `0072`
    (verified): `0013` = the Wave-1 approval-preview scrub · `0014` = 2.5.5.C's enum CHECKs (#101) ·
    `0015` = 2.6.H · `0016` = 2.6.G's pins · `0017` = 2.6.N lineage; **ADR-0073+** for the nine unwritten 2.6 ADRs.
 3. **One `ci.yml`/`turbo.json`/`tsup.config.ts` PR** (a five-way collision file — do not split):
    2.5.5.H · the required gate never runs the compiled binary + undeclared `drizzle` output (#294, #315) →
    local `pnpm ci` vs `ci.yml` divergence (#312) → the coverage-floor **ruling and its implementation**
    (#296, #152) → the `(advisory)` labels (#320) → `THIRD_PARTY_EXTERNAL` (G27, #248) → bundle-closure
-   single-chunk assert (#314) → `release.yml`'s in-workflow ancestor check (G26) → `sync:models:check` (#317).
+   single-chunk assert (#314) → `sync:models:check` (#317). *(`release.yml`'s ancestry check, `G26`, already
+   landed in #77; only its tag-protection half remains, and that is now configured too.)*
 4. 2.5.5.F · **three skills' hardcoded foreign-project paths** (#162) — filed as docs, actually a functional
    bug: they write outside the repo.
 5. **One markdown PR** (shared files): `packages/mcp` missing from five inventory tables (#128, #129, #153,
    #163, #254) + the two review-checklist gaps (#164, #167) + the CLAUDE.md/README i18n clause (#74, #260, #134).
 6. The **locale-bar amendment** (decision D5) and the **snapshot regen** after the Gemini price ruling (D3).
 
-> Why first: nothing lands cleanly around a 64-commit divergence, and every wave after this adds a
-> migration. The coverage gate must flip *before* ~120 items land, not mid-flight.
+> Why first: every wave after this adds a migration, and the required gate still does not execute the
+> binary it ships while turbo does not declare `apps/cli/drizzle/**` as a build output — so a cache-hit
+> replay can leave `dist/index.js` fresh beside a stale `drizzle/`, crashing on first DB touch. The
+> coverage gate must also flip *before* ~120 items land, not mid-flight.
 
 ### Wave 1 — Stop the bleeding
 
@@ -288,7 +292,7 @@ Exit criterion 2: no routine task requires a shell subcommand.
 
 ### Wave 6 — Hands, voice and lineage
 
-Exit criteria 3 and 4, plus the child-session foundation — so the riskiest wave does not also carry its
+Phase-2.6 go/no-go criteria 3 and 4, plus the child-session foundation — so the riskiest wave does not also carry its
 lineage work.
 
 1. **ADR row 9** (toolbelt + tool-render/approval-preview contract + `ask_user`'s mid-turn engine pause)
@@ -300,7 +304,7 @@ lineage work.
    `/rewind`-vs-child-sessions moves to Wave 7 (it gates on 2.6.N).
 4. **ADR row 12** (child-session foundation) → **2.6.N's foundation**: lineage, standardized I/O, the
    injected artifact-store port, catalog spawn, the depth-3/concurrency-5 guardrails.
-5. **Certify exit criteria 3 and 4 here**, not in Wave 7 — `invoke_agent` gates only on 2.6.N, which lands here.
+5. **Certify Phase-2.6 go/no-go criteria 3 and 4 here**, not in Wave 7 — `invoke_agent` gates only on 2.6.N, which lands here.
 
 ### Wave 7 — Orchestration and the gate
 
@@ -361,7 +365,8 @@ unanswered**; the remainder sit inline in their own phase-file bullet.
 This ordering is compatible with both phase files' stated dependencies. It departs from their prose in six
 places, each deliberate:
 
-1. **A baseline step neither file has.** Both treat `f88b0e8` as the working tree; it is not on `main`.
+1. **A baseline step neither file has.** Both treated `f88b0e8` as the working tree while it was not yet on
+   `main`. Discharged 2026-07-26; kept here because it is why Wave 0 exists at all.
 2. **2.5.5's recommended order is A+C → D+I → E → B+H → F+G.** This keeps its risk instinct but re-cuts the
    batches by **file**, because ~40 files are edited by both a 2.5.5 item and a 2.6 item. Sub-stream letters
    are filing conventions, not batching units — every split above is declared.
@@ -388,9 +393,10 @@ plumbing + inline & async output generation + generative adapters, 1.m6, 1.AD–
 [Phase 1 detail](phases/phase-1-engine-and-llm.md), the [decision index](../decisions/),
 and the [reference specs](../reference/).
 
-> **Live maintainer obligations:** (1) mark the CI `ci` job a **required check** in GitHub branch
-> protection (carried from Phase 0; optionally add `TURBO_TOKEN`/`TURBO_TEAM` secrets for the
-> cross-runner remote cache); (2) now that **2.L** has landed (PR #49) and **v0.1.1** has been cut, add the
+> **Live maintainer obligations:** (1) ✅ **done 2026-07-26** — the CI `ci` job is now a **required check**
+> under branch protection on `main` (PR required, force-push/deletion blocked), alongside a `v*` tag ruleset
+> limiting tag creation to maintain/admin; the optional `TURBO_TOKEN`/`TURBO_TEAM` secrets for the
+> cross-runner remote cache are still unset; (2) now that **2.L** has landed (PR #49) and **v0.1.1** has been cut, add the
 > **`NPM_TOKEN`** repo secret + npm 2FA so the tag-triggered `Release CLI` workflow can publish — **still pending
 > for the v0.1.1 tag** (the actual `npm publish` is maintainer-gated,
 > [ADR-0051](../decisions/0051-cli-distribution-thin-bundle-private-engine.md) /

docs/roadmap/deferred-tasks.md

@@ -1232,7 +1232,7 @@ future test cannot silently re-acquire it.
 > **2026-07-19 — full-project review.** A 377-finding multi-agent code review at HEAD `f88b0e8` was
 > adversarially verified down to 373 confirmed findings — one agent per finding tried to refute it against
 > the code, a second audited its materiality — with the toolchain green throughout (lint, typecheck, all 226
-> test files passing): every finding below is a defect a green build cannot catch. The bulk (205 work items)
+> test files passing): every finding below is a defect a green build cannot catch. The bulk (176 of the 205 triaged work items)
 > now live in [phases/phase-2.5.5-hardening-and-remediation.md](phases/phase-2.5.5-hardening-and-remediation.md).
 > Sixteen of the review's findings turned out to duplicate items already recorded in this file — each already
 > carries an accurate `Scheduled →` marker (2.6.B/2.6.H/2.6.I/2.6.K/2.6.M/2.6.Q) or an accurate "no owner yet"

docs/roadmap/phases/phase-2.5.5-hardening-and-remediation.md

@@ -57,7 +57,14 @@ completing first — each is centred on its own subsystem (`packages/core`, `pac
 `packages/db`, `packages/mcp` + secrets, `apps/cli`'s process layer, `apps/cli`'s TUI layer,
 `docs/`, cross-cutting hygiene, and the CI/tooling substrate). The sub-streams are **not**,
 however, fully file-disjoint, so "any order" holds between disjoint queues rather than across
-the phase as a whole. Two overlaps are known and must be serialized rather than run in parallel:
+the phase as a whole. Ownership is not pairwise: `home-controller.ts` and `chat.ts` are each edited
+from **four** sub-streams (E, F, G and I), `chat-ink.tsx` from three (E, G, I), and `viewport.ts` and
+`client.ts` from two each. The operative rule that falls out is short — **2.5.5.I lands last on every
+god-file**, because its work is decomposition and everything else is edits that decomposition would
+otherwise have to re-apply. The five bullets below record the landing order for the overlaps the review
+surfaced; they are not a proof of completeness, so the standing discipline is to **compare the file list
+in a bullet's `(S/M/L · files · findings)` trailer against the other sub-streams before parallelizing
+anything**:
 
 - **2.5.5.C ↔ 2.5.5.E on `packages/db/src/client.ts`** — C gives `createClient` a typed error and
   corrects its PRAGMA docstring (`#104`, `#105`); E moves the wrap-and-redact logic inside
@@ -68,6 +75,14 @@ the phase as a whole. Two overlaps are known and must be serialized rather than
   `const exhaustive: never` sweep (`#300`, `#301`, `G3`); I decomposes `createHomeController`
   (`#215`, `#243`) and applies the min-terminal-size guard (`#63`). **E's items land first**, so the
   decomposition moves already-guarded code.
+- **2.5.5.F ↔ 2.5.5.I on `home-controller.ts`** — F wires Home's `showCost` past its no-op (`#125`),
+  which edits a line *inside* the function I dissolves (`#215`, `#243`). **F lands first.**
+- **2.5.5.G ↔ 2.5.5.I on `apps/cli/src/commands/chat.ts`** — G replaces the hand-rolled money helpers
+  (`#236`, `#307`) and renames `swapAgentModel` (`#218`); I decomposes the file (`#220`, `#244`).
+  **G lands first**, so the decomposition moves already-canonical code.
+- **2.5.5.G ↔ 2.5.5.I on `apps/cli/src/render/tui/viewport.ts`** — G makes width measurement
+  tab-aware (`#65`); I caches per-cluster widths and debounces resize invalidation (`#64`, `#66`).
+  Both rewrite `graphemeWidth`. **G lands first**, so the cache is built over the corrected measure.
 
 Everything else may proceed concurrently. The cross-phase file-ownership preferences are separate
 and are called out under [Positioning](#positioning).
@@ -85,8 +100,14 @@ reached.
   (`#91`, `packages/core/src/tools/registry.ts`'s `previewFor()`), the chat persister's
   unhandled-promise-rejection crash path (`#228`, `apps/cli/src/chat/persister.ts`), and the
   unsanitized `relavium run` TUI (`#56`, `apps/cli/src/render/tui/RunApp.tsx`) — are closed and
-  regression-tested. `#56` lands with 2.5.5.I rather than 2.5.5.A/C, so it certifies under
-  M2.5.5-2; the severity is the traceability appendix's own, not a reclassification.
+  regression-tested. `#56` lands with 2.5.5.I rather than 2.5.5.A/C, so it certifies under M2.5.5-2.
+  > **`#56`'s severity is contested and needs a maintainer ruling.** The traceability appendix below —
+  > the only classification that ships in git — records it `critical`, and this file follows it. The
+  > untracked review corpus's executive summary argues the corpus's real critical count is **2**, on the
+  > grounds that `#56`'s verifier recommended `high` and the aggregate severity field never picked the
+  > correction up. Nothing downstream changes either way: `#56` is scheduled in Wave 1 and gated by exit
+  > criterion 2's security review regardless. Rule it once, then make the appendix, the exec summary and
+  > this bullet agree.
 - `relavium run`'s TUI, the persisted run summary, the universal error boundary, and the
   human-gate approval card all sanitize dynamic/model-controlled text the same way chat
   already does — a security review confirms the injection class is closed.
@@ -421,33 +442,40 @@ This substream is the development-process substrate itself — `.github/workflow
 
 All nine sub-streams are independent (`dependsOn` is empty on every one) — no sub-stream must
 complete before another starts. They are **not** all file-disjoint, though, so concurrency runs
-between disjoint queues rather than across the phase as a whole: the two known overlaps
-(2.5.5.C ↔ 2.5.5.E on `packages/db/src/client.ts`, and 2.5.5.E ↔ 2.5.5.I on
-`home-controller.ts`/`chat-ink.tsx`) carry a required landing order, recorded under
-[Positioning](#positioning). The order below is a value/risk recommendation, not a dependency
+between disjoint queues rather than across the phase as a whole: the five known overlaps — on
+`packages/db/src/client.ts`, `home-controller.ts`/`chat-ink.tsx`, `chat.ts` and `viewport.ts` —
+each carry a required landing order, recorded under [Positioning](#positioning). The order below is a value/risk recommendation, not a dependency
 chain, leading with safety-critical work:
 
 1. **2.5.5.A and 2.5.5.C first** — each contains one CRITICAL, self-contained defect (the
    approval-preview secret leak; the chat-persister crash) with a small, well-understood
    blast radius. Land these before anything else touches the same files.
-2. **2.5.5.D and 2.5.5.I next** — both close CRITICAL/live security gaps with no existing
-   coverage (MCP tool-definition poisoning, the config-layer secret hijack, terminal-control
-   injection into `relavium run`). Within 2.5.5.I, the `chat.ts`/`home-controller.ts`
-   decompositions are the one item worth sequencing deliberately: land them **before** Phase
-   2.6's **2.6.G** and **2.6.E** add substantial new code to either file, to avoid a large,
-   conflict-prone rebase later. This is a cross-phase file-ownership preference, not a
-   2.5.5-internal dependency.
-3. **2.5.5.E** — the broadest user-facing surface (every command passes through it), best
-   landed once the engine/data/security fixes above are stable under it.
+2. **2.5.5.D next** — it closes CRITICAL/live security gaps with no existing coverage (MCP
+   tool-definition poisoning, the config-layer secret hijack), and it shares no file with any
+   other sub-stream.
+3. **2.5.5.E, then 2.5.5.I** — in that order, not the reverse. E is the broadest user-facing
+   surface (every command passes through it) and is best landed once the engine/data/security
+   fixes above are stable under it; I's decompositions must then move already-guarded,
+   already-canonical code, per the overlap rules above. Two carve-outs: I's terminal-control
+   sanitization item (`#56`, `G34`, `G44`, `#57`) is a CRITICAL sharing no file with E's queue, so it is
+   pulled ahead alongside step 1; and the four **step-5 items that collide with I** — F's `showCost`
+   wiring (`#125`) and G's `chat.ts`/`viewport.ts` items (`#236`, `#307`, `#218`, `#65`) — are pulled
+   **forward to here**, ahead of I, rather than waiting for step 5. Within I, the `chat.ts`/`home-controller.ts` decompositions
+   additionally want to land **before** Phase 2.6's **2.6.G** and **2.6.E** add substantial new code
+   to either file, to avoid a large, conflict-prone rebase later — a cross-phase file-ownership
+   preference, not a 2.5.5-internal dependency.
 4. **2.5.5.B and 2.5.5.H** — money-correctness and process-substrate hardening; neither is
    time-critical, both benefit from the same shared-fixture-per-guard discipline the security
    items above establish.
-5. **2.5.5.F and 2.5.5.G** — documentation accuracy and codebase hygiene; zero runtime risk,
-   safe to run last or interleaved with any of the above at any point.
-
-The three items with an explicit cross-phase preference (the two 2.5.5.I decompositions, and
-the authoring run-path tool-preflight item filed directly as a 2.6.A work item) are the only
-sequencing constraints in this phase; everything else is scheduler's choice.
+5. **2.5.5.F and 2.5.5.G** — documentation accuracy and codebase hygiene; zero runtime risk, safe to
+   interleave anywhere. Minus the four items pulled forward into step 3 (F's `#125`; G's `#236`,
+   `#307`, `#218`, `#65`), which must precede 2.5.5.I on the files they share.
+
+Two constraint sets bind, and nothing else does. **Cross-phase:** the three items with an explicit
+preference (the two 2.5.5.I decompositions, and the authoring run-path tool-preflight item filed
+directly as a 2.6.A work item). **Intra-phase:** the five file overlaps recorded under
+[Positioning](#positioning) (`client.ts`, `home-controller.ts`/`chat-ink.tsx`, `chat.ts`,
+`viewport.ts`). Everything outside those two sets is scheduler's choice.
 
 ## Dependencies