0208: Add safe workflow topology repair

[SoundBlaster]

Summary

• Add proposal 0208 for safe workflow-topology repair from structural-depth findings.
• Emit workflow_topology_gap clarification requests when a candidate has commands plus event-storming context but no workflow edges.
• Carry typed event_storming_hints.workflow_relations through rerun input, preview, and review-only materialization.
• Extend real idea answer authoring templates for event_storming_relation[] answers.

Motivation

• Why is this change needed?
• Depth-driven clarification currently can add actors/events/commands, but cannot safely repair a flat candidate topology.
• Operators should provide typed relation hints between existing refs, not patch candidate graph edges directly.

Goals

• What should this PR achieve?
• Build review-only workflow topology edges only after relation type, endpoint existence, and endpoint kind validation.
• Preserve canonical/spec/Ontology/Git authority boundaries.
• What is intentionally out of scope?
• Ontology term acceptance, canonical spec mutation, prompt-agent execution, and implementation dependency materialization.

Changes

• Added 0208_safe_workflow_topology_repair proposal, archive source, registries, README, roadmap, and DocC updates.
• Added workflow relation hint parsing/validation in rerun preview and review-only edge merge in rerun materialization.
• Added regression coverage for clarification request emission, rerun input overlay, preview validation, materialization, and answer authoring templates.

Spec Evidence

For SpecGraph logic/tooling changes, cite at least one existing SG-SPEC-####
or proposal ####. PR body is preferred; commit trailers with the same fields
are accepted. For a true no-impact change, use Spec-ID: NO-SPEC-IMPACT and
provide a rationale.

Spec-ID: N/A
Proposal-ID: 0208
Spec-Impact: behavior | schema | lifecycle | tooling
Spec-Rationale: Adds typed review-only workflow topology repair semantics to the existing idea-to-spec clarification/rerun pipeline.

Validation

• Tests added/updated for changed behavior
• Local checks passed

Commands run:

.venv/bin/python -m py_compile tools/idea_to_spec_clarification_requests.py tools/idea_to_spec_answer_rerun_input.py tools/idea_to_spec_rerun_preview.py tools/idea_to_spec_rerun_materialization.py
.venv/bin/python -m pytest tests/test_idea_to_spec_clarification_requests.py tests/test_idea_to_spec_answer_rerun_input.py tests/test_idea_to_spec_rerun_preview.py tests/test_idea_to_spec_rerun_materialization.py tests/test_real_idea_answer_authoring.py -q
make proposal-tracking-gate docc-sync PYTHON=.venv/bin/python
git diff --check
make test PYTHON=.venv/bin/python
make publish-bundle PYTHON=.venv/bin/python
make spec-evidence-gate SPEC_EVIDENCE_BASE_REF=27df57a9610a1463084e782afe62376dfcbdcf5c SPEC_EVIDENCE_HEAD_REF=f1c7ff30659a3c9feb554f8f9dbb70b8fcd62fa8

Results:

• Focused tests: 76 passed
• Proposal tracking gate: passed
• DocC sync: passed
• Full test suite: 1822 passed
• Public bundle: passed, 1316 files, safety gate passed
• Spec evidence gate: passed locally against exact PR base/head SHAs after commit evidence update

Risks / Notes

• Backward compatibility impact: additive clarification/preview/materialization fields only.
• Migration/config changes required: none.
• Known limitations: workflow topology hints must reference existing event-storming refs; this does not create new entries or patch arbitrary graph edges.

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• Scope is focused and minimal
• Documentation updated (or N/A)
• Workflow/artifact changes distinguish presence from readiness/status
• Consumers prefer authoritative repaired/promoted/latest artifacts where relevant
• Temporary or intermediate paths are scoped to the current run/task where relevant
• No secrets or sensitive data added

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: fc1a8c1c25

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".