Revert "feat(godot): Phase 5 Sub-Phase 3 - Inspector Integration Complete (Bundles 5-8)"

.github/prompts/workstream-execution.prompt.md

@@ -1373,380 +1373,7 @@ For everything else: **proceed with best effort and document assumptions**.
 
 ---
 
-## �️ Proven Patterns for Complex Tasks (FerrisScript Learnings)
-
-**When to Use These Patterns**: Multi-hour implementations (4+ hours), cross-crate changes, reflection/metadata systems, or features touching multiple pipeline stages.
-
-### Pattern 1: Checkpoint Methodology ✅
-
-**Source**: Phase 4.5 struct literal implementation (50% faster than Phase 4)
-
-**Problem**: Large features are hard to pause/resume, risky to implement all-at-once
-
-**Solution**: Break into 8 structured checkpoints with natural test/commit points
-
-**Checkpoint Structure**:
-
-1. **Checkpoint 1-2**: Foundation (AST nodes, basic parsing)
-2. **Checkpoint 3-4**: Core logic (type checking, validation)
-3. **Checkpoint 5-6**: Integration (runtime, conversions)
-4. **Checkpoint 7**: Error handling + recovery
-5. **Checkpoint 8**: Integration tests + documentation
-
-**Benefits**:
-
-- Natural pause points every 15-30 minutes
-- Easy to resume work (clear next checkpoint)
-- Early bug detection (test after each checkpoint)
-- Clear progress tracking (8/8 checkpoints = done)
-
-**Example Application** (Phase 4.5):
-
-- Checkpoint 1: AST StructLiteral node
-- Checkpoint 2: Parser basic syntax (`Type { }`)
-- Checkpoint 3: Parser field parsing (`field: value`)
-- Checkpoint 4: Type checker validate type name
-- Checkpoint 5: Type checker validate fields
-- Checkpoint 6: Runtime evaluate literal
-- Checkpoint 7: Error recovery (missing fields)
-- Checkpoint 8: Integration tests (all types)
-
-**How to Apply**:
-
-- For 4-6 hour feature: 8 checkpoints (~30 min each)
-- For 10+ hour feature: 3 sub-phases × 8 checkpoints each (24 total)
-- Test after each checkpoint (no commit until passing)
-- Document checkpoint completion in execution plan
-
-**Metrics**: 50% faster implementation, 3 bugs caught early (vs late-stage rework)
-
----
-
-### Pattern 2: MVP + Robustness Split ✅
-
-**Source**: Phase 4.5 robustness testing (39 tests added after MVP)
-
-**Problem**: Trying to cover all edge cases during MVP slows progress
-
-**Solution**: Separate MVP implementation from robustness testing
-
-**MVP Phase** (Focus on happy path):
-
-- Basic functionality working
-- Core tests passing (feature works)
-- Integration with existing systems
-
-**Robustness Phase** (Focus on edge cases):
-
-- Missing/wrong/extra data
-- Type coercion and conversions
-- Error recovery and diagnostics
-- Integration examples
-- Performance edge cases
-
-**Benefits**:
-
-- MVP completes faster (don't get stuck on edge cases)
-- MVP proves feasibility early
-- Robustness testing validates production-readiness
-- Zero bugs found during robustness = good MVP quality
-
-**Example Application** (Phase 4.5):
-
-**MVP** (2.5 hours):
-
-- Struct literal syntax working
-- 31 tests re-enabled
-- 548 tests passing
-
-**Robustness** (3 hours):
-
-- 27 compiler edge case tests
-- 12 runtime execution tests
-- 5 integration examples
-- 587 tests passing (+39)
-
-**How to Apply**:
-
-- MVP first: Get feature working, basic tests passing
-- Commit MVP: "feat: [Feature] MVP complete"
-- Robustness next: Add edge case tests, examples
-- Commit robustness: "feat: [Feature] complete - robustness testing"
-
-**Metrics**: 0 bugs found during robustness testing (good MVP indicator)
-
----
-
-### Pattern 3: Error Code Semantic Grouping ✅
-
-**Source**: Phase 4.5 struct literal errors (E701-E710 range)
-
-**Problem**: Large error code ranges (E100-E199) hard to navigate
-
-**Solution**: Allocate semantic ranges for feature families
-
-**Grouping Strategy**:
-
-- E70x: Struct literal errors (all types)
-- E801-E815: Export annotation errors (future)
-- Semantic > unique codes per type
-
-**Benefits**:
-
-- Easy to find related errors (all struct errors start with E7)
-- Can reuse codes across similar types (E701 = unknown field on ANY type)
-- Clear documentation patterns (E70x documentation section)
-
-**Example Application** (Phase 4.5):
-
-- E701-E703: Unknown field (Color, Rect2, Transform2D)
-- E704-E706: Missing field (reserved for future)
-- E707-E710: Type mismatch (reserved for future)
-- Reused E205 for Vector2 (existing error code)
-
-**How to Apply**:
-
-- Allocate 10-15 code range for feature
-- Group by category (parser, type checker, runtime)
-- Reuse codes across similar types
-- Document range in ERROR_CODES.md
-
-**Anti-Pattern**: E701 = Color field, E702 = Rect2 field → hard to remember
-
----
-
-### Pattern 4: Integration Examples as Tests ✅
-
-**Source**: Phase 4.5 integration examples (5 .ferris files)
-
-**Problem**: Unit tests don't validate real-world usage patterns
-
-**Solution**: Create example files demonstrating practical patterns
-
-**Example File Structure**:
-
-```rust
-// examples/struct_literals_color.ferris
-# TEST: Color RGBA manipulation
-# CATEGORY: Type System
-# DESCRIPTION: Demonstrates Color struct literals with integer coercion
-# EXPECT: success
-
-// Real-world code here
-let red = Color { r: 1, g: 0, b: 0, a: 1 };  // Integer coercion
-```
-
-**Benefits**:
-
-- Examples serve as documentation
-- Examples validate real-world patterns
-- Examples can be used in test harness (metadata protocol)
-- Examples show best practices
-
-**Example Application** (Phase 4.5):
-
-- `struct_literals_color.ferris` - RGBA manipulation
-- `struct_literals_vector2.ferris` - Vector math
-- `struct_literals_rect2.ferris` - Boundaries
-- `struct_literals_transform2d.ferris` - Transformations
-- `struct_literals_functions.ferris` - Function patterns
-
-**How to Apply**:
-
-- Create 3-5 example files per feature
-- Include TEST metadata for harness integration
-- Demonstrate practical patterns (not just syntax)
-- Add to examples/ directory
-
-**Note**: Examples may not run through test harness immediately (Phase 5 work), but serve as reference
-
----
-
-### Pattern 5: Sub-Phase Decomposition ✅
-
-**Source**: Phase 5 execution plan (3 sub-phases for @export)
-
-**Problem**: 20+ hour features too large for single-session implementation
-
-**Solution**: Decompose into independent sub-phases
-
-**Sub-Phase Structure**:
-
-1. **Sub-Phase 1: Parser & AST** (4-6 hours)
-   - Lexer tokens
-   - Parser grammar extension
-   - AST node definitions
-   - 8 checkpoints
-
-2. **Sub-Phase 2: Type Checker & Validation** (5-7 hours)
-   - Semantic validation
-   - Error code implementation
-   - Compatibility matrix
-   - 8 checkpoints
-
-3. **Sub-Phase 3: Runtime & Integration** (9-13 hours)
-   - Metadata storage
-   - Cross-crate integration
-   - Godot binding
-   - 8 checkpoints
-
-**Benefits**:
-
-- Each sub-phase can be implemented in separate session
-- Clear dependencies (must do Phase 1 before Phase 2)
-- Natural commit points (commit after each sub-phase)
-- Parallel work possible (if independent)
-
-**Example Application** (Phase 5):
-
-- Session 1: Parser + AST (4-6 hours)
-- Session 2: Type Checker (5-7 hours)
-- Session 3: Runtime + Godot (9-13 hours)
-- Total: 18-26 hours across 3 sessions
-
-**How to Apply**:
-
-- For 10+ hour feature: Split into 3 sub-phases
-- For 20+ hour feature: Split into 3-4 sub-phases
-- Each sub-phase has 8 checkpoints
-- Document sub-phase dependencies in execution plan
-
-**Metrics**: Phase 5 estimate = 23-31 hours → 3 sub-phases × 8 checkpoints = 24 total
-
----
-
-### Pattern 6: Test-First Checkpoint Validation ✅
-
-**Source**: Phase 4.5 zero bugs during robustness testing
-
-**Problem**: Late-stage bugs require rework and context switching
-
-**Solution**: Write tests before implementation, validate at each checkpoint
-
-**Test-First Workflow**:
-
-1. Write test for checkpoint functionality
-2. Run test (expect failure)
-3. Implement checkpoint code
-4. Run test (expect pass)
-5. Move to next checkpoint
-
-**Benefits**:
-
-- Tests catch issues immediately
-- Clear success criteria (test passes = checkpoint done)
-- Zero bugs found during robustness = good quality
-- Tests serve as specification
-
-**Example Application** (Phase 4.5):
-
-- Checkpoint 3: Type checker validate type name
-  - Test: `test_struct_literal_wrong_type_name()` (write first)
-  - Implement: Type name validation (implement second)
-  - Result: Test passes → checkpoint complete
-
-**How to Apply**:
-
-- Write test before each checkpoint
-- Run test after implementation
-- Don't move to next checkpoint until tests pass
-- Document test count in checkpoint tracking
-
-**Metrics**: 0 bugs found during robustness testing = MVP quality validated
-
----
-
-### Pattern 7: Execution Plan Template ✅
-
-**Source**: Phase 5 execution plan (comprehensive planning doc)
-
-**Problem**: Ad-hoc planning leads to scope creep and missed requirements
-
-**Solution**: Use structured execution plan template
-
-**Required Sections**:
-
-1. **Executive Summary** (goal, scope, why deferred if applicable)
-2. **Effort Estimation** (breakdown by category, total hours)
-3. **Sub-Phase Breakdown** (if 10+ hours)
-4. **Checkpoint Tracking** (24 total for complex features)
-5. **Testing Strategy** (MVP + robustness split)
-6. **Error Code Definitions** (allocated range)
-7. **File Modifications** (what will change)
-8. **Success Criteria** (functional + quality + integration)
-9. **Learnings from Previous Phases** (apply proven patterns)
-10. **Implementation Notes** (technical approach)
-
-**Benefits**:
-
-- Complete planning before implementation
-- Clear scope and requirements
-- Effort estimation for scheduling
-- Pattern reuse (apply Phase 4.5 learnings)
-
-**Example Application** (Phase 5):
-
-- 23-31 hour estimate (6 categories)
-- 3 sub-phases (Parser, Type Checker, Runtime)
-- 24 checkpoints (8 per sub-phase)
-- 51 total tests (30 MVP + 21 robustness)
-- Learnings from Phase 4.5 applied
-
-**How to Apply**:
-
-- Create execution plan before implementation
-- Use PHASE_X_EXECUTION_PLAN.md template
-- Document all decisions and assumptions
-- Update plan during implementation
-
----
-
-### When to Use These Patterns
-
-**Use Checkpoint Methodology When**:
-
-- Feature will take 4+ hours
-- Multiple pipeline stages affected (parser + type checker + runtime)
-- Easy to get lost in implementation details
-
-**Use MVP + Robustness Split When**:
-
-- Feature has many edge cases
-- Want to prove feasibility quickly
-- Risk of scope creep
-
-**Use Sub-Phase Decomposition When**:
-
-- Feature will take 10+ hours
-- Can break into independent phases
-- Want to implement across multiple sessions
-
-**Use Test-First Validation When**:
-
-- Feature has clear specifications
-- Want to minimize bugs
-- Need confidence in implementation quality
-
-**Use All Patterns Together When**:
-
-- Complex feature (20+ hours)
-- Cross-crate changes
-- Reflection/metadata systems
-- High-risk implementation
-
-**Example**: Phase 5 @export uses ALL patterns:
-
-- ✅ Checkpoint methodology (24 checkpoints)
-- ✅ MVP + robustness split (30 MVP + 21 robustness)
-- ✅ Sub-phase decomposition (3 sub-phases)
-- ✅ Error code grouping (E801-E815)
-- ✅ Integration examples (3 files)
-- ✅ Test-first validation (51 tests)
-- ✅ Execution plan template (comprehensive doc)
-
----
-
-## �🎭 Your Role & Expertise
+## 🎭 Your Role & Expertise
 
 You are a **senior software engineer** with:
 

.gitignore

@@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ node_modules/
 
 # Temporary files (PR bodies, scripts)
 /temp/
-.github/PR_DESCRIPTION.md
 
 # OS
 Thumbs.db