chore: fix preview routes, MarkdownRenderer, update opencode config

- _preview_routes.py: fix preview endpoint params for multi-language
- MarkdownRenderer.svelte: renderer fixes for assistant messages
- speckit.analyze.md: update opencode command for spec analysis
- opencode.jsonc: config alignment

.opencode/command/speckit.analyze.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-description: Perform a read-only consistency analysis across spec.md, plan.md, tasks.md, and ADR sources for the active ss-tools feature.
+description: Perform a read-only consistency analysis across spec.md, plan.md, tasks.md, contracts/modules.md, and ADR sources for the active ss-tools feature. Covers UX Contract Traceability, ATTN Rules Compliance, and decision-memory continuity.
 ---
 
 ## User Input
@@ -10,62 +10,273 @@ $ARGUMENTS
 
 You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
 
+## Required Skills
+
+MANDATORY USE `skill({name="semantics-core"})`, `skill({name="semantics-contracts"})`, `skill({name="semantics-svelte"})`.
+
 ## Goal
 
-Identify inconsistencies, ambiguities, coverage gaps, and decision-memory drift across the feature artifacts before implementation proceeds.
+Identify inconsistencies, ambiguities, coverage gaps, decision-memory drift, UX contract gaps, and ATTN-rules violations across the feature artifacts **before implementation proceeds**. This command MUST run only after `/speckit.tasks` has produced a complete `tasks.md`.
 
 ## Operating Constraints
 
-**STRICTLY READ-ONLY**: Do not modify files.
+**STRICTLY READ-ONLY**: Do **not** modify any files. Output a structured analysis report. Offer an optional remediation plan (user must explicitly approve before any follow-up edits).
 
-**Constitution Authority**: `.specify/memory/constitution.md` is the local constitutional baseline for this workflow. Conflicts with its must-level principles are CRITICAL.
+**Constitution Authority**: `.specify/memory/constitution.md` is **non-negotiable** within this analysis scope. Constitution conflicts are automatically CRITICAL and require adjustment of the spec, plan, or tasks — not dilution, reinterpretation, or silent ignoring of the principle.
 
 ## Execution Steps
 
-1. Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` and derive absolute paths for `spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`, and relevant ADR sources under `docs/adr/`.
-   - Analyze the active feature directory under `specs/<feature>/` only.
+### 1. Initialize Analysis Context
 
-2. Load minimal necessary context from:
-   - `spec.md`
-   - `plan.md`
-   - `tasks.md`
-   - `contracts/modules.md` when present
-   - `README.md`
-   - `.specify/memory/constitution.md`
-   - relevant `docs/adr/*.md`
+Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` once from repo root and parse JSON for `FEATURE_DIR` and `AVAILABLE_DOCS`. Derive absolute paths:
 
-3. Build internal inventories for:
-   - requirements
-   - user stories and acceptance criteria
-   - task coverage
-   - constitution principles
-   - ADR / decision-memory guardrails
+- `SPEC` = `FEATURE_DIR/spec.md`
+- `PLAN` = `FEATURE_DIR/plan.md`
+- `TASKS` = `FEATURE_DIR/tasks.md`
+- `CONTRACTS` = `FEATURE_DIR/contracts/modules.md` (when present)
+- `ADR` = `docs/adr/*.md` (repo-global ADR sources when referenced)
 
-4. Detect high-signal issues only:
-   - duplication
-   - ambiguity
-   - underspecification
-   - constitution conflicts
-   - coverage gaps
-   - terminology drift
-   - repository-structure mismatches (e.g., Rust/MCP paths in a Python/Svelte project)
-   - decision-memory drift and rejected-path scheduling
+Abort with an error message if any required file is missing (instruct the user to run the missing prerequisite command).
 
-5. Produce a compact Markdown report with:
-   - findings table
-   - coverage summary table
-   - decision-memory summary table
-   - constitution alignment issues
-   - unmapped tasks
-   - metrics
+### 2. Load Artifacts (Progressive Disclosure)
 
-6. Provide next actions:
-   - CRITICAL/HIGH issues should be resolved before `speckit.implement`
-   - lower-severity issues may be deferred with explicit rationale
+Load only the minimal necessary context from each artifact:
+
+**From `spec.md`:**
+- Overview / Context
+- Functional Requirements
+- Non-Functional Requirements
+- User Stories with acceptance criteria
+- Edge Cases (when present)
+
+**From `plan.md`:**
+- Architecture / stack choices
+- Data Model references
+- Phases / milestones
+- Technical constraints
+- ADR references or emitted decisions
+- Component inventory (Svelte components, Screen Models)
+
+**From `tasks.md`:**
+- Task IDs with checkbox status
+- Descriptions and exact file paths
+- Phase grouping and story labels (`[USx]`)
+- Parallel markers (`[P]`)
+- Inlined contract constraints (`@PRE`, `@POST`, `@SIDE_EFFECT`, `@TEST_EDGE`)
+- Inlined ADR guardrails (`@RATIONALE`, `@REJECTED`)
+- Referenced UX states and component names
+
+**From `contracts/modules.md` (when present):**
+- All `#region` / `[DEF:...]` contract headers
+- Complexity tiers (`[C:N]`)
+- Type annotations (`[TYPE ...]`)
+- Domain grouping (`@defgroup`, `@ingroup`)
+- `@UX_STATE`, `@UX_FEEDBACK`, `@UX_RECOVERY` annotations
+- `@UX_TEST`, `@UX_REACTIVITY` annotations
+- `@RATIONALE`, `@REJECTED` decision-memory entries
+- `@RELATION` edges
+- `@PRE`, `@POST`, `@INVARIANT`, `@DATA_CONTRACT` entries
+
+**From ADR sources:**
+- ADR IDs and status
+- `@RATIONALE` — accepted paths
+- `@REJECTED` — forbidden paths
+- `@RELATION DEPENDS_ON` edges to other ADRs
+
+**From constitution (`.specify/memory/constitution.md`):**
+- All MUST-level principles (I-VIII)
+- Verification gates
+- Development workflow steps
+
+### 3. Build Semantic Models
+
+Create internal representations (do NOT include raw artifacts in output):
+
+- **Requirements inventory**: Each functional + non-functional requirement with a stable slug key (derive from imperative phrase; e.g., "User can upload file" → `user-can-upload-file`)
+- **User story inventory**: Discrete user actions with acceptance criteria
+- **Task coverage mapping**: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories (inference by keyword / explicit reference patterns)
+- **Constitution rule set**: Extract principle names and MUST/SHOULD normative statements
+- **Decision-memory inventory**: ADR ids, accepted paths, rejected paths, and the tasks/contracts expected to inherit them
+- **UX contract inventory**: Per-component map of declared `@UX_STATE` names, `@UX_FEEDBACK` mechanisms, `@UX_RECOVERY` paths, and `@UX_TEST` scenarios from both `contracts/modules.md` and `tasks.md`
+- **ATTN rules snapshot**: For each contract in `contracts/modules.md`, record: anchor line count (ATTN_1), ID hierarchy depth (ATTN_2), `[SEMANTICS ...]` keywords and `@ingroup` presence (ATTN_3), estimated line count (ATTN_4)
+
+### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)
+
+Focus on high-signal findings. **Limit to 50 findings total**; aggregate remainder in overflow summary. Generate stable IDs prefixed by category initial.
+
+---
+
+#### A. Duplication Detection
+
+- Identify near-duplicate requirements within `spec.md`
+- Flag tasks that duplicate work across different phases without explicit dependency
+- Mark lower-quality phrasing for consolidation
+
+#### B. Ambiguity Detection
+
+- Flag vague adjectives lacking measurable criteria: "fast", "scalable", "secure", "intuitive", "robust", "reliable", "performant"
+- Flag unresolved placeholders: `TODO`, `TKTK`, `???`, `<placeholder>`, `TBD`, `TBC`
+- Flag acceptance criteria without a measurable outcome (e.g., "works correctly")
+
+#### C. Underspecification
+
+- Requirements with verbs but missing object or measurable outcome
+- User stories missing acceptance criteria alignment
+- Tasks referencing files or components not defined in `spec.md` or `plan.md`
+- Tasks lacking exact file paths (violates tasks.md generation rules)
+
+#### D. Constitution Alignment
+
+- Any requirement or plan element conflicting with a MUST principle (I-VIII)
+- Missing mandated sections or quality gates from constitution
+- Feature that contradicts ADR-guarded architectural decisions without `<ESCALATION>`
+
+#### E. Coverage Gaps
+
+- Requirements with **zero** associated tasks
+- Tasks with **no** mapped requirement or user story
+- Non-functional requirements (performance, security, RBAC) not reflected in tasks
+
+#### F. Inconsistency
+
+- **Terminology drift**: same concept named differently across `spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md` (e.g., "migration plan" vs "transfer config" vs "export bundle")
+- **Entity mismatches**: data entities referenced in `plan.md` but absent in `spec.md` (or vice versa)
+- **Task ordering contradictions**: integration tasks scheduled before foundational setup tasks without dependency note
+- **Conflicting requirements**: two requirements that cannot both be satisfied (e.g., "no database" vs "persist user preferences")
+- **Rust/MCP path contamination**: task or plan references `.rs` files, `cargo`, `src/server/`, or MCP server paths in a Python/Svelte project
+
+#### G. Decision-Memory Drift
+
+- ADR exists in `docs/adr/` with a `@REJECTED` path, but `tasks.md` schedules work implementing that rejected path
+- ADR exists with a `@RATIONALE`-guarded decision, but no downstream task carries a corresponding guardrail
+- Task carries a `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED` guardrail with no upstream ADR or plan rationale
+- Decision recorded in `contracts/modules.md` (`@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`) is not propagated to any task in `tasks.md`
+- `@REJECTED` path in `plan.md` or ADR is contradicted by later spec or task language without explicit `<ESCALATION>` decision revision
+
+#### H. UX Contract Traceability
+
+Validate Svelte component UX contracts across `contracts/modules.md` and `tasks.md`. Reference `semantics-svelte` §II (UX Contracts) and §IIIa (Reactive Screen Models).
+
+| # | Rule | Severity | What to check |
+|---|------|----------|---------------|
+| **H1** | **Missing UX Triplet** | MEDIUM (display) / HIGH (interactive) | Component contract in `contracts/modules.md` has `@UX_STATE` but is **missing** `@UX_FEEDBACK` and/or `@UX_RECOVERY`. For interactive components (forms, mutations, migrations, actions): severity HIGH. For display-only (badges, status labels): MEDIUM. |
+| **H2** | **State Name Drift** | HIGH | The set of state names declared in `@UX_STATE` for a component in `contracts/modules.md` **differs** from the state names referenced in that component's task in `tasks.md`. Example: contract says `loading/loaded/error`, task says `fetching/ready/failed`. |
+| **H3** | **Orphan UX Test** | MEDIUM | A `@UX_TEST` scenario references a state name that is **not declared** in the corresponding `@UX_STATE` list. Example: `@UX_TEST: Saving -> ...` but `@UX_STATE` only declares `idle/loading/loaded/error`. |
+| **H4** | **Untested UX State** | MEDIUM | A state declared in `@UX_STATE` has **no** corresponding `@UX_TEST` scenario. User-facing states without test coverage create blind spots for the browser Judge Agent. |
+| **H5** | **Missing UX Contract for Component** | MEDIUM | A frontend task in `tasks.md` references a Svelte component (`.svelte` file) but `contracts/modules.md` has **no** UX annotations (`@UX_STATE` / `@UX_FEEDBACK` / `@UX_RECOVERY`) for that component. |
+| **H6** | **Incomplete Recovery Path** | MEDIUM | `@UX_STATE` includes error-like states (`error`, `timeout`, `network_down`, `save_error`, `lookup_error`) but `@UX_RECOVERY` is **absent or empty**. Every error state MUST have a user recovery path. |
+| **H7** | **Inconsistent UX Annotation Style** | LOW | Within the same `contracts/modules.md`, UX annotations use mixed formats: some in HTML comments (`<!-- @UX_STATE ... -->`), some as bare tags (`@UX_STATE: ...`). Pick one style for the entire file. |
+| **H8** | **Missing Model-First Pattern** | MEDIUM | `plan.md` describes a screen with cross-widget logic (filters affecting lists, multi-step forms, pagination with search) but `contracts/modules.md` contains **no** `[TYPE Model]` contract. Complex screens MUST use the Screen Model pattern (`semantics-svelte` §IIIa). |
+
+#### I. ATTN Rules Compliance
+
+Validate that all contracts in `contracts/modules.md` comply with the Attention Architecture rules from `semantics-core` §VIII. Contracts that violate these rules become invisible to the model after context compression — causing downstream hallucination during implementation.
+
+| # | Rule | Severity | What to check |
+|---|------|----------|---------------|
+| **I1** | **ATTN_1 — Split Anchor** | HIGH | Contract opening anchor spreads across **multiple lines**. ID, `[C:N]`, `[TYPE TypeName]`, `[SEMANTICS tags]` MUST be on ONE line. CSA 4× pooling compresses multi-line anchors into separate KV records — the contract becomes invisible. Check: `#region Id [C:N] [TYPE Type] [SEMANTICS t1,t2]` is all on ONE line. |
+| **I2** | **ATTN_2 — Flat ID** | HIGH (C3+) / MEDIUM (C1-C2) | Contract ID is a single word without dot-separated domain hierarchy. After HCA 128× compression, `login_handler` is noise; `Core.Auth.Login` survives. Required: at least 2 hierarchy levels (`Domain.Name`) for C3+. For C1/C2 inside a hierarchical parent, single-level may be acceptable. |
+| **I3** | **ATTN_3 — Missing Semantic Grouping** | MEDIUM | Two contracts in the same domain use **different** primary keywords in `[SEMANTICS ...]`. Example: one auth contract has `[SEMANTICS login]`, another has `[SEMANTICS authentication]` — DSA Lightning Indexer cannot group them. Also check: module has `@defgroup` but children lack `@ingroup` (or vice versa). |
+| **I4** | **ATTN_4 — Boundary Overrun** | MEDIUM | Estimated contract length exceeds **150 lines** or module exceeds **400 lines**. Violates INV_7 (`semantics-core` §I) and sliding window visibility (`semantics-core` §VIII ATTN_4). Flag contracts/modules that appear to be over the limit based on content density. |
+| **I5** | **Missing Complexity Tag** | CRITICAL | Contract header lacks `[C:N]` complexity tier annotation. Violates INV_1: every contract MUST have a `#region`/`#endregion` with explicit complexity. Without `[C:N]`, the semantic index cannot classify the contract. |
+| **I6** | **Missing Type Tag** | HIGH | Contract header lacks `[TYPE TypeName]` annotation. The type (`Module`, `Function`, `Class`, `Component`, `Model`, `ADR`, etc.) is required for the semantic index to route relations correctly. |
+
+### 5. Severity Assignment
+
+Use this heuristic to prioritize findings:
+
+- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST principle, missing `[C:N]` complexity tag, missing core spec artifact, ADR-rejected path scheduled as work, requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality
+- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security/performance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion, ADR guardrail drift, ATTN_1 split anchor, ATTN_2 flat ID (C3+), UX state name drift, missing UX triplet on interactive component
+- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case, incomplete decision-memory propagation, ATTN_3/ATTN_4 violations, missing UX contract, orphan UX test, missing recovery path, missing Model-first pattern
+- **LOW**: Style/wording improvements, minor redundancy, inconsistent annotation formatting
+
+### 6. Produce Compact Analysis Report
+
+Output a Markdown report (no file writes) with the following structure:
+
+#### Specification Analysis Report
+
+**Findings Table:**
+
+| ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation |
+|----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------|
+| A1 | Duplication | HIGH | spec.md:L120-134 | Two similar requirements ... | Merge phrasing; keep clearer version |
+
+**Coverage Summary Table:**
+
+| Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |
+|-----------------|-----------|----------|-------|
+
+**Decision Memory Summary Table:**
+
+| ADR / Guardrail | Present in Plan | Propagated to Tasks | Rejected Path Protected | Notes |
+|-----------------|-----------------|---------------------|-------------------------|-------|
+
+**UX Contract Summary Table:**
+
+| Component | Has @UX_STATE? | Has @UX_FEEDBACK? | Has @UX_RECOVERY? | @UX_TEST Count | Issues |
+|-----------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|--------|
+
+**ATTN Rules Compliance Table:**
+
+| Contract ID | C:N | ATTN_1 (anchor) | ATTN_2 (ID) | ATTN_3 (grouping) | ATTN_4 (size) | Issues |
+|-------------|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|--------|
+
+**Constitution Alignment Issues:** (if any)
+
+**Unmapped Tasks:** (if any)
+
+**Metrics:**
+- Total Requirements: N
+- Total Tasks: N
+- Coverage % (requirements with >=1 task): N%
+- Total Contracts in modules.md: N
+- UX Contracts with Full Triplet %: N%
+- ATTN Rules Compliance %: N%
+- Ambiguity Count: N
+- Duplication Count: N
+- Critical Issues Count: N
+- ADR Count: N
+- Guardrail Drift Count: N
+
+### 7. Provide Next Actions
+
+At end of report, output a concise Next Actions block:
+
+- If **CRITICAL** issues exist: recommend resolving before `/speckit.implement`
+- If only **LOW/MEDIUM**: user may proceed, but provide improvement suggestions
+- Provide explicit command suggestions: e.g., "Run `/speckit.specify` with refinement", "Run `/speckit.plan` to adjust architecture", "Manually edit `tasks.md` to add coverage for 'performance-metrics'"
+
+### 8. Offer Remediation
+
+Ask the user: "Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the top N issues?" (Do NOT apply them automatically.)
 
 ## Analysis Rules
 
-- Treat stale Rust/MCP assumptions in plan/tasks as real defects for this Python/Svelte repository.
-- Treat missing ADR propagation as a real defect, not a documentation nit.
-- Prefer repository-real expectations (`backend/src/**/*.py`, `frontend/src/**/*.svelte`, `backend/tests/`, `frontend/src/lib/**/__tests__/`).
-- Do not treat `.kilo/plans/*` as feature artifacts for consistency analysis.
+- Treat stale Rust/MCP assumptions in plan/tasks as **real defects** for this Python/Svelte repository.
+- Treat missing ADR propagation as a **real defect**, not a documentation nit.
+- Prefer repository-real paths (`backend/src/**/*.py`, `frontend/src/**/*.svelte`, `backend/tests/`, `frontend/src/lib/**/__tests__/`).
+- Do NOT treat `.kilo/plans/*` as feature artifacts.
+
+## Operating Principles
+
+### Context Efficiency
+
+- **Minimal high-signal tokens**: focus on actionable findings, not exhaustive documentation
+- **Progressive disclosure**: load artifacts incrementally; don't dump all content into analysis
+- **Token-efficient output**: limit findings table to 50 rows; summarize overflow
+- **Deterministic results**: rerunning without changes should produce consistent IDs and counts
+
+### Analysis Guidelines
+
+- **NEVER modify files** (this is read-only analysis)
+- **NEVER hallucinate missing sections** (if absent from artifacts, report them accurately)
+- **Prioritize constitution violations** (these are always CRITICAL)
+- **Prioritize ATTN_1/ATTN_2** (split anchors and flat IDs cause downstream model blindness for all implementing agents)
+- **Use examples over exhaustive rules** (cite specific instances from artifacts, not generic patterns)
+- **Report zero issues gracefully** (emit success report with coverage statistics)
+- **Treat missing UX contract annotations as real UX debt** — every untested state is a browser-verification blind spot
+
+## Context
+
+$ARGUMENTS

.opencode/opencode.jsonc

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
         "axiom": {
       "type": "local",
       "command": ["sh", "-c","/home/busya/dev/axiom-mcp-rust-port/target/release/axiom-mcp-server-rs 2>>/tmp/axiom-server.log"],
-      "enabled": true
+      "enabled": false
     }
   }
 }