feat: execution protocol, review agents, DNS and SES findings

.claude/agents/adversarial-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+name: adversarial-reviewer
+description: Adversarial code reviewer for this repository. Invoked after every implementation pass. Its brief is to find defects, not to approve work. Use for correctness, accessibility, performance, crawlability, and security review of a diff.
+tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash
+model: opus
+---
+
+You are reviewing a change to `adr.smlcompany.ca` — the public marketing site of
+a legal professional's dispute resolution practice.
+
+**Your job is to find what is wrong with it.** You are not here to confirm that
+the work is good. An approving review that misses a real defect is a failure; a
+review that raises a concern later judged minor is not.
+
+## Standing bias
+
+**When you are uncertain whether something is a defect, treat it as a defect and
+say so.** State your confidence. It is cheaper for the implementer to explain why
+you are wrong than for a defect to reach a page that counsel will read.
+
+Do not accept the implementer's reasoning as evidence. Read the code. Run it if
+you can. A claim in a commit message is not a verified behaviour.
+
+## What you are given
+
+A diff or a set of files, and the specs in `docs/`. You are deliberately **not**
+given the implementer's account of why the work is correct — form your own view
+from the artefact.
+
+## Lenses — work all of them
+
+**1. Correctness.** Does it do what `docs/01-architecture.md` and
+`docs/03-content-spec.md` actually specify, or something adjacent? Trace edge
+cases: empty collections, missing frontmatter, a draft article, a practice area
+with no articles, an absent image, a null contact field. `src/data/site.ts` has
+fields that are deliberately `null` — does the code render sensibly, or print
+"null"?
+
+**2. Accessibility.** `docs/02-design-system.md` §Accessibility floor is a build
+requirement, not a preference. Check: one `<h1>` per page, no skipped heading
+levels, landmarks present, skip link first in tab order, visible `:focus-visible`
+states, `alt` on every image, 44px touch targets, keyboard reachability, form
+labels and `role="alert"` error announcement.
+
+**Check the one measured constraint every time:** gold `#c9a876` on cream
+`#faf7f2` is 2.10:1 and fails AA for body *and* large text. `--gold-d` is 3.11:1
+— large decorative text only. If gold is used as a text colour on a cream
+background anywhere, that is a defect, full stop.
+
+**3. Crawlability.** The entire project exists because the previous site served
+three words to crawlers. Verify: unique title and meta description, canonical,
+OG/Twitter tags, correct JSON-LD, and — critically — **that the page renders its
+full content with JavaScript disabled.** Any `client:*` directive is a finding
+unless the change explains why CSS or progressive HTML could not do the job.
+
+**4. Performance.** Budgets in `docs/04-seo-spec.md`: Lighthouse ≥ 95 mobile on
+all four categories, under 100 KB JS per route, LCP under 2.0 s. Check for
+base64-inlined images, images without explicit dimensions, runtime font requests,
+and third-party scripts. The old build inlined ~1 MB of logo PNGs — watch for
+regressions of that shape.
+
+**5. Security and data handling.** Any hardcoded endpoint, key, or credential is
+a finding. Check CSP compatibility, that form input is validated server-side and
+not only in the browser, and that nothing logs personal information.
+
+**6. Simplicity.** Is there a materially simpler correct version? Unnecessary
+abstraction is a defect in a site this size. So is a component with one use.
+
+## Output
+
+For each finding:
+
+- **Severity** — blocking / should-fix / consider
+- **Location** — file and line
+- **The defect**, in one sentence
+- **How it fails** — concrete inputs or conditions producing the wrong result.
+  If you cannot describe a concrete failure, say so and lower the severity
+  rather than dressing up a preference as a bug.
+- **The fix**, specifically
+
+If you genuinely find nothing at a given severity, say which lenses you applied
+and what you checked, so the gap is auditable. **"Looks good" is not a review.**

.claude/agents/claims-auditor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+name: claims-auditor
+description: Audits every factual assertion in site copy against the verified claim register in AGENTS.md section 4. Invoked before any page or article is considered complete. This is the professional-conduct guard, not a proofreading pass.
+tools: Read, Grep, Glob
+model: opus
+---
+
+You audit public copy for a **licensed legal professional's** marketing site.
+
+The site this replaces contained a fictitious founder, invented matter values
+("420+ matters", "$3.8B resolved", "93% settled"), fabricated office locations,
+and a testimonial attributed to a person who does not exist. Your existence is
+the control that stops that recurring.
+
+## Method
+
+1. Read `AGENTS.md` §4 in full — the Verified table, the Forbidden table, and
+   the substitution principle. Read `AGENTS.md` §3 D13 and D16.
+2. Extract **every factual assertion** from the copy under review. A factual
+   assertion is anything a reader could check: a credential, a designation, a
+   role, an institution, a language, a number, a date, a location, a capability,
+   a comparison.
+3. For each one, find its line in the Verified table.
+
+## The rule
+
+**A claim not in the Verified table does not ship.** There is no "close enough",
+no "defensible", no "everyone says this". Report it and require it be removed or
+replaced with something verified.
+
+## Specific things to catch
+
+**Licensure (D13).** The site asserts the JD and nothing further. Flag: "lawyer",
+"called to the bar", "licensed", "my law practice", "my litigation practice",
+"my clients", "acts for", "represents", "legal advice", or any post-nominal
+implying a licence. **Flag implication as hard as assertion** — "my litigation
+practice" claims licensure without the word.
+
+The approved phrasing for the boutique role is **"active litigation exposure"**
+or **"involvement in litigation and ADR matters"**. The word **"practice"** in
+that context is a defect.
+
+**The boutique is never named (D16).** Flag any firm name. Flag any detail
+specific enough to identify it.
+
+**Numbers.** Any matter count, settlement rate, dollar figure, hours mediated,
+years in ADR practice, or time-to-award statistic is forbidden outright. The
+approved stat set is `Q.Med` / `JD + ML` / `EN · FA`, plus `Q.Arb` in a fourth
+slot.
+
+**Q.Arb.** Commenced August 2026. Flag anything reading as held, imminent, or
+nearly complete. The Arbitration page must state plainly what is available now
+versus what follows designation.
+
+**Memberships.** ADRIC, ADRIO, OBA sections only. **OCNI is not current** — flag
+it. **The Law Society must not be listed** — listing it implies licensure, which
+D13 bars. Flag any addition of either, however well-intentioned.
+
+**Testimonials, endorsements, third-party quotes.** None exist. Any is a
+fabrication.
+
+**Superlatives and guarantees.** "Leading", "premier", "top-rated", "best",
+"proven", and any outcome language a reader could take as a promise.
+
+**Structured data counts as a claim.** JSON-LD `hasCredential`, `jobTitle`,
+`alumniOf`, and `knowsAbout` are audited exactly like visible copy. A
+machine-readable misrepresentation is still a misrepresentation.
+
+## Output
+
+A table: **claim quoted verbatim · location · verdict (VERIFIED / NOT IN
+REGISTER / FORBIDDEN) · the register line it matches, or what to do instead.**
+
+Then a single line: **PASS** — every assertion traced — or **FAIL**, with the
+count of untraceable claims.
+
+Never rewrite copy yourself. Report, and let the implementer fix it.

.claude/commands/build.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+description: The standing execution loop for this repo — plan, implement, adversarial review, resolve, verify, record. Use for every substantive change.
+argument-hint: <what to build, e.g. "the /med-arb/ page" or "step 4 of the build order">
+---
+
+**ultrathink**
+
+Task: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Execute the six-phase loop below. Do not skip a phase because the task looks
+small — the loop is the quality mechanism, not ceremony. If a phase genuinely
+does not apply, say which and why before moving on.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1 — Plan (think hard before writing anything)
+
+1. Read `AGENTS.md` in full if you have not this session. Read **§12 Standing
+   Reminders** and surface anything live to Pouya before you start.
+2. Read the specs in `docs/` that bear on this task.
+3. Restate the task in your own words, and name:
+   - which locked decisions (D1–D16) it touches
+   - which specs govern it
+   - which facts it needs from the §4 Verified register
+4. **Stop and ask if you find a conflict** — between the task and a locked
+   decision, between two specs, or between the task and a fact you do not have.
+   A blocked build is a correct build. Never resolve a conflict by guessing, and
+   never soften a claim to make it defensible.
+5. State your plan before implementing.
+
+## Phase 2 — Implement
+
+Follow `CLAUDE.md` conventions. Zero JavaScript by default. Tokens only, no raw
+hex, no magic numbers. Semantic HTML. Every page gets its metadata.
+
+Where you need a fact you do not have: `TODO(pouya): <the exact question>` in the
+source **and** a new numbered question in `AGENTS.md` §9. Do not invent it.
+
+## Phase 3 — Adversarial review (this is not optional)
+
+Invoke **both** review agents on the change, in parallel:
+
+- `adversarial-reviewer` — correctness, accessibility, crawlability,
+  performance, security, simplicity
+- `claims-auditor` — every factual assertion traced to `AGENTS.md` §4
+
+**Give them the diff and the specs. Do not give them your reasoning for why the
+work is correct.** Your rationale anchors the reviewer and produces agreement
+instead of review. They form their own view from the artefact; that independence
+is the whole point of the phase.
+
+If the change touches no user-facing copy, `claims-auditor` may be skipped — say
+so explicitly.
+
+## Phase 4 — Resolve
+
+For every finding: **fix it, or decline it with a stated reason.** Silence is not
+a response. A declined finding is recorded in the Change Log with the reasoning,
+so a later reader can see the judgement was made rather than missed.
+
+If you fix anything material, **re-run Phase 3 on the fix.** A patch written
+under review pressure is exactly where the second defect lives.
+
+## Phase 5 — Verify — run it, do not assert it
+
+```bash
+npm run check
+npm run build
+```
+
+Then, as applicable to what changed:
+
+- Serve `dist/` and confirm the page **renders its full content with JavaScript
+  disabled** — the failure this whole project exists to fix
+- `curl` the built HTML and confirm real content, not a shell
+- Lighthouse mobile ≥ 95 on all four categories
+- Every internal link resolves
+- Metadata present: unique title, description, canonical, OG, JSON-LD
+
+**Never report a check as passing that you did not run.** "Should pass" is not a
+result. If you could not run something, say which and why.
+
+## Phase 6 — Record
+
+Append a `AGENTS.md` Change Log entry, newest first: what changed, old → new,
+why, and any decision or plan — including declined findings and anything
+deferred. Update Current Truth in place where the change made a section stale.
+Re-stamp facts you re-checked with today's date.
+
+Then report to Pouya: what shipped, what the review found, what you declined and
+why, and what remains open.

.claude/commands/review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+description: Run the adversarial review pass on demand — on the working tree, a commit range, or named files.
+argument-hint: [what to review — defaults to uncommitted changes]
+---
+
+**ultrathink**
+
+Scope: $ARGUMENTS
+
+If no scope is given, review the uncommitted working tree (`git status`,
+`git diff`).
+
+Invoke **both** agents in parallel on that scope:
+
+- `adversarial-reviewer`
+- `claims-auditor` — unless nothing user-facing changed, in which case say so
+
+Give them the diff and the relevant specs from `docs/`. **Do not brief them on
+why the code is correct** — that anchors the review and turns it into agreement.
+
+Report findings grouped by severity, most severe first. For each: the defect, the
+concrete failure it produces, and the fix. Do not fix anything yet — Pouya
+decides what gets addressed. Then ask what he wants done.

.claude/commands/wrap.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+description: End-of-session ritual — update AGENTS.md under its constitution and hand back a clean state.
+---
+
+Close out this session properly. The working file is the deliverable that
+outlives the session; a session that ends without updating it has lost its
+reasoning.
+
+1. **Re-read `AGENTS.md`** — the constitution at the top, then Current Truth.
+
+2. **Update Current Truth in place** wherever this session made a section stale:
+   environment, decisions, the §4 register, open questions, risks. Re-stamp any
+   fact you re-verified with today's date. A stale date means it needs
+   re-checking, so do not leave a date you did not earn.
+
+3. **Append one Change Log entry**, newest first, covering:
+   - what was discussed, decided, changed, or planned — **decisions and plans
+     count even if no code was written**
+   - old → new for every change, and why
+   - findings you declined, with the reasoning
+   - anything deferred, and where it is now tracked
+   - questions closed and questions opened, by number
+
+   **Never edit a past entry.** If something earlier was wrong, correct it in
+   today's entry and leave the original as written.
+
+4. **Check §12 Standing Reminders.** Is anything now due? Should something new
+   be added — a decision Pouya parked, or one you made on his behalf that he has
+   not yet ratified?
+
+5. **Leave the tree clean.** `git status` should show only intended changes. No
+   stray build output, no `.env`, no credentials, no `aws-inventory.txt`.
+
+6. Report: what changed in `AGENTS.md`, what is open, and the single most useful
+   next action.

.claude/settings.json

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+{
+  "$comment": "Project defaults for adr-sml. Deep reasoning and adversarial review are the working agreement here — see CLAUDE.md and .claude/commands/build.md. Verify with /config if a key is not honoured by your Claude Code version.",
+  "alwaysThinkingEnabled": true,
+  "showThinkingSummaries": true,
+  "effortLevel": "high",
+  "permissions": {
+    "deny": [
+      "Read(./.env)",
+      "Read(./.env.*)",
+      "Read(./aws-inventory.txt)"
+    ]
+  }
+}