Enhance .cursor documentation and workflows

Updated the README.md to reflect new skill commands and improved descriptions for various workflows, including the addition of new skills like /test-spec, /code-review, and /release. Enhanced clarity on session boundaries and flow resolutions in the auto-chaining process.

Removed the implementer agent file as it is no longer needed. Updated coderule and meta-rule documents to enforce stricter testing and implementation standards, ensuring real results are produced rather than simulated ones.

Revised the autodev flow documentation to include a new release step and clarified the retrospective process. Adjusted the testing rules to specify coverage thresholds for critical paths.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

.cursor/skills/refactor/phases/02-analysis.md

@@ -39,6 +39,44 @@ Write `RUN_DIR/analysis/research_findings.md`:
 4. Prioritize changes by impact and effort
 5. Reject or escalate any proposed refactor that improves code structure while weakening required behavior, integration contracts, runtime constraints, safety/security posture, or acceptance criteria
 
+### 2b.1. ADR Superseding Gate (BLOCKING)
+
+A refactor that improves code structure while overturning a documented architecture decision is the silent-drift class the project repeatedly burns on (see `meta-rule.mdc` § GPS-passthrough postmortem and the auto-lessons it produced). This gate makes drift visible and forces a deliberate ADR update.
+
+1. **List candidate ADRs**: read every `Status: Accepted` file in `_docs/02_document/adr/`. If the directory does not exist or contains only the index, log `No ADRs in scope` to `RUN_DIR/analysis/adr_impact.md` and skip the rest of this gate.
+2. **Diff each candidate against the proposed refactor roadmap**: for each ADR, ask the same two questions as code-review Phase 7:
+   - **Violation**: does any roadmap item do the *opposite* of the ADR's `Decision`?
+   - **Drift**: does any roadmap item materially affect the ADR's `Consequences` (positive or negative) without contradicting the Decision outright?
+3. **Classify each impacted ADR** in `RUN_DIR/analysis/adr_impact.md`:
+
+   | ADR | Roadmap item | Impact | Required action |
+   |-----|--------------|--------|-----------------|
+   | NNN | `roadmap-item-NN` | Violation / Drift / Aligned | (filled by Choose A/B/C below) |
+
+4. **For every Violation row, present a BLOCKING Choose**:
+
+   ```
+   ══════════════════════════════════════
+    DECISION REQUIRED: Refactor would violate ADR-NNN (<title>)
+   ══════════════════════════════════════
+    A) Update the ADR via supersede: the refactor produces a NEW ADR
+       (`Supersedes: NNN`) capturing the new Decision, and ADR-NNN's
+       `Superseded by` field is updated. The supersede ADR is itself a
+       deliverable of this refactor run (added to RUN_DIR/analysis/adr_impact.md
+       and to TASKS_DIR as a task) and must be `Accepted` before Phase 4.
+    B) Reduce the refactor scope to NOT violate ADR-NNN
+    C) Re-evaluate ADR-NNN: keep the refactor but only after ADR-NNN is
+       formally re-opened in a new /plan Step 4.5 round
+   ══════════════════════════════════════
+    Recommendation: A — supersede is the only path that keeps the audit
+    trail intact while letting the refactor land
+   ══════════════════════════════════════
+   ```
+
+5. **For every Drift row**: do not block, but the roadmap item must include a `## ADR Impact` section in its task spec citing the affected ADR(s). The implementer surfaces this at code-review Phase 7, which would otherwise classify the change as ADR-Drift (High) without context.
+6. **For every Aligned row**: cite the ADR in the roadmap item's task spec under `## ADR Compliance`. No further action.
+7. **Self-supersede deliverable**: any Choose A path adds a `[##]_supersede_adr_NNN.md` task file to the refactor run's TASKS_DIR with the new ADR text drafted (using `.cursor/skills/plan/templates/adr.md`). The task's only Acceptance Criterion is "ADR file exists at `_docs/02_document/adr/<next>_<slug>.md` with `Status: Accepted`, ADR-NNN's `Superseded by` field updated, and `_docs/02_document/adr/README.md` index reflects both."
+
 Present optional hardening tracks for user to include in the roadmap:
 
 ```
@@ -67,6 +105,8 @@ Write `RUN_DIR/analysis/refactoring_roadmap.md`:
 
 **BLOCKING applicability gate**: Before 2c and 2d, every recommendation in the roadmap must be `Selected`. Items marked `Rejected` are excluded. Items marked `Experimental only` or `Needs user decision` require a user decision before task creation.
 
+**BLOCKING ADR-supersede gate**: Before 2c and 2d, every Violation row in `RUN_DIR/analysis/adr_impact.md` (from 2b.1) must be resolved via Choose A, B, or C. A Violation row with no chosen path blocks task creation.
+
 ## 2c. Create Epic
 
 Create a work item tracker epic for this refactoring run:
@@ -111,6 +151,10 @@ Convert the finalized `RUN_DIR/list-of-changes.md` into implementable task files
 - [ ] Task dependencies are consistent (no circular dependencies)
 - [ ] `_dependencies_table.md` includes all refactoring tasks
 - [ ] Every task has a work item ticket (or PENDING placeholder)
+- [ ] If `_docs/02_document/adr/` exists with Accepted ADRs, `RUN_DIR/analysis/adr_impact.md` has been written and every Violation row is resolved (A/B/C) — no implicit overrides
+- [ ] For every Violation resolved via Choose A, a `[##]_supersede_adr_NNN.md` task exists in TASKS_DIR with the drafted supersede ADR
+- [ ] For every Drift row, the corresponding roadmap-item task spec has a `## ADR Impact` section
+- [ ] For every Aligned row, the corresponding roadmap-item task spec has a `## ADR Compliance` section
 
 **Save action**: Write analysis artifacts to RUN_DIR, task files to TASKS_DIR
 

.cursor/skills/refactor/phases/03-safety-net.md

@@ -15,9 +15,9 @@ Before designing or implementing any new tests, check what already exists:
 1. Scan the project for existing test files (unit tests, integration tests, blackbox tests)
 2. Run the existing test suite — record pass/fail counts
 3. Measure current coverage against the areas being refactored (from `RUN_DIR/list-of-changes.md` file paths)
-4. Assess coverage against thresholds:
+4. Assess coverage against thresholds (canonical: see `.cursor/rules/cursor-meta.mdc` Quality Thresholds — never hardcode a different number):
    - Minimum overall coverage: 75%
-   - Critical path coverage: 90%
+   - Critical path coverage: **90% floor / 100% aim** — 90% is the enforcement floor (blocks Phase 4 if not met); 100% is the aspirational target. Refactors are NOT permitted to drop below 90% on the critical paths covered by the in-scope changes.
    - All public APIs must have blackbox tests
    - All error handling paths must be tested
 
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ For each uncovered critical area, write test specs to `RUN_DIR/test_specs/[##]_[
 4. Document any discovered issues
 
 **Self-verification**:
-- [ ] Coverage requirements met (75% overall, 90% critical paths) across existing + new tests
+- [ ] Coverage requirements met (75% overall, 90% critical-path floor — 100% aim — per canonical `cursor-meta.mdc` Quality Thresholds) across existing + new tests
 - [ ] All tests pass on current codebase
 - [ ] All public APIs in refactoring scope have blackbox tests
 - [ ] Test data fixtures are configured

.cursor/skills/refactor/phases/05-test-sync.md

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Write `RUN_DIR/test_sync/new_tests.md`:
 - [ ] All obsolete tests removed or merged
 - [ ] All pre-existing tests pass after updates
 - [ ] New code from Phase 4 has test coverage
-- [ ] Overall coverage meets or exceeds Phase 3 baseline (75% overall, 90% critical paths)
+- [ ] Overall coverage meets or exceeds Phase 3 baseline (75% overall, 90% critical-path floor / 100% aim — per `.cursor/rules/cursor-meta.mdc` Quality Thresholds)
 - [ ] No tests reference removed or renamed code
 
 **Save action**: Write test_sync artifacts; implemented tests go into the project's test folder