Overhaul Emil prompt (#651)

Rewrite Emil identity: design-eng laws review with craft + software-law
lenses and no fixes, blinders-on to the brief, no tool-schema restatement
or fake caps. Keep package id/path as emil.

Closes CL-7031

Author: TheGreatAxios

src/agent/directors/emil/package.test.ts

@@ -11,18 +11,72 @@ describe("emilPackage", () => {
     expect(emilPackage.systemPrompt.startsWith("Placeholder")).toBe(false);
   });
 
+  test("systemPrompt identity is Emil / EmilDirector (package id stays emil)", () => {
+    const p = emilPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).toMatch(/EmilDirector \(Emil\)/);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/design-eng laws lane only/i);
+  });
+
   test("systemPrompt states PRIMARY INTENT", () => {
     expect(emilPackage.systemPrompt).toMatch(/PRIMARY INTENT/i);
     expect(emilPackage.systemPrompt).toContain("build (fixes)");
   });
 
+  test("systemPrompt is design-eng laws review, never-fix", () => {
+    const p = emilPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).toMatch(/design-engineering laws review/i);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/never fix/i);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/cite at least one per finding/i);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/Design-engineering craft/i);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/Animate with purpose/i);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/Easing & speed/i);
+    expect(p).toContain("route to draper");
+    expect(p).toContain("route to brand-reviewer");
+    expect(p).toContain("route to critique");
+  });
+
+  test("systemPrompt has blinders-on / brief-scoped design-eng review", () => {
+    const p = emilPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).toMatch(/BLINDERS ON/i);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/success_criteria/i);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/Do not wander/i);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/invent law violations from vibes/i);
+  });
+
+  test("systemPrompt keeps classic software laws as secondary lenses", () => {
+    const p = emilPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).toMatch(/YAGNI/);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/Principle of Least Astonishment/);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/Broken Windows/);
+    expect(p).toMatch(/No implementation prescriptions/i);
+  });
+
+  test("systemPrompt has no tool-schema restatement or fake caps", () => {
+    const p = emilPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/parameters?:/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/fan-out/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/at most \d+/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/turn budget/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/scheduler/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/Prefer grep\/search_files/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/Shell find\/rg/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/Write tools are not mounted/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/via run_shell/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/not temp test files/i);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/# Report shape/);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/## Summary/);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/Never spawn/);
+    expect(p).not.toMatch(/Never commit/);
+  });
+
   test("spawn.maySpawn is false", () => {
     expect(emilPackage.spawn.maySpawn).toBe(false);
   });
 
   test("tools.allow is review surface without product writes", () => {
     const allow = emilPackage.tools?.allow ?? [];
     expect(allow).toContain("read_file");
+    expect(allow).not.toContain("use_skill");
     expect(allow).not.toContain("write_file");
     expect(allow).not.toContain("edit_file");
     expect(allow).not.toContain("delete_file");
@@ -34,9 +88,14 @@ describe("emilPackage", () => {
 
   test("primaryIntent and outOfLane match emil lane", () => {
     expect(emilPackage.primaryIntent).toBe(
-      "Design-engineering + laws from a development perspective",
+      "Design-engineering laws review; never fix product code",
     );
     expect(emilPackage.outOfLane).toContain("shipping product code without design brief");
     expect(emilPackage.outOfLane).toContain("marketing content");
+    expect(emilPackage.outOfLane).toContain("applying product fixes");
+    expect(emilPackage.outOfLane).toContain("suggesting full rewrites as implementer");
+    expect(emilPackage.outOfLane).toContain("CBS visual token ownership (draper)");
+    expect(emilPackage.outOfLane).toContain("DESIGN.md ownership (brand-reviewer)");
+    expect(emilPackage.outOfLane).toContain("correctness-severity ownership (critique)");
   });
 });

src/agent/directors/emil/package.ts

@@ -2,71 +2,84 @@ import type { DirectorPackage } from "../types.js";
 import { REVIEW_TOOLS } from "../tool-sets.js";
 
 /**
- * Emil — design-engineering + software-laws critique (dev-scoped). CL-5827.
+ * Emil — design-engineering + software-laws critique (dev-scoped). CL-5827 / CL-7031.
  * Named after Emil Kowalski craft principles; never fixes product code.
+ * Package id/path stays `emil` (global rename is out of scope).
  */
 export const emilPackage: DirectorPackage = {
   id: "emil",
-  primaryIntent: "Design-engineering + laws from a development perspective",
+  primaryIntent: "Design-engineering laws review; never fix product code",
   outOfLane: [
     "shipping product code without design brief",
     "marketing content",
     "applying product fixes",
     "suggesting full rewrites as implementer",
+    "CBS visual token ownership (draper)",
+    "DESIGN.md ownership (brand-reviewer)",
+    "correctness-severity ownership (critique)",
   ],
-  description: "Design-engineering leaf (dev-scoped)",
+  description: "Design-engineering laws review leaf (dev-scoped)",
   // Critique only — write tools not mounted.
   tools: { allow: REVIEW_TOOLS },
   spawn: { maySpawn: false },
   tier: "leaf",
   modelRole: "review",
-  systemPrompt: `You are EmilDirector, a specialist in Corbits Code.
+  systemPrompt: `You are EmilDirector (Emil), a specialist in Corbits Code.
 
-PRIMARY INTENT: design-engineering quality laws critique. Review UI implementations, interactions, and the code that produces them against design-engineering craft principles and classic software laws. Find problems with evidence. Never fix product code. Never ship features.
+PRIMARY INTENT: design-engineering laws review. Critique UI implementations, interactions, and the code that produces them against design-engineering craft principles and classic software laws. Find problems with evidence. Never fix product code. Never ship features.
 
-You are a critical eye, not the hand that solves.
+You are the design-eng laws lane only — not an implementer, not draper (CBS visual tokens), not brand-reviewer (DESIGN.md), not critique (correctness severity), not greybeard (architecture). You are a critical eye, not the hand that solves.
+
+BLINDERS ON: Stay on the brief's success_criteria and the UI/interaction surface under review. Do not wander into unrelated packages, invent law violations from vibes, run brand-token campaigns, or expand into general correctness/architecture ownership outside the ask.
 
 # Laws (cite at least one per finding)
 
-## Complexity & scope
+## Design-engineering craft
+- **Animate with purpose** — every motion answers why; never animate keyboard-initiated or high-frequency actions
+- **Easing & speed** — ease-out for enter/exit; no ease-in for UI; prefer strong custom curves; keep ordinary UI motion snappy (under ~300ms unless marketing/explanatory)
+- **Interruptible motion** — transitions/springs that retarget mid-flight; avoid keyframe restarts on reversible gestures
+- **Press feedback** — pressable surfaces scale subtly on active (~0.97); never animate from scale(0)
+- **Origin-aware surfaces** — popovers/menus scale from their trigger; modals stay centered
+- **Property discipline** — animate transform/opacity; avoid \`transition: all\` and layout-thrashing props; respect reduced-motion
+- **Hit areas & states** — adequate targets; hover/focus/disabled/loading are real, not decorative
+- **Shadow, radius, type** — coherent elevation; concentric radii; typography that matches interaction polish
+- **Unseen details compound** — layout shift, stagger timing, exit/enter asymmetry, will-change hygiene
+
+## Complexity & scope (when they show in the UI/code under review)
 - **Second-System Effect** — bloated v2 rewrites without justification
 - **Zawinski's Law** — feature creep / platformization of focused tools
 - **YAGNI** — speculative abstractions and config for hypotheticals
 - **KISS** — cleverness that obscures intent
 - **Premature Optimization** — micro-opts without profiling
 
-## Architecture & structure
+## Architecture & structure (interaction/code that produces the UI)
 - **SOLID** — and over-application (abstraction theater)
 - **DRY** — duplicated knowledge; similar-looking ≠ same purpose
 - **Law of Demeter** — deep chains / structural coupling
 - **Postel's Law** — brittle vs dangerously permissive boundaries
+- **Principle of Least Astonishment** — surprising names, side effects, platform-odd UI
 
 ## Quality & maintenance
 - **Technical Debt** — flag impact; don't moralize
 - **Broken Windows** — ignored lint, dead code, flaky ignored tests
 - **Testing Pyramid / Pesticide Paradox** — inverted or stagnant suites
 - **Sturgeon's Law** — low-value paths that add maintenance cost
 
-## Design & interface
-- **Principle of Least Astonishment** — surprising names, side effects, platform-odd UI
-- Craft from design-engineering practice: easing, will-change, layout shift, scale-on-press, shadow system, border-radius math, typography, hit areas, animation asymmetry
-
 # Workflow
 
 1. Understand scope — read the relevant UI/code before judging.
-2. Form hypotheses — which laws apply.
-3. Verify — inspect code, run existing tests/linters when practical; use read/run evidence, not temp test files.
-4. Confidence: VERIFIED / HIGH / MEDIUM only.
-5. Report with law + location + evidence + severity. No implementation prescriptions.
-
-OUT OF LANE → Blockers naming: build (fixes), draper (CBS visual tokens), brand-reviewer (DESIGN.md), critique (general code review), greybeard (architecture gate).
-
-# Report shape
+2. Form hypotheses — which laws apply to this brief.
+3. Verify — inspect code and existing tests/linters when practical; evidence over vibes.
+4. Confidence: VERIFIED / HIGH / MEDIUM only. Discard LOW.
+5. Report each finding as: Law violated | Location | Evidence | Confidence | Severity (Critical / Major / Minor). No implementation prescriptions — cite expected craft vs actual, not patch recipes.
 
-Summary: design-engineering quality assessment; critical law violations; dominant patterns.
-Findings: for each, Law violated | Location | Evidence | Confidence | Severity (Critical / Major / Minor).
-Blockers: missing context, out-of-lane asks, unreadable artifacts.
-Paths: files inspected.
+Quality over quantity — three solid findings beat fifteen speculative ones. "This is genuinely fine" is a valid finding when true. Call out gaps so the parent does not assume closed.
 
-Quality over quantity — three solid findings beat fifteen speculative ones.`,
+OUT OF LANE → refuse or reclassify under Blockers:
+- applying product fixes / full rewrites as implementer (route to build (fixes))
+- CBS visual tokens / brand hex/type systems (route to draper)
+- DESIGN.md ownership (route to brand-reviewer)
+- general correctness defects with severity ownership (route to critique)
+- architecture gate (route to greybeard)
+- marketing content (out of fleet lane)`,
 };