[Andyduck-ops]

Change

• Add optional code-mode How, Why, Architect and Interrogate layouts under .omp-flow/workflow/code/.
• Existing Research/Design/Check Skills keep only trigger/path indexes; reuse assigned Concepts, with no new Workflow, schema, approval gate or runtime dispatcher.
• Deliver nested layouts through the existing shared managed-resource list, with a regression for preserving customized content while installing missing siblings.
• Generate the nine tracked shared Skill copies, document Chinese/English usage, and bump package/lock to 0.5.2.

Verification

• Python compileall: passed.
• npm run build: passed.
• npm test: 945 focused checks passed.
• npm pack --dry-run and actual packed artifact inspection: passed; four layouts present, private Task/cache/runtime state excluded.
• Real packed CLI fresh init for OMP, Codex, Claude, Snow and Cursor: passed.
• Real registry 0.5.1 to packed 0.5.2 update: dry-run read-only, custom layout preserved, missing siblings installed, deliberate managed deletion preserved.
• Two different-actor independent reviews: PASS; delivery reviewer independently repeated real artifact installation/update smoke.
• Windows package CI remains the platform proof before merge.

Boundary

No Runtime/Hook/adapter changes or private Lab records are included. Existing managed init/update follows linked destination directories; this baseline limitation is unchanged and no new filesystem sandbox is claimed. Optional layout navigation is authored guidance, not a measured agent-effectiveness claim.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-11T14:28:29.286223Z	2c71948	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 2c719487c6

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Reject linked code-layout ancestors

If a repository contains .omp-flow/workflow/code as a symlink (for example, from an untrusted checkout or an existing local link), these new managed entries cause both init and update to create or overwrite how.md, why.md, architect.md, and interrogate.md in the link target: their write paths use mkdirSync/writeFileSync without calling the repository confinement guard. The prior workflow resources did not traverse this new code ancestor, so this feature adds an external-write path; validate all managed destinations and fail before writing when an ancestor is linked.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L101-L102

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[Andyduck-ops]

Release scope calibrated by the owner: Linux is the current verification target. The existing Windows Sleep alias-path failure is not a release gate, and no Sleep or platform-specific workflow fix is included. The new linked code-layout ancestor finding is being corrected with the existing generic destination confinement primitive before npm publication; Linux build, 947 checks and actual CLI boundary smoke pass on that correction branch. npm publication has not occurred: the actual publish attempt returned ENEEDAUTH.