Add canonical design-token source (tokens.json) for the dashboard palette

[seonghobae]

Summary

Develops the product's design-token source so the dashboard palette is code-backed and versioned, rather than hardcoded inline. This also makes the Figma KRDS design-system colors source-backed (Code Token) instead of KRDS-fallback.

• scanner/dashboard/tokens.json — canonical AppGuardrail color + radius tokens, each with a role, WCAG contrast note, and (for severities) a mapping to appguardrail_core/findings.py. Semantic names align with the Figma library.
• appguardrail dashboard generates /tokens.css from tokens.json at serve time (render_tokens_css) and serves it. The HTML links it after the inline fallback so served values win; if tokens.css is unavailable the page is still styled.
• Packaged into the wheel (pyproject package-data + MANIFEST.in).

Test plan

• pytest tests/ — 80 passed incl. 3 new: token-source validity, CSS generation, /tokens.css route
• e2e: appguardrail dashboard serves /tokens.css with all palette values from tokens.json
• headless Chrome: computed --primary resolves to #256EF4 from the served stylesheet; link[href="tokens.css"] present

Why

Prior state marked the product color palette as a genuine Gap (no source in repo → Figma used KRDS fallback). This creates that source: a versioned token file consumed by the real dashboard, so the palette is now authoritative product code.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-advanced-security]

You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool.

What Enabling Code Scanning Means:

• The 'Security' tab will display more code scanning analysis results (e.g., for the default branch).
• Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results.
• You will be able to see the analysis results for the pull request's branch on this overview once the scans have completed and the checks have passed.

For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 7d8e41815d04b717e98ca247506994ce7f2c4895
• Workflow run: 28739276019
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including pyproject.toml, scanner/cli/appguardrail.py, scanner/dashboard/index.html, scanner/dashboard/tokens.json, tests/test_dashboard_core.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects pyproject.toml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: PR introduces a well-tested design-token source with no blocking issues.
• Head SHA: 7d8e41815d04b717e98ca247506994ce7f2c4895
• Workflow run: 28739276019
• Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (5 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (5 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_dashboard_core.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_dashboard_core.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including pyproject.toml, scanner/cli/appguardrail.py, scanner/dashboard/index.html, scanner/dashboard/tokens.json, tests/test_dashboard_core.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects pyproject.toml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: PR introduces a well-tested design-token source with no blocking issues.
• Head SHA: 7d8e41815d04b717e98ca247506994ce7f2c4895
• Workflow run: 28739276019
• Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (5 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (5 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_dashboard_core.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_dashboard_core.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading