chore: align with TemplateDotNetTool template (PRs #66, #72–#76, #80)

.cspell.yaml

@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ ignorePaths:
   - "**/third-party/**"
   - "**/3rd-party/**"
   - "**/AGENT_REPORT_*.md"
+  - "**/.agent-logs/**"
   - "**/bin/**"
   - "**/obj/**"
   - package-lock.json

.github/agents/code-review.agent.md

@@ -1,46 +1,73 @@
 ---
 name: code-review
-description: Assists in performing formal file reviews.
-tools: [read, search, edit, execute, github, web, agent]
+description: Agent for performing formal reviews
 user-invocable: true
 ---
 
-# Code Review Agent - SarifMark
+# Code Review Agent
 
-Execute comprehensive code reviews with emphasis on structured compliance verification and file review status
-requirements.
+This agent runs the formal review based on the review-set it's told to perform.
 
-## Reporting
+# Formal Review Steps
 
-Create a report using the filename pattern `AGENT_REPORT_code_review_[review-set].md`
-(e.g., `AGENT_REPORT_code_review_SarifMark-CLI-Review.md`) to document review criteria, identified issues, and
-recommendations for the specific review-set.
-
-## Review Steps
+Formal reviews are a quality enforcement mechanism, and as such MUST be performed using the following four steps:
 
 1. Download the
    <https://github.com/demaconsulting/ContinuousCompliance/raw/refs/heads/main/docs/review-template/review-template.md>
    to get the checklist to fill in
 2. Use `dotnet reviewmark --elaborate [review-set]` to get the files to review
 3. Review the files all together
-4. Populate the checklist with the findings to make the report
-
-## Hand-off to Other Agents
-
-Only attempt to apply review fixes if requested.
+4. Populate the checklist with the findings to `.agent-logs/reviews/review-report-[review-set].md` of the project.
 
-- If code quality, logic, or structural issues need fixing, call the @software-developer agent
-- If test coverage gaps or quality issues are identified, call the @test-developer agent
-- If documentation accuracy or completeness issues are found, call the @technical-writer agent
-- If quality gate verification is needed after fixes, call the @code-quality agent
-- If requirements traceability issues are discovered, call the @requirements agent
+# Don't Do These Things
 
-## Don't Do These Things
-
-- **Never modify code during review** (document findings only, delegate fixes)
+- **Never modify code during review** (document findings only)
 - **Never skip applicable checklist items** (comprehensive review required)
 - **Never approve reviews with unresolved critical findings**
 - **Never bypass review status requirements** for compliance
 - **Never conduct reviews without proper documentation**
 - **Never ignore security or compliance findings**
 - **Never approve without verifying all quality gates**
+
+# Reporting
+
+Upon completion create a summary in `.agent-logs/[agent-name]-[subject]-[unique-id].md`
+of the project consisting of:
+
+```markdown
+# Code Review Report
+
+**Result**: <SUCCEEDED/FAILED>
+
+## Review Summary
+
+- **Review Set**: [Review set name/identifier]
+- **Review Report File**: [Name of detailed review report generated]
+- **Files Reviewed**: [Count and list of files reviewed]
+- **Review Template Used**: [Template source and version]
+
+## Review Results
+
+- **Overall Conclusion**: [Summary of review results]
+- **Critical Issues**: [Count of critical findings]
+- **High Issues**: [Count of high severity findings]
+- **Medium Issues**: [Count of medium severity findings]
+- **Low Issues**: [Count of low severity findings]
+
+## Issue Details
+
+[For each issue found, include:]
+- **File**: [File name and line number where applicable]
+- **Issue Type**: [Security, logic error, compliance violation, etc.]
+- **Severity**: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
+- **Description**: [Issue description]
+- **Recommendation**: [Specific remediation recommendation]
+
+## Compliance Status
+
+- **Review Status**: [Complete/Incomplete with reasoning]
+- **Quality Gates**: [Status of review checklist items]
+- **Approval Status**: [Approved/Rejected with justification]
+```
+
+Return summary to caller.

.github/agents/developer.agent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+name: developer
+description: >
+  General-purpose software development agent that applies appropriate standards
+  based on the work being performed.
+user-invocable: true
+---
+
+# Developer Agent
+
+Perform software development tasks by determining and applying appropriate DEMA Consulting standards from `.github/standards/`.
+
+# Standards-Based Workflow
+
+1. **Analyze the request** to identify scope: languages, file types, requirements, testing, reviews
+2. **Read relevant standards** from `.github/standards/` as defined in AGENTS.md based on work performed
+3. **Apply loaded standards** throughout development process
+4. **Execute work** following standards requirements and quality checks
+5. **Generate completion report** with results and compliance status
+
+# Reporting
+
+Upon completion create a summary in `.agent-logs/[agent-name]-[subject]-[unique-id].md`
+of the project consisting of:
+
+```markdown
+# Developer Agent Report
+
+**Result**: <SUCCEEDED/FAILED>
+
+## Work Summary
+
+- **Files Modified**: [List of files created/modified/deleted]
+- **Languages Detected**: [Languages identified]
+- **Standards Applied**: [Standards files consulted]
+
+## Tooling Executed
+
+- **Language Tools**: [Compilers, linters, formatters used]
+- **Compliance Tools**: [ReqStream, ReviewMark tools used]
+- **Validation Results**: [Tool execution results]
+
+## Compliance Status
+
+- **Quality Checks**: [Standards quality checks status]
+- **Issues Resolved**: [Any problems encountered and resolved]
+```
+
+Return this summary to the caller.

.github/agents/implementation.agent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+name: implementation
+description: Orchestrator agent that manages quality implementations through a formal state machine workflow.
+user-invocable: true
+---
+
+# Implementation Agent
+
+Orchestrate quality implementations through a formal state machine workflow
+that ensures research, development, and quality validation are performed
+systematically.
+
+# State Machine Workflow
+
+**MANDATORY**: This agent MUST follow the orchestration process below to ensure
+the quality of the implementation. The process consists of the following
+states:
+
+- **RESEARCH** - performs initial analysis
+- **DEVELOPMENT** - develops the implementation changes
+- **QUALITY** - performs quality validation
+- **REPORT** - generates final implementation report
+
+The state-transitions include retrying a limited number of times, using a 'retry-count'
+counting how many retries have occurred.
+
+## RESEARCH State (start)
+
+Call the built-in @explore sub-agent with:
+
+- **context**: the user's request and any current quality findings
+- **goal**: analyze the implementation state and develop a plan to implement the request
+
+Once the explore sub-agent finishes, transition to the DEVELOPMENT state.
+
+## DEVELOPMENT State
+
+Call the @developer sub-agent with:
+
+- **context** the user's request and the current implementation plan
+- **goal** implement the user's request and any identified quality fixes
+
+Once the developer sub-agent finishes:
+
+- IF developer SUCCEEDED: Transition to QUALITY state to check the quality of the work
+- IF developer FAILED: Transition to REPORT state to report the failure
+
+## QUALITY State
+
+Call the @quality sub-agent with:
+
+- **context** the user's request and the current implementation report
+- **goal** check the quality of the work performed for any issues
+
+Once the quality sub-agent finishes:
+
+- IF quality SUCCEEDED: Transition to REPORT state to report completion
+- IF quality FAILED and retry-count < 3: Transition to RESEARCH state to plan quality fixes
+- IF quality FAILED and retry-count >= 3: Transition to REPORT state to report failure
+
+### REPORT State (end)
+
+Upon completion create a summary in `.agent-logs/[agent-name]-[subject]-[unique-id].md`
+of the project consisting of:
+
+```markdown
+# Implementation Orchestration Report
+
+**Result**: <SUCCEEDED/FAILED>
+**Final State**: <RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT/QUALITY/REPORT>
+**Retry Count**: <Number of quality retry cycles>
+
+## State Machine Execution
+
+- **Research Results**: [Summary of explore agent findings]
+- **Development Results**: [Summary of developer agent results]  
+- **Quality Results**: [Summary of quality agent results]
+- **State Transitions**: [Log of state changes and decisions]
+
+## Sub-Agent Coordination
+
+- **Explore Agent**: [Research findings and context]
+- **Developer Agent**: [Development status and files modified]
+- **Quality Agent**: [Validation results and compliance status]
+
+## Final Status
+
+- **Implementation Success**: [Overall completion status]
+- **Quality Compliance**: [Final quality validation status]  
+- **Issues Resolved**: [Problems encountered and resolution attempts]
+```
+
+Return this summary to the caller.

.github/agents/quality.agent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+---
+name: quality
+description: >
+  Quality assurance agent that grades developer work against DEMA Consulting
+  standards and Continuous Compliance practices.
+user-invocable: true
+---
+
+# Quality Agent
+
+Grade and validate software development work by ensuring compliance with
+DEMA Consulting standards and Continuous Compliance practices.
+
+# Standards-Based Quality Assessment
+
+This assessment is a quality control system of the project and MUST be performed.
+
+1. **Analyze completed work** to identify scope and changes made
+2. **Read relevant standards** from `.github/standards/` as defined in AGENTS.md based on work performed
+3. **Execute comprehensive quality checks** across all compliance areas - EVERY checkbox item must be evaluated
+4. **Validate tool compliance** using ReqStream, ReviewMark, and language tools
+5. **Generate quality assessment report** with findings and recommendations
+
+## Requirements Compliance
+
+- [ ] Were requirements updated to reflect functional changes?
+- [ ] Were new requirements created for new features?
+- [ ] Do requirement IDs follow semantic naming standards?
+- [ ] Were source filters applied appropriately for platform-specific requirements?
+- [ ] Does ReqStream enforcement pass without errors?
+- [ ] Is requirements traceability maintained to tests?
+
+## Design Documentation Compliance
+
+- [ ] Were design documents updated for architectural changes?
+- [ ] Were new design artifacts created for new components?
+- [ ] Are design decisions documented with rationale?
+- [ ] Is system/subsystem/unit categorization maintained?
+- [ ] Is design-to-implementation traceability preserved?
+
+## Code Quality Compliance
+
+- [ ] Are language-specific standards followed (from applicable standards files)?
+- [ ] Are quality checks from standards files satisfied?
+- [ ] Is code properly categorized (system/subsystem/unit/OTS)?
+- [ ] Is appropriate separation of concerns maintained?
+- [ ] Was language-specific tooling executed and passing?
+
+## Testing Compliance
+
+- [ ] Were tests created/updated for all functional changes?
+- [ ] Is test coverage maintained for all requirements?
+- [ ] Are testing standards followed (AAA pattern, etc.)?
+- [ ] Does test categorization align with code structure?
+- [ ] Do all tests pass without failures?
+
+## Review Management Compliance
+
+- [ ] Were review-sets updated to include new/modified files?
+- [ ] Do file patterns follow include-then-exclude approach?
+- [ ] Is review scope appropriate for change magnitude?
+- [ ] Was ReviewMark tooling executed and passing?
+- [ ] Were review artifacts generated correctly?
+
+## Documentation Compliance
+
+- [ ] Was README.md updated for user-facing changes?
+- [ ] Were user guides updated for feature changes?
+- [ ] Does API documentation reflect code changes?
+- [ ] Was compliance documentation generated?
+- [ ] Does documentation follow standards formatting?
+- [ ] Is documentation organized under `docs/` following standard folder structure?
+- [ ] Do Pandoc collections include proper `introduction.md` files with Purpose and Scope sections?
+- [ ] Are auto-generated markdown files left unmodified?
+- [ ] Do README.md files use absolute URLs and include concrete examples?
+- [ ] Is documentation integrated into ReviewMark review-sets for formal review?
+
+## Process Compliance
+
+- [ ] Was Continuous Compliance workflow followed?
+- [ ] Did all quality gates execute successfully?
+- [ ] Were appropriate tools used for validation?
+- [ ] Were standards consistently applied across work?
+- [ ] Was compliance evidence generated and preserved?
+
+# Reporting
+
+Upon completion create a summary in `.agent-logs/[agent-name]-[subject]-[unique-id].md`
+of the project consisting of:
+
+```markdown
+# Quality Assessment Report
+
+**Result**: <SUCCEEDED/FAILED>
+**Overall Grade**: <PASS/FAIL/NEEDS_WORK>
+
+## Assessment Summary
+
+- **Work Reviewed**: [Description of work assessed]
+- **Standards Applied**: [Standards files used for assessment]
+- **Categories Evaluated**: [Quality check categories assessed]
+
+## Quality Check Results
+
+- **Requirements Compliance**: <PASS/FAIL> - [Summary]
+- **Design Documentation**: <PASS/FAIL> - [Summary]  
+- **Code Quality**: <PASS/FAIL> - [Summary]
+- **Testing Compliance**: <PASS/FAIL> - [Summary]
+- **Review Management**: <PASS/FAIL> - [Summary]
+- **Documentation**: <PASS/FAIL> - [Summary]
+- **Process Compliance**: <PASS/FAIL> - [Summary]
+
+## Findings
+
+- **Issues Found**: [List of compliance issues]
+- **Recommendations**: [Suggested improvements]
+- **Tools Executed**: [Quality tools used for validation]
+
+## Compliance Status
+
+- **Standards Adherence**: [Overall compliance rating]
+- **Quality Gates**: [Status of automated quality checks]
+```
+
+Return this summary to the caller.