feat: Add WebSearch to always-allowed permissions for installed repos

.claude/settings.json

@@ -129,7 +129,8 @@
       "Write(./.deepwork/**)",
       "Bash(deepwork:*)",
       "Bash(.claude/hooks/commit_job_git_commit.sh:*)",
-      "Bash(./.deepwork/jobs/deepwork_jobs/make_new_job.sh:*)"
+      "Bash(./.deepwork/jobs/deepwork_jobs/make_new_job.sh:*)",
+      "WebSearch"
     ]
   },
   "hooks": {

.claude/skills/commit.commit_and_push/SKILL.md

@@ -99,14 +99,11 @@ Check the list of changed files against what was modified during this session, e
 
 ## Quality Criteria
 
-- Changed files list was reviewed by the agent
-- Files match what was modified during this session (or unexpected changes were investigated and handled)
-- CHANGELOG.md was updated with entries in the `[Unreleased]` section (if changes warrant documentation)
-- Version numbers were NOT modified (in pyproject.toml or CHANGELOG.md version headers)
-- Commit message follows project conventions
-- Commit was created successfully
+- Changed files were verified against expectations
+- CHANGELOG.md was updated with entries in [Unreleased] section (if changes warrant documentation)
+- Version numbers were NOT modified (pyproject.toml version and CHANGELOG version headers unchanged)
+- Commit was created with appropriate message
 - Changes were pushed to remote
-- When all criteria are met, include `<promise>✓ Quality Criteria Met</promise>` in your response
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -149,6 +146,25 @@ Use branch format: `deepwork/commit-[instance]-YYYYMMDD`
 - Do NOT proceed without required inputs; ask the user if any are missing
 - Do NOT modify files outside the scope of this step's defined outputs
 
+## Quality Validation
+
+**Before completing this step, you MUST have your work reviewed against the quality criteria below.**
+
+Use a sub-agent (Haiku model) to review your work against these criteria:
+
+**Criteria (all must be satisfied)**:
+1. Changed files were verified against expectations
+2. CHANGELOG.md was updated with entries in [Unreleased] section (if changes warrant documentation)
+3. Version numbers were NOT modified (pyproject.toml version and CHANGELOG version headers unchanged)
+4. Commit was created with appropriate message
+5. Changes were pushed to remote
+**Review Process**:
+1. Once you believe your work is complete, spawn a sub-agent using Haiku to review your work against the quality criteria above
+2. The sub-agent should examine your outputs and verify each criterion is met
+3. If the sub-agent identifies valid issues, fix them
+4. Have the sub-agent review again until all valid feedback has been addressed
+5. Only mark the step complete when the sub-agent confirms all criteria are satisfied
+
 ## On Completion
 
 1. Verify outputs are created

.claude/skills/commit.lint/SKILL.md

@@ -84,9 +84,7 @@ Report the results of each command.
 
 - ruff format was run successfully
 - ruff check was run with --fix flag
-- No remaining lint errors (or all are documented and intentional)
-- Sub-agent was used to conserve context
-- When all criteria are met, include `<promise>✓ Quality Criteria Met</promise>` in your response
+- No remaining lint errors
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -129,6 +127,23 @@ Use branch format: `deepwork/commit-[instance]-YYYYMMDD`
 - Do NOT proceed without required inputs; ask the user if any are missing
 - Do NOT modify files outside the scope of this step's defined outputs
 
+## Quality Validation
+
+**Before completing this step, you MUST have your work reviewed against the quality criteria below.**
+
+Use a sub-agent (Haiku model) to review your work against these criteria:
+
+**Criteria (all must be satisfied)**:
+1. ruff format was run successfully
+2. ruff check was run with --fix flag
+3. No remaining lint errors
+**Review Process**:
+1. Once you believe your work is complete, spawn a sub-agent using Haiku to review your work against the quality criteria above
+2. The sub-agent should examine your outputs and verify each criterion is met
+3. If the sub-agent identifies valid issues, fix them
+4. Have the sub-agent review again until all valid feedback has been addressed
+5. Only mark the step complete when the sub-agent confirms all criteria are satisfied
+
 ## On Completion
 
 1. Verify outputs are created

.claude/skills/commit.review/SKILL.md

@@ -40,32 +40,11 @@ Use a sub-agent to review the staged/changed code and identify issues that shoul
 
    Use the Task tool with these parameters:
    - `subagent_type`: "general-purpose"
-   - `prompt`: Include the list of changed files and the review criteria below
-
-   The sub-agent should review each changed file for:
-
-   **General Issues**
-   - Logic errors or potential bugs
-   - Error handling gaps
-   - Security concerns
-   - Performance issues
-
-   **DRY Opportunities**
-   - Duplicated code that should be extracted into functions
-   - Repeated patterns that could be abstracted
-   - Copy-pasted logic with minor variations
-
-   **Naming Clarity**
-   - Variables, functions, and classes should have clear, descriptive names
-   - Names should reflect purpose and intent
-   - Avoid abbreviations that aren't universally understood
-   - Consistent naming conventions throughout
-
-   **Test Coverage**
-   - New functions or classes should have corresponding tests
-   - New code paths should be tested
-   - Edge cases should be covered
-   - If tests are missing, note what should be tested
+   - `prompt`: Instruct the sub-agent to:
+     - Read the code review standards from `doc/code_review_standards.md`
+     - Read each of the changed files
+     - Review each file against the standards
+     - Report issues found with file, line number, severity, and suggested fix
 
 3. **Review sub-agent findings**
    - Examine each issue identified
@@ -82,40 +61,11 @@ Use a sub-agent to review the staged/changed code and identify issues that shoul
    - If you made substantial changes, consider running another review pass
    - Ensure fixes didn't introduce new issues
 
-## Example Sub-Agent Prompt
-
-```
-Review the following changed files for code quality issues:
-
-Files to review:
-- src/module.py
-- src/utils.py
-- tests/test_module.py
-
-For each file, check for:
-
-1. **General issues**: Logic errors, bugs, error handling gaps, security concerns
-2. **DRY opportunities**: Duplicated code, repeated patterns that should be extracted
-3. **Naming clarity**: Are variable/function/class names clear and descriptive?
-4. **Test coverage**: Does new functionality have corresponding tests?
-
-Read each file and provide a structured report of issues found, organized by category.
-For each issue, include:
-- File and line number
-- Description of the issue
-- Suggested fix
-
-If no issues are found in a category, state that explicitly.
-```
-
 ## Quality Criteria
 
 - Changed files were identified
-- Sub-agent reviewed all changed files
-- Issues were categorized (general, DRY, naming, tests)
+- Sub-agent read the code review standards and reviewed all changed files
 - All identified issues were addressed or documented as intentional
-- Sub-agent was used to conserve context
-- When all criteria are met, include `<promise>✓ Quality Criteria Met</promise>` in your response
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -158,6 +108,23 @@ Use branch format: `deepwork/commit-[instance]-YYYYMMDD`
 - Do NOT proceed without required inputs; ask the user if any are missing
 - Do NOT modify files outside the scope of this step's defined outputs
 
+## Quality Validation
+
+**Before completing this step, you MUST have your work reviewed against the quality criteria below.**
+
+Use a sub-agent (Haiku model) to review your work against these criteria:
+
+**Criteria (all must be satisfied)**:
+1. Changed files were identified
+2. Sub-agent reviewed the code for general issues, DRY opportunities, naming clarity, and test coverage
+3. All identified issues were addressed or documented as intentional
+**Review Process**:
+1. Once you believe your work is complete, spawn a sub-agent using Haiku to review your work against the quality criteria above
+2. The sub-agent should examine your outputs and verify each criterion is met
+3. If the sub-agent identifies valid issues, fix them
+4. Have the sub-agent review again until all valid feedback has been addressed
+5. Only mark the step complete when the sub-agent confirms all criteria are satisfied
+
 ## On Completion
 
 1. Verify outputs are created

.claude/skills/commit.test/SKILL.md

@@ -65,9 +65,7 @@ Execute the test suite for the project and iteratively fix any failures until al
 ## Quality Criteria
 
 - Latest code was pulled from the branch
-- Test command was correctly identified or used from input
-- All tests are now passing
-- When all criteria are met, include `<promise>✓ Quality Criteria Met</promise>` in your response
+- All tests are passing
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -90,11 +88,6 @@ Steps:
 4. commit_and_push - Review changes and commit/push
 
 
-## Required Inputs
-
-**User Parameters** - Gather from user before starting:
-- **test_command**: Test command to run (optional - will auto-detect if not provided)
-
 
 ## Work Branch
 
@@ -115,6 +108,22 @@ Use branch format: `deepwork/commit-[instance]-YYYYMMDD`
 - Do NOT proceed without required inputs; ask the user if any are missing
 - Do NOT modify files outside the scope of this step's defined outputs
 
+## Quality Validation
+
+**Before completing this step, you MUST have your work reviewed against the quality criteria below.**
+
+Use a sub-agent (Haiku model) to review your work against these criteria:
+
+**Criteria (all must be satisfied)**:
+1. Latest code was pulled from the branch
+2. All tests are passing
+**Review Process**:
+1. Once you believe your work is complete, spawn a sub-agent using Haiku to review your work against the quality criteria above
+2. The sub-agent should examine your outputs and verify each criterion is met
+3. If the sub-agent identifies valid issues, fix them
+4. Have the sub-agent review again until all valid feedback has been addressed
+5. Only mark the step complete when the sub-agent confirms all criteria are satisfied
+
 ## On Completion
 
 1. Verify outputs are created

.gemini/skills/commit/commit_and_push.toml

@@ -102,14 +102,11 @@ Check the list of changed files against what was modified during this session, e
 
 ## Quality Criteria
 
-- Changed files list was reviewed by the agent
-- Files match what was modified during this session (or unexpected changes were investigated and handled)
-- CHANGELOG.md was updated with entries in the `[Unreleased]` section (if changes warrant documentation)
-- Version numbers were NOT modified (in pyproject.toml or CHANGELOG.md version headers)
-- Commit message follows project conventions
-- Commit was created successfully
+- Changed files were verified against expectations
+- CHANGELOG.md was updated with entries in [Unreleased] section (if changes warrant documentation)
+- Version numbers were NOT modified (pyproject.toml version and CHANGELOG version headers unchanged)
+- Commit was created with appropriate message
 - Changes were pushed to remote
-- When all criteria are met, include `<promise>✓ Quality Criteria Met</promise>` in your response
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -145,6 +142,16 @@ Use branch format: `deepwork/commit-[instance]-YYYYMMDD`
 **Required outputs**:
 - `changes_committed`
 
+## Quality Validation (Manual)
+
+**NOTE**: Gemini CLI does not support automated validation. Manually verify criteria before completing.
+
+**Criteria (all must be satisfied)**:
+1. Changed files were verified against expectations
+2. CHANGELOG.md was updated with entries in [Unreleased] section (if changes warrant documentation)
+3. Version numbers were NOT modified (pyproject.toml version and CHANGELOG version headers unchanged)
+4. Commit was created with appropriate message
+5. Changes were pushed to remote
 ## On Completion
 
 1. Verify outputs are created

.gemini/skills/commit/lint.toml

@@ -87,9 +87,7 @@ Report the results of each command.
 
 - ruff format was run successfully
 - ruff check was run with --fix flag
-- No remaining lint errors (or all are documented and intentional)
-- Sub-agent was used to conserve context
-- When all criteria are met, include `<promise>✓ Quality Criteria Met</promise>` in your response
+- No remaining lint errors
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -125,6 +123,14 @@ Use branch format: `deepwork/commit-[instance]-YYYYMMDD`
 **Required outputs**:
 - `code_formatted`
 
+## Quality Validation (Manual)
+
+**NOTE**: Gemini CLI does not support automated validation. Manually verify criteria before completing.
+
+**Criteria (all must be satisfied)**:
+1. ruff format was run successfully
+2. ruff check was run with --fix flag
+3. No remaining lint errors
 ## On Completion
 
 1. Verify outputs are created

.gemini/skills/commit/review.toml

@@ -43,32 +43,11 @@ Use a sub-agent to review the staged/changed code and identify issues that shoul
 
    Use the Task tool with these parameters:
    - `subagent_type`: "general-purpose"
-   - `prompt`: Include the list of changed files and the review criteria below
-
-   The sub-agent should review each changed file for:
-
-   **General Issues**
-   - Logic errors or potential bugs
-   - Error handling gaps
-   - Security concerns
-   - Performance issues
-
-   **DRY Opportunities**
-   - Duplicated code that should be extracted into functions
-   - Repeated patterns that could be abstracted
-   - Copy-pasted logic with minor variations
-
-   **Naming Clarity**
-   - Variables, functions, and classes should have clear, descriptive names
-   - Names should reflect purpose and intent
-   - Avoid abbreviations that aren't universally understood
-   - Consistent naming conventions throughout
-
-   **Test Coverage**
-   - New functions or classes should have corresponding tests
-   - New code paths should be tested
-   - Edge cases should be covered
-   - If tests are missing, note what should be tested
+   - `prompt`: Instruct the sub-agent to:
+     - Read the code review standards from `doc/code_review_standards.md`
+     - Read each of the changed files
+     - Review each file against the standards
+     - Report issues found with file, line number, severity, and suggested fix
 
 3. **Review sub-agent findings**
    - Examine each issue identified
@@ -85,40 +64,11 @@ Use a sub-agent to review the staged/changed code and identify issues that shoul
    - If you made substantial changes, consider running another review pass
    - Ensure fixes didn't introduce new issues
 
-## Example Sub-Agent Prompt
-
-```
-Review the following changed files for code quality issues:
-
-Files to review:
-- src/module.py
-- src/utils.py
-- tests/test_module.py
-
-For each file, check for:
-
-1. **General issues**: Logic errors, bugs, error handling gaps, security concerns
-2. **DRY opportunities**: Duplicated code, repeated patterns that should be extracted
-3. **Naming clarity**: Are variable/function/class names clear and descriptive?
-4. **Test coverage**: Does new functionality have corresponding tests?
-
-Read each file and provide a structured report of issues found, organized by category.
-For each issue, include:
-- File and line number
-- Description of the issue
-- Suggested fix
-
-If no issues are found in a category, state that explicitly.
-```
-
 ## Quality Criteria
 
 - Changed files were identified
-- Sub-agent reviewed all changed files
-- Issues were categorized (general, DRY, naming, tests)
+- Sub-agent read the code review standards and reviewed all changed files
 - All identified issues were addressed or documented as intentional
-- Sub-agent was used to conserve context
-- When all criteria are met, include `<promise>✓ Quality Criteria Met</promise>` in your response
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -154,6 +104,14 @@ Use branch format: `deepwork/commit-[instance]-YYYYMMDD`
 **Required outputs**:
 - `code_reviewed`
 
+## Quality Validation (Manual)
+
+**NOTE**: Gemini CLI does not support automated validation. Manually verify criteria before completing.
+
+**Criteria (all must be satisfied)**:
+1. Changed files were identified
+2. Sub-agent reviewed the code for general issues, DRY opportunities, naming clarity, and test coverage
+3. All identified issues were addressed or documented as intentional
 ## On Completion
 
 1. Verify outputs are created