docs(aidd-dev): simplify implementation rules and require workflow evidence

[alexsoyes]

🎯 What & why

Implementation could pass isolated checks without exercising the affected workflow. Require a complete successful run with observable evidence at every step before done.

🛠️ How it works

Separate actions from rules and remove repeated Test sections, reducing the skill from 831 to 512 words. Execution checks actual against expected behavior, fixes mismatches, and restarts the workflow. Final repairs revalidate the affected workflow before implemented. Ban manual formatting while allowing project formatters and hooks.

🧪 How to verify

• pnpm test:changed: 141 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped.
• Architecture checks: 350 files, no violations.
• git diff --check and commit/push hooks: passed.

✅ I certify

• I DO CERTIFY I READ EACH LINE OF THE PULL REQUEST BECAUSE I AM A SOFTWARE ENGINEER, NOT A AI PUPPY.

[waewoo]

Hello
I checked the current implementation of this PR, and it already addresses the implementation-side gap: 02-execute now requires the real affected workflow, a complete successful run, observable evidence, and a blocked state when validation cannot be completed. 03-finalize also allows the required runtime to be started.
One related boundary remains unchanged: 05-review/actions/02-review-functional.md still states “Static review only, no app execution or browser.” Is this intentionally out of scope for this PR?
If so, should the review contract explicitly report when an acceptance criterion requires runtime behavior but no prior execution evidence is available, so that a statically complete diff is not presented as functionally verified?

[alexsoyes]

@blafourcade ,

Qu'est-ce que tu penses de ça ?

• On limite les instructions à l'essentiel
• Plus de mermaid
• Supprime les tests c'est du gâchis de tokens, utiliser des rules
• Pourquoi avoir supprimé les numéros d'actions dans les skills ?

Evidemment on répercutera sur les autres skills si tu penses que ça fait sens aussi 🤜

[blafourcade]

@blafourcade ,

Qu'est-ce que tu penses de ça ?

• On limite les instructions à l'essentiel
• Plus de mermaid
• Supprime les tests c'est du gâchis de tokens, utiliser des rules
• Pourquoi avoir supprimé les numéros d'actions dans les skills ?

Evidemment on répercutera sur les autres skills si tu penses que ça fait sens aussi 🤜

@alexsoyes

Oui, c'est une bonne idée.

Le Mermaid est utile ici : il montre clairement le flow pour l’humain comme pour l’IA. Le gain en token est minimal vs la plus value je trouve.

Pour les numéros, autant aller au bout et les retirer aussi des noms de fichiers : prepare.md, execute.md, finalize.md. L’ordre reste porté par le flow.

Tu l’as testé sur quels types et quelles tailles de features ?

[blafourcade]

@waewoo Yes, this is intentionally out of scope for this PR. I agree that the review should explicitly report missing runtime evidence rather than present the behavior as verified. Could you create a dedicated issue for this?