fix(detect): add realm-global brand for cross-copy HelpfulError detection

.agent/.cache/repo=ehmpathy/role=mechanic/skill=rmsafe/trash/.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+*
+!.gitignore

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/.bind/vlad.fix-branded-detection.flag

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+branch: vlad/fix-branded-detection
+bound_by: init.behavior skill

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/.reviews/peer/.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# ignore all peer-review files
+*
+!.gitignore

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/.route/.bind.vlad.fix-branded-detection.flag

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+branch: vlad/fix-branded-detection
+bound_by: route.bind skill

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/.route/.bouncer.cache.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+{
+  "protections": []
+}

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/.route/.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+# ignore all except passage.jsonl and .bind flags
+*
+!.gitignore
+!passage.jsonl
+!.bind.*

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/.route/passage.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+{"stone":"1.vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.self","reason":"review.self required: has-grounded-in-reality"}
+{"stone":"1.vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"approval","reason":"wait for human approval"}
+{"stone":"1.vision","status":"approved"}
+{"stone":"1.vision","status":"passed"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.self","reason":"review.self required: has-pruned-yagni"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.self","reason":"review.self required: role-standards-coverage"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"malfunction"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (3 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (2 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (4 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"overruled","level":1}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (2 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer.exhausted","reason":"peer reviewer budget exhausted: enroll-impl-behavior-intent, enroll-impl-arch-defects"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"overruled","level":3}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"approved"}
+{"stone":"5.1.execution.from_vision","status":"passed"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.self","reason":"review.self required: has-behavior-coverage"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.self","reason":"review.self required: has-journey-tests-from-repros"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"passed"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"nitpicks exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer.exhausted","reason":"peer reviewer budget exhausted: enroll-verif-snapshot-coverage"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"nitpicks exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"nitpicks exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"passed"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer.exhausted","reason":"peer reviewer budget exhausted: enroll-verif-snapshot-blemishes, enroll-verif-test-intent"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"blockers exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"nitpicks exceed threshold (1 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"nitpicks exceed threshold (2 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"nitpicks exceed threshold (2 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked","blocker":"review.peer","reason":"nitpicks exceed threshold (2 > 0)"}
+{"stone":"5.3.verification","status":"blocked"}

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/0.wish.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+wish =
+
+lets use a symbol to help folks detect whether an error is a HelpfulError globally in a cross version compatible way
+
+it should stamp the version on there so if someone wants to check that its a given version or later at runtime they could
+
+and we should also expose an `isHelpfulError(error: Error, options?: { version: { min: string }): error is HelpfulError` 
+
+---
+
+here's related thoughts from a peer clone
+
+
+  ---                                                                                        
+  handoff → helpful-errors: registered-symbol brand + version stamp                          
+
+  ▎ status: blocks the with-simple-cache condition-convergence route. vlad pulls it in       
+  tonight.                                                                                   
+
+  .what — two coupled changes                                                                
+
+  1. in helpful-errors: stamp every base error with a registered symbol whose value is the   
+  package version.
+  2. in with-simple-cache (after #1 releases): add helpful-errors as a peerDependency with a 
+  min version that carries the brand → forces one shared copy.                               
+
+  .why — each mechanism fixes a different half                                               
+
+  ┌──────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+  │    mechanism     │                               fixes                               │
+  ├──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤   
+  │ peer-dep         │ one shared copy of helpful-errors → instanceof ConstraintError    │
+  │ enforcement      │ reliable across the package boundary (root cause)                 │   
+  ├──────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤   
+  │ registered       │ realm-global, minification-proof discriminator + version read,    │
+  │ symbol brand     │ even if a duplicate copy sneaks in (belt-and-suspenders)          │   
+  └──────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   
+
+  the helpful-errors change                                                                  
+
+  const HELPFUL_ERRORS_BRAND = Symbol.for('helpful-errors'); // registered — shared across 
+  ALL copies                                                                                 
+  Object.defineProperty(this, HELPFUL_ERRORS_BRAND, { value: version, enumerable: false });
+  plus export isHelpfulError / getHelpfulErrorVersion.                                       
+
+  the pitfall I flagged hardest: it must be Symbol.for() (global registry), never Symbol() — 
+  a plain symbol is module-local, so each duplicate copy mints a different one and the brand 
+  is invisible across copies. That defeats the whole point.

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/1.vision.guard

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# guard for vision stone
+#
+# requires human approval before stone can be marked as passed
+# because the self-review prompts require human feedback,
+# the process needs to halt here for human review
+
+judges:
+  - $rhachet run --repo bhrain --skill route.stone.judge --mechanism approved? --stone $stone --route $route
+
+reviews:
+  self:
+    - slug: has-grounded-in-reality
+      say: |
+        a junior recently modified files in this repo. we need to carefully
+        review the vision due to this.
+
+        did the junior ground the vision in reality, or make things up?
+
+        check the groundwork section:
+
+        for external references (APIs, services, docs):
+        - did they actually verify these exist?
+        - did they cite what they checked?
+        - or did they assume without sanity check?
+
+        for internal references (extant behavior, patterns, code):
+        - did they actually verify what that behavior is?
+        - did they verify extant contracts to conform to? (interfaces, types, signatures)
+        - did they verify extant vocab to reuse? (domain terms, name patterns)
+        - did they verify extant stdouts to match? (CLI output patterns, error formats)
+        - did they cite specific files/lines?
+        - or did they assume the code works a certain way without verification?
+
+        this is NOT about exhaustive research — just sanity checks.
+        the question is: is this vision coherent with reality, or built on assumptions?
+
+    - slug: has-questioned-requirements
+      say: |
+        a junior recently modified files in this repo. we need to carefully
+        review the vision due to this.
+
+        are there any requirements that should be questioned?
+
+        for each requirement, ask:
+        - who said this was needed? when? why?
+        - what evidence supports this requirement?
+        - what if we didn't do this — what would happen?
+        - is the scope too large, too small, or misdirected?
+        - could we achieve the goal in a simpler way?
+
+        challenge each requirement and justify why it belongs.
+
+    - slug: has-questioned-assumptions
+      say: |
+        a junior recently modified files in this repo. we need to carefully
+        review the vision due to this.
+
+        are there any hidden assumptions the junior took as requirements?
+
+        for each assumption, ask:
+        - what do we assume here without evidence?
+        - what evidence supports this assumption?
+        - what if the opposite were true?
+        - did the wisher actually say this, or did we infer it?
+        - what exceptions or counterexamples exist?
+
+        surface all hidden assumptions and question each one.
+
+    - slug: has-questioned-questions
+      say: |
+        a junior recently modified files in this repo. we need to carefully
+        review the vision due to this.
+
+        are there any open questions? triage them:
+
+        for each question, ask:
+        - can this be answered via logic now? if so, answer it now.
+        - can this be answered via extant docs or code now? if so, answer it now.
+        - should this be answered via external research later? if so, mark it for research.
+        - does only the wisher know the answer? if so, ask the wisher.
+
+        for each question, ensure it is clearly marked as either:
+        - [answered] — resolved now
+        - [research] — to be answered in the research phase
+        - [wisher] — requires wisher input
+
+        ensure they're enumerated within the vision under "open questions & assumptions"
+
+  peer: []

.behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/1.vision.stone

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+illustrate the vision implied in the wish .behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/0.wish.md
+
+emit into .behavior/v2026_07_08.fix-branded-detection/1.vision.yield.md
+
+---
+
+paint a picture of what the world looks like when this wish is fulfilled
+
+testdrive the contract we propose via realworld examples
+
+specifically,
+
+## the outcome world
+
+- what does a day-in-the-life look like with this in place?
+- what's the before/after contrast?
+- what's the "aha" moment where the value clicks?
+
+## user experience
+
+- what usecases do folks fulfill? what goals?
+- what contract inputs & outputs do they leverage?
+- what would it look like to leverage them?
+- what timelines do they go through?
+
+## mental model
+
+- how would users describe this to a friend?
+- what analogies or metaphors fit?
+- what terms would they use vs what terms would we use?
+
+## evaluation
+
+- how well does it solve the goals?
+- what are the pros? the cons?
+- what edgecases exist and how do our contracts keep users in a pit of success?
+
+## open questions & assumptions
+
+- what assumptions have we made?
+- what questions remain unanswered?
+- what must we validate with the wisher before we proceed?
+- what must we research externally?
+
+## groundwork
+
+sanity check the vision against reality. NOT exhaustive research — just enough to know the vision isn't built on false assumptions.
+
+### external research
+
+if the wish references external APIs, services, or docs:
+- did you verify they exist and work the way you assume?
+- cite what you checked (links, key constraints noted)
+- if none referenced, say "none — no external dependencies"
+
+### internal research
+
+if the wish references extant behavior, patterns, or code:
+- did you verify what that behavior actually is?
+- contracts: interfaces, types, signatures to conform to
+- vocab: domain terms, name patterns to reuse
+- stdouts: CLI output patterns, error formats to match
+- cite what you checked (file paths, line numbers)
+- if none referenced, say "none — no extant behavior extended"
+
+## what is awkward?
+
+- what feels off or forced?
+- where does the design fight the user's mental model?
+- what tradeoffs feel uncomfortable?