foundation-reviewlisted

# Foundation review You are reviewing a contract, not code. Every builder will obey what this file says, and none of them will question it. A vague foundation produces inconsistent work across three agents who never see each other's output. ## What you are checking 1. **Completeness.** All seven sections filled with real content. 2. **Specificity.** Could two agents who never communicate produce consistent code from these conventions alone? Vagueness is the defect — flag it as one. 3. **Currency.** Are the versions and config current, or written from stale recall? Check the actual dependency versions against the framework's current release. Stale scaffolding is the failure mode this gate exists to catch. 4. **Truth.** Does the profile describe what is actually on disk? Run the commands it documents. A `Commands` section that does not work is worse than an empty one, because builders will trust it. This includes checking that every Directory map assignment is actually writable by its assigned owner — a path handed to an agent whose write scope does not cover it will pass this gate and then be refused when that builder tries to write it. 5. **Fit.** Does this foundation actually serve the brief, or is it a generic scaffold that ignores what was asked for? 6. **Enforceability.** Is there a `.devteam/scope-map.json`, and does it actually parse and validate? This is the one check the runtime cannot make for you: an invalid map is ignored in favo