💭 Inspecting wiring docs I need to look over the documents and wiring for any concrete violations. I'm considering the time budget I have, which will also influence the tools I can use for the inspection. It's important to be thorough, but I want to ensure I'm managing my time wisely while still getting everything checked properly. So, setting clear priorities and being methodical here will help me stay on track.

1. browse_code — docs/internals/effect-services.md

2. browse_code — apps/server/src/process/providerProcesses.ts

3. browse_code — apps/server/src/process/agentScope.ts

4. browse_code — apps/server/src/orchestration-v2/Adapters/ClaudeAdapterV2.ts

💭 Evaluating reference requirements I’m considering the default settings that may cause violations in a non-Linux environment. The Context.Reference being a valid tag can lead to issues if default settings hide requirements, especially on Linux where ownership may get skipped. I suggest using Context.Tag with an explicit layer for non-Linux situations. There might also be stronger issues with synchronous FS generating errors not being tagged properly. It’s essential to focus on clear violations that the default setting hides while inspecting the wiring of consumers.

5. browse_code — Find production composition of ProviderProcesses.layer and ClaudeAdapterV2.layerQueryRunner; determine whether provider process service is explicitly provided to query runner and whether Context.Reference default is relied upon. Give paths and lines.

6. modify_pr — Submitted review with 1 inline comment

7. browse_code — Find focused tests newly added in PR #22834 for providerProcesses, agentScope startup, and Claude spawn; summarize whether external service test layers vs core logic mocks. Return concise.

8. browse_code — Inspect actual new tests for ProviderProcesses.layer and Claude query runner. Is test-layer mocking of core business logic present, or only external systemd/provider fakes? concise.

9. browse_code — apps/server/src/process/agentScope.test.ts

10. browse_code — Check if ProviderProcesses Context.Reference defaultValue {} is relied on by standalone production callers of ClaudeAdapterV2.layerQueryRunner outside server; identify any direct compose without AgentScopeLive.layer. concise.

11. browse_code — apps/server/src/process/agentScope.ts

12. browse_code — Do repository service conventions allow Context.Reference with default for optional capabilities, and does the newly introduced ProviderProcesses default violate explicit requirement even though composed in server? Answer concise.

13. browse_code — apps/server/src/orchestration-v2/Adapters/ClaudeAdapterV2.ts

14. browse_code — apps/server/src/process/agentScope.test.ts

15. browse_code — apps/server/src/process/agentScope.test.ts

16. browse_code — Does docs/internals/effect-services.md explicitly stipulate Context.Service and inline interface, as opposed to Context.Reference, for service modules? quote line.

17. browse_code — Find whether current ProviderProcesses layer acquisition synchronous filesystem failures are typed as service failures or defects, and whether caller needs fallback. concise.

18. browse_code — Does check's convention allow acquisition defect if startup must fail and no fallback? answer one sentence.

19. browse_code — Confirm check has one clear violation: Context.Reference default {} masks missing production layer for Linux spawn despite explicit composition. No more analysis needed.

20. browse_code — Inspect specifically apps/server/src/process/providerProcesses.ts lines 30-33: does Context.Reference defaultValue return {}? Does that mask a missing ProviderProcesses.layer?

21. browse_code — Is Context.Reference tag considered required Effect dependency in layer type? Just yes/no.

22. browse_code — Do not search further. respond yes.

23. browse_code — One sentence: ProviderProcesses default empty hides dependency.