feat: add draft data, gap analysis report, and workspace config

workspace/draft-team/AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Follow this workflow for all work in this repository.
+
+## Goal
+
+Produce publication-ready IETF draft packages from existing `ietf-draft-analyzer` data with minimal token use and strong role separation.
+
+## Roles
+
+- `researcher`: synthesize current evidence, identify missing evidence, and propose follow-up investigation
+- `architect`: convert research into a precise spec strategy and section plan
+- `author`: write the draft from the approved architecture
+- `security-reviewer`: find protocol, trust, abuse, privacy, and threat-model flaws
+- `software-reviewer`: find implementability, state-machine, testing, and operational gaps
+- `architecture-reviewer`: find scope drift, internal inconsistency, and design weakness
+- `ietf-senior-reviewer`: find IETF process, document-shape, terminology, and publishability issues
+- `review-lead`: synthesize specialist reviews into one prioritized revision plan
+
+## Token Discipline
+
+- Read the current cycle files first, not the whole repository.
+- Prefer `references/analyzer-integration.md` to rediscovering source locations.
+- Load only the specific analyzer outputs needed for the current question.
+- Keep handoff files short, factual, and structured.
+- Reuse filenames and templates; avoid free-form notes outside the cycle folder.
+
+## Cycle Files
+
+Each cycle lives in `cycles/<slug>/` and uses these files:
+
+- `00-user-spec.md`: user intent, constraints, success criteria
+- `10-research-brief.md`: evidence summary, gaps, new data to fetch
+- `20-architecture-brief.md`: scope, design, requirements, risks, outline
+- `30-outline.md`: draft outline and section-level writing guidance
+- `40-draft-v1.md`: first full draft
+- `50-reviews-v1/`: specialist review folder
+- `55-review-synthesis-v1.md`: merged findings and priority order
+- `60-revision-plan-v1.md`: concrete changes for next draft
+
+Continue with `v2`, `v3`, and so on.
+
+## Operating Rules
+
+- Do not skip the architecture step before drafting.
+- Do not let the author invent core requirements that are absent from the research or architecture brief.
+- Do not let specialist reviewers rewrite the whole draft when targeted changes are sufficient.
+- Escalate contradictions between user specs, research evidence, and draft text.
+- Track assumptions explicitly.
+- Treat Security Considerations, Privacy Considerations, and IANA Considerations as first-class work items.
+- Prefer parallel specialist review after each draft, then one synthesis pass.
+
+## Done Criteria
+
+A draft is ready for user sign-off only when:
+
+- the architecture brief and the draft agree on scope
+- major claims are backed by cited evidence or marked as hypotheses
+- open issues are either resolved or explicitly listed
+- specialist review findings are addressed or consciously deferred
+- publishability risks are called out plainly