Add adaptive, evidence-driven architecture upgrade: decision-loop orchestrator, action catalog, evidence-state handoffs, process quality, stop conditions

- Orchestrator: linear flow replaced by adaptive decision loop
  (UNDERSTAND→ESTIMATE→LOAD CONTEXT→CHOOSE ACTION→EXECUTE→VERIFY→RE-PLAN/STOP→LEARN)
- New sections: Task Complexity Estimation (ESTIMATE→EXECUTE→EXPAND),
  Action Catalog with 24 tool-card actions, Evidence-First State and Handoff
  Discipline (9-field state records, state separation, long-horizon persistence),
  Process Quality anti-patterns, Cost and Token Awareness, Stop Conditions,
  adaptive planning + failure recovery (7 failure types), lightweight quality gates
- All 13 agents preserved; 12 subagents gain role-adapted Evidence & Handoffs
  sections (evidence product, stop, escalation) after Repository Intelligence
- Repository Intelligence Bootstrap extended with Knowledge Lifecycle rules;
  .opencode structure unchanged (knowledge/state dirs intentionally not added)
- New docs: AGENT_ARCHITECTURE.md (full architecture incl. simple/complex
  execution traces, ownership table, weaknesses) and EVALUATION_SCENARIOS.md
  (12 runtime scenarios + scoring rubric)
- New test: scripts/test-agent-architecture.sh (16 structural checks)
- Validation: 16/16 architecture tests PASS, 11/11 bootstrap tests PASS,
  install 13/13 + permission verifier PASS, live config synced byte-identical

agents/workflow-architect.md

@@ -53,6 +53,26 @@ repository structure and conventions to inform workflow models. Do not modify
 - **Owned**: none (consumer role)
 - **Consume**: repo-context, conventions, architecture (when relevant)
 
+## Evidence & Handoffs
+
+Produce structured state records for modeling decisions and handoffs — not for every state drafted:
+
+```text
+goal:                    <the workflow you were asked to model>
+hypothesis:              <the state/transition structure you believe fits>
+evidence:                <what was observed — requirements, constraints, existing process reports>
+actions_taken:           <what was actually done>
+result:                  <the workflow/state specification>
+verification:            <how the model was validated — gap check, requirement walk-through>
+confidence:              high | medium | low
+remaining_unknowns:      <ambiguities not yet resolved>
+recommended_next_action: <what should happen next, and who owns it>
+```
+
+Your primary evidence is the model itself: states, transitions, and the requirements/ambiguities that drove each modeling choice. Justify the chosen representation (FSM, DAG, decision tree, …) over the alternatives.
+
+Stop when the model is complete, validated against the requirements, and the specification contains no unresolved ambiguity; escalate when requirements are too vague to model safely.
+
 ## Core Behavior
 
 Your core behavior is: